ATI’s CrossFire dual-graphics solution

NVIDIA DID A VERY clever thing when it designed its GeForce 6 series graphics processors, building into them a compositing engine and provisions for a digital interconnect between graphics cards that could allow two (or more) graphics cards to work together in tandem. Once PCI Express became fairly common, NVIDIA pulled the curtains back on its SLI technology, scoring a coup on several fronts. The ability to team two graphics cards gave NVIDIA an indisputable edge in the otherwise tight struggle with ATI for graphics performance supremacy. The possibility of adding a second card gave enthusiasts an upgrade path they couldn’t get elsewhere, and the exclusivity of SLI allowed NVIDIA to muscle would-be chipset competitors out of the high end of the motherboard market, selling a bundle of nForce4 SLI chipsets. The number of actual, fully configured SLI systems in the wild may not be huge, but NVIDIA has gotten tremendous mileage out of dangling the tantalizing prospect of dual-graphics goodness in front of PC enthusiasts.

Naturally, ATI wanted to match NVIDIA’s dual-graphics capabilities stride for stride, but doing so wouldn’t be easy. Yes, at its heart, the technology is fundamentally simple—the output from two graphics cards is combined to offer nearly double the pixel-pushing power of a single card. Yes, ATI graphics processors have had the ability to run in parallel configurations for some time—since the debut of the Radeon 9700—and high-end visualization systems like the Evans & Sutherland Renderbeast have put multiple ATI GPUs at work in teams as large as 64 chips. But the Radeon X800 family of GPUs wasn’t built with provisions for a GPU-to-GPU communications and image compositing, and doing this work over a PCI Express link wouldn’t be fast enough for real-time, high-resolution gaming.

In order to make a credible rival for SLI, ATI had to go a different route. ATI’s consumer dual-graphics platform, known as CrossFire, would require a fair amount of ingenuity and some new, custom hardware. That hardware comes in the form of so-called “master” cards that incorporate additional chips to handle the communications and compositing needed to make CrossFire work. One of these master cards can hook up with a regular X800-series graphics card for multi-GPU bliss.

The Radeon X850 XT CrossFire Edition master card

Without its cooler, the master card’s extra chips are easy to see

A close-up look at the five chips that make a master card special

CrossFire is a pretty slick scheme, really, given the limitations imposed by the original X800 hardware. ATI equipped its master cards with five new chips, pictured above. The second largest of the five chips there is a TMDS receiver made by Texas Instruments. To make up for the lack of a dedicated digital interconnect between GPUs, the master card can intercept and decode the DVI output of the slave card using this receiver. Next to it, the largest of the chips is a Spartan-series FPGA chip from Xilinx. FPGA stands for Field Programmable Gate Array, which is a fancy way of saying that this is a programmable logic chip. In this case, ATI has programmed the Xilinx FPGA to act as CrossFire’s compositing engine, tasked with combining the images generated by the two Radeon GPUs into a single stream of video frames. The smaller chip just below the FPGA in the picture is a flash ROM; presumably, it holds the programming for the FPGA.

Once the images from the slave card have been decoded by the TMDS receiver and composited with the images from the master card’s GPU by the FPGA, they have to be output to a display. That’s where the last two chips come into the picture. The little, square chip above the FPGA is a RAMDAC chip made by Analog Devices. The RAMDAC converts digital video information for output to an analog display, such as a VGA monitor. Just above the TDMS receiver is a smaller, rectangular chip from Silicon Image. That’s a TMDS transmitter capable of encoding images for output to a digital display via a DVI output.

All together, these five chips add the necessary functionality to ATI’s master cards to allow a pair of graphics cards to run together in an SLI-like configuration with very little performance penalty for inter-chip communication or image compositing.


Caught in the CrossFire?
Of course, this scheme does impose some limitations on CrossFire configurations, not least of which is the need for a master card in order for the scheme to work. The master card has a high-density DMS-59 port onboard. An external, three-headed Y cable plugs into this high-density port on the master card and into the DVI output on the CrossFire slave card. The cable’s third port is a DVI output port, for connection to a monitor (or to a DVI-to-VGA converter.)

The slave card (left) and master card (right). Note the master card’s high-density connector (top).

The CrossFire dongle cable links the cards and sends output to the monitor

All of this works rather transparently once everything is connected properly, but it is a bit of a hassle to plug together. Also, when CrossFire is enabled, the slave card’s secondary video output cannot be used to drive a display. Fortunately, CrossFire can be enabled and disabled via the Catalyst Control Center without rebooting, unlike SLI.

Our pre-production CrossFire master card had another annoying limitation. When connected to our massive Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 200 monitor, it would not display POST messages, BIOS menus, or the WinXP boot screen. ATI says this is an incompatibility between pre-production master cards and monitors with missing or incomplete EDID data, and they claim it will be resolved in production master cards. I hope that’s true, because it was a mighty annoying problem that rendered almost useless a slightly older, but still very nice, monitor. (Ok, it’s a hunk o’ junk, but I still wish it worked.)

More onerous is a problem ATI can’t easily resolve: CrossFire is limited to a peak resolution of 1600×1200 at a 60Hz refresh rate. CrossFire relies on the single-link DVI output of existing Radeon X800-family graphics cards, and that connection tops out at 1600×1200 at 60Hz. Now, most folks don’t tend to play games at resolutions above 1600×1200, but for an uber-high-end dual-graphics platform, this limitation isn’t easily ignored. We’ve already demonstrated in our past efforts at SLI benchmarking that current games often don’t benefit from a dual-graphics performance boost at mere mortal resolutions. More importantly, owners of nice, big CRT monitors probably won’t appreciate being confined to the flickery domain of 60Hz refresh rates at that peak 1600×1200 resolution—especially since NVIDIA’s SLI doesn’t share this limitation.

Some folks have speculated about the possibility that ATI might circumvent the refresh rate limitations of the existing Radeon X800 cards’ DVI ports through a clever implementation that would interleave, say, 60Hz output from the slave card with 60Hz output from the master card, resulting in 120Hz effective output. This scheme could conceivably work with certain 3D graphics load-balancing schemes, like alternate frame rendering. However, such an implementation would require the FPGA compositing engine to have a large amount of embedded memory onboard (or some external memory) in order to hold a full frame of image data at 1600×1200, and it still wouldn’t work in most rendering modes. ATI decided that an exotic scheme like this wasn’t wholly workable or cost effective. It would have to live with the 1600×1200 at 60Hz limit, and its choice of components for the master cards, including the FPGA and other chips, was informed by this decision.

When pressed about this limitation, ATI argues that higher resolutions simply won’t matter to most gamers, but also says forthrightly that “future generations” of CrossFire will be capable of higher resolutions and refresh rates. With ATI’s next-gen R520 GPU looming close on the horizon, one could infer that we may not have to wait long for these future versions of CrossFire.


