AMD 4x4 and Nividia SLI or ATI Crossfire

Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
edited June 2006 in Hardware
Well with all the benefits that a dual CPU system can bring I want to point out how exciting this is for the graphics side of things.

As most fo you know the performance cap of both SLI and Crossfire hit home in the CPU department. Nvidia just kicked off its 7950GX2 series GPU's which acts like an SLI setup but in one PCI-E Slot. The trouble with this is when you get 2 of these side by side or even just one you become CPU bound. Being CPU bound means the CPU can't send enough data to the GPU core, making it so the GPU can't function at its top speeds. Now with AMD 4v4 we will have 2 CPU's that can feed data to SLI or dual core single slot designs. This will increase the data that will be sent to the GPU's allowing much faster times from your GPU.

Now this is a huge win for Nvidia as they have the best option for a Physics engine. With onboard Physics in a SLI setup with 2 physical CPU's they will have enough data to drive there product forward without spending extra cash for a physics card.

Makes me think the Nvidia and AMD are working together in this venture of 4x4.
«1

Comments

  • jradminjradmin North Kackalaki
    edited June 2006
    The only problem I see so far is that the 7950's are slower singularly then 2 7900GT's (when they work) and GTX's. I'm sure some of this has to do with the fact that Nvidia has said "NO!" to factory OCing, and also that the drivers are so new for the hardware.

    I think it has alot of potential though...but I'm not really sold on 4xSLI yet until games start supporting it =D
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    One thing I noticed is that the 7950GX2 is a solid performer across the board as other cards seem to drop frame rate much faster. I would call the 7950GX2 a successful scaleable graphics card release. Its main function is to give steady performance for gamers on 30" LCD's or larger.
  • jradminjradmin North Kackalaki
    edited June 2006
    Don't forget that HDTV thing to =) Alot of people have been waiting for HD support.
  • edited June 2006
    I don't see the whole AMD 4X thing being worth a damn at removing the CPU cap until games start supporting SMP. The number that do is a drop in the bucket compared to those that don't and you can keep tossing all the cores you want at a game that won't support SMP, it just won't help.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    Yes but that is something a ton of developers are doing these days. so in the long run this option is a benefit. Everything needs a test run. The 7950GX2 is the first of its kind in today’s market. And with the way tech is moving forward I can only see this as a positive.
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited June 2006
    My God. Doesn't the premise of this thread make you sick? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?

    4 GPUs and 2 dualcore CPUs? I mean, come on, that's disgusting. It literally makes me sad. It's gone beyond unnecessary into flat-out disturbing, seriously.

    I could understand wanting that kind of performance in one chip of each, but the fact that these companies are able to milk everyone for so much is horrifying. Damn.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    Why is this disturbing? its not like workstations haven't been running Uber high end station like this for years. Well minus 2 GPU cores. If AMD makes this affordable I think we can have a new wave of tech.

    Think if 2 AM2 3800 X2's, run better than a top of the line Conroe, you inturn save a ton of cash. It makes sence!
  • edited June 2006
    Out of all the games I play the majority of them are older and I sincerely doubt there will be SMP support for them any time soon if ever and I suspect that SMP won't be coming out for many of the older games out (by older I mean 6mo.s and on) so it's a pot shoot whether games supporting SMP are going to come out that are worth justifying $2300 worth of mobo & CPU's any time soon.

    People are pitching fits about the Ageia PPU (that costs ~$200) since there aren't any games out supporting it, what makes you think these same people people are going to shell out that kind of cash for a very limited benefit.

    If AMD had wanted to really kill with the whole 4X core thing they should've held out until there were apps (read games) aplenty that could take advantage of the tech. As it stands right now the 4X core setup is more of a curiosity and rich boys toy than a true "Enthusiast solution".
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited June 2006
    Sledge, I guess that's my main issue. It's not affordable (for the majority of the average consumer), not even remotely. Even going for a mediocre SLi setup is a kick in the face.

    One defense might be that new technology always lowers "old" technology. Sure. But therein lies the problem - this is not new technology. It's simply more of the old stuff, which does NOTHING to reduce costs. Instead of being revolutionary with every advance, all the companies are simply finding more and more ways of kicking the consumer's ass.
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX
    edited June 2006
    not to mention, if my memory serves me well, AM2 does not support SMP, so how would we get 2 3800X2's?
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    where do you get $2,300?
  • edited June 2006
    Hmmm...according to AMD (one would think that they'd be in the know here wouldn't you?) the 4X4 requires not one but two (yes you read right two) AM2 FX series chips (Can you say cha ching?) plus a suitable mobo. That's $2000 worth of procs and around $300 worth of motherboard.

