• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dual Card Scaling

zokudu

zokudu

Diamond Member
Two of the major reasons I always hear to avoid ATI video cards are past driver issues (Fair enough I found most driver issues have been fixed or greatly improved since the acquisition by AMD) and poor CrossFireX scaling. I was extremely curious about the second one.

Why does SLI scale much better than CrossFireX? Is there a technical reason? Is the implementation hugely different between the two? Or does nVidia design their cards to scale better with multi-gpu setups? Is it something completely unrelated?
 
I would say because AMD doesn't have as good of, or possibly as large or a driver team.

yes, i pulled that out of my ass.

Anyhow, I'm willing to wager that somehow, some way, TWIMTBP has something to do with it. The Green hand can be quite persuasive.

Also pulled out of my ass
 
lavaheadache said:
I would say because AMD doesn't have as good of, or possibly as large or a driver team.

yes, i pulled that out of my ass.
Click to expand...

Epic, i would tend to agree though. ATI does not seem to have a clue how to get CF to scale across all models, for every card they fix scaling issues with in a driver release it breaks another card for CF.
 
It's because ATI has zero participation in the developement of about 90 percent of games. The ratio of nvidia to ATI sponsored games is like 10 to 1.

It's called software developer relations and it's the reason why ATI makes fantastic GPUs that unfortunately provide an under performing and troublesome gaming experience.

Almost all fan boys are completely oblivious to this simple fact.
 
+1

I too wish ATI had the resources nVidia does on the software side 🙁, would give us consumers more choices im sure.
 
Madcatatlas said:
now, dont let me ruin your party, but it is well known that ATI scale better than nVidia when using 3 cards.
Click to expand...

But......The thing that crushes this theory is the fact that you need 3 5870's to beat 2 gtx480's by a lousy 4 percent. And only 6 percent faster @ 2500x1600. 🙁

Quote:
" When it comes to 1920x1080, the score is 11 to 8, but the average advantage of the AMD solution over the GeForce GTX 480 SLI is only 4% now. " (4 percent)

" As for the price factor, the Radeon HD 5970 costs $650-700 and the Radeon HD 5870 about $400. The total cost will be higher than that of two GeForce GTX 480 cards. The small advantage of the AMD solution in terms of performance can hardly justify this difference in price."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5800-3way-cf_12.html#sect0

Good point ha?

I have another link showing 4 5870's in crossfire losing to 3 gt480's if you like to see that.
I think I made my point, sli scaling is better then crossfire in every test imaginable.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about going ATI. After learning about issues with crossfirex i decided to go with nvidia instead. The problem i am having is the heat issues nvidia is having with its fermi card. So i am still waiting on the green goblin.
 
There is plenty of information available so there should be no need to make blanket statements out of thin air. CF scales well in most circumstances, profiles are now separate from the driver so profile updates can arrive more frequently than once a month. There are also tools available now that can make life easier should you find a game that doesn't scale appropriately. When going Multi-GPU from either team you can expect that you may run into issues, that's the price you pay but generally these days the situation with SLI/CF is much better than it was.
 
It's an interesting question, would be nice to get a real answer about it.

The significant scaling differences between nvidia and ATI have become more pronounced with the 4XX series of cards.

I tend to believe it must go beyond simply drivers, and there is a hardware aspect to it.

But who knows.
 
I have always avoided dual gpu solutions, my first was 2x 5850s and for what I payed ($580 total, $290 per card about a month ago) it was really disappointing. I'm running two GTX460's now and get better performance, less noise and less heat, all for only $460, I actually only ended up paying $420 because newegg had a deal for every gtx460 you bought they gave you -$20 off starcraft 2, so I got starcraft 2 for only $20.

Beyond that it is nice to get proper physx support and AA in games without having to resort to 3rd party hacks/tools like ati tray tools, etc. and the nvidia drivers themselves are more intuitive to use.
 
