Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [[H]ard|OCP] NVIDIA 3-Way SLI and AMD Tri-Fire Redux
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[[H]ard|OCP] NVIDIA 3-Way SLI and AMD Tri-Fire Redux - Page 3

post #21 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foolsmasher View Post
By the looks of this review, your 3 card setup is being held back pretty badly! Better start saving.
A few weeks more, my friend. I've been held back far too long.
 
KillTheBananas
(14 items)
 
Minecraft Server
(15 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz 1.42v Asus Maximus IV Extreme Rev B3 EVGA 3GB GTX 780 FTW 8GB G.Skill Trident DDR3 1866Mhz 9-9-9-24 1.65v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
40GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSD, 2x WD 320GB Raid-0, 1TB WD 2x Lite On LH-20A1S Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Hanns-G 28" | 1920x1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Antec HCP-1200 CoolerMaster HAF-X w/ window mod Logitech G9 Gaming Laser 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries 63003SS QCK+ XXL 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.6Ghz MSI K9N2 SLI Platinum 2x 9600gt 1GB in SLI 2x 2GB Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD Caviar Blue 250GB 2x LiteOn DVD-RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 HannsG Hi221D 22" 1680 x 1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
PS/2 Antec Earthwatts 650w Antec 900 Optical 
Audio
Realtek 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.2Ghz Tyan Tomcat S2866 PNY 8600GT 2x 1Gb, 2x 512MB Mix'n'match 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB WD don't remember XP x86 19" HannStar 1440x900 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
MiMO 7" USB Monitor PS/2 450W something Antec mid 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Dell hmmm no need 
  hide details  
Reply
 
KillTheBananas
(14 items)
 
Minecraft Server
(15 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz 1.42v Asus Maximus IV Extreme Rev B3 EVGA 3GB GTX 780 FTW 8GB G.Skill Trident DDR3 1866Mhz 9-9-9-24 1.65v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
40GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSD, 2x WD 320GB Raid-0, 1TB WD 2x Lite On LH-20A1S Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Hanns-G 28" | 1920x1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Antec HCP-1200 CoolerMaster HAF-X w/ window mod Logitech G9 Gaming Laser 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries 63003SS QCK+ XXL 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.6Ghz MSI K9N2 SLI Platinum 2x 9600gt 1GB in SLI 2x 2GB Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD Caviar Blue 250GB 2x LiteOn DVD-RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 HannsG Hi221D 22" 1680 x 1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
PS/2 Antec Earthwatts 650w Antec 900 Optical 
Audio
Realtek 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.2Ghz Tyan Tomcat S2866 PNY 8600GT 2x 1Gb, 2x 512MB Mix'n'match 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
160GB WD don't remember XP x86 19" HannStar 1440x900 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
MiMO 7" USB Monitor PS/2 450W something Antec mid 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Dell hmmm no need 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post
Wow, big surprise here! Wait, no it isn't. Ended up pretty much like I said it would. Get a gaming clocked CPU and don't put the third 580 in a 4x slot and it walks over the AMD setup.

Oh by the way, an NF200 is just a dumb hardware PCI-E lane splitter and isn't "programmed" to do anything let alone favor nVidia cards. Some people are truly hilarious.
In one game you got plus 30% performance for an increase of nearly 33% in price. For the other games you aren't getting your money's worth by going Nvidia. Furthermore, in only one game did you go from "questionable" performance to "acceptable" performance and that was F1 (approx 50 to 60 frames) by switching to Nvidia. And most people feel 50 frames per second is playable. You can make an argument about BC2, but you get 60+ good frames with AMD and that is smooth.

Nvidia wins! That's cool and all, but other than epeen -- I still don't see a good reason to speed $400-500 more on Nvidia. Especially, considering the Vram limitations. And if you want to eliminate the Vram from the equation then you get to spend even more money on the 3GB version.
post #23 of 168
Still don't see a real explanation of how the AMD setup LOST performance when going to a newer CPU with a much higher clock speed...
mitx
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570K 4.5ghz ASRock Z77E-ITX Sapphire R9 290x Tri-X 1200/1500 Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 2x8 GB 8-8-8-24-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro 256gb Western Digital Velociraptor Western Digital WD15EARX Western Digital WD15EADS 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Silverstone NT06-Pro Windows 10 x64 LG 29UM67 Logitech G710+ 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone SG08 600W PSU Silverstone SG08B Logitech G700 Pioneer SE-A1000 
  hide details  
Reply
mitx
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 3570K 4.5ghz ASRock Z77E-ITX Sapphire R9 290x Tri-X 1200/1500 Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 2x8 GB 8-8-8-24-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro 256gb Western Digital Velociraptor Western Digital WD15EARX Western Digital WD15EADS 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Silverstone NT06-Pro Windows 10 x64 LG 29UM67 Logitech G710+ 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone SG08 600W PSU Silverstone SG08B Logitech G700 Pioneer SE-A1000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto View Post
Still don't see a real explanation of how the AMD setup LOST performance when going to a newer CPU with a much higher clock speed...
This is the bit I dont see, If the new chipset + nf200 isn't the cause of it then wth can be? clearly the 580's were cpu bottlenecked in the original test that goes without question, however I suspect the AMD cards were too.

I'm not saying the green guys purposely made it worse for the red guys, but i am saying that there is some sort of anomaly caused by the interface here.

