Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Motherboards

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-12-2011, 12:28 AM   #1
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,415
Talking *Asus P8P67 (PCIe 16x/4x) vs. Asus P8P67 Deluxe (PCIe 8x/8x) - HD6950s in CF tested*

Browsing the forums, I noticed that some posters still thought that 8x/8x neutered videocard performance compared to the full fledged 16x/16x, which of course Socket 1366 setup offers.

Just a quick reminder, the PCIe 2.0 8x/8x vs. PCIe 2.0 16x/16x was already shown to be pretty immaterial. I specifically like the analysis performed by TechPowerup found here, where they found the performance difference between x8 2.0 and x16 2.0 was about 1-2%. Alternatively, HardOCP even investigated this at higher resolutions (busydude, thanks for the link).

LegitReviews has just ran a comparison of two P67 boards, which included HD6950s in Crossfire. The findings were definitely not what I had expected.

Asus P8P67 = 16x/4x
Asus P8P67 Deluxe = 8x/8x

Benchmarks






Source.

How can this be? My 2 cents:

The new Intel P67 chipsets have proper full PCI Express 2.0 bandwidth, doubling the data throughput available compared to what was available on P55. This means PCIe 2.0 4x on P67 should be equal to PCIe 1.0 8x on P55 (feel free to correct me here). Perhaps, this is why we seeing such a small performance drop. The other possibility is that HD6950 is just not fast enough and/or those games aren't demanding enough at 1920x1080 to saturate the bandwidth.

In any case, PCIe 2.0 8x/8x on P67 should definitely be a non-issue for those planning to upgrade.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 01-12-2011 at 12:44 AM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 05:02 AM   #2
NumericalMethods
Member
 
NumericalMethods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 182
Default

Hmm, I'm confused.

Firstly both P55 and P65 boards supply 16 PCI-e 2.0 lanes for graphics. So there shouldn't be any difference in graphics bandwidth. Intel chipsets have supported PCI-e 2.0 since P45 (or was it x48?). I agree with the statement that x4 PCI-e 2.0 should provide approximately the same bandwidth as x8 PCI-e 1.0

Secondly, I see then benchmarks at 1080p varying very little between the x16/x4 and x8/x8 configs, which is interesting. Even the x4 lane doesn't seem to ruin the crossfire performance.

Third, the ECS P55 figures are pretty bad compared to those of the P65. I would have assumed they should be much more similar. Then I looked up the board and found it has an NF200 bridge chip to provide more PCI-e lanes. I'm guessing that there could be a configuration issue with that test setup as the numbers seem off to me.

Finally, I 100% agree that PCI-e 2.0 8x/8x should be a non-issue for all but the pickyest of enthusiasts upgrading to P67. I personally would still be a bit worried about potential performance loss on a x16/x4 setup however.

Does any of that contribute something useful?
__________________
Intel i5 750 @ 3.8GHz | Asus P7P55D-E Evo | 8 Gb Crucial Balistix @ 1520MHz | Saphire AMD Radeon HD 7970 @ 1100/ 1500 MHz, 1.2v | Intel 330 180Gb SSD | Seasonic M12 700W | Windows 7
NumericalMethods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 09:34 AM   #3
=Wendy=
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 245
Default

I believe, and someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but although P45 and P55 supported PCIe 2.0, the bandwidth was uni-directional, but only now with P67, is PCIe 2.0 bandwidth bi-directional.
=Wendy= is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 09:47 AM   #4
Zap
Super Moderator
Off Topic
Elite Member
 
Zap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Somewhere Gillbot can't find me
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NumericalMethods View Post
Third, the ECS P55 figures are pretty bad compared to those of the P65. I would have assumed they should be much more similar. Then I looked up the board and found it has an NF200 bridge chip to provide more PCI-e lanes.
NF200 is not perfect. It adds a bit of latency, plus doesn't really increase the number of PCIe lanes - it really seems to just load balance them. For instance, yes, NF200 on a P55 chipset board will give each slot a "full x16" but of course the NF200 still communicates to P55 through x16 on its own. To use an analogy, if a typical house circuit supports 15A and you use two surge strips that each supported 15A, then each surge strip supports 15A but the whole circuit still only supports 15A.

