Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R6950 Crossfire issues

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 27, 2011 8:37:16 PM

Now, I just began to crossfire my Radeon 6950's. In some games, it works (most notably Metro 2033) but in others it fails completely. In BD2, I lose about 10-20 fps. And worst of all is that in BF3, the game that I specifically got a second card for, crossfire adds absolutely no FPS gain. I just want to know if anyone else has been having crossfire/driver problems in this game.

More about : r6950 crossfire issues

October 27, 2011 9:01:33 PM

6950's have shown 75-85% scaling when used in CrossFire, so I'm surprised with the results. BF3 has shown to have especially good scaling when using CrossFire. Make sure you have the latest drivers, AMD released a preview driver for BF3 that you can download...

http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/GPU124AMDCat...

Also, if you installed the latest Catalyst Application Profile (CAP) for BF3, you need to uninstall your AMD drivers and just reinstall the above linked drivers. AMD noticed that the CAP for BF3 wasn't working as intended and was causing problems. You can review this article where they initially had major issues using CrossFire in BF3, but then did what I just recommended and it worked flawlessly...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/25/battlefield_3...

Other things you might want to mention...what are the specs on your computer? what are the PCIe lane speeds on your motherboard? Those might help others recommend solutions.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 27, 2011 10:36:30 PM

You enables crossfire right? btw that procesor is not exatcly the best for crossfire, you should overclock it a little bit more...make sure the mobo is set right to dual 8x in the bios
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 10:47:15 PM

Yes, I enabled crossfire in CCC...
And about the CPU; yes, I know, it's not the fastest CPU, but I was under the impression that it wouldn't affect FPS much, and even if it did, it shouldn't completely negate the effects of Crossfire...
Remember; Crossfire works in Metro, and I have definitely been getting better results in benchmarks(FurMark, Unigine, etc.) But there is no effect in BF3, which is why I think it is drivers.
I'll check the bios, and see if it isn't already set to dual 8x
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 10:52:07 PM

KingOtaku said:
Yes, I enabled crossfire in CCC...
And about the CPU; yes, I know, it's not the fastest CPU, but I was under the impression that it wouldn't affect FPS much, and even if it did, it shouldn't completely negate the effects of Crossfire...
Remember; Crossfire works in Metro, and I have definitely been getting better results in benchmarks(FurMark, Unigine, etc.) But there is no effect in BF3, which is why I think it is drivers.
I'll check the bios, and see if it isn't already set to dual 8x


Often, when a CPU holds performance back, it creates a bottleneck to the point that no matter how much graphical horsepower you add, it will not improve FPS. When people say that your CPU shouldn't hold FPS back much, they are referring to typical single GPU systems. If you want a dual GPU system, you need a lot more CPU power, or a much higher resolution (higher resolutions mostly only add work for the GPU, not the CPU).

What is your resolution, and what FPS are you seeing?
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 11:05:48 PM

I am seeing around 50-70 fps at 1600x900. I know the resolution is low for a dual GPU system, but I plan to upgrade next time I have the money...
But, would my CPU really hold me back that much? And, if it does, than how come I'm getting such a good FPS (45-70) on Metro 2033?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 11:12:28 PM

KingOtaku said:
I am seeing around 50-70 fps at 1600x900. I know the resolution is low for a dual GPU system, but I plan to upgrade next time I have the money...
But, would my CPU really hold me back that much? And, if it does, than how come I'm getting such a good FPS (45-70) on Metro 2033?


If you are bottlenecked by the CPU, then the FPS you are seeing will never be higher under any condition, but going to a higher resolution may not lower your FPS any.

Every game is different. Some put a lot more stress on the CPU, and others put more stress on the GPU. At your resolution and GPU setup, you'll almost never run into a case where your GPU's hold you back, but you almost always be limited by your CPU and refresh rate when it comes to actual displayed FPS.

Metro 2033 is likely a game which has lots of GPU intensive work, and not as much CPU work. Other games, may stress the CPU more. For most people Metro 2033 gets low FPS due to their GPU, and since you have way more graphics power than your resolution needs, you get high FPS.

