Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 and multi card setup a myth?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 13, 2009 7:00:29 PM

Theres starting to appear hints that the upcoming new drivers from ATI will benefit AMD cpus in crossfire much more than the i7s.
Now, this could be a platform thing. Or, it could be a gfx card wall, and i7 wont benefit like P2 will, which may have more cards hitting the gpu limitations.
Look for Cat 9.8s, some amazing claims are being leaked, up to 50% imrovements on AMD based HW, less with Intel

More about : multi card setup myth

a b à CPUs
August 13, 2009 7:38:40 PM

...seriously, you sound more and more like a AMD/ATI fanboy every time I see you.

So far, PII seems to be just as good as C2Q's. I find it hard to believe that there will suddenly be drivers that will give 50% boost in CF performance on that platform.
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2009 7:46:07 PM

well, they will eventually have control of the whole platform to them selves, doing something like this wouldn't be out of imagination.

having linked up drivers for GPU, mobo, and eventually some cpu specialized driver deal would mean they can control everything from start to end, thus be able to optimize it far more than intel can.


where are these said hints?
Related resources
August 13, 2009 7:51:00 PM

If they did this now, then wouldn't they kinda be planning their own death?
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2009 7:51:00 PM

...pretty big difference between a "myth" and one company taking advantage of their internal R&D to get a performance advantage. If indeed the advantage is even real and/or the rumor turns out to be true.

/snore @ usage of Hyperbole to precipitate an artificial argument
August 13, 2009 8:02:49 PM

Keep your eyes on Quakecon
August 13, 2009 8:11:23 PM

Its your argument to make. Im just looking forwards to advancement is all.
If you choose to argue, thats fine
August 13, 2009 8:28:05 PM

gamerk316 said:
...seriously, you sound more and more like a AMD/ATI fanboy every time I see you.

So far, PII seems to be just as good as C2Q's. I find it hard to believe that there will suddenly be drivers that will give 50% boost in CF performance on that platform.

You mean me disagreeing with you on your claims that nVidias Physx is a standard?
Id also point out, there were many here who didnt think a chipset could improve a cpus ability that much as well, until the 780s arrived, as well as the 790s
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2009 8:35:03 PM

Jay
Could well be true, it's doable - But may not be a good move seeing some 75% of PCs are intel. Could move some back to "that other" gpu manuf. I have bought "ATI" graphic cards since 1990. If they want to play that game, I might switch.
August 13, 2009 8:40:01 PM

Notice that this may not just include ATI gpus only. No where have I seen this claim. This claim is seen as cpu based only, and fine tuning your cpu/gpu communications/abilities is seen as normal when having a complete platform, or, like optimizing compilers
August 13, 2009 9:10:35 PM

Also I'll explain what Id said earlier better. If a game is gpu limited, at least on say a i7, it may not be on a P2. Having these drivers could easily change that where both cpus make it gpu limited, thereby, overall AMD cpus would be seen as having a much higher total effect from these drivers.
But, then again, maybe its more than that
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2009 9:22:18 PM

well that would be interesting and all since i run a complete AMD system (Dragon anyone)
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 12:17:06 PM

so somehow, they are feeding the data to the CPU better through platform optimization? That can be very big, since the reason Intel is doing good is because of how data is fed into the proc, if AMD can pull this off in software, whist intel can in hadware, it'd be intresting to see how they compare, and obviously DAMMIT will move more vid cards and chipsets as well, while intel could be seen as more even handed (GASPPPP) in this if their platform works just as well with ATI or nVidia (notice how they said the new drivers is crossfire only? in the second article that is)
August 14, 2009 12:23:09 PM

so if the enhancements are CF only, then we'd be talking at over 100% scaling, is that even possible?
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 12:29:06 PM

yes, look at what IBM can do with LPARs on their bigger machines, when you have absolute control over every part of the arch (in IBM, the damned proc arch it self), you can do very advanced things. Also, look to OpenVMS (alphas), their clusetering is absoulte amazing, where you don't need down time to cluster, nor for most upgrades and redundancy, of which, only the no service interruption for upgrade and redundancy are duplicated in modern systems (IBM again with them hot plug proc and ram and etc.), but clustering is still a clusterfuck on newer modern systems.
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 12:31:48 PM

