ATI Radeon HD 4850 Preview: AMD Delivers Performance for the Masses

Challenging NVIDIA's Strategy: Are Two RV770s Faster than One GT200?

NVIDIA insists on building these massive GPUs while AMD is heading in the direction of multiple, smaller GPUs in order to keep development time and costs manageable. Does NVIDIA's strategy make sense? In order to find out we paired two Radeon HD 4850s in CrossFireX and ran through our benchmark suite, this time focusing on a comparison to the recently announced GeForce GTX 280 as well as the 9800 GX2. The results were surprising:

So does AMD's approach invalidate NVIDIA's big-monolithic-GPU strategy? Not exactly. While it is true that two RV770s can outperform a single GT200 in many cases, you could also make the argument that two GT200s could outperform anything that AMD could possibly concoct (3 and 4-way CF scaling isn't nearly as good as 2-way). AMD's strategy makes sense, for AMD, but it's fundamentally no different than what NVIDIA is doing - AMD is simply targeting a different initial market and scaling up/down from there.

The scaling, or lack thereof, in games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars highlights an important caveat with AMD's strategy: there are still software issues with SLI and CrossFireX. What is necessary is a truly seamless multi-GPU implementation, with shared frame buffer and where both GPUs operate as an extension of each other with direct GPU-to-GPU communication over a high speed (not PCIe) bus, similar to how AMD's Opteron or Intel's Nehalem work in multi-socketed systems.