    1616_large_73.png
  • edited June 2006
    I dont understand all this but $2000 just for processors, Thats absolutely rediculous. I was thinking about making a new comp, the total for the whole tower was <1000 bux. Jeez.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    LOL, 4x4 will allow you to plop 2 3800+'s to gain better performance than 1 FX 62. The cost would be around $400-$600 once the platform makes the market. If you compare this to Intels new Conroe core that is betting the FX 62 currently you are still saving $600 - $400 in processor fees. all depending on which CPU you go with.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited June 2006
    sledge why do you think conroe will be so expensive? everything i have seen is that thy are very affordable...even the 4mb versions start @ $300. i guess if you are looking at the conroe EE edition...but nobody who is sane buys those.

    and i think this whole 4x4 thing is a panicked response from AMD to counter conroe. seems like a very last minute, OMG what can we do sort of thing.

    sledge, why do you think nvidia has the better physics option right now? i am not going to be interested in PPU untill nvidia or ati makes it available on a single card as part of the gpu. or maybe it could be handled by a 2nd cpu core instead. untill then, PPU seems like a ripoff.

    and i really don't like ati's recently announced 3-way physics thing. no mobos even exist with an ati chipset and 3 16xpcie lanes. now if they could figure out how to make the physics thing work on current crossfire boards...where you have one gpu (x1900) accelerating the game, and a 2nd gpu (x1600) doing the physics, then it would be a better solution and much more affordable.
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower
    edited June 2006
    i gotta agree with entropy...this is just ridicilious..what are companies really doing? Didn't we once make fun of 3dfx for the same type of nonsense...i can see the dual cpu...for workstations and especially servers...but my god... why do we need so much power?? Why aren't developers looking for efficency as opposed to more power. For instance, look at nintendo...super mario 1, good graphics for the time...then later on...with the SAME machine, there was super mario 3...i mean my god look at the difference...why can't software devlopers focus on that?
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower
    edited June 2006
    and i apologize for my ignorance...but other than the physics and the graphics in a game...what other calculations are made? I mean is there even a point of a cpu if the physics AND graphics are covered by add on cards?
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    sledge why do you think conroe will be so expensive? everything i have seen is that thy are very affordable...even the 4mb versions start @ $300. i guess if you are looking at the conroe EE edition...but nobody who is sane buys those.

    I'm talking the high end conroe chips, Intel has only been showing off it's best which is set around $900. The lower chips are cheaper but so are the lower end AMD chips...

    and i think this whole 4x4 thing is a panicked response from AMD to counter conroe. seems like a very last minute, OMG what can we do sort of thing.

    I think the 4x4 wasn't last minute. AMD is bringing server power to the gamer. We have had servers for years running more than 2 CPU's why not for gamers? especially since AMD is opening its architecture Game developers and prgram developers will be abel to make there programs make use of this new Technology. Either way you look at it Intel or AMD you have to buy a new system to get the stuff so the cost is about equal.

    sledge, why do you think nvidia has the better physics option right now? i am not going to be interested in PPU untill nvidia or ati makes it available on a single card as part of the gpu. or maybe it could be handled by a 2nd cpu core instead. untill then, PPU seems like a ripoff.

    For now it is a rip off via Aigia and ATI but from what I have heard is that Nvidia's PPU will work on a 2nd core of a SLI setup. now you can get a SLI setup for under $300 these days using 2 6600GT's and a nice Nvidia mobo. thats almost as cheap as some of the PPu's on the market. Regardless PPu's are targeted to higher end gamers and most high end gamers dont have an extra PCI slot for a new PPu card, so nvidias soultion I think will be well adopted as it doesn't require anything other than a new driver. And tbh PPu's don't make that huge of a difference in todays games anyways. So if you have SLI it is like a free upgrade... That is why i think Nvidias soultions is better right now. Untill PPPu's are cheaper I will keep thinking that.

    and i really don't like ati's recently announced 3-way physics thing. no mobos even exist with an ati chipset and 3 16xpcie lanes. now if they could figure out how to make the physics thing work on current crossfire boards...where you have one gpu (x1900) accelerating the game, and a 2nd gpu (x1600) doing the physics, then it would be a better solution and much more affordable.[/QUOTE]

    This is how Nvidia is already doing it.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    WuGgaRoO wrote:
    and i apologize for my ignorance...but other than the physics and the graphics in a game...what other calculations are made? I mean is there even a point of a cpu if the physics AND graphics are covered by add on cards?