Wait, if someone didn't understand the PCIe lanes, then they won't understand circuits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by =Wendy= View Post
I believe, and someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but although P45 and P55 supported PCIe 2.0, the bandwidth was uni-directional, but only now with P67, is PCIe 2.0 bandwidth bi-directional.
That's interesting. I've heard people mention that P67 has more bandwidth, but everyone seemed to be parroting everyone else, and nobody had an explanation as to why.
__________________
The best way to future-proof is to save money and spend it on future products. (Ken g6)

SSD turns duds into studs. (JBT)
Zap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 10:44 AM   #5
coffeejunkee
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,091
Default

Thanks for those benchmarks.

I thought the Techpowerup test was good, at least for x16/x16-x8/x8 comparison.

But it didn't take into account the fact that on P55 the x4 slot is connected to the pch and not to the pci-e controller in the cpu itself. I expected this to be noticeably slower.

But looking at these numbers it doesn't really seem to matter. Now it would be interesting to see this tested on P55 with the lower pci-e 1.1 bandwidth.
coffeejunkee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 11:32 AM   #6
NumericalMethods
Member
 
NumericalMethods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by =Wendy= View Post
I believe, and someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but although P45 and P55 supported PCIe 2.0, the bandwidth was uni-directional, but only now with P67, is PCIe 2.0 bandwidth bi-directional.
I didn't know that, good knowledge. Was the bandwidth in the opposite direction only PCI-e 1.0 spec if that was the case?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
NF200 is not perfect. It adds a bit of latency, plus doesn't really increase the number of PCIe lanes - it really seems to just load balance them. For instance, yes, NF200 on a P55 chipset board will give each slot a "full x16" but of course the NF200 still communicates to P55 through x16 on its own. To use an analogy, if a typical house circuit supports 15A and you use two surge strips that each supported 15A, then each surge strip supports 15A but the whole circuit still only supports 15A.
Sorry, I was aware of how the NF200 chip is electrically connected. I agree that in theory the increased bandwidth of 16x/ 16x card to card should improve bandwith and therefore performance (or not as 8x/ 8x has been shown to be perfectly adequate). I was more inferring that there might be a setup issue between the NF200 chip and crossfire since that figures are really low on the ECS board and I didn't think they should be. Sorry for the confusing post.
__________________
Intel i5 750 @ 3.8GHz | Asus P7P55D-E Evo | 8 Gb Crucial Balistix @ 1520MHz | Saphire AMD Radeon HD 7970 @ 1100/ 1500 MHz, 1.2v | Intel 330 180Gb SSD | Seasonic M12 700W | Windows 7
NumericalMethods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 01:38 PM   #7
=Wendy=
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 245
Default

The bandwidth for P55 and P67 is identical. (16GB/s - 2.5GT/s)
It is my understanding that in P55 you could either be sending a data packet from the PCIe to the CPU, or receiving a data packet from the CPU to PCIe, you couldn't send and receive a data packet at the same time.

In P67, it my understanding that you can send and receive a data packet at the same time, so in theory you double the throughput on P67.

Actually, it's not P67 alone, it has more to do with how Sandy Bridge works compared to how Lynnfield works.

Last edited by =Wendy=; 01-12-2011 at 01:42 PM.
=Wendy= is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 02:45 PM   #8
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by =Wendy= View Post
The bandwidth for P55 and P67 is identical.
There are actually two important characteristics associated with PCI Express: (1) data rates, and (2) transfer rates.

P67 chipset diagram.
The CPU has 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0 for a total data rate bandwidth of 16GB/sec.
PCIe 2.0 lane by definition has a transfer rate of 5.0GT/sec and runs at a speed of 5.0 Ghz.
The P67 chipset has 5GB/sec of data rate bandwidth x 1.
P67's chipset PCIe lanes operate at a full PCIexpress 2.0 transfer rate speed.

