ATI's X8xx CrossFire Graphics Arrive
by Derek Wilson on September 26, 2005 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
The final verdict on CrossFire is very mixed. It is clear from our Game tests that SLI has a worthy competitor with parts in its price range at 1600x1200@60Hz and below. However, we have a hard time buying the idea that many gamers are going to shell out the money necessary for CrossFire with that kind of limitation. With cards like the 7800 GTX out there, and more interesting hardware from ATI coming soon, we are very inclined to recommend a single card upgrade. That recommendation is especially true for users who have 1280x1024 LCD panels or want larger than 1600x1200 resolutions from their graphics card.Fortunately, ATI has stated that near term future products will utilize dual-link TMDS receivers and allow users to run monitors like the 30" Apple Cinema display under CrossFire. While the TMDS communication is a very interesting solution to the multi GPU problem, limiting resolution based on available bandwidth just doesn't make sense to us. Scaling at the high end doesn't matter as much as compatibility. As long as bandwidth does limit output resolution, though, we are very happy to see ATI move to dual-link TMDS communication for their future parts.
It is very hard for us to support Super AA having seen the abysmal performance scaling we have shown here. With single cards using 4x and 6x AA more than doubling the performance of CrossFire with 8/10x and 12/14x AA, we can't understand why anyone would suffer the performance hit. In order for this to actually be useful, users would need to be monitor limited to 1280x1024 or below - in which case a CrossFire purchase is severely misplaced. At the high end, it is hard for us to believe that an increase in resolution to 1920x1440 (or even higher) would have as much of a performance hit. Maintaining a standard AA level on a high resolutions will likely provide better image quality than a low resolution with Super AA. It is also probable that performance would decrease less when scaling resolution beyond 1600x1200 than when enabling Super AA. Unfortunately, we don't even have the ability to test this theory properly with current hardware and drivers.
Despite exceptional performance at its target resolutions, we have to strongly recommend against the purchase of an X800/X850 series CrossFire card. (You also would probably need a motherboard upgrade for Crossfire anyway, making it even less attractive.) We have a hard time recommending all but the absolute top end NVIDIA 7800 GTX SLI as a viable solution. As an upgrade path, it makes generally much more sense to buy the next single card solution that comes out instead of spending money on older technology that won't scale as well, takes up a lot of space, eats up a lot of power, and likely incorporates fewer features. The only way we truly say that multi-GPU technology is a better solution than a similarly classed single card solution (even when upgrading from one card to two) is at the absolute highest end where there is no competition from a single card. And right now the king of the mountain is still a 7800 GTX SLI. But just how long will that last? Only time can tell.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
76 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - link
Actually, we took our time. Copied a few numbers down incorrectly. Sorry about that.Googer - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
Why hasn't anyone tested these on an nForec 4 motherboard yet? ATL Crossfire on a DFI SLI motherboard, will it work?OvErHeAtInG - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
Um, no. In the future, with different drivers? Who knows. But nvidia is unlikely to provide good nF4 drivers for people who are buying ATI cards?Live - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
How is the total power draw calculated, before or after the PSU?DerekWilson - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
Sorry I didn't explain -- I'll add the infopower draw is measured before the PSU -- so yes, the dissipated power of the supply itself is included. And I do know that power draw at the wall is not exactly linear with respect to power supplied to the computer. At the same time, watts pulled from the wall are what we pay for right? :-)
Dangher - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
You do realise that without proper homework you are just perpetuating sensationalism, right? The TMDS receiver has nothing to do with actual framerate or screen refresh, you do know that, right? You are aware that 1600x1200@60Hz in the TMDS translates into about 2500x1500@100Hz when doing SLI (or Crossfire, as is the case), right? Now go do your homework and correct the article (you're liable to be sued for libel by ATI btw).overclockingoodness - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
LOL, you are such an idiot. AnandTech can't be sued for libel; did you ever take business 101? Apparently not. Please keep your mouth shut on the things you have no clue about.DerekWilson - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
sorry m8, don't know where you got your info, but regaurdless of the fact that it is possible for the output to be run at a higher resolution than the TMDS receiver doesn't matter when the product manager of CrossFire at ATI states that the output of CrossFire will be locked to 1600x1200@60Hz *because* of the single link TMDS receiver.I'm sorry if I didn't make it completely clear that ATI could decouple their output from the reciever but they have chosen not to.
Pete - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
The TDMS receiver is specced to the TDMS transmitter on the slave card, so it is indirectly tied to the screen refresh. I don't recall Derek saying it limits the frame rate, but obviously you can't see more frames than screen updates, so it can potentially limit the visible framerate, too. Yes, that applies to anything with a different frame than refresh rate, but XFire is fairly limited at 16x12@60Hz.And, no, you don't double up TDMS rates with XF, as the CE (Compositing Engine) doesn't have a buffer to accomodate a refresh rate independent of TDMS rate (which is, again, limited to 16x12@60Hz).
Dangher - Monday, September 26, 2005 - link
It is late and I can't be bothered to look for the techie article on this particular problem and why it's been blown out of proportion, but I will do it tomorrow and post a link here. My apologies to Derek if I offended him, it really is late. Link upcoming.