With those two compute-oriented tests out of the way, let's have a look at entirely different type of use case: gaming. Again, this isn't what the TurboBox was intended for, but application's demands are going to tax the TurboBox in a different way; perhaps we'll be able to see where available throughput affects scaling, and how that compares to a native motherboard-based solution.
Interestingly, the fastest results are achieved by two graphics cards plugged into our X79-based motherboard. Adding a third card adversely affects performance, either due to a platform limitation or an unoptimized three-way CrossFire profile, both of which could be indicated by a lower minimum frame rates. The TurboBox performs well, but does fall behind the motherboard-attached cards.
With a single card installed, all three configurations perform identically.
Again, the TurboBox performs almost identically as the motherboard-installed cards. At this resolution, we see three cards slightly outperforming two, although they suffer lower minimum frame rates, too. In all cases, scaling is sub-par, to be sure.
- Netstor TurboBox NA255A: Space For Up To Four GPUs, Externally
- Setup And Overcoming Issues
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Results: General-Purpose GPU
- Results: Medal Of Honor Warfighter
- Results: Crysis 2
- Results: DiRT Showdown
- Results: Metro 2033
- Power And Heat
- Our Benchmarks Prove Its Efficacy, But At What Cost?