Hardware Analysis - Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

Super XP — 2005-12-21T11:34:12-05:00

"In games, once you get above 40 FPS, there really isn't any perceptible difference in performance or quality."

I disagree Sanders, but then again, that is your Opinion Play F.E.A.R, Quake 4, Doom 3 or even WOW with high setting & @ 50FPS & then play same setting @ 60FPS. You will quickly realize that the 60FPS does indeed have better & noticeable performance, though the image quality really shouldn't change.

P.S. this thread is a little old, but at least we all know that ATI's X1000's owns NVIDIA in image & colour quality. Let's see how the coming R580 holds up I see a trend growing with ATI & Quality

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

Shadow_Ops_Airman1 — 2005-12-21T11:02:28-05:00

there is a difference if your FPS drops from say 40 to 35 or 30.(Graphical slowdown, graphics card cant handle it or bad programming or even baD OSS.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

Sander Sassen — 2005-10-08T09:37:35-05:00

Rude Boy,

'P.S. In games, once you get above 40 FPS, there really isn't any perceptible difference in performance or quality. =)'

Sigh, if everybody would just acknowledge that.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late? -- 'A_Pickle' is on to something =)

Rude Boy — 2005-10-08T09:20:07-05:00

What I tried to point out in an earlier post is that dual graphics cards working together will only retain a performance advantage for a short time(few months) before they are eclipsed by a future single card solution that costs far less. Not only do you need two cards, you need a capable power supply, mainboard and don't forget a top-end CPU to realistically take advantage of the technology. It just isn't a viable solution.

By the time video games need the power offered by two cards, a single card will be available that will do more for less money and don't forget the 'Pixel Shader'/'DirectX'/'OpenGL' optimizations found in these future games & video cards will evolve leaving the present cards lacking, no matter how many FPS they can deliver.

Benchmarks are good to guage the performance of a graphics card compared to others but if all the latest games are still performing great at highest settings with a single 6800GT, then why do I need two of them. Heck, 1 7800GTX already performs on par or better than two 6800 Ultras in SLI and using 2 in SLI still costs more to implement then the single 7800GTX. When you add up the cost of the board, cards & PSU needed, the costs climb drastically.

PCI-E is here to stay but SLI is a flash in the pan designed to create demand for the new bus architecture. Don't forget, even the latest cards still don't need all of the bandwidth offered by AGP 8X but the ceiling will be reached soon enough.

P.S. In games, once you get above 40 FPS, there really isn't any perceptible difference in performance or quality. =)

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

A_Pickle — 2005-10-05T22:57:03-05:00

ATI's FireGL's are between $170 - $700.

Nvidia's Quadro lineup runs between $50 - $1,700.

There's variety, and I'm willing to bet a single, $300 professional application card would far outrank dual 6600 GT's.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

guru Shane — 2005-10-05T19:53:24-05:00

lol Are you referring to the $1,700 card? If that's the case, then I would tend to think that 2 cards in SLI would be a cheaper solution albeit at some performance loss, although I really don't see where any extra performance is coming from in those more expensive cards.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

A_Pickle — 2005-10-05T19:09:24-05:00

"... You don't use graphics cards to their full benefit, so you don't see how the power gained from 2 of them is worth it..."

On the contrary. I do a lot of 3D animation, and a fast viewport rendering system is needed. Regardless, it is useless to purchase two of any card to do this task, there are professional-grade graphics solutions out there that accomplish this task far better, as they were designed to.

"...You don't see any benefit from them if you don't use them..."

The only use they serve is to give gamers obscene frame rates. Otherwise, there is little to no benefit. Obviously a dual-GPU solution will give better performance -- in gamez. Computers are capable of doing far, FAR more than just gamez.

3D animation applications don't use Radeons and Geforces to viewport render. Whilst these cards are supported, it's the Quadro and the FireGL that do these tasks.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

guru Shane — 2005-10-05T18:41:34-05:00

"Since GPU's do little if any actual work, they are useless except to the gamer"

That is where your opinion is biased. You don't use graphics cards to their full benefit, so you don't see how the power gained from 2 of them is worth it. Any graphics intensive programs will benefit from 2 cards. You can't say that little or no performance is gained from them. That is misleading. You don't see any benefit from them if you don't use them. You do see a benefit if you do. With that in mind, there really shouldn't be a debate.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

A_Pickle — 2005-10-05T17:00:02-05:00

"...A dual core GPU would be on the same page as a dual core CPU..."

I'm not opposed to a dual-core GPU. My point is, dual-GPU setups are not on par with the advantages offered by a dual-core processor, as you stated. I will take a dual-core GPU, thank you very much. I'm never going to go CrossFire or SLI.

"...Compare dual GPU's to dual CPU's and you will see that you are virtually doubling everything, BUT, more performance comes as a result..."

It does. But, like you said, you virtually double everthing, cost included. I wouldn't buy a dual cpu system unless it was on a pair of old Xeons that I could buy for peanuts. I'm not opposed to dual processor workstations, mainly because these are actually used to do some work (rendering, etc.). A GPU plays games, and is abhorrently larger than a CPU. Not worth it, in my opinion.