P55 chipset diagram.
The CPU has 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0 for a total data rate bandwidth of 16GB/sec (so 1156 and 1155 CPUs don't differ here).
However, on the P55 chipset, each PCIe lane only offer signaling/transfer rates up to 2.5GT/s (which means they probably operate at 2.5 Ghz only), which is the same speed as PCI Express 1.0 (gen one).
The P55 chipset has 0.5GB/sec data rate bandwidth x 1.
P55's chipset PCIe lanes operate at PCIexpress 1.0 transfer rate speeds.

Low to mid-range P55 boards would run dual graphics cards in 16x/4x such that the first PCI Express slot wqould use the lanes from the CPU and the second PCI Express slot would use the lanes from the P55 chipset.

P67 chipset offers 2x the transfer rate over P55. Therefore, what was PCIe x4 on P55 is essentially as fast as PCIe x8 on P55 from a transfer rate perspective. However, this is still called PCIe x4 on P67 but the transfer rate is twice as fast as it was on P55 under the same x4 lanes.

This may explain why P67 x4 is not bottlenecking the HD6950 but P55 x4 would.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 01-12-2011 at 03:19 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2011, 07:33 PM   #9
realbabilu
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Default

Please check the bandwith with these:
For ati: http://developer.amd.com/Downloads/P...dTest_v0.2.zip
For nvidia [opencl card only] OpenCL Bandwidth Test
x86 http://developer.download.nvidia.com...dwidthTest.zip
x64
http://developer.download.nvidia.com...dwidthTest.zip
For all cards: http://www.kegetys.net/dl.php/D3Dbandwidth.zip

I believe ATI pciespeedtest is the best solution for measure, unfortunately not capable for measure other than ati.
realbabilu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:00 PM   #10
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,415
Default

TechReport just did a quick review of P67 PCIe x1 vs. P55 PCIe x1.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20241

Considering the Syba add-on card's Marvell controller was still holding back the 2 drives in RAID (as linked in the review), the PCI express performance can be safely assumed to have doubled!!

Thus, P67 chipset offers twice the PCI express bandwidth over P55 chipset for add-on cards like SATA 3.0, USB 3.0, PCIe videocards, etc.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 12:56 PM   #11
Castiel
Golden Member
 
Castiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: East Coast
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
There are actually two important characteristics associated with PCI Express: (1) data rates, and (2) transfer rates.

P67 chipset diagram.
The CPU has 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0 for a total data rate bandwidth of 16GB/sec.
PCIe 2.0 lane by definition has a transfer rate of 5.0GT/sec and runs at a speed of 5.0 Ghz.
The P67 chipset has 5GB/sec of data rate bandwidth x 1.
P67's chipset PCIe lanes operate at a full PCIexpress 2.0 transfer rate speed.

P55 chipset diagram.
The CPU has 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0 for a total data rate bandwidth of 16GB/sec (so 1156 and 1155 CPUs don't differ here).
However, on the P55 chipset, each PCIe lane only offer signaling/transfer rates up to 2.5GT/s (which means they probably operate at 2.5 Ghz only), which is the same speed as PCI Express 1.0 (gen one).
The P55 chipset has 0.5GB/sec data rate bandwidth x 1.
P55's chipset PCIe lanes operate at PCIexpress 1.0 transfer rate speeds.

Low to mid-range P55 boards would run dual graphics cards in 16x/4x such that the first PCI Express slot wqould use the lanes from the CPU and the second PCI Express slot would use the lanes from the P55 chipset.

P67 chipset offers 2x the transfer rate over P55. Therefore, what was PCIe x4 on P55 is essentially as fast as PCIe x8 on P55 from a transfer rate perspective. However, this is still called PCIe x4 on P67 but the transfer rate is twice as fast as it was on P55 under the same x4 lanes.

This may explain why P67 x4 is not bottlenecking the HD6950 but P55 x4 would.
Russian,

I'm sure you've heard this before but you're one smart mofo
__________________
Core I7 2600K - 4.6Ghz 1.320v
Asus ROG Maximus IV Extreme
Corsair 4GB Dominators - 8-8-8-24 1.5v DDR3 1866
Asus GTX 580 DirectCU II 1000c/1200m
Corsair AX1200
Castiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 01:23 PM   #12
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castiel View Post
Russian,

I'm sure you've heard this before but you're one smart mofo
Thanks for that Castiel. I am not that smart. I am simply using the information I gathered to help myself better understand what I don't know. Hopefully that will result in a discussion where we all can learn something new.

