A Look At Triple-GPU Performance And Multi-GPU Scaling, Part 1
by Ryan Smith on April 3, 2011 7:00 AM ESTClosing Thoughts
Unlike our normal GPU reviews, looking at multi-GPU scaling in particular is much more about the tests than it is architectures. With AMD and NVIDIA both using the same basic alternate frame rendering strategy, there's not a lot to separate the two on the technology side. Whether a game scales poorly or well has much more to do with the game than the GPU.
| Radeon HD 6970 | GeForce GTX 580 | |||||
| GPUs | 1->2 | 2->3 | 1->3 | 1->2 | 2->3 | 1->3 |
| Average Avg. FPS Gain | 185% | 127% | 236% | 177% | 121% | 216% |
| Average Min. FPS Gain | 196% | 140% | 274% | 167% | 85% | 140% |
In terms of average FPS gains for two GPUs, AMD has the advantage here. It’s not much of an advantage at under 10%, but it is mostly consistent. The same can be said for three GPU setups, where the average gain for a three GPU setup versus a two GPU setup nets AMD a 127% gain versus 121% for NVIDIA. The fact that the Radeon HD 6970 is normally the weaker card in a single-GPU configuration makes things all the more interesting though. Are we seeing AMD close the gap thanks to CPU bottlenecks, or are we really looking at an advantage for AMD’s CrossFire scaling? One thing is for certain, CrossFire scaling has gotten much better over the last year – at the start of 2010 these numbers would not have been nearly as close.
Overall the gains for SLI or CrossFire in a dual-GPU configuration are very good, which fits well with the fact that most users will never have more than two GPUs. Scaling is heavily game dependent, but on average it’s good enough that you’re getting your money’s worth from a second video card. Just don’t expect perfect scaling in more than a handful of games.
As for triple-GPU setups, the gains are decent, but on average it’s not nearly as good. A lot of this has to do with the fact that some games simply don’t scale beyond two GPUs at all – Civilization V always comes out as a loss, and the GPU-heavy Metro 2033 only makes limited gains at best. Under a one monitor setup it’s hard to tell if this is solely due to poor scaling or due to CPU limitations, but CPU limitations alone do not explain it all. There are a couple of cases where a triple-GPU setup makes sense when paired with a single monitor, particularly in the case of Crysis, but elsewhere framerates are quite high after the first two GPUs with little to gain from a 3rd GPU. I believe super sample anti-aliasing is the best argument for a triple-GPU setup with one monitor, but at the same time that restricts our GPU options to NVIDIA as they’re the only one with DX10/DX11 SSAA.
Minimum framerates with three GPUs does give us a reason to pause for a moment and ponder some things. For the games we do collect minimum framerate data for – Crysis and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 – AMD has a massive lead in minimum framerates. In practice I don’t completely agree with the numbers, and it’s unfortunate that most games don’t generate consistent enough minimum framerates to be useful. From the two games we do test AMD definitely has an advantage, but having watched and played a number of games I don’t believe this is consistent for every game. I suspect the games we can generate consistent data for are the ones that happen to favor the 6970, and likely because of the VRAM advantage at that.
Ultimately triple-GPU performance and scaling cannot be evaluated solely on a single monitor, which is why we won’t be stopping here. Later this month we’ll be looking at triple-GPU performance in a 3x1 multi-monitor configuration, which should allow us to put more than enough load on these setups to see what flies, what cracks under the pressure, and whether multi-GPU scaling can keep pace with such high resolutions. So until then, stay tuned.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
marc1000 - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
Ryan, if at all possible, please include a reference card for the "low-point" of performance. We rarely see good tests with mainstream cards, only the top tier ones.So if you can, please include a radeon-5770 or GTX460 - 2 of these cards should have the same performance as one of the big ones, so it would be nice to see how well they work by now.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
These charts were specifically cut short as the focus was on multi-GPU configurations, and so that I could fit more charts on a page. The tests are the same tests we always run, so Bench or a recent article ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/4260/amds-radeon-hd-... ) is always your best buddy.Arbie - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
Looking at your results, it seems that at least 99.9% of gaming enthusiasts would need nothing more than a single HD 6970. Never mind the wider population of PC-centric folk who read Anandtech.More importantly, this isn't going to change for several years. PC game graphics are now bounded by console capabilities, and those advance only glacially. In general, gamers with an HD 6850 (not a typo) or better will have no compelling reason to upgrade until around 2014! I'm very sad to say that, but think it's true.