EDIT: to help illustrate what is going on, let me try to explain it with a metaphor.

When a frame is rendered, there are several things that are taking place at once. The CPU is usually responsible for tracking physics and where things are located, as well as running logic. The GPU assists by drawing the textures, creating wire frames with tessellation, doing lighting effects and so on. They perform different tasks.

This is a bit like building a car. There is an assembly line. Imagine there are two phases to building a card. Building the engine, and building the body. If the assembly line can build the engine in 8 hours, and a 2nd assembly line builds the body in 4 hours, how long does it take to build a car? 8 hours, because no matter how fast the engine is built, you still have to wait for the body to be built.

The same thing often happens with a computer. If the CPU can only do all of it's calculations fast enough to display 40 FPS, and your GPU can handle up to 200 FPS, how many FPS will you get? 40 FPS.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 11:15:46 PM

One more thing that you should be aware of. If you have a typical HD monitor/TV, you likely are running at 60hz. With a 60hz limitation, the maximum displayed FPS you will ever see, is 60. Going to 200 FPS, will still result in only 60 frames being displayed. With a 120hz monitor, that limit is raised to 120 FPS.

If the lowest FPS you are getting is 45, you don't have any real troubles.
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 11:16:30 PM

Hmm....but I still don't think my CPU would bottleneck it that much; I have a friend playing on the same system (except he has a single 6970 and at 1080p) and he consistently pulls 70+, even on very heavy scenes.
Edit: Yes, I know that, but I still would like to know why I'm not getting an FPS gain. Even if it doesn't make a difference, I want to know my card is working.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 11:25:27 PM

What drivers are you using?

the newer drivers are causing lots of trouble across he web, especially for crossfire users.

try rolling back to 11.4 and see if it solves your issue.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 11:29:50 PM

KingOtaku said:
Hmm....but I still don't think my CPU would bottleneck it that much; I have a friend playing on the same system (except he has a single 6970 and at 1080p) and he consistently pulls 70+, even on very heavy scenes.
Edit: Yes, I know that, but I still would like to know why I'm not getting an FPS gain. Even if it doesn't make a difference, I want to know my card is working.


What's his CPU? If he has a Sandy bridge system, his CPU is likely much faster than yours.
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 11:33:40 PM

He has a Phenom II X4 @3.4 ghz, just like me.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 11:34:55 PM

Then there could be an issue. Download GPU-Z and show us the bus interface for both cards. Also, are you guys using the same settings, like MLAA, AA, and what not?
m
0
l
October 27, 2011 11:45:07 PM

All high, Post-processing anti aliasing (FXAA) all the way up, no MLAA.
The bus interface is PCI-E 2.0 8X
I know the cards can handle PCI-E 2.0 16X, but I don't think that would be the problem, but what do I know?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 11:48:23 PM

drivers?..

seriously, the new drivers are causing lots of trouble. read my post.
m
0
l
October 28, 2011 12:27:33 AM

I am currently running 2 x 6950's in X-fire, and get amazing results in BF3 on ultra settings.

I chose not to use the "preview" ( beta ) drivers, and instead opted to stay with the 11.9 release drivers and the 11.9 cap 3 ( CAP 4 released today ) X-fire app profile. I can't promise it will fix your problems, but has had flawless operation for me in BF3.

- 11.9 release driver

http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/Pages/index.aspx

- 11.9 cap 4 application profile

http://sites.amd.com/us/game/downloads/Pages/crossfirex...
m
0
l
October 28, 2011 12:45:16 AM

Okay, I'll install CAP 4 as soon as possible. Right now I'm on my phone, so I don't have computer access at the moment, but I'll report back within an hour.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 12:54:51 AM

Just a note, if it hasn't been mentioned yet. If you are indeed bottlenecked by the CPU, even with 1 GPU, adding a 2nd will decrease performance, has the overhead to run 2 GPU's steals more CPU power.

When you have a single GPU enabled, does your performance look closer to your friends?

