expected to much (5870cf) ?

chaotic_uk · 21 Dec 2010 at 04:48

did i expect to much from crossfired 5870's , below is a few benchmarks but i feel they could be better :confused:

. i had to reinstall 10.12 driver around 6 times before crossfire would work , i feel i should have waited for the 6970/gtx 570

vantage (single card scores 16500 ish)

crysis in crossfire (single card 37.6 fps average)

crysis warhead (single card 42,6 fps average)

avp - crossfired 5870's

avp - single 5870

Skyrocket · 21 Dec 2010 at 04:55

AMD Phenom II @ 3.6 = a bit meh.
i7 950 @ 4.2 = would bring you at least 10-30%

Crysis is CPU/MEMORY demanding game.

Your cpu is limiting you a bit. Try and clock that baby to 4ghz

chaotic_uk · 21 Dec 2010 at 04:58

Skyrocket said:
AMD Phenom II @ 3.6 = a bit meh.
i7 950 @ 4.2 = would bring you at least 10-30%

Your cpu is limiting you a bit. Try and clock that baby to 4ghz

i was asking this the other month here , but i was told it would not make much diff . was i told wrong ?

tried it @ 3.8ghz but it failed occt and restarted , proberly from the lack of volts on the cpu

Skyrocket · 21 Dec 2010 at 05:21

In some games it wont make much diff. In some games it will.
Some games are CPU/MEMORY limited some are not.
Your alien benchmark looks fine and SCALES fine, you wouldn't get a massive boost there with a quicker CPU.

Crysis on the other hand needs a faster CPU. Just depends what game you going to play.

chaotic_uk · 21 Dec 2010 at 06:39

i have noticed since going for crossfired 5870's that farcry2 sometimes performs slower with crossfire , but other times it averages over 80fps maxxed out @1920x1080 . so going for the phenom II 1090t would make little diff ?

MoRT489 · 21 Dec 2010 at 08:05

When i tried it I was also disappointed, the 58** series just cant handle AA so adding a second doesnt see much of a performance boost.

Metalface Mark · 21 Dec 2010 at 08:22

Is your board 16x 16x in crossfire, or 8x 8x?

I crossfired my 5850 and the results i found were worse so i ended up going back to a single card, the minimum frame rates were lower than with a single card in a lot of games.

ThomasTheTankEngine · 21 Dec 2010 at 08:30

creed said:
When i tried it I was also disappointed, the 58** series just cant handle AA so adding a second doesnt see much of a performance boost.

Fiddle around with the different AA filters in CCC. Some of them give much better performance than others. You should be able to find decent AA settings with 58**'s.

OP it's definitely your CPU score bringing you down. I score around 24000 with my CF 5850's. I bet you get better fps in most games though.

ATIorNvidia · 21 Dec 2010 at 08:33

chaotic_uk said:
i was asking this the other month here , but i was told it would not make much diff . was i told wrong ?

tried it @ 3.8ghz but it failed occt and restarted , proberly from the lack of volts on the cpu

Probably AMD owners told you that. As much as I love AMD, if you want the most out of a hefty CF/SLI config, you'll need a i5/i7... especially if you're only at 3.6Ghz.

Marine-RX179 · 21 Dec 2010 at 09:08

In games like BFBC2, the overclocked Phenom II X4 probably won't not be too much of a bottleneck for CF5870, because the game uses all 4 cores well.

Crysis on the other hand is an old game that don't really use more than 2 cores, so bascially what's happening here is somewhat like running CF5870 with a Phenom II X2 at 3.6GHz.

Unless you planning on playing through Crysis again, I don't think you should let it upset you too much, as Far Cry 2 has already have decent support on using Quad-core CPU well, I would imagine Crysis 2 should definitely using Quad-core well as well, and won't be as much as a bottleneck as Crysis on your Phenom II X4. But ideally, you really should have a faster platform for CF5870...I think even with the Phenom II X4 at 4.0GHz, it would only keep up with a 5970 or CF5850 at best...

In the mean time, you should try overclocking your CPU higher.

Exsurgo · 21 Dec 2010 at 11:41

CF 5870 will be a fair bit quicker than a 570GTX/6970. Also I see you are running at 8x AA, which seems to be a bit overkill. Remember that you crossfire setup has 1Gb of VRam and running Crysis with high anti-aliasing will potentially be straining the VRam bandwidth. At your resolution, anything past 4xAA is overkill IMO.

Also looking at your single card scores in Crysis I would assume they were not ran at 8XAA.

area512003 · 21 Dec 2010 at 11:45

I found 10.12 drivers were awful on my CF 5870's so went back to 10.11. :mad:

Your Vantage score is low as I get just over 30K P Score.