I saw that neoseeker article too jaydeejohn.This would drastically change some gaming benchmarks.
Now I don't feel so bad about getting the Phenom II 955 (well I did get it for $130 with a motherboard combo deal).I might even pick up another one for my last years 790FX system.
By the way the inquirer had a lot of links to reviews about the Phenom II 965 .
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1529179/amd-fl...
The updated driver news sounds much more encouraging though.
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 12:34:55 PM

Although guys, there is one cravat here, do anyone recall the nvidia (and ati to an extent if I recall) game / benchmark "optimization" a few years back, where their new cards were ***, but used drivers to produce a lower quality looking game for faster fps on review sites.

I hope this is not a gimmick like that or else DAMMIT needs to be slapped.
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 1:09:47 PM

theholylancer said:
Although guys, there is one cravat here, do anyone recall the nvidia (and ati to an extent if I recall) game / benchmark "optimization" a few years back, where their new cards were ***, but used drivers to produce a lower quality looking game for faster fps on review sites.

I hope this is not a gimmick like that or else DAMMIT needs to be slapped.


Yep, I remember that driver cheat, forget who did it however. Caused quite a backlash too at the time, IIRC. Let's hope ATI is not so stupid as to have done something similar, or to have purposefully cripped Intel systems, since as pointed out above, Intel has 4/5ths of the market, and I should mention nVidia is already gaining ground as of last quarter.

If ATI is doing something like this, then they are the "evil empire" and Intel would be within it's rights to sue ATI in, say, the EU for say $1.45B :D 
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 1:15:14 PM

Seriously tho, if they made it so that they can use the unused cores for gaming on the platform side (imagine fully loading the CPU to 100 % on all FOUR cores in games) and the gfx, then there could be this whole deal.

The unused cpu could be used as buffers for the working cpu or some thing akin to a platform based parallelism for games where only 2 or 3 cores is used and the system has 4 or more cores and multiple GPUs for resource sharing.

This is a likely outlook, and if they pull this off then damn GJ and the I7's raw horse power would seems to be useless (akin to a big huge engine with 400 HP, and lousy tranny and drive system that puts only 100 HP to the road). I hope I don't regret my I7 build that fast rofl, and I'm most likely getting QF or at least CF when the 5800 comes out, since the GT300 seems to be vaporware/simple die shrink.
August 14, 2009 3:55:04 PM

Im thinking this has more to do with DX11 and such, where it helps globally eliminate the MT usage in gfx communication, where i7, offering a faster approach, the advantage is eliminated by using a wider approach thru DX11, plus drivers to take this advantage.
Itll all come out in the wash. Im certain AMD wont cheat, they have too much hanging in the balance here, and they havnt gone anything like that for a long long time, whereas Intel can be accused of that with their compilers, but thats more on the dev side of things, or nVidia, which has done it alot, and is currently doing it again with Batman Arkhum Asylum.
Lets hope this works, cause moah is betteh
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 4:52:48 PM

^^ Was waiting for a DX11 plug...

What you are arguing, is that existing PII's could be upgraded in such a way to offer better performance. Thats not going to happen; I don't care how you code the drivers, you are not suddenly going to find a way to instantly get 50% more out of an existing platform through updated drivers.

I'm not saying a new redisigned batch of PII's couldn't pull it off, but I just don't see any driver update getting that type of increase in performance.

And BTW, PhysX is a standard, if for no other reason that no other Physics API (not engine; stand along API) exists at present. It certainly helps that the major GPU designer and all three consoles are capable of running it...
August 14, 2009 4:55:56 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Theres starting to appear hints that the upcoming new drivers from ATI will benefit AMD cpus in crossfire much more than the i7s.
Now, this could be a platform thing. Or, it could be a gfx card wall, and i7 wont benefit like P2 will, which may have more cards hitting the gpu limitations.
Look for Cat 9.8s, some amazing claims are being leaked, up to 50% imrovements on AMD based HW, less with Intel


As it stands without any software tricks to dog performance without matched hardware, they cant do it. I see this as testimonial that their intentions are to constrain their video cards to give the illusion of more power with their CPU. They are no better than any of these "evil" companies they compete against if they do this. Thanks for the heads up though. Pure shenanigans from AMD here.
August 14, 2009 5:10:23 PM

