Crysis

With CrossFire, under Crysis, the 4850 does quite well. There's a bit of an odd scaling anomaly, but no matter how much we retested things it came out the same way. We've had discussions on the fact that the built-in test we used can end up bound by the fact that it moves so fast that it's got to move things on and off the graphics cards way more than normal. This might help explain why the relative performance of the 4850 CrossFire setup goes up at 2560x1600, as it may have plenty of power to process the scene but not the capability to handle the swapping in and out of so many complex objects (which wouldn't happen under nomral conditions in the game).


Click to Enlarge

Call of Duty 4

4850 CrossFire simply ownz Call of Duty 4. Nuff said.

 


Click to Enlarge

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars

Our Quake Wars benchmark shows a much different CrossFire scaling story, as it really just doesn't do much. The impressive highs we see with CrossFire are underscored by these inconsistencies in support.


Click to Enlarge

Challenging NVIDIA's Strategy: Are Two RV770s Faster than One GT200? Multi-GPU Performance: Assassin's Creed, Oblivion, The Witcher & Bioshock
Comments Locked

114 Comments

View All Comments

  • docmilo - Thursday, June 19, 2008 - link

    I browsed on over to the Egg and did a search on 4850. A whole bunch of cards popped up at $199.99 and one even has a rebate! I wonder how long until it stops saying "Buy Now" and goes to "Autonotify".
  • chizow - Thursday, June 19, 2008 - link

    You guys did a nice job of covering both the pros and cons of the 4850 and CF, showing some of the pitfalls of relying on multi-GPU solutions for performance. You also made mention that similar performance gains were seen long ago with the 8800GT.

    That said the 4850 is certainly a good part from AMD and there's definitely some very interesting things they've done with this card. You hinted at a lot of them with the architectural changes but there's a few other sites that hinted at some of the changes. Its clear ATI has drastically improved their memory controllers and cache design along with their render back ends for AA performance.

    I think the real thing to keep an eye on though is how AMD managed to get near 100% scaling with CF. Extremetech hinted at improved memory controllers and a gpu communications "Hub" here http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320865...">http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320865... for improved performance between GPUs. I'm sure you guys will cover these improvements in detail in your complete review, but it looks like that hyper transport mechanism you alluded to.
  • MadBoris - Thursday, June 19, 2008 - link

    Nice to see AMD staying competitive, plus keeping prices down.
    I think the days of me spending $400+ on a video card are behind me, atleast for the foreseeable future. You have to provide alot more than 10% performance increases for an extra $250 NVIDIA.

    I'm rather surprised NVIDIA has not really capitalized on taking a huge performance lead and crown with all the AMD post merger dust settling.

    I'm pleasantly surprised that AMD is continuing to excel with HW. If only they would bring back an AIW card, I'd buy one, but my current 8800GTS is not so outmatched that it is worth upgrading to anything this generation.
    Good article Anand.
  • fungmak - Thursday, June 19, 2008 - link

    Looking at the CF perfomance of other sites who used cat 8.6, IIRC were a lot better than the current AT results.

    Just wondering if there is an intention to update using cat 8.6?
  • derek85 - Friday, June 20, 2008 - link

    I second this, I'm sure 8.6 came with some nice optimizations on 770s.
  • DerekWilson - Friday, June 20, 2008 - link

    we did not use catalyst 8.5 drivers.

    we used the very latest beta drivers ATI could get us.
  • Wirmish - Friday, June 20, 2008 - link

    And did you use the Radeon HD 4800 Series Hotfix (6/20/2008) ?

    http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?dep...">http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?dep...

    ;)
  • Nighteye2 - Thursday, June 19, 2008 - link

    The big question for the comparison between this card in CF and the GT200 will not be the classic framerates here - but the performance of games that use the GPU for part of the physics processing. The GT200 has lots of compute power to spare for physics, can 2 4850's in CF match that?
  • FITCamaro - Friday, June 20, 2008 - link

    With 800 shaders it wouldn't surprise me.
  • Wirmish - Friday, June 20, 2008 - link

    He talk about CF...

    So it's 1600 shaders !

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now