I would try the older drivers 10.9, 10.10 or 10.11??

Marine-RX179 · 21 Dec 2010 at 11:54

Exsurgo said:
CF 5870 will be a fair bit quicker than a 570GTX/6970. Also I see you are running at 8x AA, which seems to be a bit overkill.

Yea and that too. Seriously...don't expect to get decent frame rate on Crysis with 8xAA at 1920 res...

MoRT489 · 21 Dec 2010 at 12:06

the new cards handle AA waaaaay better, i'd switch tbh.

Scooby-DoobyDoo · 21 Dec 2010 at 12:44

area512003 said:
I found 10.12 drivers were awful on my CF 5870's so went back to 10.11.

Your Vantage score is low as I get just over 30K P Score.

I would try the older drivers 10.9, 10.10 or 10.11??

I had problems with 10.12 with my 5850 crossfire. Went back to 10.11's

FrenchTart · 21 Dec 2010 at 13:10

ATIorNvidia said:
Probably AMD owners told you that. As much as I love AMD, if you want the most out of a hefty CF/SLI config, you'll need a i5/i7... especially if you're only at 3.6Ghz.

I'm quite surprised to hear that - it doesn't tie in with what I've read previously. Think I'll go read up on it all again as I didn't think the difference was that pronounced.

area512003 · 21 Dec 2010 at 13:19

CPU Comparison- i7 920 vs X4 955 from Toms hardware CPU Charts.

[/url]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2417.html?prod[4478]=on&prod[4442]=on[/url]

i7 920 on left side and X4 955 on right

FrenchTart · 21 Dec 2010 at 13:35

area512003 said:
CPU Comparison- i7 920 vs X4 955 from Toms hardware CPU Charts.

[/url]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2417.html?prod[4478]=on&prod[4442]=on[/url]

i7 920 on left side and X4 955 on right

There's not much in the way of high res gaming there. I'm aware of the various media encoding stuff/etc that the i7s rock at, but last time I checked high res/settings gaming the differences were minimal.

Anyhow - will see what I can find on google now. I'll post back with the results, even if they show that I'm talking utter rubbish

edit: for what it's worth, I'm talking more about the X6 range of CPUs. I don't think there should be much difference between X6 and X4 though, as long as they're both Phenom IIs.

Marine-RX179 · 21 Dec 2010 at 13:46

FrenchTart said:
for what it's worth, I'm talking more about the X6 range of CPUs. I don't think there should be much difference between X6 and X4 though, as long as they're both Phenom IIs.

It has been proven again and again that X6 offer no better performance than X4, because 99% of games are not written to use the extra cores.

While Phenom II X4 is not significantly slower than the i5/i7 if comparing at stock speed, it need 3.5GHz clock speed to more or less match 2.8GHz on i5/i7 in games...and the max overclock is only by around 20-25%, whereas the i5/i7 can overclock by 43-50%.

FrenchTart · 21 Dec 2010 at 13:48

Marine-RX179 said:
It has been proven again and again that X6 offer no better performance than X4, because 99% of games are not written to use the extra cores.

While Phenom II X4 is not significantly slower than the i5/i7 if comparing at stock speed, it need 3.5GHz clock speed to more or less match 2.8GHz on i5/i7 in games...and the max overclock is only around 20-25%, whereas the i5/i7 can overclock by 43-50%.

Yes - I'm aware of the fact that most games aren't optimised for hex-core. I was more talking about any architectural differences between the older X4s and the newer X6s. I'm not fully up to date on such info.

Anyhow, below is the post I wrote regarding the info I found with google:

Okay, results of my googling below. Generally I think I was right - when oc'd you won't see much difference between an i7 and a phenomII. The i7 does win out in a small number of tests but these games are few and far between.

In all the tests below I'm only looking at high res gaming. This being at least 1920x1080 and preferably with some kind of AA. Nobody with high end graphics cards plays at 1280x1024.

Shows the PhenomII CPU winning by a few frames in Crysis:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360-5.html

Conversely, this shows the i7 walking all over the Phenom II:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360-6.html
(this seems to happen in a few of the games in the review - more so than the PII beating the i7)

This shows very little difference between the two CPUs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360-8.html

This shows the same as above - little difference between CPUs:
http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=10
(most of the games in this review show similar results)

Once again, this shows little difference between the two CPUs:
http://www.techreaction.net/2010/05/06/amd-phenom-ii-six-core-1090t1095t-thuban-review/