BF4 video card(s) for 5760x1200 res

[Slomo4shO]

3 monitor surround doesn't require the active display port adapter.

Neither does the 290 or 290X... Also,the Hawaii GPUs have hardware based frame pacing...

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Neither does the 290 or 290X...

Yeah we covered that already.

Also,the Hawaii GPUs have hardware based frame pacing...

No they don't.

 

[Slomo4shO]

No they don't.

But they do...

Frame pacing for multi-GPU systems, at any resolution (e.g. Eyefinity/4K), is fully resolved in hardware on the 290 and 290X

 

[OCGuy]

290/780........and a new PSU if you are thinking multi GPU.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

But they do...

Or so they say?

so the XDMA engine is not strictly speaking a standalone device, nor is it a hardware frame pacing device

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/4

What piece of hardware are you referencing if not XDMA?

 

[Leadbox]

Or so they say?




http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/4

What piece of hardware are you referencing if not XDMA?

Frame metering/pacing is an act of software
Nvidia did not disclose any details about their solution outside of stating it's hardware based and folks happily lapped that up, no questions. The thing is though, the hardware they spoke of is most likely very similar to AMD's XDMA - the capacity/bandwidth to move the frame files to were they can be metered/paced by the software

 

[Headfoot]

But they do...

There is no such thing as hardware frame pacing. Frame times can be made more consistent by doing this differently in hardware. The key idea is that you can't just add a piece of silicon and magically have frame pacing work great.

Edit: What LeadBox said

 

[Slomo4shO]

Or so they say?




http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/4

What piece of hardware are you referencing if not XDMA?

Do you even bother to read what you quote?

XDMA is the final solution to AMD’s frame pacing woes...

the purpose of this hardware is to allow CPU-free DMA based frame transfers between the GPUs, thereby allowing AMD to transfer frames over the PCIe bus without the ugliness and performance costs of doing so on pre-GCN 1.1 cards.

So I am unsure how your stance refutes my initial statement that Hawaii has hardware based frame pacing solution... there was no claim made that the hardware can function without driver support.

The key idea is that you can't just add a piece of silicon and magically have frame pacing work great.

My statement was within the context of this discussion for multi-monitor frame pacing. The 290 and 290X has a hardware solution that utilizes the existing algorithms for single GPU frame pacing and expands it to crossfire and multi-display scenarios. Since XMDA is only available on the Hawaii chips, there is still a need for a multi-gpu algorithm for the older generation cards. The 290 and 290X has had multi-monitor crossfire frame pacing through a conjunction of existing driver algorithms and XMDA. Even the article that Balla quoted acknowledges this:

Meanwhile this setup also allows AMD to implement their existing Crossfire frame pacing algorithms on the new hardware rather than starting from scratch, and of course to continue iterating on those algorithms as time goes on.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Do you even bother to read what you quote?

So I am unsure how your stance refutes my initial statement that Hawaii has hardware based frame pacing solution... there was no claim made that the hardware can function without driver support.



My statement was within the context of this discussion for multi-monitor frame pacing. The 290 and 290X has a hardware solution that utilizes the existing algorithms for single GPU frame pacing and expands it to crossfire and multi-display scenarios. Since XMDA is only available on the Hawaii chips, there is still a need for a multi-gpu algorithm for the older generation cards. The 290 and 290X has had multi-monitor crossfire frame pacing through a conjunction of existing driver algorithms and XMDA. Even the article that Balla quoted acknowledges this:

It replaces the crossfire bridge because it has more bandwidth and alleviates the problems caused by a lack thereof.

It isn't metering any frames.

That said 290 series could very well have sorted out the crossfire problems for multi screen. Should be pretty east for you to find a FCAT review that shows it right, otherwise it's just words.

 

[Silverforce11]

I thought the XDMA CF route minimizes frame variation since its going directly to each other, bypassing the CPU altogether. This would infer there is already minimal variation and/or latency already so any software solution is just icing on the cake. Reviewers notice dramatic smoothness compared to older CF cards (which only have software frame pacing).

ps. A lot of people always worry about PSU issues, but a HQ one will run at its peak 24/7 without a problem. 850W Seasonic is plenty. Stock, 250 + 250.

 

[3DVagabond]

I thought the XDMA CF route minimizes frame variation since its going directly to each other, bypassing the CPU altogether. This would infer there is already minimal variation and/or latency already so any software solution is just icing on the cake. Reviewers notice dramatic smoothness compared to older CF cards (which only have software frame pacing).

ps. A lot of people always worry about PSU issues, but a HQ one will run at its peak 24/7 without a problem. 850W Seasonic is plenty. Stock, 250 + 250.

Watching the Newegg video with the 4x Crossfire, 2 card crossfire drew ~700W peak at the wall with a 80+ silver PSU. That's ~600W actual draw.