That said, make sure you have the latest CAP drivers as you mentioned as well. BF3 was just released, so it's going to require the latest drivers and profiles.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 2:23:05 AM

bystander said:
The same thing often happens with a computer. If the CPU can only do all of it's calculations fast enough to display 40 FPS, and your GPU can handle up to 200 FPS, how many FPS will you get? 40 FPS.

and that called excess of GPU power
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 2:25:46 AM

bystander said:
One more thing that you should be aware of. If you have a typical HD monitor/TV, you likely are running at 60hz. With a 60hz limitation, the maximum displayed FPS you will ever see, is 60. Going to 200 FPS, will still result in only 60 frames being displayed. With a 120hz monitor, that limit is raised to 120 FPS..

But that's when V.Synch is enabled, right ? and even if the GPU is rendering more than 60 FPS the eye doesn't take a benefit from this.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 2:31:48 AM

What's your native resolution?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 3:01:36 AM

ilysaml said:
But that's when V.Synch is enabled, right ? and even if the GPU is rendering more than 60 FPS the eye doesn't take a benefit from this.


No, it's always limited to 60 displayed FPS. Granted, your video card might generate 200 frames, but the frame buffer, the images are written to, is only written to the screen at the rate of your monitors refresh rate, which is 60hz on most monitors.

V-sync just prevents the video card from writing to the frame buffer except when it's in vertical retrace mode (the period that it is not updating the screen) to prevent the possibility that the video card is writing to it at the same time, resulting in a melding of 2 frames, otherwise known as screen tearing.

And the eye takes the benefit of much higher than 60 FPS, but your hardware just does not display more than 60 FPS without higher refresh rate.

Read this: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.ht...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 3:24:29 AM

Here's another thing. LCDs don't have a refresh rate. They don't have a electron gun like a CRT do. The hz you see in windows is a emulation because the need to receive the images the same way as a CRT did.
Fps is what your gpu produce. You can get 120fps on a 60hz monitor. Your pc won't slow down or nothing youll just see tearing and ghosting issues because the gpu and the LCD went out of sync. 70 fps on a 60hz is fine. The more it goes out of sync the more ghosting and tearing will appear.
That's why they say buy a gpu to power your monitor not your ego. Then youll be able to eunuch it with Vsync off most of the times. But once you start to overkill youll be using v-sync permanently. Problem with v-sync is that it can drop your fps half your refresh rate which can be countered by enabling tripple buffering to get the fps just below the refresh rate.

To make everything short. V-sync is simply a function to let your gpu know of your monitors limitations.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 3:48:53 AM

gnomio said:
Here's another thing. LCDs don't have a refresh rate. They don't have a electron gun like a CRT do. The hz you see in windows is a emulation because the need to receive the images the same way as a CRT did.
Fps is what your gpu produce. You can get 120fps on a 60hz monitor. Your pc won't slow down or nothing youll just see tearing and ghosting issues because the gpu and the LCD went out of sync. 70 fps on a 60hz is fine. The more it goes out of sync the more ghosting and tearing will appear.
That's why they say buy a gpu to power your monitor not your ego. Then youll be able to eunuch it with Vsync off most of the times. But once you start to overkill youll be using v-sync permanently. Problem with v-sync is that it can drop your fps half your refresh rate which can be countered by enabling tripple buffering to get the fps just below the refresh rate.

To make everything short. V-sync is simply a function to let your gpu know of your monitors limitations.


You are flat wrong or misread what I wrote. While your GPU might generate 120 FPS, the monitor still will only update its images at their refresh (hz) rating. A 60 hz monitor still only updates 60 times per second.

While LCD's do not use a gun, and are solid state, they still only update the screen at the rate of their refresh rate. Why on earth would people buy 120hz LCD's over a 60hz if it didn't matter? Why does 3D on a 60hz monitor perform horribly?

As someone who has both a 60hz and 120hz monitor, I can refute your claim quite easily.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 3:49:26 AM

Quote:
No, it's always limited to 60 displayed FPS.