You settled on 4.6ghz on that 2600k? That's a nice overclock at 1.320V. Can the chip do 4.7ghz @ 1.35V? Are you using the stock cooler? What are your temperatures at load?
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:10 PM   #13
=Wendy=
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 245
Default

PCIe2 lanes connected to the P67 have 5Gb/s (gigabits per second) not 5GB (gigabyte) per second per x1 lane, and there are 8 lanes, so that is 40Gb/s total bandwidth. However it must use DMI to communicate with the CPU. In the P67 diagram, DMI has 20Gb/s.
So something doesn't add up.
=Wendy= is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:56 PM   #14
Castiel
Golden Member
 
Castiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: East Coast
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
You settled on 4.6ghz on that 2600k? That's a nice overclock at 1.320V. Can the chip do 4.7ghz @ 1.35V? Are you using the stock cooler? What are your temperatures at load?
I just haven't had time to fool around with it this week. I can boot into windows at 4.8ghz with 1.35v but it needs a touch more for stability. I'm running an H70. Idle's are 26-28C, Full load's in the high 50's
__________________
Core I7 2600K - 4.6Ghz 1.320v
Asus ROG Maximus IV Extreme
Corsair 4GB Dominators - 8-8-8-24 1.5v DDR3 1866
Asus GTX 580 DirectCU II 1000c/1200m
Corsair AX1200
Castiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 01:04 PM   #15
jjdeltor
Member
 
jjdeltor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arizona
Posts: 196
Default And Now For a Slight Tangent

Hello, I was reading this thread and had a question about PCI-E lanes on the P67 build I am doing (Asus board, either the pro or the deluxe). How does the use of both a discreet GPU and a dedicated PhysX affect lane allocation? I have a GTX480 and my brother gave me an old 9600 GT to use should I want to. Would I be able to keep the GPU (GTX480) still running at 16x and run the dedicated PhysX card (9600 GT) to my benefit or would there be some sort of bottleneck? I am new to having a dedicated PhysX card and was just curious as to how to set this up to my advantage given the motherboard I am going to be using. Thanks for any help you can send my way.

- J
jjdeltor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 01:21 PM   #16
Castiel
Golden Member
 
Castiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: East Coast
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdeltor View Post
Hello, I was reading this thread and had a question about PCI-E lanes on the P67 build I am doing (Asus board, either the pro or the deluxe). How does the use of both a discreet GPU and a dedicated PhysX affect lane allocation? I have a GTX480 and my brother gave me an old 9600 GT to use should I want to. Would I be able to keep the GPU (GTX480) still running at 16x and run the dedicated PhysX card (9600 GT) to my benefit or would there be some sort of bottleneck? I am new to having a dedicated PhysX card and was just curious as to how to set this up to my advantage given the motherboard I am going to be using. Thanks for any help you can send my way.

- J
Spend the extra money if considering the deluxe

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-694-_-Product
__________________
Core I7 2600K - 4.6Ghz 1.320v
Asus ROG Maximus IV Extreme
Corsair 4GB Dominators - 8-8-8-24 1.5v DDR3 1866
Asus GTX 580 DirectCU II 1000c/1200m
Corsair AX1200
Castiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 01:39 PM   #17
jjdeltor
Member
 
jjdeltor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arizona
Posts: 196
Default

Is this a suggestion on just a price point (I.E. the small price difference between the Deluxe and the Work Station board), or this a suggestion concerning my GPU/PhysX and PCI-E lanes question?

- J
jjdeltor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 02:07 PM   #18
Castiel
Golden Member
 
Castiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: East Coast
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdeltor View Post
Is this a suggestion on just a price point (I.E. the small price difference between the Deluxe and the Work Station board), or this a suggestion concerning my GPU/PhysX and PCI-E lanes question?

