MultiGPU Update: Does 3-way Make Sense?
by Derek Wilson on February 25, 2009 2:45 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Fallout 3 Analysis
Even with iPresentInterval set to 0 and vsync disabled, Fallout 3 has an LOD system that limits performance to certain averages. The frame rate can and does go beyond 60, but when it gets to a certain point it drops back down to below 60 in a sort of sawtooth pattern. This can make getting useful comparison data tough especially when we start adding higher and higher performance options to the mix.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
As we can see, some two GPU solutions do better than the 3-way options, especially at lower resolutions. Again, at 2560x1600, the 512MB per GPU 3-way configurations struggle to keep up. With Fallout's performance profile, it's a safer bet to run a single card with a good amount of RAM or at most a two way setup as we just don't need more power for this one.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Because of the LOD limited performance, we see speed up with 3 GPUs from 1 at only about 50% out of a possible 200%. In the worst case, at high res with a low memory part, we can even see performance degradation. The GeForce GTX 260 stands out at high resolution, while the 9800 GTX+ and 4850 put in a good showing at lower resolutions.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Failure is the word that comes to mind when looking at scaling up from 2 to 3 GPUs. There isn't a single case where the extra GPU helps improve performance in a significant way at any resolution. There is just no reason for 3 GPUs with Fallout 3.
1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600
Our value data bares this out with the 3-way solutions clustered at the bottom of our list. The GeForce GTX 280 and 285 SLI options are still pretty abysmal in delivering on framerate for your money as well. The only boost we see in value comes in at 2560x1600 for 3-way options that have more than 512MB of RAM. The only reason these cards show better value though is because some configurations fail to perform adequately to play the game at this resolution.
Bottom line is that 3-way is unnecessary for Fallout 3 from a performance standpoint, doesn't produce any significant benefit over 2-way options, and is a horrible investment all around for this game.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Snarks - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
hmm, i find my self questioning these articles more and more..but anyway carry on.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
what's the question ... seriously, any criticism is helpful. this is the first time we've really done a series like this, and it's a complicated situation with lots of data and lots of analysis ... there's no one way to look at it, and all the feedback i get will help me down the road.i don't see the need for this type of article or series very frequently, but we'll have to do it every once in a while just in case something changes. knowing what you guys think is important and what you guys want to read about is key to us getting things done right.
Flyboy27 - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Sell you an extra card that you don't really need.Flyboy27 - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
oh yeah... and a more expensive motherboard, power supply, and case.Burrich - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Would the recently release Catalyst 9.2 drivers improve any compatibility or fps issues? Their release date was 2/20.7Enigma - Thursday, February 26, 2009 - link
Check out xbitlabs' review of the 9.2 drivers. If you have a 4870 X2 then yes it appears to be a nice upgrade for several games with minimal losses in the games it doesn't benefit. But if you are sporting a single 4870 1gig it actually degrades performance more than it improves!On the flipside they claim stability is better with the 9.2's so it depends on what you want/need. If you are comfortable with the framerates in the games you currently play then jump on the 9.2's for stability reasons. If you are on the edge of playable performance I would stick with the previous drivers...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/cat...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/cat...
DerekWilson - Thursday, February 26, 2009 - link
That article compares 9.2 to 9.1 ... the 8.12 hotfix would show similar performance improvements over the 9.1 drivers. 9.2 does benefit more games, but these are games that have been more recently released than the ones we tested.if they compared the 8.12 hotfix to 9.2, we would expect to see more parity, especially with the games we tested in this article.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
The recently released 9.2 catalyst drivers are basically the 8.12 hotfix drivers with some additions to support performance and scaling in recently released titles. So not really.smartalco - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
I don't like that you use 0 for those that score under 25 FPS, specifically because that is under 25 at the res/settings you use. If a card scores 24 FPS at 1680*1050 with maxed settings, what that really tells you is that if you were to drop to half the AA, or turn down some other setting, is that you could still have a perfectly playable game. It seems to me, that giving them a value rating of 0 is acting like everyone has to play on max settings, and if it doesn't meet the standard, its useless.IDK, just me talking, I'm going to be happy with my 4850 for quite some time.
Still an excellent article.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
i've actually got the graphs without the 0 scores in the article front to back -- just commented out at the moment ... i wasn't sure which one to go with until the last minute, and i thought about putting both in (but that wouldbe really redundant for games that no card had trouble with)i could do some more complex web programming, but i'm not a web developer and i hate javascript ...
thanks for the feedback. i'll be taking it into account in the final article on 4-way.
also, if you wanna see the value numbers for the single and dual cards that scored less than 25 fps, you can still look at the first article and see them.