Umm didnt I mention the OS? OK, their claims are crap, and Physx is a standard, and the OS has no way of doing anything to effect any of this.
OS is SW. It isnt tricks, its usability. So, a MT app is tricks? A better MT OS is tricks? DX11 is tricks? And cant possibly do this? The chipsets and AMDs approach on P2 was tricks? Or couldnt be done?
HW is locked by the SW. Find a way to unlock those capabilities thru SW, and you get more perf.
And by the way, Havok is a wider standard, can be used on all systems, any time its applied, and is used much more, for this very reason.
All Im saying is, everyone and his dog said a chipset and SW wouldnt help AMD. Have you seen how this helps even P1? No arch change at all, old crappy P1 now gets alot more capability thru this. No change to the cpu itself was done. Is this somehow an assault on Intel by slighting them? Or nVidia? And may well work just as well as soon as nVidia starts using ATIs standards if you will?
Lets wait n see what transpires before we start calling dirty tricks, especially when some have defended the nVidia stance of putting ID blocks into games
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 5:11:20 PM

Well, there is always nvidia, if they play this game more and more, then Intel + nvidia would become the only serious contender for enthusiasts, whereas AMD would offer good enough gaming performance for everyone else.

Lets face it, you don't need quadfire or quad sli or even CF (in most cases) for a POPULAR modern game to run, I mean look at what we are offered, MMOs play on even the oldest of machines, FPS demand more, but them most popular (well minus cry engine based stuff) will run on my old ass 7900GS at 1280*1024, and if you go up to the 1600 range, you will most likely only need a 8000 series or 3000 series good card to run them.

I expect this to not change for quite a while, look at what is upcoming:

MW2 CoD5 WAW level + some, most good gfx setup can do near 80 fps now so lets say 70.
Starcraft 2, look at superme commander and then add in some more gfx and you got it, not to mention starcraft's success is that any pos can play it, so hopefully blizzard realizes this and the min requirement is low.
crysis 2, they should have learned their mistake of releasing a game that was so badly optimized, look at warhead, where the same hardware would be able to run the similar game under much better frame rates.
Diablo 3, don't make me laugh, this thing won't need as much power any any of the above.
WoW expansions, can play on some PIV with GMA


looking at this, I think we can safe to say that maybe AMD's strategy to capture the just lower end of the I care for performance market, and their whole platform approach that cares for gaming power, may work.

But for us whom are in the know, whom look at benchmarks and under the hood specs to see which is best, AMD may not be a viable option in the future.


so what they are doing with these drivers is to make their whole platform into a whole contained and convenient deal, where they can lure you with platform wide optimization that brings performance to current gen and released things, and may break when the next wave comes because of the lack of raw horse power in the HW.
August 14, 2009 6:58:58 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Also I'll explain what Id said earlier better. If a game is gpu limited, at least on say a i7, it may not be on a P2.


If a game is GPU-limited, then, _BY DEFINITION_ it's GPU-limited and the CPU makes precisely zero difference. If the CPU makes a difference, then the game is not GPU-limited. Certainly it could be limited more by the host chipset on one architecture than the other, but then it's host chipset limited and not GPU-limited.

If it's not a host chipset issue, and they're getting better performance from a slower CPU, then they're presumably enabling optimisations for the slower CPU that they aren't enabling for the faster CPU: in which case, Nvidia will eat their lunch.
August 14, 2009 7:03:52 PM

to rule out a CPU limitation when using dual GPU's, you'd need to use dual 4670's for testing.
August 14, 2009 7:10:33 PM

No, a P4 can limit todays 295 by that reasoning, right?
August 14, 2009 7:12:49 PM

^ yeah, of cause it does, it's a P4.
August 14, 2009 7:21:27 PM

OK, so, if these changes bring P2 up to i7 ability, which currently with current cards, the cards are maxxed out, but not currently with P2, the i7 wont go faster, as it cant, but the P2 can up until it hits the gpu wall also, so thus means therell be more improvement seen on P2 overall than i7, but other games where the gpu is not limited, both will gain.
Or, as I said, maybe not, maybe theyve found a way to wring out more power out of P2. Time will tell
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 7:34:44 PM

