MultiGPU Update: Two-GPU Options in Depth
by Derek Wilson on February 23, 2009 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
There is quite a bit of data here today, and it can be a little bit daunting to sort through. In every test but one, GeForce GTX 285 SLI leads the way in performance. Often the GTX 280 SLI pops up next. That's surprising considering the fact that AMD doesn't have as heavy hitting a single GPU part. And it also doesn't take into account the fact that these two solutions often come in very low in the "value" lineup and not that much higher in performance than something like the Radeon HD 4870 multiGPU options or even the GeForce GTX 295.
The cheaper Radeon HD 4870 X2 often does better than the GTX 295, and often multiGPU AMD options have better value than the highest end single GPU options from NVIDIA. But the real stand out has to be the Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2 2GB. This unique card really shined and held it's own all the way up to 2560x1600. While a 1GB 4850 might not make much sense (the extra RAM only really helps at resolutions where the 4850 can't keep up in terms of processing power), the 1GB of RAM per GPU on the 4850 X2 2GB really helps make this single card multiGPU option high end.
The Sapphire 4850 X2 costs less than a single NVIDIA GTX 280 or 285, and performs better than these as well. While the Radeon HD 4870 X2 is viable as high end single card multiGPU option, it competes at a price point beyond NVIDIA's high end. the 4850 X2 really puts pressure on anything that costs between $300 and $400 from the competition. It's very surprising to us that AMD hasn't pushed this configuration and that Sapphire are the only manufacturer to have put one of these out there.
In general, more than one GPU isn't that necessary for 1920x1200 with the highest quality settings, and the Radeon 4870 1GB or an overclocked GeForce GTX 260 core 216 are good options there. Slower single cards are fine for the high quality at 1680x1050 and multiGPU options are basically wasted at this resolution and lower except in Crysis. As we've seen in past tests, only those with 30" monitors will really benefit from multiple GPUs in their system for now. Of course, there are value-add technologies like PhysX and hopefully sooner rather than later OpenCL will attract more developers to GPU computing. But when were talking multiple graphics cards for rendering it's really not worth it without the highest resolution around.
If you want to break it down, the only NVIDIA single GPU solutions we really recommend as an option are the GeForce GTX 260 variants and/or SLI which are on par with the Radeon 4870 512MB and 1GB depending on the games we chose to test. Really the decision comes down to which games you prefer to play and what features you want. Buying a single GPU solution for more than $300 doesn't make sense with the efficiency of the 4850 X2, and the prices on higher performance multiGPU solutions make them a tough sell really. The GTX 285 SLI is the performance leader, but the cost is just huge.
As we mentioned, this is the first of a series of articles that will explore multiGPU performance. The next article will tackle 3-way SLI and 3-way CrossFireX options. The goal is to extend this look into the 3-way realm, looking at scaling from 1 to 3 and from 2 to 3 cards in a system along side pure performance and value. While this will use much of the same data we've looked at today, the focus will be on 3-way and whether or not it has any real practical use.
While we've already seen 2 GPU performance data, we hope that this more in-depth look than usual helps to illustrate the playing field a bit better. AMD (with the help of Sapphire) really has succeeded at their goal of making single card high end options that compete well with NVIDIA's high end single cards. While the Radeon HD 4870 X2 does compete well with the GeForce GTX 295, the 4850 X2 2GB does a great job of offering higher performance than NVIDIA single GPU options and much more bang for your buck at a price point right below the GTX 280.
Our one caveat with AMD remains driver issues. We are happy with Catalyst 9.2 as it competes with the 8.12 hotfix in terms of stability and performance (and it offers more multiGPU support for recently released games). NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 260 core 216 offers good competition for AMD, and driver support issues don't do AMD any favors. Drivers are even more important when it comes to SLI and CrossFire. SLI enjoys much better support from NVIDIA than CrossFire does from AMD. Because of AMD's driver issues, we often have to wait when new games come out to enjoy proper CrossFire scaling with them. And when hotfixes come out it takes more than a month (usually more like two) to fully integrate changes into a WHQL driver. This is quite disappointing and is really the only strike against the Radeon HD 4850 X2 2GB which is in every other way terrific competition for NVIDIA's lineup.
Sometimes you don't get what you pay for, and with less than linear scaling we do see a reduced value from multiple card solutions. Sometimes getting playability at a higher resolution makes this reduced "value" worth it. Sometimes, CPU and system limits can also reduce value for more than one GPU. And sometimes, like in the case of the Sapphire 4850 X2 2GB, we see a single card that costs the same as two separate lower spec'd (in this case lower memory) parts and can therefore offer great scaling and incredible value.
