CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Final Words
We set out to answer the question, “Is the Phenom II competitive with a similar Intel Platform in CrossFireX?” Based on our results today, we would have to answer a resounding yes to that question.
It’s not as balanced as the Core i7 920 or even Core 2 Quad Q9550 in a few games, but it does not embarrass itself either. In fact, we think it put up a very good fight and stood its ground with the Q9550. Compared directly to the Q9550, the Phenom II X4 940 is a strong competitor. It had better average frame rates in CrossFire mode than the Q9550 in three titles, tied in one, and finished behind the Q9550 by about 2%~7% in the other three games.
When it came to actual game play experiences, we thought the Phenom II 940 was clearly the better choice in Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts and Crysis Warhead due to minimum frame rate advantages and fluidity of game play. In the five other titles, we could not tell any real differences in the quality of game play between the Phenom II 940 and Core 2 Quad Q9550. Except for Far Cry 2 where we could raise the graphic quality settings without affecting game play, the i7 platform was no different than our two other solutions.
However, looking through the performance results and game play experiences, we have to mention just how fast Intel's Core i7 is right now. Its results were just remarkable in Far Cry 2 and it consistently scored at the top in CrossFire mode in the other games even though it has the lowest core clock speed. If platform pricing were better, then the Core i7 series would have a clear recommendation for an upgrade if you were considering a multi-GPU setup.
As it stands now, if you already have a CrossFire capable motherboard, there is no need to change architectures with the current crop of AMD video cards - or you can just forget about "CrossFire compatible" altogether and grab a 4870X2. If you are currently running a P45 or X48 chipset then stick with that platform. We would highly suggest an E8500 or up dual-core or a Q9550 or up quad-core processor in order to gain any benefits from CrossFire on the Intel side. The same theory holds true on the AMD side. If you have an AM2+ motherboard based on the 790GX or 790FX chipset then stick with it and get a Phenom II X4 940.
Despite Intel's advantages in processor technology and developer relations, AMD was able to perform well in a CrossFireX setup today. In fact, it did much better than expected when we started looking at multi-GPU gaming results after the Phenom II launch. The real question is if a multi-GPU setup has enough benefits to justify the cost, regardless of platform. This is something Derek is investigating currently. In the meantime, we just know that it is no longer embarrassing to run CrossFire on an AMD processor based system. What about NVIDIA and SLI? Well, that's a question for another day....
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
You might want to read the article a bit more carefully. From the test setup page: "Our decision to go with a 790FX/SB750 combination on the AMD side is strictly based upon performance. The 790FX is about 3%~5% faster on average than comparable 790GX products. AMD continues to recommend the 790GX/SB750 as the platform of choice for the AM2+ and upcoming AM3 products. We disagree from a performance viewpoint; the 790FX/SB750 combination is simply the best choice in our opinion. Of course you will typically pay about $35~$40 or greater for the 790FX boards, but if you intend on running CrossFireX, we think it is worth the additional cost."You *can* find less expensive motherboards, but what will the *overall* experience with those board be? I for one would take a better motherboard with a less expensive processor every time over a faster default CPU clock and a cheaper motherboard. The motherboard is just too critical a component to ever warrant skimping in my book. YMMV, naturally.
side09 - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Should the fusion program that runs faster maybe be put into the calculations for AMD?CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Wow, I nearly forgot about that. I didn't see that mentioned as well. Fusion 1.0 is out and should be used in any and all AMD based benchmark reviews IMO.kuyaglen - Sunday, February 1, 2009 - link
2XAA ?Finally - 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.
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.
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.
Finally - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
lies buried in the single-GPU results included in these benchmarks.No difference. No difference at all! (and I count 1-2 fps as no difference).
But those aren't usually shown, because CPUs get tested under highly artificial conditions... to show their advantage... IN THEORY.
In real life gaming performance it makes no difference, if you just intend to play with your quad-core... this is the real interesting result that could justify this article, nothing else.
Finally - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
...that CF/SLI sucks. Anytime. Big time.It never made sense, it will never make sense.
The time, you come back and drop in another card of the same class, there is a new generation available that easily tops your grandmother-CF/SLI and furthermore adds even DirectX 11 support and a plethora of other features into the deal...
2 GPUs+ is a failed strategy - unless you are some scientist... working on a super computer... actually trying to achieve something... other than that it's highly efficient money-burning 2.0
darkvader75 - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
It seems you are abit confused. The "Steam" hardware survey runs when Steam launches. SLI and Crossfire are not active on the desktop so Steam says "no crossfire or SLI detected." More people have SLI or Crossfire by a longshot then what you are seeing by a detection program that is failing miserably. Go pull Futuremarks independant ID results list if you would like to see SLI and Crossfire #'s. Also tons of people playing counterstrike source years later don't exactly count as the bulk of the comunity. This is a high tech cutting edge website for new data and information about computer electronics. If you want babyville information about basic garbage then you need to visit Znet.SirKronan - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
"Seriosly, who cares for Crossfire (or SLI)?Holy smokes, man. Get out of here. You can get a P45 board for $100, overclock the crap out of a Core 2 duo/quad, a couple of 4850's for $300 and you've got a SERIOUS amount of gaming power. I was an early adopter of the Asus P5Q Pro with a 4850 to go with it. I've since switched, but while I had it, a second 4850 would've been a fantastic upgrade path. You can take two 4850's and an economical P45 motherboard and give the more expensive GTX 280/285 a run for the money, even winning in many games. 2x4850 is the "common man's" multi-GPU setup, and many many have been very successful with such a platform, without paying through the nose. When the 8800GT came out, and nVidia substantially improved SLI, the consumer was in a similar situation.
And look at all the moderately-priced, AMD boards that will take AMD's new cost effective X2's and X3's?? I think this review applies to A LOT OF customers. How many people out there have a P45 board? How many people out there have a crossfire capable AMD board?? And out of those, how many have a 4850?
Well, now you know what you'll get for an upgrade path. Now you have a realistic preview of performance gains if you add a second 4850 some day. In some games, the benefits are great, and it will be worth your while. Now you know how the new Phenoms compare if you have a compatible AMD motherboard, or were considering one.
Thanks, Anand for giving such consumers the heads up. Very useful article.
Gazz - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - link
I agree that was a great reviewI am running a 3.2ghz x2 duel core on a MSI K9A2 platinum with 4gb of ocz 1055 and I have just installed my second His 4850 1gb of mem
graphics card
eventualy I hope to up my ram to 8 gb install vista or the win 7
and go to a 4 core cpu and a new pcu
my motherboard can hold 4 graphics cards
I still have not seen any tests with all AMD/ATI products on a vista win with that OC tool and with 4x 4850 1 gbmem
oh well all fun and games great article thankyou