Load-balancing methods in CrossFire
If you’re familiar with NVIDIA’s SLI, the methods used for balancing the load between two graphics cards in CrossFire will be largely familiar. These modes are:

  • SuperTiling — This method is the default for Direct3D applications, and it’s also the only mode unique to CrossFire. The screen is subdivided into a checkerboard-like pattern of 32×32-pixel squares, with one card rendering what would be the red squares on the checkerboard, and the other rendering what would be the black squares on the board. ATI says this method distributes the load between the cards neatly and efficiently, but SuperTiling offers benefits only in terms of pixel-pushing power, not geometry computation. Both cards must compute the underlying geometry for each frame individually. SuperTiling is not supported in OpenGL.
  • Scissor mode — NVIDIA calls this mode “split-frame rendering,” but scissor mode is the same basic thing. The screen is split horizontally, with one card rendering the top half of the frame and the other card rendering the bottom half. In OpenGL applications, the split between the frames is static at 50% per card. Direct3D applications get dynamic load balancing, with the split between the cards varying on a frame-by-frame basis. As with SuperTiling, scissor mode doesn’t split up the work of geometry computation. Scissor mode is the default load-balancing method for OpenGL apps.
  • Alternate-frame rendering — The king of all multi-GPU load balancing modes is alternate-frame rendering, or AFR for short. AFR interleaves full frames rendered by the two cards, so that, say, the master card renders odd frames and the slave card renders even ones. This is the preferred load-balancing mode whenever possible, because AFR shows markedly better performance scaling than other modes. Part of the reason for AFR’s good performance is the fact that it splits the geometry processing load between the two cards evenly, something no other mode does.
  • SuperAA — CrossFire can also be used to improve image quality instead of raw performance, thanks to its SuperAA mode. ATI announced SuperAA along with the rest of the CrossFire concept back in June, and NVIDIA has since delivered its own SLI antialiasing mode to match. In SuperAA, each card renders a frame with some degree of antialiasing, and then the two images are blended to yield twice the effective antialiasing. The sample pattern used by each card is different, so that the resulting image gets twice as many unique samples. We will discuss SuperAA and its sample patterns in more detail later, but we should note that ATI offers four SuperAA modes that it has named 8X, 10X, 12X, and 14X AA. In the case of CrossFire, SuperAA images are blended by the Xilinx FPGA-based compositing engine, and SuperAA performance may be gated by the computational power of the FPGA chip.

    Although SLI antialiasing works in both OpenGL and Direct3D applications, SuperAA is restricted to Direct3D only.

When ATI first announced CrossFire, it proudly proclaimed that CrossFire would be able to accelerate all 3D applications without the need for application-specific profiles. That turns out to be true in that CrossFire defaults to SuperTiling for all Direct3D apps and scissor mode for OpenGL. However, in order to get the larger performance payoff of alternate-frame rendering or other non-default load-balancing techniques, ATI does in fact rely on application profiles through the Catalyst A.I. function of its graphics drivers—very much like NVIDIA uses profiles with SLI.

Perhaps because CrossFire will accelerate most applications without outside help, ATI offers users very little control over CrossFire rendering modes. It’s possible to disable Catalyst A.I. and thus force the use of the default load-balancing modes for Direct3D and OpenGL, and users may choose the SuperAA mode they wish to use. Otherwise, the user has little ability to tweak CrossFire, and outside of the occasional checkerboard pattern flickering on the screen when exiting an app in SuperTiling mode, there’s no visual indicator to tell you which load-balancing method is active. I asked ATI for a list of CrossFire accelerated games, and they refused to provide one.

Contrast this approach to SLI, where NVIDIA offers the option of a visual load-balancing graphic, extensive control over application profiles and SLI rendering modes via its “Coolbits” registry key, and a long list of SLI-accelerated games. ATI says it has no plans to expose this degree of user control in CrossFire.

NVIDIA has also said repeatedly that it will give developers access to SLI modes via software, and the upcoming game F.E.A.R. will be among the first to include native SLI support out of the box. ATI says it doesn’t have plans to expose access to CrossFire rendering modes to developers, although it is working with developers on making sure they write CrossFire-compatible software.

Speaking of that, one potential fly in the ointment is the ever-growing use of techniques like render-to-texture that don’t play well with distributed rendering schemes like SLI and CrossFire. ATI says that problematic data is passed back and forth between cards via the PCI Express connection as needed, and that most of the time it’s not a performance problem. I think it could well become a significant drag on performance as games use more advanced rendering methods in the future, and both ATI and NVIDIA will have to deal with it.

Master cards: take your pick of two
For the Radeon X800 family, ATI will initially supply two different master cards that will match up to a wide range of slave cards. At a list price that ATI claims will be $349, the Radeon X850 XT CrossFire Edition will be clocked like a Radeon X850 XT, feature 256MB of RAM, and will be capable of running in tandem with any PCI Express-based Radeon X850 card, including the Pro and XT Platinum Edition.

ATI also plans to offer a Radeon X800 CrossFire Edition card at a purported $299 list price for the 256MB version. This card will be clocked at the same speed as a Radeon X800 XL and should offer compatibility with any Radeon X800-class PCI Express graphics card—that is, anything but the X850 series. The list of compatible cards even includes the older Radeon X800 XT and X800 Pro cards.

ATI initially announced plans for a Radeon X800 CrossFire Edition card with 128MB of RAM and a $249 price tag, but those plans were apparently scrapped. ATI says its board partners are free to manufacture such cards if they wish. Board partners can also make the higher-end X800 and X850 CrossFire Edition cards, or they can buy them from ATI. I’d expect the first wave of master cards to come from ATI, whether they bear ATI’s name or not. Frankly, I wouldn’t expect board makers to focus much attention on X800-series master cards of any flavor with the next generation of ATI GPUs coming soon.

How a CrossFire Edition card will handle running with a mismatched slave card depends on the situation. For example, in the case of the Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, the master card will run at its regular, stock speeds and the Platinum Edition card will run at its native, slightly faster clock speeds. In the case of the Radeon X850 Pro, which has only 12 pipes, the 16-pipe master card will scale itself back to only 12 pipes by disabling four. The same principles apply for the X800 series.

I suppose it’s nifty that CrossFire configurations can include mismatched cards, but it’s mostly just a necessity given the two flavors of CrossFire Edition master cards. The performance ramifications of these mismatched configurations will probably depend somewhat on the load-balancing method that’s in use, but I’d expect a mismatched CrossFire rig to perform more or less like a pair of the slower of the two cards. Radeon X800 XT owners may not appreciate having the performance of two Radeon X800 XLs, but those are the breaks.


The chipset piece of the equation
CrossFire is more than just a dual-graphics technology, though, according to ATI. It’s a platform, and that platform is anchored by the CrossFire Editions of ATI’s Radeon Xpress 200 chipset. We first reviewed the AMD version of the Radeon Xpress 200 nearly a year ago, and found it to be a decent solution, despite a few warts.

The CrossFire Edition’s south bridge is a newer revision than the one we first tested. Dubbed the SB450, this new south bridge includes support for Intel’s High Definition Audio specification, bringing better resolutions and sample rates to stock PC audio. Unfortunately, the SB450 is missing a number of other enthusiast-class checkmarks, including newer Serial ATA features like 3Gbps transfer rates and Native Command Queuing. The SB450’s four SATA ports do support RAID, but only levels 0 and 1.

A block diagram of the Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition chipset for AMD. (Source: ATI.)

Rather than fret over the Radeon Xpress 200’s shortcomings, ATI has attempted to bolster its chipset’s enthusiast credentials by designing a virtual showcase of a motherboard reference design and pushing mobo makers to manufacture boards based on it. We recently reviewed a motherboard from Sapphire that’s very similar to the design of the ATI CrossFire reference board, with the obvious exception of the second PCI-E slot. That board overclocked exceptionally well for us and generally performed on par with an nForce4-based competitor. We did find some performance pitfalls, though. We’ll revisit those in our evaluation of the CrossFire platform.

ATI’s Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition reference board with dual X850 XT cards

In its reference design, ATI has augmented the SB450 cyborg-style by using PCI Express auxiliary I/O chips to support better SATA with 3Gbps transfer rates, NCQ, and Gigabit Ethernet. We’d prefer that all of a board’s SATA ports offer the latest capabilities, and we’d like to have RAID levels 5 and 10. Still, the reference design’s additions do put the Radeon Xpress 200 at the center of a credible enthusiast-class mobo.

A block diagram of the Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition chipset for Intel. (Source: ATI.)

Speaking of credible enthusiast-class hardware, Intel has been struggling to meet that standard with its Pentium 4 processors of late, but that didn’t stop ATI from churning out an Intel-centric version of the Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition. Unlike the AMD version, this chipset needs to have a very solid memory controller on the north bridge in order to keep up with the nForce SLI Intel Edition and the Intel 955X. ATI says its Intel CrossFire chipset will support front-side bus speeds up to 1066MHz and DDR2 memory up to 866MHz, with higher RAM speeds in validation now. We’ll have to test this chipset to see whether it passes muster compared to the competition, but we have reservations about the performance benefits of dual-graphics motherboards with current Intel Pentium 4/D processors.

Oddly enough, ATI will be supplying CrossFire Edition chipsets that also have an integrated graphics processor, as the block diagram for the Intel-oriented chipset above shows. These chipsets will be capable of driving an additional display even when both PCI-E graphics slots are occupied, thanks to ATI’s SurroundView capability.

Another possible option for CrossFire chipsets comes from Intel in the form of the 955X chipset. ATI has announced that it will validate the 955X for use with CrossFire, but unfortunately, we were not able to obtain drivers from ATI that would allow us to test CrossFire performance with the 955X.

A new wrinkle: the transposer card
Although ATI initially claimed that no redirector card would be needed in order to switch CrossFire from single-slot to dual-slot configurations, that turns out not to be the case. Our CrossFire review kit came with a so-called transposer card that plugs into the secondary PCI Express graphics slot in order to enable sixteen-lane operation of the primary slot with only one graphics card installed. This card works in concert with a BIOS setting that shifts the board from single- to dual-slot operation.

Alternately, with two graphics cards installed and the proper BIOS settings, eight of the sixteen lanes connected to the primary graphics slot can be redirected to the secondary slot.

The transposer card rests in the secondary PCI Express slot

Don’t forget to remove the transposer card from the secondary PCI-E slot when the mobo’s BIOS is set to dual-graphics mode, or the board won’t POST.

This card turns out to be even more of an inconvenience than the paddle card on an older or lower-priced nForce4 SLI motherboard, if for no other reason than that there’s nowhere on the motherboard to store it when it’s not in use. The thing looks easy to lose to me.

Crossfire’s competition?
ATI has been very careful not to position CrossFire head to head against NVIDIA’s new GeForce 7800 GTX graphics chips. Instead, they gingerly point out that a CrossFire rig with a pair of Radeon X850 XT cards is best matched up, in terms of price and performance, against a GeForce 6800 Ultra SLI system. ATI says its competition for NVIDIA’s $499 graphics cards is coming soon, and like the GeForce 7 series, it, too, will be a next-generation product.

Of course, we couldn’t resist throwing a pair of GeForce 7-series cards into the mix, but we chose NVIDIA’s GeForce 7800 GT, not the GTX. The 7800 GT isn’t priced too far above the Radeon X850 XT right now, all told. Still, the 6800 Ultra may be the more appropriate comparison, because our 7800 GT cards are “overclocked in the box” variants from XFX. They are real consumer products, but they do run at slightly higher clock speeds (450/525MHz) than a stock 7800 GT (400/500MHz).


Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and the results were averaged.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz
System bus 1GHz HyperTransport
Motherboard Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe ATI CrossFire reference board
BIOS revision 1013 080012
North bridge nForce4 SLI Radeon Xpress 200P CrossFire Edition
South bridge RS450
Chipset drivers SMBus driver 4.45
SATA IDE driver 5.34
SMBus driver 5.10.1000.5
SATA IDE driver
Memory size 1GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type OCZ EL PC3200 DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
CAS latency (CL) 2
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) 2
RAS precharge (tRP) 2
Cycle time (tRAS) 8
Hard drive Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150
Audio Integrated nForce4/ALC850
with Realtek drivers
Integrated RS450/ALC880
with Realtek drivers
Networking NVIDIA Ethernet driver 4.82
Marvell Yukon drivers
VIA Velocity v24 drivers
Marvell Yukon drivers
VIA Velocity v24 drivers
Graphics GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 78.03 drivers Dual GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 78.03 drivers XFX GeForce 7800 GT 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 78.03 drivers Dual XFX GeForce 7800 GT 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 78.03 drivers Radeon X850 XT  PCI-E  with Catalyst 8.162.1-050811a-026057E drivers Dual Radeon X850 XT  PCI-E  with Catalyst 8.162.1-050811a-026057E drivers
OS Windows XP Professional (32-bit)
OS updates Service Pack 2

Thanks to OCZ for providing us with memory for our testing. If you’re looking to tweak out your system to the max and maybe overclock it a little, OCZ’s RAM is definitely worth considering.

All of our test systems were powered by OCZ PowerStream 520W power supply units. The PowerStream was one of our Editor’s Choice winners in our last PSU round-up.

Unless otherwise specified, the image quality settings for both ATI and NVIDIA graphics cards were left at the control panel defaults.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1280×1024 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.


Doom 3
We’ve conducted our testing almost exclusively with 4X antialiasing and a high degree of anisotropic filtering. We generally used in-game controls when possible in order to invoke AA and aniso. In the case of Doom 3, we used the game’s “High Quality” mode in combination with 4X AA.

Our Delta Labs demo is typical of most of this game: running around in the Mars base, shooting baddies. The imaginatively named “trdemo2” takes place in the game’s Hell level, where the environment is a little more varied and shader effects seem to be more abundant.

The Radeon X850 XT still trails the GeForce 6800 Ultra in Doom 3—an ancient blood feud, this one—but the CrossFire system scales just as well from one card to two as the SLI rig.


Far Cry
Next up is Far Cry, which takes advantage of Shader Model 3.0 to improve performance. The game also has a path for ATI’s Shader Model 2.0b. Our first demo takes place in the jungle with lots of dense vegetation and even denser mercenaries. All of the quality settings in the game’s setup menu were cranked to the max.

The performance scaling picture is again similar between SLI and CrossFire, although the Radeon X850 XT looks relatively stronger here than in Doom 3.


The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
This game has a Shader Model 3.0-type mode, but to keep things even for comparison, I ran all cards with the SM2.0 path.

Riddick is another OpenGL game where the Radeon X850 XT struggles to keep pace. Fortunately, the addition of a second card yields substantial performance gains.


Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
We’re using the 1.04 version of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for testing, and that gives us some useful tools for comparison. This new revision of the game includes support for Shader Model 2.0, the DirectX feature set used by Radeon X850 XT cards. The game also includes a Shader Model 3.0 code path that works optimally with GeForce 6 and 7-series GPUs. Because SM2.0 and SM3.0 can produce essentially the same output, we’ve tested the ATI cards with SM2.0 and the NVIDIA cards with SM3.0. (The game won’t let NVIDIA cards run in SM2.0 mode, although they are capable of doing so.)

In our first test, we enabled the game’s parallax mapping and soft shadowing effects. In the second, we’ve also turned on high-dynamic-range lighting and tone mapping, for some additional eye candy. Due to limitations in the game engine (and in NVIDIA’s hardware), we can’t use HDR lighting in combination with antialiasing, so the second test was run without edge AA.

Here, the CrossFire rig outperforms the GeForce 6800 Ultra SLI system, at last. Once again, performance scales nicely from one card to two.


Battlefield 2
We tested the next few games using FRAPS and playing through a level of the game manually. For these games, we played through five 90-second gaming sessions per config and captured average and low frame rates for each. The average frames per second number is the mean of the average frame rates from all five sessions. We also chose to report the median of the low frame rates from all five sessions, in order to rule out outliers. We found that these methods gave us reasonably consistent results, but they are not quite as solid and repeatable as other benchmarks.

The Radeon X850 XT CrossFire system turns in a higher average frame rate than a single-card setup, but its low frame rate is about the same as that of the lone X850 XT. Overall, though, a jump from 40 FPS to 53 FPS is a noteworthy improvement in a twitchy first-person shooter like this one.

F.E.A.R. demo
The F.E.A.R. demo looks purty, but that comes at the cost of frame rates. We actually had to drop back to 1024×768 resolution in order to hit playable frame rates, although we did have all of the image quality settings in the game cranked.

The F.E.A.R. demo probably doesn’t have a Catalyst A.I. profile yet, and it shows. The CrossFire setup turns in nearly identical frame rates to the single Radeon X850 XT. The SLI systems, by contrast, scale up appropriately from one card to two.

Guild Wars

Here’s a game that’s unfortunately really CPU limited on the high-end NVIDIA setups, as the top three scores would seem to suggest. However, CrossFire actually delivers a performance hit here. I was concerned that these numbers might not be right, so I played through another five sessions with on the CrossFire rig, just to be sure.

And, hey, level up!

The additional sessions only confirmed the earlier numbers. CrossFire slows down Guild Wars with ATI’s current drivers.



CrossFire again scales well in 3DMark05’s three game tests that determine its overall score.

CrossFire also handles itself competently in 3DMark’s synthetic feature tests. Notably, it scales better than the GeForce 7800 GT does in 3DMark’s vertex shader tests.


CrossFire Super AA
CrossFire’s SuperAA modes benefit greatly from the programmability of the Radeon X800 series’ antialiasing hardware. Like the non-CrossFire modes, SuperAA uses gamma-correct blending to achieve smoother color gradients on real-world displays, and it uses non-grid aligned sampling patterns to better fool the eye. I’ve used a handy AA sample pattern tester to show us the sampling patterns used by both CrossFire SuperAA and SLI antialiasing, and you can see the results below. The green dots represent texture samples, and the red dots represent geometry samples used to determine the coverage mask for the color blend to be performed by the multisample antialiasing algorithm.

  Radeon X850 XT/CrossFire GeForce 6800/7800 GeForce 6800/7800 SLI AA








That’s a lotta dots. Let me note several things while your eyes attempt to recover. First, there is some disconnect between the naming schemes used by ATI and NVIDIA, and it’s largely caused by some alternate modes present in SuperAA. SuperAA 8X appears to include a single texture sample plus eight coverage samples, but that’s not the case. In truth, SuperAA 8X includes two texture samples situated directly on top of one another. Each card must grab a texture sample in order for the CrossFire scheme to work; the resulting complete images are then blended by the FPGA compositing engine. ATI has simply chosen to include a mode where the texture samples are in the same place in order to avoid the blurring of fine text and details that multiple, offset texture samples can cause. If you prefer an element of full-scene supersampled antialiasing, you can choose SuperAA 10X, which collects the same number of coverage samples and offsets the two texture samples. Performance at 8X and 10X SuperAA should be the same. In truth, SuperAA 10X is closer to NVIDIA’s two “8X” modes, the “8xS” mode offered on single cards and the 8X SLI AA mode, both of which collect eight coverage samples and two texture samples.

Super AA 12X and 14X are much the same story. The 12X mode grabs two texture samples from the same location, while 14X pulls texture samples from different places. The actual number of texture and coverage samples is the same: 12 coverage and two texture. Neither of these modes corresponds directly, in terms of the number of samples, to an SLI AA mode.

The real advantage of SuperAA comes in the form of its excellent sampling patterns. SuperAA uses two very distinct patterns on the two cards, and the end results are very nice, quasi-random sampling locations. NVIDIA’s SLI antialiasing simply jitters the GeForce cards’ existing 4X and 8xS sample patterns slightly. Unfortunately, in the case of 16X SLI AA especially, the resulting sample points cluster in pairs very close to one another, diluting the likely effectiveness of the AA mode. Also, although the GeForce 7800 series offers gamma-correct blends for antialiasing, this feature isn’t available with SLI AA.

I’ve tested SuperAA performance using Half-Life 2, which is very much a CPU-bound game. SuperAA is probably best used in games such as this one, because it has quite an impact on performance, as does SLI AA.

This occasion has also given me the opportunity to create what I believe is the most incredibly Byzantine results graph in the history of TR. I couldn’t be prouder. Gaze upon it, ye who seek enlightenment, and behold its arcane glory.

You can, uh, also look at the results in the data table below the graph, just in case. Note that I have not attempted to equalize things in any way by lining up ATI’s 10X mode with NVIDIA’s 8X modes, even though they are essentially equal in terms of sample size.

Personally, I’m too confused by the graph above to draw any meaningful conclusions, but I will attempt a few comments. You can see that, as predicted, ATI’s 8X and 10X SuperAA modes perform identically; so do 12X and 14X. Also, the performance drop-off on the SuperAA modes is steep, but not so steep as that of the GeForce 6800 Ultra in SLI AA. The 7800 GT handles the SLI AA modes with less trouble, as one might expect from a next-generation GPU.


Radeon X850 XT CrossFire antialiasing quality
Now let’s peer at some pictures. The images below were taken from Half-Life 2 and resized to two times their original size. They have not been otherwise altered. You can see how antialiasing improves the fine detail of the ever-so thin antennas on top of the buildings and of the electrical wires running through the scene. Also notice the near-horizontal edges on the tops of the buildings; AA should remove the jaggies there. Finally, the leaves on the tree in the picture are not touched by multisample AA, but they do get a degree of smoothing from AA modes with multiple, offset texture samples, as you will see.

Dual Radeon X850 XT – No antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 2X antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 4X antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 6X antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 8X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 10X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 12X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 14X CrossFire antialiasing

The fine details in this scene are clarified by the SuperAA modes, and 14X mode is the ultimate expression of that improvement. The antennas and wires are delicately and accurately etched against the sky, while the gradient on the rightmost rooftop’s near-horizontal edge is buttery smooth. Meanwhile, the leaves of the tree are smoothed out somewhat, as well.


SLI antialiasing quality

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – No antialiasing

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – 2X antialiasing

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – 4X antialiasing

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – SLI 8X antialiasing

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – SLI 16X antialiasing

NVIDIA’s SLI AA modes also look pretty nice, feathering out the edges of the tree’s leaves and helping the pathological case of the antennas.


Dual-graphics antialiasing cage match
Now, let’s pull the SuperAA and SLI AA screenshots on to a single page to see how they really compare.

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 8X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 10X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – SLI 8X antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 12X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual Radeon X850 XT – 14X CrossFire antialiasing

Dual GeForce 7800 GT – SLI 16X antialiasing

Make of these images what you will, but I’d say this is a clear win for ATI. To my eye, the SuperAA 10X mode produces smoother gradients, better preservation of fine details in the antennas, and smoother handling of the tree leaves than SLI 8X. Even NVIDIA’s 16X mode, which grabs more samples than SuperAA 14X, doesn’t look quite as good as ATI’s 14X mode for the same reasons.


Mismatched cards in CrossFire
So how does running a pair of mismatched cards affect CrossFire performance? I paired up a Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition with our Radeon X850 XT master card to find out. Here are the results from 3DMark05.

That’s right, the yellow line is on top of the reddish line throughout the results, because the mismatched cards performed almost exactly like a pair of Radeon X850 XTs. I don’t know what else one should expect from them, but I thought it would be interesting to test.


SuperTiling performance
Here’s a completely loony test that I just had to try. I turned off Catalyst A.I., effectively forcing the CrossFire cards into SuperTiling mode, to see how they would perform.

The SuperTiling CrossFire rig is really pokey in 3DMark05’s three game tests, even slower than a single card. This performance is pretty well consistent with what we saw in the F.E.A.R. demo and Guild Wars, where turning on CrossFire was a net performance loss. These results can’t be encouraging for those pinning their hopes on CrossFire “just working” in any 3D game.

The three synthetic pixel-pushing tests above confirm that SuperTiling is indeed working correctly; the basic fill rate and pixel shading power of the two Radeon X850 XT cards is evident.

SuperTiling doesn’t help vertex processing performance, just as expected. The SuperTiling setup performs like a single card in the vertex shader tests. The CrossFire rig must normally run in AFR mode in 3DMark05.


Chipset I/O performance
Now that we’ve flogged CrossFire’s graphics performance sufficiently, let’s take a quick look at the chipset’s I/O performance to see whether we find a reprise of the USB and PCI Express Ethernet problems we found on Sapphire’s implementation of the ATI Radeon Xpress 200 reference design.

Ethernet throughput
We evaluated Ethernet performance using the NTttcp tool from the Microsoft’s Windows DDK. We used the following command line options on the server machine:

ntttcps -m 4,0, -a

..and the same basic thing on each of our test systems acting as clients:

ntttcpr -m 4,0, -a

We used our Abit IC7-G-based system as the server for these tests. It has an Intel NIC in it that’s attached to the north bridge via Intel’s CSA connection, and it’s proven very fast in prior testing. The server and client talked to each other over a Cat 6 crossover cable.

The Ethernet tests are what they are, but they also serve as something of a proxy for general PCI Express x1 performance. In order to keep things even, we tested the nForce4 SLI’s Ethernet throughput using a PCI-E x1 card bearing the exact same Marvell 88E8052 PCI-E GigE chip found on ATI’s reference motherboard—with the exact same drivers. We also tested NVIDIA’s built-in Gigabit Ethernet with ActiveArmor acceleration to see if it provides any benefits. Although we didn’t test it in the review of the Sapphire board, I also decided to stress PCI performance using a PCI-based VIA Velocity GigE NIC.

It’s redemption and disgrace all at once for the Radeon Xpress 200. This board shows none of the PCI Express throughput problems that we saw with the Sapphire board. In fact, the Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition turns in lower CPU utilization with the PCI-E NIC than the nForce4 SLI does. However, our decision to test with a PCI NIC has exposed another weakness: abysmal PCI throughput. Not everyone is going to care about ye olde PCI bus this day and age, but some folks will. I wouldn’t want to rely on the Radeon Xpress 200’s PCI implementation to host a GigE NIC, a RAID card, or an array of TV tuners in a home theater PC system, for instance.

NVIDIA’s ActiveArmor TCP acceleration finally pays off in the form of lower CPU utilization. Too bad it took NVIDIA months and months into the life of the product to make it work as advertised.

USB performance
We used HD Tach to measure USB transfer rates to a Maxtor DiamondMax D740X hard drive in a USB 2.0 drive enclosure.

The Radeon Xpress 200’s low USB transfer rates and relatively high CPU utilization persist. Like the slow PCI performance, this isn’t a deal-killer unless you have some specific plans for high-throughput USB peripherals. Still, I’d prefer to see better performance here. It’s possible that some of ATI’s motherboard partners may opt to use ULi’s Radeon Xpress 200-compatible south bridge in place of the SB450 in order to sidestep these problems.


Power consumption
We measured total system power consumption at the wall socket using a watt meter. The monitor was plugged into a separate outlet, so its power draw was not part of our measurement. The idle measurements were taken at the Windows desktop, and cards were tested under load running a loop of 3DMark05’s “Firefly Forest” test at 1280×1024 resolution.

The CrossFire rig slots right in between the 6800 Ultra SLI and 7800 GT SLI systems, with NVIDIA’s new generation of GPUs pulling less power than the older ones.

Noise levels
We used an Extech model 407727 digital sound level meter to measure the noise created (primarily) by the cooling fans on our two test systems. The meter’s weightings were set to comply with OSHA standards. I held the meter approxiately two inches above the tops of the graphics cards, right between the systems’ two PCI Express graphics slots.

Honestly, I didn’t expect this result at all. The CrossFire rig comes out looking quieter than the GeForce 6800 Ultra SLI system. Subjectively, the whine coming off of the Radeon X850 XT cards seemed much louder and more annoying than the hiss of the fans on the GeForce 6800 Ultra cards. At least my impression that the 7800 GTs were the quietest overall was confirmed.

At the end of the day, ATI has achieved most of its basic goals with CrossFire. The whole scheme works reasonably well within its limitations. CrossFire performance scales nicely from one card to two, so long as you’re talking about matched cards, and so long as the application you’re using has a profile waiting for it in Catalyst A.I. Also, CrossFire’s SuperAA modes offer the best antialiasing quality around, bar none. Unfortunately, the default SuperTiling mode doesn’t scale well at all, in our experience, so the prospect of CrossFire “just working” with any application whatsoever seems a little bit far-fetched.

In many respects, the first generation of CrossFire isn’t as refined as NVIDIA’s current implementation of SLI. Some of CrossFire’s problems could be fixed in software given time, including the dearth of user control over load-balancing methods and the lack of any indicator of the load-distribution technique in use. ATI simply needs to decide to do the right thing and open up CrossFire for tweaking. Other CrossFire shortcomings will likely be addressed with the release of new ATI graphics hardware, including the resolution/refresh rate ceiling of 1600×1200 at 60Hz. However, some CrossFire idiosyncracies probably won’t be going away any time soon, including the need for a separate CrossFire Edition master card, those pesky external cables, and the relatively pokey PCI and USB performance of the Radeon Xpress 200 south bridge.

Ultimately, these things shake down to a few essential truths. As a whole platform or solution, CrossFire isn’t as good as SLI, but it’s probably good enough. CrossFire’s true fate and desirability will be more than likely determined by ATI’s next generation of GPUs and by the master cards that will go with them. If those products are good, CrossFire should succeed. If they’re not, folks will probably decide that CrossFire isn’t worth the hassle.

For those of you who currently own Radeon X800 or X850 cards and are pondering an upgrade to CrossFire, my advice to you is this: wait for ATI’s new graphics cards before making the leap. You will quite likely decide you’d rather upgrade to one nifty, new graphics card than plunk down the cash for a Radeon X800 or X850 master card and motherboard. The first generation of CrossFire is probably too little, too late for most would-be upgraders.

If you just can’t bring yourself to heed my advice and wait, I believe Radeon X850 XT CrossFire Edition cards should be available starting today at online vendors, as should Radeon Xpress 200 CrossFire Edition motherboards. I suppose the master cards will come with the appropriate video drivers for CrossFire configs, and ATI says to expect the first public release of CrossFire-ready Catalyst drivers during the first week of October. Not long after that, on October 10, Radeon X800 master cards are slated to hit store shelves. If ATI delivers on everything it has promised, October will be a very interesting month indeed in the world of PC graphics. 

Comments closed
    • PRIME1
    • 14 years ago

    I liked that the FEAR demo and Guild Wars got benchmarked. The more games you benchmark the better overall picture you get.

    I’m downloading COD2 demo right now and Quake 4 is almost here. It’s going to be a good Fall for gaming.

    • flip-mode
    • 14 years ago

    [ shakes magic eight-ball ]


    • Forge
    • 14 years ago


      • 14 years ago

      Anyone that uses the cross fire setup with the X800 series of cards should be shot. Waste of money when Nvidia has SLI running 7800’s in tandem. And your correct that the cheaper 7800gtx runs faster or the same as the whole XT850PE crossfire setup. The R520 might prove interesting though. The wait and see era…

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 14 years ago


    • spworley
    • 14 years ago

    Crossfire is limited to displaying at most 60Hz at 1600×1200, but the benchmarks show frame rates of 80+ Hz.

    Does this mean the drivers are rendering frames and then dropping them, undisplayed, because it can’t get them out to the monitor fast enough?

    Is there some way of measuring the true frame rate of the cards, ie, the number of unique, independent frames, sent to the monitor per second? That’d be very interesting.. I have no idea what results you would measure. It’d be very interesting to see for for SLI and single cards too. What’s really happening when you have 120 fps rendering but your monitor is only at 100Hz? Dropped frames I guess..

      • derFunkenstein
      • 14 years ago

      no, it means single-link DVI is only capable of showing pictures at 60Hz when the resolution is 1600×1200, even if the rendering of those pictures is at a higher resolution.

      Kinda like how Quake III can run at 400fps, though when have you seen a monitor that can do 400hz?

        • flip-mode
        • 14 years ago

        In other words, yes, the frames are “dropped” – they may be sent to the monitor, but the frames are lost between refreshes of the monitor. 60 frames per second is perfectly playable – more than playable, but a 60Hz refresh rate is massive flicker – unless you’re on an LCD, in which case this is a non-issue

          • derFunkenstein
          • 14 years ago

          Well, fart. I misread the previous post.

      • vortigern_red
      • 14 years ago

      As far as I understand:

      This has always been the case, if your card is generating “X”+/- fps (but not X fps) and your monitor is at “X”hz then, without vsync on, the frames are displayed as they become available. In other words whole frames are not thrown away but you only see partial frames. This means that frames start to be drawn half way (or where ever) down the screen and they never (within reason) start at the same place on the screen. They also never (assumming you remain out of sync) completely draw before the next frame starts. Your display becomes a series of “stripes” from different frames which can look pretty bad.

      Of course switching on vsync (or better vsync with triple buffering) gets rid of this problem but introduces extra latency.

    • Convert
    • 14 years ago

    This is such a mixed bag. It seems like whatever crossfire path you take you would be hindered somewhere along the line.

    Crossfire 2 has a lot of potential. What ati got right here they /[

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 14 years ago

    the only cards that ever effectively pulled off sli as something useful imo, was the voodoo series.
    and even they knew that dual chips were better than 2 cards in the end, e.g. the voodoo5.
    the technology should have died with 3dfx.
    not that theres anything wrong with sli, but its just not needed anymore.
    when newer cards come out they usually are faster than sli on the old ones, so there is no reason to ever buy a sli system especially since you usually have to buy a sli certified board with it, and when most non-sli boards have better performance and features you sacrifice way too much in the end for buying SLI.
    not to mention the 60hz limit and double the noise, heat, and power.

    the only thing good about this is that ati now has a response to nvidia’s sli and it seems to be faster and has better IQ than the 6800 sli.
    of course, the 7800 sli slams it face down in the mud, so nobody will be buying crossfire anytime soon.

      • Chrispy_
      • 14 years ago


      If the money wasted on developing both SLI and Crossfire was spent on producing better GPUs, maybe we’d have a single card that was quicker than a pair of 7800GTX’s

      • Convert
      • 14 years ago

      “and when most non-sli boards have better performance and features you sacrifice way too much in the end for buying SLI.”

      Are you talking about crossfire or sli. It simply doesn’t make sense if you are talking about sli even though you say sli. The dfi boards are some of the best boards you can buy and they are sli only boards. SLI boards typically have more features, it only makes sense due to the market sli targets to begin with.

      If you are going to talk about dual graphics cards then mention the specific platform. SLI isn’t a generic term.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 14 years ago

        well, i was referring to the whole package in general as a waste of money, agreed dfi definately makes good boards, however the point isnt quality of the board, but because to use sli you have to waste $$ buying a “special” sli board specific to what companies video card you are choosing to use.

        instead of getting a 600 watt psu, nforce4 sli board, 2 6800 ultras, a sound dampening case with liquid nitrogen cooling, you could get an average case+psu, and an asrock mobo with a 7800, which probably would be the better choice in the long run because when newer games use detailed shader effects, efficiency would offer more performance than brute force.
        not to mention sli only works good on games that have specific profiles set for them.
        if it wasnt set up perfect, you might not even get higher performance than one card, or less since 2 cards have more overhead.

        adding to that concept, when you see in games the “nvidia way it was meant to be played” logo, you can safely assume that nvidia is working with the game developers to get specific optimizations on their cards.
        now if nvidia has specific sli optimizations for that game, they have the upper hand over ati’s sli, and vice versa.
        therefore, because sli is so sensitive in the area of specific game support, it wouldnt really be about whos cards is faster, but who has more games under their shoulder.

        oh, and you’d probably have to replace all that for the next gen sli too.
        the 2-8x sli boards probably wouldnt cut it. and you’d have to get a 2-16x board.

        overall, you’d be better off skipping the gimmicky crap and choose a single card.
        cheaper, less hassle, and no extra heat, power, and noise.
        as well as not being forced into buying a specific set of over expensive items.

          • Convert
          • 14 years ago

          That post was entirely pointless. I am talking about features and performance. You have provided no evidence that buying sli some how leaves you with less features and performance. And using 2 6800’s compared to one 7800 is just stupid. The 7800gt’s are pretty much the same price, no one in their right mind would buy a 6800 sli setup over a 7800 sli setup.

          “well, i was referring to the whole package in general”

          No you weren’t. You may have wanted to but you didn’t. If you want to cover the package in a whole then mention “package” not “board”. “Board” is sigular.

          You also go way overboard with your other subjects but they don’t have anything to do with what I said so I will leave them be.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 14 years ago

            first off, its obvious you’re going out of your way to completely troll my post.

            (this is just a small part of the picture, but im not going to quote everything because that’s such a freakin troll i’d troll myself)
            e.g. my quote, “well, i was referring to the whole package in general”
            then you: “No you weren’t. You may have wanted to but you didn’t.”

            and:” You have provided no evidence that buying sli some how leaves you with less features and performance.”

            its not about less features and performance, its about necessity.
            does it actually give you anything you would miss? no.
            now if you want to talk about an AIW radeon x800 vs a regular x800, THAT would actually have some good differences in features.

            you’re taking things too much out of context and not even bothering to look at the overall picture.

            HOWEVER, if you are not deliberately trolling, and i was just jumping to conclusions, then I will try to elaborate my point a bit more so you can see what im talking about.
            and if you dont agree, thats fine as long as you at least understand what i mean.
            and it is possible to state your opinion without trolling.
            IF you post against me again as another troll, I’m not going to respond to it.
            I may edit my current post if necessary though.

            my main topic: SLI is nothing more than an useless expensive novelty thats a hassle to use.

            SLI forces you into buying a specific set of over expensive items, you could buy regular items instead and performance would be just as playable.
            cant see much past 60 fps anyway.
            especially since games like DOOM3 limit the framerate, what good does SLI give you there? NOTHING.

            by the time your sli rig even comes minorly close to seeing a perf hit in new games, a new single card will be out that trounces your sli in every aspect. you just wasted your money.
            if you bought 6800 sli when it first came out, (which btw there was no 7800 available then) it would have been worthless once the 7800 came out.
            and a 7800 sli rig will be worthless when a 8800 or WHATEVER comes out.
            the newer card will always be what has the better features and performance. NOT the SLI.
            so there is no point in wasting that much money.

            upgrading a sli rig would most likely mean you have to buy everything over again.
            eg the current 8x sli mobo/whole systems probably wont be fast enough, you gotta buy a new board, memory, cpu, AND video cards.
            and you are stuck into what your choices are as well, since sli will only work on sli “certified” boards by either brand. and you can be sure they’ll cost an arm and a leg.

            AA seems to be the only benefit of SLI, and since AA past 4x aint that noticeable, its a complete waste. just like FPS, you can only see so much.

            SLI only works good in certain games, under certain circumstances, if you pick a brand of cards that dont have good SLI profiles, you wont get much of a benefit. not to mention overhead is much higher for SLI than regular cards.
            its also very possible that SLI could cause a FPS DROP.

            you dont get double the video card memory, its completely redundant.
            2 256 cards dont make 512 of real world storage.
            although you will be paying double the money for double the memory.

            sli is a power hog, not to mention double the noise and heat.
            one noisy hot video card is enough, why would you want 2?

            there can be plenty of reasons to get sli if you really want it that badly, the only problem is that there are that many more reasons to not get it.
            use your head.
            common sense people.
            its not my loss if you waste your $$ on useless junk, go right ahead if you feel like it.

    • zoomy942
    • 14 years ago

    it was an interesting read. i feel that ati’s crossfire is too much in response to nvidia sli. the product feels rushed and seems like the bugs werent worked out becuase they were more interested in bringing it to market.

    for those who wrote the review, you said that you tested the nvidia nic with activearmor turned on. i was under the impression that when it as set to “offload-able” all downloads would be corrupted. has this been fixed?

      • Lord.Blue
      • 14 years ago

      nope. not yet. still happens on the 6.66 drivers.

        • zoomy942
        • 14 years ago

        i wonder what the reviewers meant by “activearmor” was enabled.

    • indeego
    • 14 years ago

    All the SLI implementations will look so silly in 1-2 years, methinks. They just seem like hacksg{<.<}g

    • Chrispy_
    • 14 years ago

    Everyone seems to have got the jist:

    Paper launch
    Desperate last bid (60Hz JOKE) to match nVidia’s SLI

    The only reason I can POSSIBLY imagine that ATi would want to release this now is so that they can bugfix Crossfire by using consumers as guinea-pigs so that it’s trouble-free in time for the r520 launch.


      • indeego
      • 14 years ago

      Or one could make a few million a year so g{<$<}g500K isn't that much of a sacrifice to these people. It's probably more hindrance to rich people having to decide what is better, than just get the best of the best and not have to worry about cost. I reached this "richness" level when I realized it was worth the $5 to go through a carwash rather than spend the hour cleaning the car by hand manually and save $4.50. I know I'm patheticg{<.<}g

      • Shintai
      • 14 years ago

      Why is 60hz a joke? I haven´t seen a CRT either at work or in any house the last 1-2 years.

      And arcordingly to your sarcasm SLI is a joke too.

        • Krogoth
        • 14 years ago

        The problem isn’t really refresh for LCDs guy. It’s insufficent bandwidth require for 1920×1680 gameplay where SLI/Crossfire would show their true strength.

        Althought, LCDs have come a long way for gaming usage. It doesn’t change the fact that CRTs are still kings at higher resolutions/refresh rates. The larger 19+” low response time LCDs are still very pricy.

        • Sanctusx2
        • 14 years ago

        I haven’t either, but I know there are still tons of CRT purists who won’t accept modern LCDs due to their response times and color quality. And for them, 60hz is really really not good.

        Personally, 60hz on a CRT is pure pain for me. If I look at a screen running at 60hz for more than 10 seconds my eyes feel like they’re being ripped out of their sockets.

        While I can understand this was a rushed product, I also think they should have taken more time to do it right. Nvidia’s 7800 series already murders all other cards at higher resolutions. ATI should not have given themselves a second handicap on top of the existing performance handicap.

        Instead of patching up the wound they basically chose to chop off the whole leg and limp along on a crutch for awhile.

        • sativa
        • 14 years ago

        its not necessarily 60Hz thats a joke, its 1600x1200x60Hz thats the joke. crossfire will not be powering my dell 2405fpw

          • Shintai
          • 14 years ago

          Arh, we have alot of 2405fpw here at work. However…SLI or Crossfire is lame in it´s concept. They could just aswell make dualcore GPUs or 2 GPUs on a board. I still can´t see the justification for SLI or CrossFire tho.

          But I guess it´s about those people that need 80FPS+ to pwn in shooter games o.O

          Even the people I know that plays those shooter games uses LCDs and either 1600*1280 or 1280*1024 usually.

          The only reason I can see the usage for would be 16x FSAA and 8xAF. But those can´t be worth another 400-650$ and another 50-100$ extra for a SLI MB.

        • Chrispy_
        • 14 years ago

        60 Hz is a joke because Crossfire is a b[

          • indeego
          • 14 years ago


            • Chrispy_
            • 14 years ago

            Obviously, all being in the clan, our differences in skill weren’t that massive.

            Anyway, my 9700pro is no more, The peltier is getting slapped on the gob-smackingly-real and actually-in-my-hands (not just the mythical paper-launch) X700XT. It may be only marginally quicker than a 9700Pro at high resolutions with AA and Aniso, but if I can squeeze 600MHz out of its eight pipelines then it’s an improvement over the 400MHz I’ve got now and with my ‘television’ I get AA by default (read: poor focus due to ageing)

            Cheeky grin alert 😀

          • Shintai
          • 14 years ago

          Even when I play fast paced games on my old Eizo L557 I can´t seem to see dragging or ghosting effects.

          Also the people I know that beats other senseless in FPS games use LCDs aswell. So I guess its more about skill than having a CRT or LCDs. Or maybe it´s a matter of having better LCDs?

          Also don´t even think about talking on the subject of LCDs responsetime, since basicly every manufactor measures it in a different way. Also do a real life quality test. Don´t even take what reviewers write on this subject either, since visuals is a non measureable standard that is different for people.

          In other words, try something else than the garbage LCDs you have tried.
          The Hyundai L90D+ got an average responsetime of 27ms, not 8ms as they claim. 8ms is the fastest in certain situations.

            • Chrispy_
            • 14 years ago

            I’m not going to start a flamewar over the response time issue.

            The reason I picked the Hyundai L90D+ is because it is widely reputed to be one of the best LCD’s for gaming.

            I use a Dell FP1905 at the office, Anandtech’s recommended gaming screen and again, it’s no CRT. Black is not black, dark colours all run together and I can still see ghosting.