    Dual graphics and Dual CPU's come into play with Super high end products. The main reason for the 7950GX2 was to allow you to power a 30" LCD and still get reasonable frame rates. 1 7900GTX can't power a 30" LCD with great frame rates. The 7950GX2 is solid across the board and can maintain steady solid frame rates on a 30" LCD. now running 2 7950GX2 would allow you to power 2 30" LCDs “not in SLI” and have a dual socket CPU system would allow you to overcome the bottle necking as we see in today’s computers. To be honest no 2 CPU's can’t feed enough data to today’s GPU's.. The architecture of a GPU is so much more advanced and much faster than a CPU. But in turn they are meant for 2 different things. So by adding the 2nd CPU socket would allow the bottleneck to be raised a bit and more and allow much more data to flow.
  • edited June 2006
    Where could i find these results/tests of video cards??
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    if you look at any bench mark where they used a 30" screen you will see the frame rates drop on normal non SLI cards and on SLI and the 7950GX2 you will see Frame rates holding for the 30" LCD with AA and AF boosted.

    here you go:

    Anandtech 7950GX2 Test vs 7900GTX and ATI 1900XTX
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2769&p=5

    If you look at the frame rates on the cards you will see how the standard cards drop frame rates quickly as the GX2 holds its ground.

    1280 x 1024
    X1900XT - 95.2
    7900GTX - 92.7
    7800GTX 512 - 92
    7950GX2 - 91.2
    7900GT SLI - 90.6

    1280 x 1024 4xAA
    X1900XT - 91.6 "-3.6fps"
    7900GTX - 91.4
    7800GTX 512 - 86.7
    7950GX2 - 90.4 "-.08fps"
    7900GT SLI - 88.7

    1600 x 1200
    X1900XT - 88.7 "-2.9fps"
    7900GTX - 90.2
    7800GTX 512 - 85.2
    7950GX2 - 89.2 "-1.2fps"
    7900GT SLI - 88.3

    1600 x 1200 4xAA
    X1900XT - 76.3 "-12.4fps"
    7900GTX - 75.2
    7800GTX 512 - 68.3
    7950GX2 - 86.6 "-2.6fps"
    7900GT SLI - 80.7

    2048 x 1536
    X1900XT - 65.3 "-11fps"
    7900GTX - 73.9
    7800GTX 512 - 64.4
    7950GX2 - 85.5 "-1.1fps"
    7900GT SLI - 81.3

    2048 x 1536 4xAA
    X1900XT - 54.1 "-11.2fps"
    7900GTX - 51.7
    7800GTX 512 - 47.9
    7950GX2 - 70.8 "-14.7fps"
    7900GT SLI - 62.5


    Overall Score or fram differance from 1280 x 1024 to 2048 x 1536
    X1900XT -41.1 fps drop
    7900GTX -41 fps drop
    7800GTX 512 -44.1 fps drop
    7950GX2 -20.4 fps drop
    7900GT SLI -28.2 fps drop

    As you can see the 7950GX holds the most stable at keeping a high level of FPS by over 20FPs per sec. now to me that is a awesome accomplishment. Even the 7900GTs in SLI show how SLI or 2 GPU's in one slot make a difference.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited June 2006
    sledge i have to disagree with you on how great nvidia's proposed PPU solution is.

    their concept sounds ok, but IMO ati's ability to pair 2 different types of gpus and having the lesser one do the physics seems better and more affordable.

    mind you that it is all concept stuff now anyway, but if i have 2 7900gts and 1 only does the physics and nothing else...it is like paying for something and not getting full use of it. i mean is it a gpu or a ppu? are we going to start having special physics enabled SLI cards?

    if nvidia allowed SLI/PPU with 2 different gpus, then they would have a slam dunk. i am just not going to drop another $300 on a card that doesn't get to live up to it's full potential. but if i could drop $100 on say a 6200/6600 and have that accelerate the physics i would be much more interested...
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    Nvidias PPU will run on the 2nd core but the 2nd core won't only run the ppu process... it will run PPU when needed.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited June 2006
    ok, that actually does sound pretty good...now we just need every game to support physics!
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    Hence why I say Nvidia seems to be the way to go...
  • rykoryko new york
    edited June 2006
    i agree, it sounds better at this point. :)

    but it isn't perfect...still wish it allowed for different gpus.

    it would be amazing to be able to upgrade your current card with a brand new one (i.e., 7900gt) and use your older last generation one (6600gt) for physics.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California
    edited June 2006
    Nothing is perfect.... but we can only hope that what each company finally comes out with will be overall beneficial for us.
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower
    edited June 2006
    good explanation
  • edited June 2006
    LOL, 4x4 will allow you to plop 2 3800+'s to gain better performance than 1 FX 62. The cost would be around $400-$600 once the platform makes the market. If you compare this to Intels new Conroe core that is betting the FX 62 currently you are still saving $600 - $400 in processor fees. all depending on which CPU you go with.

    I'd like you to show me where you've found that 4X4 will support anything but FX chips. According to everything I've seen on that technology it's for the FX line and the FX line only.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI
    edited June 2006
    ryko wrote:
    it would be amazing to be able to upgrade your current card with a brand new one (i.e., 7900gt) and use your older last generation one (6600gt) for physics.

    THAT would be incredible.
Sign In or Register to comment.