Stay tuned to see how three cards changes the landscape.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link
1.Let me help you out. More people have 1280x1024 monitors, and any who do have flat panels, are most likely stuck at 1680x1050 because the 1920x monitors command a premium.So MOST GAMERS are far below 2650, and 1920, and even 1650, and some can't run 1280x1024.
A common game rez is 1024x768, 800x600 is also used currently on all the high end games - both especially with gamers with brand name store bought systems - we all know the big names ( not the multiple thousand dollar gaming brands - that's one of 50 gamers!). When you're stuck in a lab with $2,000 monitors and then travel to checking out the cebit babes, staying in touch with the average gamer is difficult, to say the least.
2. Even though the 260 passes 20 of 21 tests, and the 4850 passes LESS, Derek the red just HAS to state that the Sapphire passed every test they threw at it. Now the upper number doesn't jibe with that - the one showing the 4850 worked in LESS situations than the GTX260 -
BUT THE RED RAGE FUD NEVER ENDS.
( obviously more than one 4850 brand was in play - NEVER THE LESS - that is the type of CONSTANT red slant that is all over EVERY SINGLE PAGE.)
Hrel - Thursday, March 5, 2009 - link
I found an oddity. This articles posted power consumption doesn't correspond to other articles findings; yes I know I can't cross reference data across articles. In this article:http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3437...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3437...
The 9800GTX+ uses less energy than the HD4850 and in this multi-GPU article it's the other way around. I know I can't compare total system power findings but I'd think that the cards would at least be in the same order.
Can someone PLEASE clear this up for me? I'm very confused as to which card is more power efficient as the findings have varied so heavily across different articles.
It would probably be a good idea to list the power consumption of only the GPU, instead of the whole system. Doing that would remove variables, which is of course, a goal of any scientific experiment.
Hrel - Friday, February 27, 2009 - link
I just wanted to say, this is a great article. I'm glad you guys finally wrote an article comparing pretty much every card out there that people will consider buying, you could have included some lower end cards and resolutions. But hey, it takes a lot of time to do that many tests accurately; I appreciate all that you did do. It really was a well written and interesting article to read; good job anandtech.P.S. Any news on when new GPU's will be coming from Nvidia/AMD. I've noticed a LOT of price drops and mail in rebates on GPU's recently.
Zak - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
"In general, more than one GPU isn't that necessary for 1920x1200"Depending on the definition of "that":) I disagree, gameplay is so much smoother with two cards on a 24" monitor. I tried playing with one 285 versus two, and while I don't have any real numbers, the differences is very noticeable. Crysis never dips below 40fps. This is my first real SLI since Voodoo II and I'm very glad I did it. You can always buy one card and decide if you want the second one later. I paid under $700 for two 285s and also got a copy of World at War and FarCry2 with two cards (a fluke maybe), that's almost $100 worth of games:)
Z.
magnusr - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Im currently using an ATI 4850 512MB at 1920x1080 on an x58 chipset system.I just ordered another 4850 for crossifre usage due to this article.
Thanks for the tip. Keep up the good work.
GoodRevrnd - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
I know it's 2 years old, but it is still a relatively taxing game for it's age and is still relevant with the Tales of Valor expansion coming out... so could you PLEASE add Company of Heroes back into your reviews? I would just ask for Dawn of War 2 benchmarks, but it's the same engine and they didn't include a nice performance test. As it stands there are no RTS's in your hardware reviews. I'd just like to see a broader spectrum of games represented.Razorbladehaze - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
I second the motion to include CoH.poohbear - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
i gotta commend u on ur graphs, very clean and very easy to understand unlike some other sites that have confounding line graphs. i especially love how i can choose between different resolutions to see the diff instantly. Kudos to u guys.:)Nighttrojan - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
I upgraded my gpu awhile back and got a MSI 4870 1 gig (ATI) card to replace my old MSI 7600gt 256 mb (Nvidia). However, although I can get better quality graphics with the ATI card, the Nvidia card is actually faster when playing Vanguard soh.... The game loads slower and takes more time shifting graphics (graphic lag), but the graphics look better and I can turn up settings a little higher. Any ideas on what's going on?Early Core2Duo 6600
Early ab9 pro abit motherboard
All drivers up to date
Razorbladehaze - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Any time you increase graphics settings on a game you increase the amount of information that needs to be off loaded to and from HDD, CPU, RAM, GPU so this is likely you reason for slower load times.But that card is in not actually "faster" than the 4870, in actuality that card is probably 2-3x better at rendering then the 7600 across all games.