Last edited:
midnilux said:
I have always avoided dual gpu solutions, my first was 2x 5850s and for what I payed ($580 total, $290 per card about a month ago) it was really disappointing. I'm running two GTX460's now and get better performance, less noise and less heat, all for only $460, I actually only ended up paying $420 because newegg had a deal for every gtx460 you bought they gave you -$20 off starcraft 2, so I got starcraft 2 for only $20.
Click to expand...
So you're comparing full price cards to a sale? You can usually find 5850s between $270 & as low as $250. I will agree that $290 is over priced for a 5850 but they are slowly coming down since SI is coming out soon, remember these cards are older than GTX 460s by 6+ months.

midnilux said:
Beyond that it is nice to get proper physx support and AA in games without having to resort to 3rd party hacks/tools like ati tray tools, etc. and the nvidia drivers themselves are more intuitive to use.
Click to expand...
Proper PhysX support? In most games PhysX runs on the CPU so that shouldn't affect the card. As for AA that depends on the game as in you can thank Nvidia for having to use hacks when running ATI cards.
 
Dark Shroud said:
As for AA that depends on the game as in you can thank Nvidia for having to use hacks when running ATI cards.
Click to expand...

You cant blame Nvidia for actually putting money and effort into developer relations and working with them to get AA and effects into the games that the developers dont want to spend the time/money on.

The Fact that ATI never has and probably never will work with developers at all to get AA and other effects working is one of ATI's weak points.
 
Rifterut said:
You cant blame Nvidia for actually putting money and effort into developer relations and working with them to get AA and effects into the games that the developers dont want to spend the time/money on.

The Fact that ATI never has and probably never will work with developers at all to get AA and other effects working is one of ATI's weak points.
Click to expand...

I don't care that Nvidia pays devs to use PhysX and some of their other technology. Or even helps program parts of the games.

What I care about is when Nvidia locks out ATI cards from features like AA where a simple hack/mod enables it just fine. I care when Nvidia blocks PhysX hardware accelration on Nvidia cards in the 2-3 games that support it because Nvidia software scanned the system and detected an ATI card.
 
Madcatatlas said:
+1

I too wish ATI had the resources nVidia does on the software side 🙁, would give us consumers more choices im sure.
Click to expand...


Seems to me the possible oucome would be,

1) ATI "plays the game" just like nVidia does and we end up with *all games working properly on one card or the other and *none working correctly on both.

2) The "buying the devs off" escalates adversely affecting card prices for the consumer. We are the only ones who actually pay the bills.

3) We'd see more resources wasted by the two of them just trying to overcome team A breaking the game for team B cards and less resources for actually designing video cards.

4) Devs are lazy (and in a lot of cases scummy) enough already. Let them do a better job of coding and implementing their own game features and enhancements. If they made a game W/O AA and it didn't sell, they wouldn't be likely to do it again. With all of the money made on games they don't need welfare checks from the card makers.



*all and/or none might be exaggeration, but it makes the point.
 
Dark Shroud said:
I don't care that Nvidia pays devs to use PhysX and some of their other technology. Or even helps program parts of the games.

What I care about is when Nvidia locks out ATI cards from features like AA where a simple hack/mod enables it just fine. I care when Nvidia blocks PhysX hardware accelration on Nvidia cards in the 2-3 games that support it because Nvidia software scanned the system and detected an ATI card.
Click to expand...

I will agree with the blocking physX, it is stupid. If you have a ATI card and want to buy a nvidia card for physX i dont see why they would want to stop that. Its just plain stupid and a dumb move on nvidia's part. I cant believe there marketing department let that happen, all it does is take away nvidia sales. Not that buying a dedicated physX card is a good idea but there are people out there that would do it if they could.

I also agree that Nvidia paying developers flat out in cash to use there features is also pretty low.

However i do think that if Nvidia spends the time and money/manpower to program AA into a game the developers are not willing to spend the time/money on themselves then they have every right to lock it out on ATI hardware, they dont work for ATI they work for Nvidia after all. You dont see intel writing code then giving it to AMD for free. If Nvidia wants to spend money to make their customers have a better gaming experiance then let them. ATI has every option to do the same they just made the choice not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top