Of course there is some technical interest in how many more FPS this or that competing architecture can manage, but most of that is a holdover from previous years when these things actually mattered on your desktop. I'm not going to spend $900 to pack two giant cooling and noise problems into my PC for no perceptible benefit. Nor will anyone else, statistically speaking.
The harm in producing such reports is that it spreads the idea that these multi-board configurations still matter. So every high-end motherboard that I consider for my next build packs in slots for two or even three graphics boards, and an NF-200 chip to make sure that third card (!) gets enough bandwidth. The mobos are bigger, hotter, and more expensive than they need to be, and often leave out stuff I would much rather have. Look at the Gigabyte P67A-UD7, for example. Full accommodation for pointless graphics overkill (praised in reviews), but *no* chassis fan controls (too mundane for reviewers to mention).
I'd rather see Anandtech spend time on detailed high-end motherboard comparisons (eg. Asus Maximus IV vs. others) and components that can actually improve my enthusiast PC experience. Sadly, right now that seems to be limited to SSDs and you already try hard on those. Are we reduced to... fan controllers?
Thanks,
Arbie
erple2 - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
There are still several games that are not Console Ports (or destined to be ported to a console) that are still interesting to read about and subsequently benchmark. People will continue to complain that PC Gaming has been a steady stream of Console Ports, just like they have been since the PSX came out in late '95. The reality is that PC Gaming isn't dead, and probably won't die for a long while. While it may be true that EA and company generate most of their revenue from lame console rehash after lame console rehash, and therefore focus almost single-mindedly on that endeavor, there are plenty of other game publishers that aren't following that trend, thereby continuing to make PC Gaming relevant.The last several tests I've seen of Motherboard reviews has more or less convinced me that they just don't matter at all any more. Most (if not all) motherboards of a given chipset don't offer anything performance wise over other competing motherboards.
There are nice features here and there (Additional Fan Headers, more USB ports, more SATA Ports), but on the whole, there's nothing significant to differentiate one Motherboard from another, at least from a performance perspective.
789427 - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
I would have thought that someone would pay attention to if throttling was occurring on any of the cards due to thermal overload.The reason is that due to differences in ventilation in the case, layout and physical card package, you'll have throttling at different times.
e.g. if the room was at a stinking hot 50C, the more aggressive the throttling,the greater the disadvantage to the card.
Conversely, operating the cards at -5C would provide a huge advantage to the card with the worst heat/fan efficiency ratio.
cb
TareX - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
I'm starting to think it's really getting less and less compelling to be a PC gamer, with all the good games coming out for consoles exclusively.Thank goodness for Arkham Asylum.
Golgatha - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
I'd like to see some power, heat, and PPD numbers for running Folding@Home on all these GPUs.Ryan Smith - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
The last time I checked, F@H did not having a modern Radeon client. If they did we'd be using it much more frequently.karndog - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
Cmon man, you have an enthusiast rig with $1000 worth of video cards yet you use a stock i7 at 3.3ghz??"As we normally turn to Crysis as our first benchmark it ends up being quite amusing when we have a rather exact tie on our hands."
Ummm probably because your CPU limited! Update to even a 2500k at 4.5ghz and i bet you'll see the Crossfire setup pull away from the SLI.
karndog - Monday, April 4, 2011 - link
Not trying to make fun of your test rig, if that's all you have access too. Im just saying that people who are thinking about buying the Tri SLI / Xfire video card setups reviewed here arent running their CPU at stock clock speeds, especially such low ones, which skew the results shown here.