Back when we reviewed the Phenom AMD really wanted us to stress the importance of CrossFireX as a part of the overall platform package. After all, only AMD 790 FX motherboards were properly equipped to support four GPUs and that was a clear advantage Phenom held over Intel's Core 2. We see this sort of pressure all the time; NVIDIA has been trying to get us to test with its "platforms" for the past year, with little success of course.

We never capitulate, always stressing that we'll use components because they make sense, not because they are a part of some platform that doesn't necessarily offer a tangible benefit to the end user. We strive for scientifically sound comparisons at AnandTech, testing ATI video cards on an AMD platform and comparing them to NVIDIA video cards on an NVIDIA platform would violate the scientific method in a horribly inappropriate way.

It's always a good thing that we don't capitulate, but it was extra good in the case of Phenom for one very obvious reason: CrossFireX didn't work. Upon Phenom's launch, CrossFireX was promised as a feature but the driver support was not ready. Even today, CrossFireX continues to be a feature that's been promised but not delivered.

What is CrossFireX? The new CrossFire is AMD's attempt to finally achieve multi-GPU parity with NVIDIA's SLI. And like NVIDIA's SLI, CrossFireX supports configurations of 2, 3 or 4 GPUs.

All the way down to basic marketing CrossFire has always fallen short of dethroning SLI, but AMD has been making significant strides towards perfection. The release of the Radeon HD 3870 X2 surprised us, as it was the most seamless multi-GPU implementation we've ever seen. The card just...worked. AMD promised a new world of multi-GPU support in the future after the release of the X2, and since that review we've started giving it the benefit of the doubt.

AMD plans on enabling CrossFireX support sometime in March (we also plan on being at CeBIT sometime in March, maybe the two will coincide), but in the interim we've been provided with a preview system to begin to whet our quad-GPU appetites.

Receiving such a system doesn't come without its caveats however. The graphics and chipset guys over at AMD are a bit frustrated, they finally have a competitive GPU and they never get tested on their own platforms because everyone uses Intel CPUs. Had Phenom been competitive at launch this would be a very different situation, but it wasn't, so it's not.

In an effort to give Phenom some more limelight, AMD built these CrossFireX systems with 790 FX motherboards and quad-core Phenom CPUs running at 2.6GHz. We were only allowed to run today's tests on this platform. (Shh...we never capitulate!)

When testing four GPUs we tend to run at very high, GPU bound, resolutions making the choice of CPU much less of an issue. If anything, AMD was hurting itself by forcing Phenom upon us but it figured that any performance deficit due to CPU choice wouldn't be too great thanks to the GPU-limited nature of most of the tests we'd be running.

The system, all AMD

The other stipulation for receiving this preview system is that we had to agree to only test the games AMD shipped with the system: Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Unreal Tournament 3, Crysis and Half Life 2: Episode Two. AMD's explanation for why is as follows:

"We’ve chosen some apps that demonstrate the performance that these new configurations afford gamers, and the scalability that can be seen when moving from a single GPU to four GPUs. While these apps show good scaling, we haven’t selected these because they represent the “best-case scenario” – in fact, there are other games that exhibit better scaling, as your testing down the road will show. The five apps we’ve chosen are intended to be a fair representation of the CrossFireX experience in general. "

Certainly when it comes time to actually review CrossFireX we'll be able to test on our own system with whatever games we'd like, but for this preview we were limited to the titles mentioned above. Thankfully the titles AMD allowed us to test with were all parts of our regular suite and we do believe that the intention wasn't to paint CrossFireX as best as possible, but to avoid this preview turning into a list of games that didn't work.

Given the constraints, you should view this article much as the title indicates - a preview.

Drivers and Requirements
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Spacecomber - Friday, February 22, 2008 - link

    Having recently read the preview of the 9600GT at Anandtech, one of the things that stood out from that article was how SLI seemed to do better than Crossfire on the games that were tested. Crysis was the only game that was used in both this article and that one, and 3850's were run in Crossfire for the earlier article, not 3870's. Nevertheless, it looks like Crossfire performance gains going from 1 to 2 ATI cards is now on a par (with the new AMD/ATI drivers) with going from 1 to 2 Nvidia cards.

    Perhaps this will prove to be the reason for AMD/ATI selecting the tests they did in this preview. CrossfireX does about as well SLI on these particular games?

    (Though we'll not see the results, we know that Derek is trying these new ATI drivers out on his Skulltrail system, if it's possible. ;-) )
  • Zoomer - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    Are you allowed to only test these games, or allowed to publish and talk about these games only?

    I don't see how ATi can enforce such a requirement. *cough* ghost *cough*

  • Wirmish - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    PC Perspective also test the beta-CrossFire-X.
    Their system is identical, except for the hard disk.">


    Anand (0xAA/0xAF) -> 2=63, 3=87, 4=93
    PCPer (0xAA/8xAF) -> 2=65, 3=84, 4=92

    Call of Duty 4
    Anand (4xAA/16xAF) -> 2=50, 3=72, 4=93
    PCPer (4xAA/ 8xAF) -> 2=43, 3=56, 4=64

    Unreal Tournament 3
    Anand (0xAA/16xAF) -> 2=84, 3=113, 4=115
    PCPer (0xAA/ 8xAF) -> 2=58, 3=54, 4=58

    How do you explain these results ?


    Anand (Bioshock) -> 2=361W, 3=406W, 4=538W
    PCPer (CoD 4) ----> 2=407W, 3=527W, 4=663W

    Why didn't you choose the hungriest game to calculate the consumption of the system ?
  • Paracelsus - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    You've listed the 4-way CF over 1 card gain as 268%.

    It should be 368%. (95.2/25.3 = 3.68)

    The numbers are confusing, comparing 3-way to 2-way etc. Why do that, makes more sense to compare 3-way to 1-way. Then it's easy to compare to the perfect scaling of 200, 300, 400%.
  • mechwarrior1989 - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    I got confused by it to but the Test Bench isn't what they listed on the page. Either that's a Typo or that's just supposed to refer to the Nvidia Benchmark that they did with the Tri-SLI
  • kalrith - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    Yeah, it looks like they entered the test setup from the Nvidia article rather than the one used in this article. It would make sense if they entered both test setups but not to completely exclude the AMD setup used for most of the tests.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    Woops :) Fixed :)

    Take care,
  • Arbie - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    Good catch for Anandtech! AMD told you it was a Phenom board but you saw it was really a QX9650. The company must be in dire straits to try a trick like that. Sad.
  • donkeycrock - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    The graph is the best and most effective one i've seen in anybody's review in a long time. cheers and well done
  • brunis - Thursday, February 21, 2008 - link

    Hi, alot of people are still playing WoW, me included. I just bought the Samsung 245B, a wide 24" screen. I'd love to see a cpu+gpu update for the wow guide. If i should invest in an extra 8800GTS or a new Core2 or AMD Phenom cpu.


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now