MultiGPU Update: Does 3-way Make Sense?
by Derek Wilson on February 25, 2009 2:45 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Call of Duty World at War Analysis
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
NVIDIA's GT200 parts in 3-way SLI rule this benchmark, while the GeForce 9800 GTX+ holds its own. This test definitely shows NVIDIA in a good light across all three resolutions.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
The apparent system limitation on single cards does inflate the scaling a little bit here, but there's no doubt that lots of scaling is happening. This time we don't see scaling above the theoretical maximum of 200%, but we do see some big gains. While NVIDIA hardware does do well at low resolution, the best total 1 to 3 GPU scaling at 1920x1200 and 2560x160 goes to AMD.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
The story doesn't change much when comparing scaling from 2 to 3 GPUs. We get very decent scaling rates with the 4870 1GB getting dangerously close to the theoretical maximum of 50% at 2560x1600. In general though, CoD:WaW does a good job taking advantage of available GPU horsepower whether it's 1, 2 or 3 GPUs.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Below 2560x1600 the 9800 GTX+ 3-way option actually has decent value (comparatively) in this test. At the highest resolution, the 9800 GTX+ falls a few spots. Again, of the 3-way options, NVIDIA's two highest end options have the lowest value of cards that get something near playable framerates.
We still see lots of two way and single card options that get decent performance leading the way in value over the much more expensive 3-way configurations even at the highest resolution.
In general, with any of these setups, performance won't be an issue below 2560x1600, and even then only the slowest couple might warrant skipping.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Snarks - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
hmm, i find my self questioning these articles more and more..but anyway carry on.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
what's the question ... seriously, any criticism is helpful. this is the first time we've really done a series like this, and it's a complicated situation with lots of data and lots of analysis ... there's no one way to look at it, and all the feedback i get will help me down the road.i don't see the need for this type of article or series very frequently, but we'll have to do it every once in a while just in case something changes. knowing what you guys think is important and what you guys want to read about is key to us getting things done right.
Flyboy27 - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Sell you an extra card that you don't really need.Flyboy27 - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
oh yeah... and a more expensive motherboard, power supply, and case.Burrich - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Would the recently release Catalyst 9.2 drivers improve any compatibility or fps issues? Their release date was 2/20.7Enigma - Thursday, February 26, 2009 - link
Check out xbitlabs' review of the 9.2 drivers. If you have a 4870 X2 then yes it appears to be a nice upgrade for several games with minimal losses in the games it doesn't benefit. But if you are sporting a single 4870 1gig it actually degrades performance more than it improves!On the flipside they claim stability is better with the 9.2's so it depends on what you want/need. If you are comfortable with the framerates in the games you currently play then jump on the 9.2's for stability reasons. If you are on the edge of playable performance I would stick with the previous drivers...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/cat...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/cat...
DerekWilson - Thursday, February 26, 2009 - link
That article compares 9.2 to 9.1 ... the 8.12 hotfix would show similar performance improvements over the 9.1 drivers. 9.2 does benefit more games, but these are games that have been more recently released than the ones we tested.if they compared the 8.12 hotfix to 9.2, we would expect to see more parity, especially with the games we tested in this article.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
The recently released 9.2 catalyst drivers are basically the 8.12 hotfix drivers with some additions to support performance and scaling in recently released titles. So not really.smartalco - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
I don't like that you use 0 for those that score under 25 FPS, specifically because that is under 25 at the res/settings you use. If a card scores 24 FPS at 1680*1050 with maxed settings, what that really tells you is that if you were to drop to half the AA, or turn down some other setting, is that you could still have a perfectly playable game. It seems to me, that giving them a value rating of 0 is acting like everyone has to play on max settings, and if it doesn't meet the standard, its useless.IDK, just me talking, I'm going to be happy with my 4850 for quite some time.
Still an excellent article.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
i've actually got the graphs without the 0 scores in the article front to back -- just commented out at the moment ... i wasn't sure which one to go with until the last minute, and i thought about putting both in (but that wouldbe really redundant for games that no card had trouble with)i could do some more complex web programming, but i'm not a web developer and i hate javascript ...
thanks for the feedback. i'll be taking it into account in the final article on 4-way.
also, if you wanna see the value numbers for the single and dual cards that scored less than 25 fps, you can still look at the first article and see them.