Waco Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Isn't the reason why ATi fails out in most of the tests due to a lack of proper support for crossfire? Essentially. Half of the time my extra GPU just sits mostly idle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Essentially. Half of the time my extra GPU just sits mostly idle. first one does the talking, second one does the walking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogel Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Awesome review guys :thumbs-up: My head is spinning from all the #s just reading this article, so I can just imagine for ccokeman. I'm not surprised this was 4 months in the making. Yeah this isn't a review most people should base their buying decisions on. For example, I use an E8400 so I'm not going to get the same benefit buying a 2nd GTX260 and going SLI as a Core i7 rig will. I'll hit a bottleneck just being on a C2D processor, then compound that with only being on a 1680x1050 resolution... Yeah going SLI/CF isn't exactly the best solution when a single video card will do the job much better. But what this review does show is for people with Core i7 rigs, what is the better multi-GPU solution is for the needs and budget constraints. It shows us which is more mature between the ever popular SLI vs CF debate. So someone who wants to experiment with one or the other can make a more informed choice. Should I SLI two 260s or spend a little extra and CF 4890s? Questions like that can be answered. Right now Nvidia is on top but that hasn't always been the case. Sometimes it is ATI. It goes back n forth - and lot more frequently than the strugle between Intel vs AMD cpus. I have always felt Nvidia drivers were more mature - it's been there mantra since way back when where they were the little company. They were the first company to provide 1 driver that worked for their current video cards all the way back to old cards. (minus maybe the first couple generations) But just because Nvidia is on top now doesn't mean it will stay that way. Exposing reviews like this should motivate ATI to step up their game - in the end the real winners are us because no matter what we choose it will work just fine. As a gamer I'm buying Nvidia. But also as a gamer I am now pulling for ATI to step it up to keep Nvidia honest. I'd rather see a fair balance than an overwhelming thumping like this because the last thing we need is one company to go under. And for all those bagging on Bosco's bias. Last year reviews were favoring ATI and people bagged on him for being an ATI-fanboi. So when Bosco says he is just being vocal for things he likes and doesn't like, perhaps he is telling the truth there. I can respect that because I am the same way - I have been on the opposite side of the fence arguing a different position than him. Some people pull punches and some don't. Like I said, last year it was Nvidia being called the slackers and ATI being praised. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 All ATI has to do is give us user configurable Crossfire profiles. Tricking drivers by renaming the exe to something that has crossfire support is supposed to be a crutch to get the support for those games but it cant be that hard to fix. Or can it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiv Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Originally Posted by Robilar For example with COD WAW using the i7 board, cpu at 4ghz, ram at 1600mhz, video cards at stock: Pair of 4890's averages 225 FPS 4870X2 averages 175 FPS Pair of 260's averages 155 FPS GTX295 averages 130 FPS at 1920x1200 http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/499...erformance.html hey guys, check out what Robilar says. I'm not saying he is right or anything,just curious why is there such a big difference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Originally Posted by Robilar For example with COD WAW using the i7 board, cpu at 4ghz, ram at 1600mhz, video cards at stock: Pair of 4890's averages 225 FPS 4870X2 averages 175 FPS Pair of 260's averages 155 FPS GTX295 averages 130 FPS at 1920x1200 http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/499...erformance.html hey guys, check out what Robilar says. I'm not saying he is right or anything,just curious why is there such a big difference? To be honest I have no idea. He listed Numbers thats it. I have no idea how he tests not a clue. I have talked with all sites that do benchmarks and we all test differently. I hate commenting on other people benchmarks or scores because I am not there. I would love to know how he got 225FPS in CODWAW Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Originally Posted by Robilar For example with COD WAW using the i7 board, cpu at 4ghz, ram at 1600mhz, video cards at stock: Pair of 4890's averages 225 FPS 4870X2 averages 175 FPS Pair of 260's averages 155 FPS GTX295 averages 130 FPS at 1920x1200 http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/499...erformance.html hey guys, check out what Robilar says. I'm not saying he is right or anything,just curious why is there such a big difference? I call BS as well! Was the System using XP therefore DX9 or Vista DX 10? What game settings? What level? What map? How long of a run? No way its gonna happen at 1920 unless settings are at the minimum in XP. You get the same stuff every time you see an article like this. Everyone thinks they can do better. The results are what they are with the test system, the settings used and the locations played in the games. Was Nvidia better this time? Yes! Does it mean ATI is bad? Nope! As soon as I finish the card I am working on I will revisit this just for you to prove the 225 FPS is a Myth at the settings we use . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 I will revisit this just for you to prove the 225 FPS is a Myth at the settings we use . you don't have to, disregarding fanboys... we all know it's BS since that's the only link that will have that kind of result. Take a rest Cokeman (and Bosco) you guys earned it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiv Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 you don't have to, disregarding fanboys... we all know it's BS since that's the only link that will have that kind of result. Take a rest Cokeman (and Bosco) you guys earned it! Seriously, the only reason I even asked was because it was just suprising that that site has such different results. Frankly it doesnt bother me which brand is better, as long as there is a product that fulfills my needs and right now my 9800gtx does it's job decently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krieg1337 Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 One thing I don't don't like about this chart, it uses the best hardware out there. Almost no one has enough money to buy all of this. A suggestion would be to use maybe a system that is not the newest and best.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 The problem then is that you will be cpu bound! I want too find out where you can get 225 fps in codwaw! Its a quest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiv Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 The problem then is that you will be cpu bound! I want too find out where you can get 225 fps in codwaw! Its a quest. Directly ask that guy?? I would if i had an account there , but you might start a war between OCC and OCN Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts