3870x2 has 860mhz lock again

[STaRGaZeR]

Which ones were you thinking of? Games with traditionally poor Crossfire performance like World in Conflict and Company of Heroes?

But I really can't say any more than I have already.....

I'm with Vista 64, so I don't know if this I'm going to say happens in XP too. At least 3 of my friends have confirmed this.

In COD4 for example, with, let's say, 4xAA. If you turn OFF CF (single 3870), you get in the DEMO mission:

MIN FPS: 30
AVG FPS: 80
MAX FPS: 160

And then you turn ON CF, and you get:

MIN FPS: 30
AVG FPS: 120
MAX FPS: 305

MIN fps, same as one card. MAX fps, skyrocket. AVG fps, a lot higher, but not caused because in game fps are higher, but because those higher MAX. When you are in the middle of the battle, with lots of smoke and dust, you don't get any benefit at all going from 1 to 2 3870s. In almost all the reviews out there they only focus in AVG, showing you that CF is better, when it actually isn't.

Trackmania Nations, the same thing happens. Same MINs, higher MAX, and higher AVG caused by higher MAX. When all the power of CF is required, you get nothing.

On the other hand, The Cronicles of Riddick, FEAR or NFS Carbon for example works flawlessly with the cards (because they have well stablished CF profile), allowing you to play with 8xAA without an issue.

[Buck47]

Which ones were you thinking of? Games with traditionally poor Crossfire performance like World in Conflict and Company of Heroes?

But I really can't say any more than I have already.....

When is the NDA over?

[frguru]

Tomorow

[eric66]

only 24 hours

[ncsa]

Ran a few quick runs all at stock on a retail card, using 8.1 driver ....



more here Compare Link

[SKYMTL]

I'm with Vista 64, so I don't know if this I'm going to say happens in XP too. At least 3 of my friends have confirmed this.

In COD4 for example......

There is a simple explaination for this and it has very little to do with the hardware. I'll draw your attention to the DX10 tests in my XFX 8800GTS 512MB Review. You will notice that in many instances there is very little difference in minumum frame rates between the top three or four cards even though the average FPS differs quite a bit. This happens again and again and probably has to do more with particular parts of a benckmark / game being poorly coded or just needing an insane amount of horsepower to run properly.

[Eastcoasthandle]

There is a simple explaination for this and it has very little to do with the hardware. I'll draw your attention to the DX10 tests in my XFX 8800GTS 512MB Review. You will notice that in many instances there is very little difference in minumum frame rates between the top three or four cards even though the average FPS differs quite a bit. This happens again and again and probably has to do more with particular parts of a benckmark / game being poorly coded or just needing an insane amount of horsepower to run properly.

Good example right there.

[STaRGaZeR]

There is a simple explaination for this and it has very little to do with the hardware. I'll draw your attention to the DX10 tests in my XFX 8800GTS 512MB Review. You will notice that in many instances there is very little difference in minumum frame rates between the top three or four cards even though the average FPS differs quite a bit. This happens again and again and probably has to do more with particular parts of a benckmark / game being poorly coded or just needing an insane amount of horsepower to run properly.

I'll ask you a question then. In Trackmania Nations, which show the same behaviour than COD4 with CF (there are a bunch of other games with this behaviour too, that's for sure), changing the executable name to FEAR.exe puts some weird shadow flashes, but the game runs ALWAYS with CF enabled. I mean, those parts where before 30fps and where the second card was idling, are now in the ~70 range. Of course this indicate a driver problem related to CF support, not hardware, not the game itself. So your explanation is good for some games, but not all. COD4 did not show perfomance improvements changing executable name to others. That is what I was asking you a few post before: if ATI team has managed to "driver convert" this internal CF to something that always work, no matter the game you run, no matter where you run it. That was the problem with traditional CF configurations and all my interest in this card is centered in that question.

[da-key]

I found this thread listing the current games that are crossfire compatible and some comments.

Games that work
Call of Duty 4: Works really well, good fps gains.
UT3: This works, decent performance gains with CF enabled.
Bioshock: Works Amazing
Medal of Honor Airborne: Minimum 60 fps, one card drops to 35.
Half life 2: All the half life 2 engined games seem to work.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Gives an additional 100 fps at all times, sweet.
Gears of War: It works one cards drops to 50 fps in tested area in CF doesnt.
Hellgate London:Cant run DX10 fails with single card and CF. In DX9 mode 70 fps with single card, CF gets 100-120 same area.
Call of Juarez. Only have the DX9 version 60 fps single, 90 fps CF in tested area.
Gothic 3: Works really good.
Oblivion: Seems to work you might need to patch the game.
World of Warcraft: Crazy fps in this game.

Games that fail or have no improvment gains!
Crysis: Runs but a bit slower then single card i think. Some people can get it to work with crysis hotfix driver in winxp.
Need for Speed Pro Street: CF takes away half the performance.
The Witcher: Freezes up in load with CF.
Colin McRae's DiRT : CF is useless in this game.!

Drivers seem to follow the release of a game or card for the most part. Still, a bit disappointing atm.

Reviews will come with current drivers soon to help sort this out.

[Origin_Unknown]

When is the NDA over?

Tomorow

only 24 hours

whens the release date?

[SKYMTL]

I'll ask you a question then. In Trackmania Nations, which show the same behaviour than COD4 with CF (there are a bunch of other games with this behaviour too, that's for sure), changing the executable name to FEAR.exe puts some weird shadow flashes, but the game runs ALWAYS with CF enabled. I mean, those parts where before 30fps and where the second card was idling, are now in the ~70 range. Of course this indicate a driver problem related to CF support, not hardware, not the game itself. So your explanation is good for some games, but not all. .

The same goes for CoH. I have seen SO many reviewers (not pointing any fingers) begin to panic when suddenly their cards start topping out at 60-70FPS. Meanwhile, they haven't done their research about the game itself or they would have added the -novsync command like to the .exe path.

Unfortunately, there are so many variables with games and optimizations therein these days that it makes nailing down a performance issue a lesson in futility sometimes.

COD4 did not show perfomance improvements changing executable name to others. That is what I was asking you a few post before: if ATI team has managed to "driver convert" this internal CF to something that always work, no matter the game you run, no matter where you run it. That was the problem with traditional CF configurations and all my interest in this card is centered in that question.

If you compare the drivers that were out at the beginning of last week to what I have been working with now, it is like night and day. There will ALWAYS be optimizations which need working on but you will have to wait a while longer to see which ones need to be brushed up a bit and which ones are spot on.

[STaRGaZeR]

The same goes for CoH. I have seen SO many reviewers (not pointing any fingers) begin to panic when suddenly their cards start topping out at 60-70FPS. Meanwhile, they haven't done their research about the game itself or they would have added the -novsync command like to the .exe path.

Unfortunately, there are so many variables with games and optimizations therein these days that it makes nailing down a performance issue a lesson in futility sometimes.



If you compare the drivers that were out at the beginning of last week to what I have been working with now, it is like night and day. There will ALWAYS be optimizations which need working on but you will have to wait a while longer to see which ones need to be brushed up a bit and which ones are spot on.

But that is the reviewers fault, they don't know what they're doing. I'm not one of them, and particulary with this game

Of course there are multiple variables out there, but this particular one, that self-repeated all over the games tested is unnaceptable for me. I wouldn't call it a no optimization, but a malfunction, since the second card is doing nothing when it's more necessary, like I said before.

It's nice to heard that, but I think I'll use a friend's card before buying mine, doing my own test. If just the two RV670 cores always work, this card will be THE card. But if it has all the issues I've faced with 3870CF...

The NDA lifts very soon, right? I want to see your review with the new driver, and with MIN fps too, this data is too important and so many reviewers just don't look at it...

[SKYMTL]

I want to see your review with the new driver, and with MIN fps too, this data is too important and so many reviewers just don't look at it...

Most games will have the minimum FPS. Some will not.

[Brother Esau]

Are they Releasing new Catalyst by tomorrow? Also the new drivers should encompass the entire 3xxxx series with the Cat release correct?

[wittekakker]

Test with C2D E6600 @ 3,6GHz // ASUS P5E // 2GB DDR2 PC6400

Card at defaults settings, higher scores then on the above posted screenshot, unfortunately my cpu spoils the fun for high 3D Mark scores.

[MuffinFlavored]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...53#post2730853

878MHz clock there.

[S1mon-]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...gb-review.html

REVIEWWW

[GAR]

I dont see why anyone would go for this at this point, with dual chip cards, along comes the support for it, if games fail to support it the card looks bad and does not justify the purchase, at this time the 3870 x2 and 9800gx2 are a waste........with the new chipsets around the corner, summer or fall, buying these would be a big mistake like the 7950gx2.

[cantankerous]

I just read the Anandtech review and am actually quite shocked at the results with this card. With the exception of of Quake Wars it bested every single single card solution from Nvidia including the GTX. Would one say this card is actually better than my overclocked 8800 Ultra or am I better off sticking with my 8800? I thought the card would have tanked when AA was enabled it but it still did better even when so. I am itching for better performance over my 8800 Ultra especially in FEAR and Crysis and the 3870 X2 seems to do the trick unless I am looking too far into it?

[WangChung]

What I don't understand, is that the enthusiast world has shown the OEMs that we're more than willing to pay through the nose for hardware (quad SLI, Skulltrail, et al). Why won't AMD support two of these cards in CF, especially to go along with their quad core processors? Businesses are supposed to cater to the people that pay them, and anyone willing to buy a Dell or HP performance/enthusiast PC would look and say "OOOH! 4 core processor and 4 GPUs!!! MOM!!! BUY ME IT!!!"

From something I read a while ago, the Crossfire architecture supposedly supports a linking of up to 32 cores... At minimum they should support their new baby and everyone willing to buy 2 of these cards.

[ColonelCain]

Is there any way to watercool these cards currently?
I thought of 4 MCW60s, but it would require at least 2 loops...

no, you need to have a new mounting. distance between 2 holes are shorter than 2900XT / 3870

Bah, no problem. Right now, for my 3870 watercooling mod (HSF fits over MCW-60 ), I'm using the G80 hold down plate. Just had to do some careful measuring and drilling of the plate.

It wasn't that hard to do.

[da-key]

Cool Beans the card is a Winnar!

GJ on releasing driver fixes across the board.

[DangeR!]

What CPU/speed are we looking at to get the most out of these cards?

Same goes for 2x 3870's. 4GHz C2D perhaps?

[STaRGaZeR]

“In most circumstances we would expect the minimum frame rate found on the ATI Radeon HD 3870X2 to be equal to, or better than an ATI Radeon HD 3870. However, there are conceivable circumstances in which the minimum frame rates of the ATI Radeon HD 3870X2 could be lower. The most obvious case where the ATI Radeon HD 3870X2 could have a lower instantaneous frame rate would be if an application uploaded new information (such as textures or vertex data) to the graphics accelerator during rendering. In this situation the ATI Radeon HD 3870X2 driver has to duplicate the uploaded data, copying the data to each of the GPU frame buffers, which naturally takes more time than uploading a single set of data for a single GPU graphics accelerator.

These circumstances should be rare in practice - as a rule applications try to avoid uploading data during rendering as much as possible as such uploads are known to cause inconsistent frame rates.

An important thing to remember is that if a slow frame is caused by data being uploaded, then the effect will be seen across all graphics accelerators (graphics accelerators with multiple cores will just be affected to a greater degree). The visual result would be a small stutter, probably for a single frame, and if this stutter is noticeable on a ATI Radeon HD 3870X2 it is likely to be noticeable on a single GPU graphics accelerator as well.

In most situations low frame rates are caused by a heavy rendering workload, resulting in low frame rates that are generally seen for an extended period of time. Under these circumstances an ATI Radeon HD 3870X2 will shine, delivering a significantly higher frame rate than a comparable single GPU graphics accelerator thanks to its superior rendering power.”

Finally! A review that actually points one of the real and more important issues with this tipe of cards. 3870CF vs 3870X2 by Driverheaven would be nice too

BTW I don't think this can be fixed by driver updates...

[thephenom]

What I don't understand, is that the enthusiast world has shown the OEMs that we're more than willing to pay through the nose for hardware (quad SLI, Skulltrail, et al). Why won't AMD support two of these cards in CF, especially to go along with their quad core processors? Businesses are supposed to cater to the people that pay them, and anyone willing to buy a Dell or HP performance/enthusiast PC would look and say "OOOH! 4 core processor and 4 GPUs!!! MOM!!! BUY ME IT!!!"

From something I read a while ago, the Crossfire architecture supposedly supports a linking of up to 32 cores... At minimum they should support their new baby and everyone willing to buy 2 of these cards.

I think AMD would love to do that, but at the same time, I don't think it's wise for them to release a pre-mature quad drivers that doesn't perform well in most games. If they did have a really good driver for quad support, yeah, no doubt you'll see them brag about it left right and center.