            The response time of a CRT from black to white is 0 The response from white to black is very very low, maybe 10ms or less. All the calibrated, independent tests on these so-called 4ms monitors show that the ACTUAL response time averages around 15-25ms.

            You can argue what you want but these are cold, hard, indisputable facts that I will stand by. If you can show me a single TFT that does everything a CRT does (apart from take up most of my desk) Then I will become a one-man gospel on the benefits of that particular TFT. However, I reckon I’ve used 90% of the various panels that exist by now and I’m telling you that even the best ones have a long way to go.

            Why should people who are worried about minor subpixel differences between 8x and 16x antialiasing care if they are forced to run on a screen that naturally blurs three or four frames together because it’s average response time gives a device output of only 45 frames a second?

            If you like your TFT’s then fine, but I like my CRT’s and my original comment was very, very obviosly directed at CRT use where 60Hz will give your average Joe a headache and eye-strain within the hour.

    • FireGryphon
    • 14 years ago

    What happened here? This is the first article where the front page blurb isn’t culled from the actual article.

    • Shintai
    • 14 years ago

    I dont get why people would buy SLI or CrossFire in the first place. Unless you do it with the most expensive and biggest cards it´s not even worth it. And even then you can wait a half a year or a year and it can be replaced by 1 single card again. And don´t tell me about the cheap upgrade path. That don´t hold water either unless you calculate all the costs you have with energy etc.

    Also how many games do you play in a resolution that is needed to exploit the game 100%? I have an x800XL combined with a Pentium-M desktop. I use a 17″ LCD for gaming that is at a 1280*1024 resulotion. And thats surely no problem. So if you have a 7800GTX today, when do you need the extra SLI or Crossfire power?

      • kvndoom
      • 14 years ago

      It’s like asking why people buy expensive sports cars when cheaper ones still have 4 wheels and will get you to work.

      Sometimes the fact that you want it and can afford it overrides whether you actually need it.

      • Krogoth
      • 14 years ago

      Hell, a single 7800GTX is practically overkill for any modern title. This is coming from somebody who was on a 9700Pro for a long time. Then was forced to be on a GF4 MX4000 PCI waiting for the more affordible 7800GT to come out. It just so happens that I came across a deal that was just too hard to pass-up for a 7800GTX.

      I look at single performance cards as a long-term investment(2+ years). Mid-range cards are short-term investments(6-12months). While, budget stuff is where you don’t care about eye candy, but want something that works. At the same time it doesn’t break the piggy bank.

      • lemonhead
      • 14 years ago

      I agree, it’s interesting tech, but i’d be surprised if many folks bought into this or SLI, even on this site. Price of 2 boards vs like a 7800 doesnt seem too appealing. I dont want to screw around with profiles and the lot either.

    • Krogoth
    • 14 years ago

    ATI should have saved up Crossfire for R5xx generation. It would have give them more time to iron out bugs and quarks. R4xx Crossfire stuff is merely a last-minute afterthought that occur when NV4x SLI had no performance counterpart. At the same token this segement is a very tiny miniority so why bother to rush spend R&D resources on making R4xx Crossfire capable?

    It seems that folks at ATI are going to lose the performance segement due to the lack of focus and long-term innovation.

    • mongoosesRawesome
    • 14 years ago

    why not just get a 7800GT? jeeze ATI, talk about late.

    • Logan[TeamX]
    • 14 years ago

    Hmmm I’ll continue with my bastardized ATI video-on-Nvidia SLI chipset.

    • Delphis
    • 14 years ago

    Given the size of graphics cards, wouldn’t it seem logical to everyone that just putting 2 (or more) cores on ONE card and the card behaving as if it’s one (for ease of drivers, games) but getting the chips to split up the work INTERNALLY would be much more effective than two cards, cross-connect cables etc etc. ?

    CPU manufacturers are doing ‘dual core’ CPUs .. why not graphics processors too?

    /doesn’t get the need for SLI

      • kvndoom
      • 14 years ago

      There are a few out there, but unfortunately they cost more than the single cards *2 for some stupid reason. I think Asus is making a dual 7800 and it’s supposed to cost a freaking grand. Ugh.

        • spiritwalker2222
        • 14 years ago

        Yeah there a bit more than 2 cards, plus they won’t fit into many cases. I say one that would stick out 2in past the side of my case, not to mention run into my hard drive cages.

    • ChangWang
    • 14 years ago

    20 pages? can we please, please, please get a printable page option?

    • deathBOB
    • 14 years ago

    This article makes me very impressed with the 7800GTX…

    • PRIME1
    • 14 years ago

    I checked newegg and the ATI store…….So far I am calling it a paper launch.

      • Ricardo Dawkins
      • 14 years ago

      UHHH…OHHH and paper launched, too…!!!

    • kvndoom
    • 14 years ago

    In before the Slashdot!!!

    • eitje
    • 14 years ago


      • Usacomp2k3
      • 14 years ago

      Yeah, really 😛
      It’s a good benchmarking tool though Damage. That’s not to say that I don’t miss my UT2k4 (RIP).

        • Krogoth
        • 14 years ago

        UT2K4 is very CPU-limited which is why it’s taken off.

        BF2 on the other hand is a poor choice for benchmarking. It’s still betaware that requires brute-force to overcome code shortcomings.

    • Willard
    • 14 years ago

    an external composting engine?
    I have one of those in my back yard…

    • Ricardo Dawkins
    • 14 years ago

    uh…oh…RED team is in red alert …!!! poor ATI !

    • PerfectCr
    • 14 years ago

    Obviously ATI was caught off guard with SLI and rush this out as soon as humanly possible. Too bad for them.

    • blitzy
    • 14 years ago

    60hz on a CRT would hurt my eyes =/

    the other thing which has annoyed me ever since SLI became nvidias love child, all of the optimizations in driver updates are focused around SLI and not single cards, that sucks because the majority of gamers are using single card setups. At least with crossfire that shouldn’t be an issue.

    Either way, both SLI and Crossfire have their flaws. It’s a pity they put so much emphasis on dual cards, I think many would be reluctant to accept dual cards as a mainstream way for graphics. There must be more elegant solutions than this.

      • SXO
      • 14 years ago

      Yea, SLI is not a viable option for most people, including many enthusiasts simply because of the cost involved. It’s bad enough that even the low-end in graphics now costs almost as much as what the high-end used to. Video card prices have inflated way too much over the last few years, and prices still seem to be climbing, so I don’t understand how Ati and nVidia can focus so much on a configuration that costs more than a decent computer.

        • Krogoth
        • 14 years ago

        HIgh-end cards have always been expensive at launch. The Voodoo 1 Graphics was $499 at launch, which also required additiontal $150 PCI 2D card. Voodoo 2 was $300 at launch, but a SLI solution was $600. Riva TNT2 and ATI RAGE FURY were $300ish at one point. Geforce 1/2/3/4 top of the line models were $400 at launch. The supposed price increases that you claim for top of line model only started with 5900XT at $499, and the last bump-up was 7800GTX for $599.

        Mid-range cards on the other hand are bigger bangs for the buck, then ever before. 6600GT provided near-6800NU performance for only a little over $200 at launch. 9500P at launch provided near-9700P performance when AA isn’t use.

        If aren’t a massive eye-candy whore, the budget-level stuff works great. 6200, 5500XT, X300 can handle anything right now. I managed to game on a GF4 MX 4000, but was limited by the lack of PS support.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This