CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts
The oldest title in our test suite is still the most played. CoH has aged like fine wine and we still find it to be one of the best RTS games on the market. We look forward to the Tales of Valor standalone expansion pack this spring. In the meantime, we crank all the options up to their highest settings, enable AA at 2x, and run the game under DX9. The DX10 patch offers some improved visuals but with a premium penalty in frame rates. We track a custom replay of Able Company’s assault at Omaha Beach with FRAPS.
Just like our previous test results, we have very similar single card scores at 1680x1050. In this particular game, the Phenom II X4 940 offers the best minimum frame rates in each benchmark when compared to the Q9550 and surpasses the i7 in two tests. Only when the platform is overclocked do we see the Q9550 ahead of the Phenom II in average frame rates, a small 3% to be exact. However, the Phenom II has a 13% advantage in minimum frame rates.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 45% and minimum frame rates by 49% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 44% in the average and 81% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 48% and minimum rates increase 76%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 5% average improvement in frame rates for our collective group, indicating we are largely GPU limited.
During testing, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates in the 23~24fps range on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results on the others. We noticed this in game play also; the Intel systems would hitch and pause at times. We would shutdown the game, clear the prefetch folder, and reboot. The game would operate fine in the next series of testing, though we still had stuttering in intensive ground scenes at times. We tried new images, different CPUs, memory changes, and the Sapphire HD 4870 cards with the same results. The Phenom II 940 had extremely stable frame rates in each test and action was very fluid during game play.
Lather, rinse, and repeat: the 1920x1200 numbers follow the same performance pattern once again - not that we expected anything different. Nevertheless, it is getting boring mentioning that same fact on every page. In single card testing the Phenom II 940 is 2% faster in average frame rates and 14% ahead in minimum frame rates compared to the Q9550. CrossFire results barely favor the Phenom II in average frame rates while minimum frame rates are about 8% better than the Q9550.
The i7 shows its strength in CrossFire testing in both average and minimum frame rates. We only experienced the previously mentioned drop in minimum frame rates a couple of times with i7 but it was still noticeable. The Q9550 finishes first again in average frame rates when overclocked but falls about 29% behind the Phenom II 940 in minimum frame rates.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 57% and minimum frame rates by 66% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 59% in the average and 71% in the minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 62% and minimum rates increase 82%. Overclocking our processors only improved frame rates 2% on average as we continue to be GPU bound at this resolution.
Now that we have discussed the numbers, what about the game play experience? As we alluded to earlier, the Intel platforms had problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing - not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and online. We have not nailed it down yet, but we have noticed this problem consistently. In contrast, the Phenom II X4 940 had rock solid frame rates and offered the smoothest game play experience. The problem is very likely driver related in some manner (as the man who helped to start DirectX once put it, "the drivers are always broken"), but nevertheless this is an issue on the two Intel platforms.
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