You mean that physically it's just 60 FPS displayed and rendered of the "200 FPS" ?
Quote:
And the eye takes the benefit of much higher than 60 FPS, but your hardware just does not display more than 60 FPS without higher refresh rate.

I just meant this, that if the monitor refreshes at 85 Hz and the GPU is rendering 100 FPS, you don't take a benefit from the "15 FPS", right ?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 3:52:17 AM

ilysaml said:
Quote:
No, it's always limited to 60 displayed FPS.

You mean that physically it's just 60 FPS displayed and rendered of the "200 FPS" ?
Quote:
And the eye takes the benefit of much higher than 60 FPS, but your hardware just does not display more than 60 FPS without higher refresh rate.

I just meant this, that if the monitor refreshes at 85 Hz and the GPU is rendering 100 FPS, you don't take a benefit from the "15 FPS", right ?


Pretty much Correct. It still renders 100 FPS, but only 85 images are displayed (which may have tearing).

The refresh rate on the monitor is how many times per second it updates it's image.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 4:05:02 AM

So V.Sync can help to prevent "Microstuttering" by enforcing a fixed regular frame update rate no matter how quickly the next frame is or isn't ready the framerate will always be at 60 ???
EDIT: so 2 or more frames of the extra 15 FPS shown on the screen draw when the monitor refreshes at 85 Hz, those 2 or more frames cause the tearing ?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 4:23:34 AM

When V-sync is not on, the GPU might update the frame buffer when the monitor is half way through displaying what is in the frame buffer. That means that the monitor might only be half way down showing the image in the frame buffer, when another one over writes the original image, resulting in a display image that is half of one image, and half of another (or different fractions).

V-sync does have a drawback when you have lower than than 60 FPS as it can result in sudden drops of FPS in order to stay in sync.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 4:25:36 AM

So V.Synch shouldn't be enabled when i know that i will be getting less than 60 FPS ?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 4:40:08 AM

ilysaml said:
So V.Synch shouldn't be enabled when i know that i will be getting less than 60 FPS ?


I wouldn't say that, as you can still get tearing below 60 FPS without V-sync, though it's rarely as bad, but you should be aware that if you see sudden drops in FPS, you might need to turn it off. Depending on the game, and whether it uses triple buffer (or if you can force it on), it may force you down to even multiples of 60, which means 30 FPS or less.

It basically works like this; if it goes below 60 fps, and triple buffering is not used, your video card will not update the frame buffer until the image is completely done and the monitor is in vertical retrace mode (or an LCD equivalent if they call it something else). If the GPU finishes updating before it vertical retrace has started, it will wait and do nothing until it can write to the screen. This means that if your average frame takes slightly longer than 1/60th of a second to create, it'll skip a frame, and do nothing during that time.

However, triple buffering let's the GPU write to 1 of 3 frames that it buffers, so rather than waiting to for vertical retrace mode before it can update the frame buffer, it'll start a new frame and render it in another frame buffer, then it flips the active frame buffer for the monitor to display during vertical retrace mode. This prevents tearing and allows the GPU to keep working, but it can cause a little latency (as you are always seeing an image slightly delayed).

Here is a better written description of what I'm trying to say: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=928593
m
0
l
October 28, 2011 4:45:46 AM

Okay guys, so I installed the CAP 4 Drivers, reinstalled 11.10 preview 3, then moved back to 11.9, reinstalled CAP 4 drivers AGAIN and I am still getting the same FPS and just as much microstuttering(which CAP 4 is supposed to fix)
It just might be my CPU....but in that case, there is no way in hell I can afford a new CPU and the motherboard to go with it....
m
0
l
October 28, 2011 5:42:54 AM

This is what I run for my cfx set up for a comparison.

I have an i7 920 @4.0. My crossfire set up: (msi 6950 twin frozr III 2gb) OC 925/1375 no bios changes. I could flash the bios or unlock the shaders for better returns, but, if I am not dipping below 60fps on the highest settings I didnt see the need.