"...Are you honestly going to say that dual CPU's don't give you a performance increase?..."

I never stated that dual-GPU's don't give a performance increase. I stated that, given the other factors included, a single card is still worlds better.

In addition, multiple CPU's are justified in that they are an industry requirement in some areas (3D rendering) . These industries have been revolutionized by these massive renderfarms of CPU's. Since GPU's do little if any actual work, they are useless except to the gamer.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

Shadow_Ops_Airman1 — 2005-10-05T14:18:15-05:00

well today ati launched their new series, also they are certainly putting a big emphasis on it as there are other features like AVIVO and their Crossfire capabilities of each board, the last time they had a big product launch was with the Radeon 9000 9500 and 9700 Series.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

guru Shane — 2005-10-05T09:01:19-05:00

You're not exactly being fair in your comparison. A dual core GPU would be on the same page as a dual core CPU. Compare dual GPU's to dual CPU's and you will see that you are virtually doubling everything, BUT, more performance comes as a result. Are you honestly going to say that dual CPU's don't give you a performance increase? I suggest that you check out some super computers.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

A_Pickle — 2005-10-05T08:55:59-05:00

I'm saying a dual GPU solution is nothing special. All it is is a greater amount of an existing technology in a given unit. Nevermind the thermal, electrical and spatial requirements.

A dual-core solution is a different animal. Sure, it's MORE of an existing technology, but all the same, they didn't just glue two Prescotts together. The Pentium D has 230 million transistors in Smithfield. Two Prescotts would have been 340 million. The dual-core isn't twice as hot, twice as hungry, and twice as big. It offers signficant performance increases all the while running cooler and taking up no more space than previously. It does suck a little more juice, but performance-per-watt is improved overall.

That isn't the case with dual GPU's, this is no different from adding obscene cylinder counts in a car. Same technology, wanked to all hell.

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

guru Shane — 2005-10-05T08:31:52-05:00

"Dual GPU's aren't economical, and they aren't technological progress of ANY sort."

So, when you say ANY sort, you aren't including benchmarks, FPS, or better image quality at higher resolutions? pffft...

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

Arsey Iervasi Perfomance Junkie Extreme — 2005-10-05T08:14:30-05:00

dude...

it doesnt matter whether it economical or not...we r proving wat technology can do 2 prove itself even better...whether it b dual core processors..or sli configs...b4 a quantam leap in the graphics card area of computing we must first c how much performance is possible with either 1 or 2 cards....hey mayb in 10 years or something sli configs may b irrelevant becuz someone has made a ppu (physics processing unit) in which case 2 graphics cards wont b needed but instead u only need 2 have a gpu and a ppu running side by side instead of 2 gpu's

Re: Re: ATI's CrossFire, too little too late?

A_Pickle — 2005-10-05T07:56:46-05:00

"...Saying that dual GPU's aren't needed is the same as saying that dual cores aren't needed...."

That isn't true. There's an inherent difference.

Where a dual-core processor is actually a technological step forward, dual-GPU arrangements are little else than duct taping two GPU's together.

Are dual core processors needed?

No. But, they are economically viable at this point in time, and they help to alleviate some of the problems facing current generation single core CPU's. Thermal output is lowered by going to a dual-core CPU, and greater performance-per-watt is achieved. In addition, a dual-core CPU doesn't demand twice the motherboard real-estate in order for it to work.

Dual core CPU's will be seen in laptops by January of 2006, and Intel aims to eradicate single cores altogether by 2007. There's no point in keeping single core architectures anymore, dual-cores outperform their single core brethren by a VAST amount at a similar level pricetag, notebook pricing INCLUDED. In addition, these dual cores will effectively REDUCE the overall weight of laptops, as due to their lower power requirement and lower thermal output, the heatsink/fan assembly will not need to be terribly large.

This is truly a technological step forward.

Are dual-GPU arrangements needed?

No. The difference is that these are not economically viable. The cheapest of these would be something along the lines of a dual 6600GT arrangement, an arrangement in which a single $300 X800 XL would match, or in some cases, outperform. The power requirements for this dual-GPU arrangement give each card it's necessary power to perform at 100%, but combined the two cards, at most, give 170% total performance. Sometimes, while still consuming this ungodly amount of power, the two cards will offer absolutely NO performance increase over a single card. These dual GPU arrangements require twice the available motherboard space in order to fit, and they generate twice as much heat.

Dual-GPU arrangements will not make their way into laptops, and if they do, it will be offered in power-hungry monsters whose intent is solely to bring some "mobility" to the game with FAR too much cash. A dual-GPU arrangement in a laptop like that would end up costing a fortune, upwards of $3,000 easily and more likely past $4,000 even approaching $5,000. This poses certain difficulties when one might, say, want to upgrade when, after three years, his or her "gaming eXtreme" $4,000 notebook is dead in the water, obsolete, and the only upgrade to match it's former glory is another $3-4,000 expenditure.

Dual GPU's aren't economical, and they aren't technological progress of ANY sort. Dual-core CPU's serve something more of a purpose, to combat the worsening power and thermal issues that faced single-core processors. This is nothing short of a computing revolution, one in which dual-GPU's are almost the opposition as we head for performance-per-watt.