CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Far Cry 2
This is another highly awaited title from last year that has beautiful graphics, an open ended environment, and is fun to play... but the traveling between missions tends to get repetitive. If you dial up the graphics options, the game rewards with you some fantastic visuals courtesy of the Dunia Engine. The game also features the most impressive benchmark tool we have seen in a PC game. We set the performance feature set to Very High, graphics to High, and enable DX10 with AA set to 2x. The in-game benchmark tool is utilized with the Ranch Small level.
We learned two things about this game. It favors the Intel platforms, and once you provide enough GPU horsepower, the i7 is untouchable. This is especially true once the i7 is overclocked. Although not shown, our single card results with the i7 at 4.00GHz resulted in an average frame rate of 68.8 with the minimum at 54.2 and maximum at 106.2. Single card results with the Q9550 and Phenom II 940 overclocked only increased frame rates by 1fps. If you wanted to pick a single benchmark and show a large disparity in gaming performance between the Intel and AMD platforms, this is the one to use. We would highly suggest to AMD that they send an engineer to UbiSoft for game engine optimizations.
In the 1680x1050 single card tests, the Intel platforms are slightly ahead of the AMD setup; even minimum frame rates favor Intel in this game. Enable CrossFire and we see the Q9550 leading the Phenom II 940 by 7% with minimum frame rates being equal. The i7 CrossFire results are impressive with a 31% frame rate increase over the Q9550 and 41% over the Phenom II 940. Once we overclock our processors, scores improve for the Q9550 and Phenom II 940 with frame rates increasing 22% and 20% over stock CF numbers respectively. The i7 shows a similar 19% increase when overclocked. Even though the Q9550 has a 7% clock speed advantage over the Phenom II 940, frame rates improve by 17% in the overclocked CrossFire results.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 5% and minimum frame rates less than 1% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 12% in average frame rates and minimum frame rates actually decrease by 5%. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 42% and minimum rates increase 15%. Overclocking our processors resulted in an 19%~22% average improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
At 1920x1200, the benchmarks reveal nothing new between the platforms. The Phenom II 940 is competitive with a single card, trails the Q9550 by 8% in CrossFire and 9% when overclocked, even though we start to become CPU/GPU limited on these two platforms. The Q9550 does hold a 17% advantage in minimum frame rates in the overclocked tests. The i7 is just stupid fast compared to our other two platforms with its standard CrossFire results being 8% and 18% faster than the overclocked Q9550 and Phenom II 940 processors respectively. Overclocking the i7 puts it in another league altogether.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 12% and minimum frame rates decrease by 8% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 18% in average frame rates and minimum frame rates do not change. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 53% and minimum rates increase 26%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 22%~26% average improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the greatest.
When it comes to game play experience and not benchmark tests, all three platforms responded the same at our specified settings. We did not notice any advantages with the improved frame rates that the i7 offers over the other two platforms. However, with the i7 we could change the graphic settings to Very High and increase AA to 4x and still experience very good game play. It was as if nothing changed except now we were looking at the savannahs of Africa in a much better way. These same settings were not always a pleasant experience on the other two platforms during heavy action scenes, but the game remained playable for the most part.
68 Comments
View All Comments
FingerMeElmo87 - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
"Seriously, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?Please. Stop making those useless enthusiast's enthusiast reviews and come back to the ground, AnandTech."
--Whats down to earth? Intel Celeries and IGPs'? They did both average use benches with single GPU and enthusiast class benches with dual GPUs and overclocking. how could you get your panties in a bunch like so easily. did you even bother to read the article?
"Please, go ahead, check the Steam survey hardware list.
Then tell me: How many people out of 100 do have SLI/Crossfire.
Then laugh.
Then stop testing this shit like it was important."
--Once again, same worthless comment. they didnt just test crossfire
"And here my suggestions for constructive improvement:
Test the new generation of HDDs with 500GB platters (e.g. Seagate 7200.12 series)
THAT would be interesting, because EVERYONE needs a good HDD, but no one needs Crossfire."
--ugh. saying eveyone needs the latest and greatest type of harddrive is like saying everyone needs crossfire and SLI.
going as far as breaking down your entire retarded post was a complete waste of time just to call you a douche bag but i guess it had to be done
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
The user "Finally" is right (although a tad abrasive). You don't need CF or SLI to run any of those games at an acceptable frame rate. Furthermore, the mainstream crowd does outnumber the enthusiast crowd using CF/SLI by many fold. So it would have made more beneficial to show both CPU stock and overclock results using just a 4870.Heck, they could have added a PII 920 at stock and overclock and a 4850 just to make it interesting. Maybe one day we will see such a setup tested.
scottb75 - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - link
With SLI/CF the CPU becomes more of the bottleneck then it would be with just one GPU. So, testing with SLI/CF shows more of a difference between the CPUs then it would with just a single card.Gary Key - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
This is not a GPU comparison per say, it is a platform comparison. We set the game options to a blended mixture of quality and performance in order to keep the GPU setup from becoming the limiting factor when possible. This is explained in further detail in page two.CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Although I understand your reasoning and to a degree it make sense. However, many are using or attempting to use 4xAA max settings at 1680 (at the very least). Therefore, it would be very informative to many of use what we could expect.This is with the expectation that we are no longer worried about just CPU scores but platform scores. IMO, reviewers should start looking at the platform as whole in reviews like this as many are looking at it that way. If it were true that one motherboard performed exceedingly better then another a CPU only benchmark would make sense.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
us not use...sorryv1001 - Sunday, February 1, 2009 - link
Page 10 - Final Words is missingGary Key - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
The article went live before it was completed. Page 10 is in and I will update it late tomorrow with power consumption numbers. Just finishing the power tests on the i7 with the same power supply we use on the other setups.