The Details of the Resolution Limit

The foremost issue we want to address in this section is that of the 1600x1200 resolution limit and the Single Link TMDS receiver on the CrossFire master cards. Much speculation has been passed around on the subject, and we wanted to get to the bottom of the issue. It is true that digital operation of the vast majority of ATI X8xx series parts are limited to single-link DVI speeds per display. ATI's position is that since most current X8xx series cards do not support dual-link output, a single-link receiver is all that is needed. This is a fine solution. The problem is that ATI is currently fixing maximum CrossFire resolution to 1600x1200@60Hz. While they have stated that it is technically possible for them to run resolutions at a similar pixel clock, they will not allow asymmetric timings between the TMDS receiver and the final output. In general, this means that any resolution larger than 1600x1200 will require a lower refresh rate than 60Hz. While this may be ok at HDTV resolutions or on a digital flat panel, CRT owners may elect to drop resolution even lower than 1600x1200 in order to play their games with a decent refresh rate. For an expensive, high end solution, a 1600x1200 60Hz limit is simply unacceptable.

We asked ATI why the capabilities of the TMDS receiver on the master card must limit the resolution of CrossFire output to 1600x1200@60Hz. The answer is that scaling would diminish at higher resolutions due to the limited ability of the slave card to contribute in a balanced way. Granted, AFR (alternate frame rendering) modes could not be run and SuperTiling would have to be tweaked or dropped, but ATI does support 60/40 and 70/30 split frame load balancing as well. Enabling high resolutions only under their scissor mode should give some additional performance along with the ability to run at higher resolutions. To us, including the option for a customer to choose how the hardware he or she owns will work is absolutely a good thing. In our minds, a lower performing 2048x1536 is definitely better than not having the option at all. We would strongly urge ATI to consider adding such options in future driver releases if it is at all possible.

On top of that, multiple other options spring to mind on how resolutions could be increased. PCIe bandwidth could be used heavily to transfer screen data. NVIDIA has multi card configurations working with no direct physical link. In addition, it shouldn't be impossible for ATI to use both outputs on the slave card to send data to the master. Two single-link connections are the building blocks of a dual-link connection after all. But in the end, ATI stands behind their decision to implement CrossFire with a single-link resolution limit.

With maximum resolution limited, we must rely on features and quality to drive the decision to purchase a CrossFire setup. And the feature that ATI hopes will push CrossFire is their Super AA.

Index Super AA and CrossFire
Comments Locked

76 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dangher - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Good point. Why are comparing previous gen ATI to current gen nVidia?
  • Pythias - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Good point. Why are comparing previous gen ATI to current gen nVidia?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previous gen? I can buy something better than an x850 xt pe from ati? Where?
  • Dangher - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Forgot to add - when it even manages to beat GTX SLI in a benchie (something to think about, eh?)
  • Live - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Crossfire is compared to the 6800 Ultra SLI and more. More is better me thinks.
    If they hadn’t tested it against 7800GTX we would not have know that SLI got beat in HL2, now would we? I think the choice on which cards to test was great.

    It's not ATs fault ATI didn’t give them any newer cards to run. You will see those benches next week.
  • melgross - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    With the first comparison images between the various levels of AA, I can see the straight picture to be badly stairstepped. The 4AA seems to correct pretty much all of the problems. I can't see a real improvement in any of the others.

    I wonder how many will notice any of it in an actual game situation.
  • DerekWilson - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    It would be easier to show the advantages if I could show motion. Higher AA not only helps the stair steps, but it also helps keep objects that are well antialised in a single frame consistent across multiple frames of motion.
  • Jojo7 - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Derek, I've noticed something odd in the last few articles regarding splinter cell:chaos theory and the 6800u benchmarks. If you compare the results of 1600x1200 no aa and 1600x1200 4x aa, the performance hit for the 6800u is .1 of a frame? How is this possible? In my own experience, when I enable 4xaa on my 6800u for sc:ct, I notice no difference in image quality. Is this perhaps a driver problem?
  • Jojo7 - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Err. I made a mistake. Actually the scores are identical (40.2) with and without 4xAA.
    Something has to be wrong here.
  • DerekWilson - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Something is wrong there ... I'm removing the 6800 ultra numbers from sc3 -- thanks for pointing out the problem.
  • erinlegault - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link

    Were you a little rush to get this article out of the door?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now