On the BF3 Ultra settings I am running at 70-80 fps at all times. 1920x1080

m
0
l
October 28, 2011 2:08:23 PM

KingOtaku said:
I have 2 6950 Twin Frozr III's also, though they are at stock clocks...
And guys, it isn't my processor. Tom's just benchmarked everything, and I should be getting 2.5 times the fps I've been getting: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...


I agree with this.

Plus, from what other benchmarks are showing, BF3 is not CPU limited. Different CPU's are showing steady FPS across a wide range of GPU's. The major limiting factor with BF3 in terms of CPU seems to be number of cores as opposed to actual per core performance. The CFX setup you are using should show much better scaling.

On a side note: I do think you need to OC the processor. I have the same processor, it's made for OC'ing and can be done easily.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 2:09:14 PM

KingOtaku said:
I have 2 6950 Twin Frozr III's also, though they are at stock clocks...
And guys, it isn't my processor. Tom's just benchmarked everything, and I should be getting 2.5 times the fps I've been getting: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

Did you try disabling CF and run it with a single GPU ? did you get the 39 FPS on ultra ? i just played it today i'm ranging between 41 and 36 FPS on Ultra.
CPU 4.0 or 2.8...no differences at all.
m
0
l
October 28, 2011 10:41:18 PM

Yes, I range between like 35-45, so 39 fps average sounds about right on ultra...One thing I have noticed though, is that switching my settings from Ultra to, say, Low, only gets me maybe a 5-10 fps boost at most, which is not what is supposed to happen.
Also, even though I switched my drivers to 11.9, it still says I have 10.10. Even when I uninstalled all my drivers, I checked on MSI Afterburner and it also said I still had 10.10....It's like the drivers are stuck or something, or CCC and Afterburner aren't working.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 28, 2011 11:01:01 PM

KingOtaku said:
Yes, I range between like 35-45, so 39 fps average sounds about right on ultra...One thing I have noticed though, is that switching my settings from Ultra to, say, Low, only gets me maybe a 5-10 fps boost at most, which is not what is supposed to happen.
Also, even though I switched my drivers to 11.9, it still says I have 10.10. Even when I uninstalled all my drivers, I checked on MSI Afterburner and it also said I still had 10.10....It's like the drivers are stuck or something, or CCC and Afterburner aren't working.


That's a classic sign of a CPU bottleneck. Everything you've specified sounds like one. Is it possible that your CPU is overheating and getting throttled?
m
0
l
October 28, 2011 11:21:18 PM

No, my CPU never rises above 55C, and from the benchmarks, there shouldn't be a problem...my CPU has worked in all other games, so I don't see why BF3 would be the exception.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 29, 2011 12:08:44 AM

bystander said:
That's a classic sign of a CPU bottleneck. Everything you've specified sounds like one. Is it possible that your CPU is overheating and getting throttled?

Something always driving my to say why people throw the bottlenecking issues on AMD CPUs, all the high end 990X and 890X chipsets are designed for 3-way/4-way CF or SLI, didn't AMD put in mind that FX 8150 or 1090T would bottleneck a CF configurations ?
Another thing to mention, seeing other enthusiasts with HD 6970s in CF and never mention any issues with a bottlenecking, even Toms's community chose a high end AMD based PC equipped with 1090T and 3-way HD 6970

X4 975/980 BE CPUs, those two particularly perform great in gaming compared to i5 2500K in most cases, compared to a X4 965 in the same clock there should be no problem as both are based on per core performance "Deneb" and have the same L3 Cache

EDIT: I've always believed that in most cases, CF/SLI are related to drivers issues and sometimes a hardware configuration when the CPU is strong enough to handle any game.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 29, 2011 12:18:29 AM

@ Kingotaku
I use CCC 11.10 preview 2, it's not official yet but i got to say there's no difference between 11.10 and 11.9 and a third preview released but i guess it's usless for me it's not gonna change anything.

yes i too range between 36-58 FPS but i OCed the GPU to 880 core, 1375 memory with the CPU @ 4.0 GHz.