- J
Both. Thats the cheapest board with an NF200 chip allowing for X16 X16 X8 3 way Xfire or SLI
__________________
Core I7 2600K - 4.6Ghz 1.320v
Asus ROG Maximus IV Extreme
Corsair 4GB Dominators - 8-8-8-24 1.5v DDR3 1866
Asus GTX 580 DirectCU II 1000c/1200m
Corsair AX1200
Castiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 04:02 PM   #19
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,663
Default

My understanding was that the PCI-E lanes coming off of the CPU, on both 1155 and 1156, are PCI-E 2.0, either x8/x8 or x16.

The PCI-E lanes coming off of the chipset, were only PCI-E 1.0 speed on 1156, but are PCI-E 2.0 speed on 1155.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:00 AM   #20
divertiti
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
Default

sorry to revive this thread, but I'm really interested in this topic. There's a new review on this topic done recently, and the results quite contradict those from Legit Review even though they were using pretty much the same hardware...any idea why?
divertiti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:07 AM   #21
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divertiti View Post
sorry to revive this thread, but I'm really interested in this topic. There's a new review on this topic done recently, and the results quite contradict those from Legit Review even though they were using pretty much the same hardware...any idea why?
Actually if you look at that review, outside of F1 2010, the performance difference for most games was only about 10% (obviously not optimal), but clearly not prohibitive enough to discount the option of getting a 2nd HD6950 for a 16/4x setup (CF generally will add 70-90% scaling under optimal circumastances). So even after a 10% adjustments, you would still get a 60-80% scaling out of a 4x slot. Not bad for a budget board. Having said that, obviously if a person is spending $500+ on a videocard setup for their initial build, then of course getting at least an 8/8x motherboard is the way to go.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 04-27-2011 at 12:11 AM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:42 AM   #22
divertiti
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
Actually if you look at that review, outside of F1 2010, the performance difference for most games was only about 10% (obviously not optimal), but clearly not prohibitive enough to discount the option of getting a 2nd HD6950 for a 16/4x setup (CF generally will add 70-90% scaling under optimal circumastances). So even after a 10% adjustments, you would still get a 60-80% scaling out of a 4x slot. Not bad for a budget board. Having said that, obviously if a person is spending $500+ on a videocard setup for their initial build, then of course getting at least an 8/8x motherboard is the way to go.
I realize F1 is kind of an outlier, however even considering the other games, LR showed almost no difference at all, that's a pretty big stretch from TH showing 8-10% difference on the same games and same hardware...
divertiti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 08:44 AM   #23
Fanatical Meat
Diamond Member
 
Fanatical Meat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Olds Basement
Posts: 3,308
Default

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This reminds me of the agp 2/4/x8 debate, no real difference between 4 & 8 and a small hit on 2.
Fanatical Meat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 05:20 PM   #24
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divertiti View Post
LR showed almost no difference at all, that's a pretty big stretch from TH showing 8-10% difference on the same games and same hardware...
Look more closely. The 8-10% average is only because F1 2010 is skewing the results. The performance difference is closer to 4-7%.

AvP with 4AA 1920x1080

Legit Reviews:
PCIe 4x = 71.3 fps
PCIe 8x = 75.1 fps (+5.3%)

Tom's Hardware:
4x = 71.9 fps
8x = 76.8 fps (+6.8%)

The difference between these 2 is only 1.5% (well within the margin of error)

STALKER: cop

Legit Reviews:
4x = 121 fps
8x = 124.5 fps (+2.9%)

Tom's Hardware:
4x = 117.3 fps
8x = 121.5 fps (+3.6%)

So a 0.7% difference....

In Crysis, Tom's hardware found 0.2 fps difference.

It depends on the game. The point is for the majority of games 16x/4x CF on the newer P67 chipset is not much slower than 8x/8x CF. Even with a 10% deficit, it's not enough to prohibit someone from buying a 2nd videocard which will generally boost performance about 70-80%.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 10:00 AM   #25
grandpatzer
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 66
Default

I'm considering P8P67 Deluxe B3 to run 6950 in tri-fire (x8 x8 x4) but it seems as this might not be a good idea on 5760*1080 resolution.

I'm currently on m4a79t AM3 system and can can do dual 16x/16x, triple 16x/8x/8x or quad 8x/8x/8x/8x.

Seems best to just hold on to the phenom ~4ghz and tri/quad 6950?
grandpatzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.