Lets just wait for this, the history of fudgeing drivers to make benchmark look good and what nots are not something to be forgotten, and until we know exactly what they did to accomplish this, we cannot simply say yay or nay.
August 14, 2009 7:43:08 PM

Im thinking its just an overall improvement, using a new approach. Funny thing is, no ones really seen DX11 on a DX10 capable card yet. Is this whats doing it? Is it a driver breakthru? A cheat?
Ill take the former as most likely, tho it could be any. Theyre out by the way, available for download at QuakeCom, at the ATI booth, have to be there to get them, and only from their booth
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 7:48:36 PM

O.o someone go there and rip it and upload naowwwwwwwwwwww!!!
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 7:49:41 PM

i7 is the future, if they dont code to play well, they wont be here for the future.

Game over.

I use ATI exclusive, but I also us Intel exclusive, so it wont be no big deal to switch to Nvidia down the road if need be.
August 14, 2009 8:18:06 PM

only 100 gamers let in?

that sounds more like they're giving some stuff out for early reviews than giving a demo.
August 14, 2009 8:21:08 PM

Its a pre pre view LOL. Sep 10th is the real Demo, followed later by the new cards in Sep
August 14, 2009 8:27:05 PM

^ knowing AMD they'll have it out either on the same day or by September 17th, maybe the 24th at the latest.

If they do get it out on the 10th though, Nvidia would kinda be screwed if they can't get the GT300 out until Q2/Q3 2010 like some sites are saying. AMD being the only manufacturer to have a certain feature for 3 quarters to a year, at that time unless nvidia had cards doubling the performance of the top ATi card for the same price, they wouldn't have a hope in hell of gaining any serious marketshare.

edit: looks like someone's leaked the 9.8 drivers, I'll test them out tomorrow on my PC, to see if they make any difference in FC2, Crysis etc.
August 14, 2009 8:33:05 PM

Well, since some think this is the old (excuse me for the ATI purists reading this) AMD, and they cant seem to pull ahead, this may change a few minds
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 14, 2009 8:38:57 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Theres starting to appear hints that the upcoming new drivers from ATI will benefit AMD cpus in crossfire much more than the i7s.
Now, this could be a platform thing. Or, it could be a gfx card wall, and i7 wont benefit like P2 will, which may have more cards hitting the gpu limitations.
Look for Cat 9.8s, some amazing claims are being leaked, up to 50% imrovements on AMD based HW, less with Intel


Pssst..... its all just leaked info and probably not even true.

I could see how AMD might do this although the AMD fanbois all talk about Intel paying for software to be optimized for them only but still I can see it being possible.

BUT!!!!! 50% performance gains? Meh. I will believe it when I see it and unless it beats out nVidia it wont matter that much since they hold the lead in most price markets.
August 14, 2009 9:12:56 PM

OK, I buy into the hype. So, if its not true, then I have no qualms about bashing into ATI, tho its been severly hyped here and there by them, and by me, I can admit I was wrong, if thats the case.
But ATI has hyped this, and the quote of such high gains isnt official, I'll be pi$$ed to say the least, because theres been tons of hype directly from ATI
August 14, 2009 9:51:54 PM

So wait.. You think if they fudged a driver set to make the P2 perform x amount better but lock in the Intel platform in its current performance range that this will be a boost for them? I think it would be quite the opposite. Many people that went i7 were attracted to the prospect of being able to do either/or CF/SLI. We already know the money involved as it is beat to death here how "expensive" the entry cost is and you think those guys will run out and buy ATI knowing this? I see it as a detractor but I rarely buy ATI cards so I welcome the stupidity.
August 14, 2009 10:06:01 PM

Never have I said that, nor leaned in that direction, at all.
I hate devs that leave the 20% out that own AMD cpus, and dont use AMD compilers to their best extent, and just use the Intel ones as good enough.
Believe me, if theyd do this, again, I'll be pi$$ed, as it puts them down to the levels the aforementioned devs are.
Lets wait n see
August 14, 2009 10:14:26 PM

Remember, this is a question, thus the ? at the top of the thread.
Im the messenger, so shoot me.
People have asked how can this be, Ive answered with a few possible ways it could be seen, and possibly done.
I hope it happens. More is better. Simple answer, and competition is always welcome, so is even greater competition, and thats what I hope to see, but, it being done the right way
August 15, 2009 1:35:54 AM

hahaha....saw that P4 bottlenecks a 295...look up crysis laggs.... some troll
August 15, 2009 1:43:18 AM

"XP Vista and Windows 7 all there.


