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
Joe Schmoe - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
This was a very good article. I'm not quite ready to build a new system just yet. But it is tax return season. I'm glad the Phenom II is competitive. We all win when AMD puts out a nice chip. I was about to jump on the I7 band wagon but decided to just grab a q6600 and save my coins for now. Hopefully this will end some of the endless flame wars going on through the forums.
Aquineas - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
First of all, thanks for the hard work you put into testing. Many folks are getting hung up on 5-10 percent performance differences and making a big deal out of it . I think the most important part of the article is the part where it says, repeatedly (paraphrased):"We couldn't perceive a difference in gaming performance between platforms."
That being said, I think 18 months from now we'll see more games where the CPU differential matters more, which is right around the time I'll be doing my next system build.
myterrybear - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
I agree with this as well, great job on the article & shows the point as I have ALWAYS said, when it comes down to it would ya even notice the diffrence between the 2 if you had just sat down on it & started to do stuff on it ??Yeah exactly 6 or 8 gig ram on Phenom II would be interesting, I know I've found 4 gigs on Phenom I to be very nice now that I am running a full 64bit os ( win 7 beta) on a oc to 3 ghz Phenom 9850 be. I'm just awaiting to see how things will be once I get my Phenom II 940 any second now. :)
myterrybear - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
My thing that I am noticing with all these tests of core i7 vs phenom II is the fact the systems are not even ramwise. I mean what would a core i7 run like with 4 gigs of ram or if the phenom II platform had 6 gigs of ram.it's a valid argument I think.
Aquineas - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
Honestly, it probably wouldn't matter much. If I were the author I'd re-run the test with 8GB on the PII, but it's probably less than a 2 percent differential.BlueBlazer - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
Love to see Intel and AMD in SLI numbers!ThePooBurner - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Am i the only one that noticed that the results for the PhenomII were just about identical between resolutions? There should have been some form of difference unless the AMD platform is being artificially hard-capped for some reason. Otherwise that the frame rates would be identical when upping the resolution makes no sense at all. I suggest looking into it further.ThePooBurner - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Err, Crysis Warhead is what i meant by FarCray2.7Enigma - Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - link
This is a perfect example of why the full data is so incredibly important in teasing out the details.Yes if you look at the graphs they show a very close clustering for the single card, CF, and overclocked CF, but if you look to the right of the names you will see the min and more importantly max will scale with upgraded components. Not to the same level as one would like but there appears to be some really REALLY rough sections as the min frame rate is almost identical across the board (look at single vs. CF you see the same frame rate). That is probably due to some driver issue where both cards are not being utilized and the single card is not optimized well either.
ThePooBurner - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - link
I think you are missing my point. When going to a higher resolution it is expect that the frame rates for a card will change. Both the min and the max as well as the average. In almost every single game tested the values for the ATi cards at all resolutions are nearly identical. This smells very fishy to me and makes me think there is some sort of artificial limit being placed on the ATi hardware.