Regardless who really cares? 5xx and 6xxx are getting old now anyone who wanted triple 580/6970 will have done so already or will be waiting for 6xx and 7xxx cards.
Edited by Dr216 - 5/3/11 at 9:05am
Main
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K Gigabyte P67 UD5 r7970 BEDD Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256gb EK HF supreme full copper Win 7 Ultimate 120hz 1920x1080 23" LG 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky ocn edition 1000w Corsair hx Corsair 800D G9x 
Mouse PadAudio
Steelseries I-2 AKG K702 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K Gigabyte P67 UD5 r7970 BEDD Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial C300 256gb EK HF supreme full copper Win 7 Ultimate 120hz 1920x1080 23" LG 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky ocn edition 1000w Corsair hx Corsair 800D G9x 
Mouse PadAudio
Steelseries I-2 AKG K702 
  hide details  
Reply
post #25 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto View Post
Still don't see a real explanation of how the AMD setup LOST performance when going to a newer CPU with a much higher clock speed...
Nah. Only ''hilarious'' people are asking themselves questions like that.

The 4x drama was soooooo important. But now the real and legitimate concerns about the NF200 chip, and the strange LOSS of performance from going with a faster CPU on AMD side, are hilarious.
    
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
i7-5930k @ 4.9  i7-3930k @ 5.1 (2nd rig) Asus Rampage V (X99) + Asus Rampage IV (2nd rig) 2X Nvidia 1080 Ti SLI watercooled 
GraphicsRAMRAMHard Drive
2X Nvidia 980 Ti SLI watercooled (2nd rig)  4X8GB=32GB G.Skill DDR4-2700 4X4GB=16GB Ripjaws DDR3 2400 CL9 (2nd rig) 3X Samsung 840 Evo 1TB SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 250GB 3XSeagate 3TB LG Blu-ray writer 2X Quad-120 MCR420 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2X Triple-120 MCR320 + 1X Triple-120 Feser 2X Dual-120 XSPC RX240 32 Gentle Typhoon fans (mix of 3000 and 1850rpm) Reservoir 2X Koolance RP-452x2 with 4X MCP655 p... 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
2X EK Supreme HF CPU waterblock Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer XB270HU IPS G-Sync 2440p (main rig) 3X 30'... CoolerMaster Masterkeys Pro S MX blue switch, C... 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Antec HCP1200 + AX850 dual PSU main rig, AX120... Mountain Mods Extended Ascension + Pedestal 24 ... Logitech G502 x 2 PSB speakers 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
i7-5930k @ 4.9  i7-3930k @ 5.1 (2nd rig) Asus Rampage V (X99) + Asus Rampage IV (2nd rig) 2X Nvidia 1080 Ti SLI watercooled 
GraphicsRAMRAMHard Drive
2X Nvidia 980 Ti SLI watercooled (2nd rig)  4X8GB=32GB G.Skill DDR4-2700 4X4GB=16GB Ripjaws DDR3 2400 CL9 (2nd rig) 3X Samsung 840 Evo 1TB SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 250GB 3XSeagate 3TB LG Blu-ray writer 2X Quad-120 MCR420 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2X Triple-120 MCR320 + 1X Triple-120 Feser 2X Dual-120 XSPC RX240 32 Gentle Typhoon fans (mix of 3000 and 1850rpm) Reservoir 2X Koolance RP-452x2 with 4X MCP655 p... 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
2X EK Supreme HF CPU waterblock Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer XB270HU IPS G-Sync 2440p (main rig) 3X 30'... CoolerMaster Masterkeys Pro S MX blue switch, C... 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Antec HCP1200 + AX850 dual PSU main rig, AX120... Mountain Mods Extended Ascension + Pedestal 24 ... Logitech G502 x 2 PSB speakers 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 168
Why is a x8/x8 PCIe 2.0 vs x16/x8/x8 PCIe 2.0 a valid comparison between 6990/6970 CFX vs three 580s in SLI? The review clearly shows that the games tested can be negatively or positively effected by the bandwidth.
Edited by EastCoast - 5/3/11 at 10:34am
post #27 of 168
we'll see if the bandwith argument is upheld or shot down now that the shoe is on the other foot.
post #28 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levesque View Post
Nah. Only ''hilarious'' people are asking themselves questions like that.

The 4x drama was soooooo important.
Look it's very simple:

4 < 16

Also you can see from the results that it was important.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Levesque View Post
But now the real and legitimate concerns about the NF200 chip
post #29 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoast View Post
Why is a x8/x8 PCIe 2.0 vs x16/x16/x16 PCIe 2.0 a valid comparison between 6990/6970 CFX vs three 580s in SLI? The review clearly shows that the games tested can be negatively or positively effected by the bandwidth.
The set up was x16/x16 for AMD and x16/x8/x8 for Nvidia -- however in both cases only 16 lanes get to the CPU on the Sandy Bridge platform. Nvidia benefited from the additional CPU speed for sure, but I wonder if the overall reduction of lanes to the CPU (x58 to P67) really hurt AMD. Take a look at this:



There is a much bigger fall off for AMD. Also, consider than each GPU in the 6990 only had 4 lanes (8 lanes for each slot which NF200 multiplies by 2). Anyway, I think that reason in the performance drop off is related to the bandwidth situation.
Edited by JCPUser - 5/3/11 at 10:00am
post #30 of 168
these new results seem more believable. i mean, if ~$1500 for 3 gtx 580 nvidia cards doesn't get you better performance than ~$1000 for 6990+6970 amd cards, something is wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [[H]ard|OCP] NVIDIA 3-Way SLI and AMD Tri-Fire Redux