Try uninstalling the the drivers and patches with driver sweeper clean uninstall, install the latest 11.10 and CAP 4 again, give your CPU the highest OC you can achieve 3-8 or 4.0 and see how it goes.
m
0
l
October 29, 2011 12:38:14 AM

Alright, I'll try doing that, we'll see how things go...
But I looked at the clock speeds of my card while gaming; my first card is at 850/1300 (which is the stock clocks it came with) while the other is idle at 250/150. Is there something I'm missing here? maybe I have the card hooked up incorrectly? As far as I know, you just make sure both cards have power (i.e. the 2 6-pins) and hook them up with a crossfire bridge...
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 29, 2011 12:50:27 AM

And you enable CF via CCC and bla bla bla
and some reviews say it's necessary to hook up booth bridges in order not to lose any bandwidth or data connection between the GPUs.

Play a game and see GPUs usage via MSI Afterburner, if both are identical, no GPU is IDLE while gaming.
m
0
l
October 29, 2011 12:52:51 AM

Everytime I attempt to use Driver Sweeper, it crashes. I assume that is not supposed to happen, so any other driver cleaners you'd recommend?
And yeah, I checked; it uses both cards in Metro 2033.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 29, 2011 12:56:16 AM

Wait a minute, do you have this problem only in BF3 ? so other games utilizing CF as it should ?

So just do a complete Uninstall to all CCC features, delete manually any AMD folders that contain previous installations
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 29, 2011 1:05:06 AM

ilysaml said:
Something always driving my to say why people throw the bottlenecking issues on AMD CPUs, all the high end 990X and 890X chipsets are designed for 3-way/4-way CF or SLI, didn't AMD put in mind that FX 8150 or 1090T would bottleneck a CF configurations ?
Another thing to mention, seeing other enthusiasts with HD 6970s in CF and never mention any issues with a bottlenecking, even Toms's community chose a high end AMD based PC equipped with 1090T and 3-way HD 6970

X4 975/980 BE CPUs, those two particularly perform great in gaming compared to i5 2500K in most cases, compared to a X4 965 in the same clock there should be no problem as both are based on per core performance "Deneb" and have the same L3 Cache

EDIT: I've always believed that in most cases, CF/SLI are related to drivers issues and sometimes a hardware configuration when the CPU is strong enough to handle any game.


While you could be right, the problems he's having does sound more like a bottleneck somewhere. In many games everything runs great, but this one game he sees almost no benefit when dropping down to lower graphics settings. That's a classic case that something is bottlenecking the graphics card and usually it's the CPU.

I have noticed that almost all 6950/70 crossfire complaints come from Phenom and 1090T systems, so I personally don't have a lot of faith with AMD CPU's atm.

Either there is some driver/bios issues, or they don't perform well at high FPS and low resolutions. Those benchmarks often show that the AMD CPU's do bottleneck a lot at lower resolutions, something the OP has. For the crossfire setups to not be bottlenecked by a slower CPU, you need a high resolution that demands a lot of GPU power just to get fairly low FPS.
m
0
l
October 29, 2011 1:55:02 AM

I did a complete uninstall, even got Driver Sweeper to work and used that. Made sure ALL of the AMD files were gone, and reinstalled with 11.10 and CAP4. Doesn't work.
I am completely sure that the problem lies with Crossfire not working, since my second card never activates. I have tried switching places and it's always the same; whichever card is hooked to the Master card remains idle, but only in BF3 (as far as I've tested)
I'm riding this on bad drivers. I have seen a few other people complain, so it's not just me. I will wait another week or so fro AMD to release better drivers-hopefully that will fix it...
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
October 29, 2011 1:59:48 AM

KingOtaku said:
I am completely sure that the problem lies with Crossfire not working.

Are you sure that Both cards are identified by the CCC ? linked to each other ? non of them marked as disabled ?
And you still didn't answer the imp question, did you try other games and saw a benefit from CF ?
m
0
l
October 29, 2011 2:09:43 AM

The only other game I tried was Metro, and a few benchmarks. All of them showed improvement, and they are both enabled and I have crossfire activated in CCC. I'm going to try reinstalling the game and see if that helps at all...I doubt it, but one can hope.
m
0
l
!