These drivers raised my Far Cry 2 frames dramatically:

Avg: 94 Max:142 Min:63

Up from: Avg: 62 max:104 Min: 44

Ranch Small, 3 loops. 1920x1200, 4XAA DX10, everything on ultra high.


These drivers also are supposed to raise fps in other titles such as crysis, and World in Conflict.

Download em and go have some fun. "
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/268769-33-catalyst-aw...

Too bad some people assume this is a cheat. Im waiting for answers how
August 15, 2009 1:45:15 AM

With five months of ATI Catalyst driver blogs under our belt, we are seeing a growing engagement from the community via this blog site. Please keep up the great comments and suggestions and we will endeavor to answer as many as we can. So, without further ado – let me introduce the ATI Catalyst 9.8 Driver Release!

Game Optimizations: ATI Catalyst™ 9.8 Driver

Our test system configuration is: AMD Phenom II 940 (3.0GHz) processor Asus M3A79-T(790) motherboard 4GB DDR2-800 5-5-5-18 memory Windows VISTA Ultimate SP1 64bit

This month we are seeing a massive performance increase with a whole host of games as compared to the ATI Catalyst 9.7 driver. Detailed release notes are available for most of the game optimizations; here are the highlights:

* Battleforge DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 performance improves of up to 50% with the largest gains in configurations using ATI CrossFireX™ technology.
* Company of Heroes DirectX 10 performance improves of up to 77%.
* Crysis DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 10% and quad mode performance improves of up to 34%.
* Crysis Warhead DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 7% and quad mode performance improves of up to 69%.
* Far Cry 2 DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 50% and quad mode performance improves of up to 88%.
* Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 40% and with quad mode performance improving of up to 60%.
* UnigineTropics OpenGL performance improvements of up to 20%.
* UnigineTropics DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in quad mode improvements of up to 20%.
* World in Conflict DirectX 10 performance improvements of up to by 10%.

It’s fitting that last weekend AMD was in attendance at Quakecon 2009 in Dallas,Texas where the world’s most prolific OpenGLsupporters gathered for 4 days of ‘peace, love and rockets,’ that we are announcing support for OpenGL 3.1 and the following details:


This release of the ATI Catalyst driver provides OpenGL 3.1 extension support. The following is a list of OpenGL 3.1 features and extensions added in ATI Catalyst 9.8:

* Support for OpenGL Shading Language 1.30 and 1.40.
* Instanced rendering with a per-instance counter accessible to vertex shaders (GL ARB draw instanced).
* Data copying between buffer objects (GL EXT copy buffer).
* Primitive restart (NV primitive restart). Because client enable/disable no longer exists in OpenGL 3.1, the PRIMITIVE RESTART state has become server state, unlike the Nvidia extension where it is client state. As a result, the numeric values assigned to PRIMITIVE RESTART and PRIMITIVE RESTART INDEX differ from the NV versions of those tokens. o At least 16 texture image units must be accessible to vertex shaders, in addition to the 16 already guaranteed to be accessible to fragment shaders.
* Texture buffer objects (GL ARB texture buffer object).
* Rectangular textures (GL ARB texture rectangle). o Uniform buffer objects (GL ARB uniform buffer object).
* SNORM texture component formats.

And last but surely not least, my favorite community: ATI Catalyst™ 9.8 driver for Linux!

Support for new Linux operating systems
This release of ATI Catalyst driver for Linux introduces support for the following new operating systems:

* RHEL 4.8 production support
* Ubuntu 9.04 production support

ATI Catalyst™ Control Center - Linux Edition support for RandR 1.2 This release of the ATI Catalyst driver for Linux introduces ATI Catalyst Control Center - Linux Edition support for the RandR 1.2 extension API. The following new features are now available in the ATI Catalyst Control Center - Linux Edition Display Manager:

* Display rotation
* Multiple display arrangement and desktop sizing
August 15, 2009 1:48:27 AM

wait till helloworld_98 gives us some good replies...on his actual finds, and not on just some people (retards) in a biased setting... with other randoms helping them

!