Update: Radeon R9 295X2 8 GB In CrossFire: Gaming At 4K

By Chris Angelini
published

We spent our weekend benchmarking the sharp-looking iBuyPower Erebus loaded with a pair of Radeon R9 295X2 graphics cards. Do the new boards fare better than the quad-GPU configurations we've tested before, or should you stick to fewer cards in CrossFire?

Results: Assassin’s Creed IV

FCAT tells us that two Radeon R9 295X2s average 42 FPS, and Fraps says 42 FPS as well. Both measurement methods are in agreement, and confirm what we saw in my original quad-CrossFire evaluation.

While AMD does come away with the first-place finish, it’d be hard to argue the sensibility of a second $1500 graphics card for an extra 16% performance compared to just one $1500 board.

Zoom out from the similar averages and you’ll discover a frame rate over time graph that looks a lot alike, too. A pair of Radeon R9 295X2s is indisputably fastest. However, they also jump up and down the performance chart in a more exaggerated manner.

This, in part, translates to the least-attractive frame time variance results, as individual frames are not paced well, resulting in longer pauses interpreted as stuttering while you play through the game.

Once the frame time variance is charted out, you clearly see the spikes in the difference in time between frames. For each of them, there’s a blip in the overall experience. The same held true in our original evaluation, but because I left the GeForce GTX 690 on the graph, you missed out on the overall impact. Nvidia’s dual-GK104-based card is wholly unsuited for 4K, so it and the Radeon HD 7990 were pulled to make the data more readable.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
69 Comments Comment from the forums
  • redgarl
    I always said it, more than two cards takes too much resources to manage. Drivers are not there either. You are getting better results with simple Crossfire. Still, the way AMD corner Nvidia as the sole maker able to push 4k right now is amazing.
    Reply
  • BigMack70
    I personally don't think we'll see a day that 3+ GPU setups become even a tiny bit economical.

    For that to happen, IMO, the time from one GPU release to the next would have to be so long that users needed more than 2x high end GPUs to handle games in the mean time.

    As it is, there's really no gaming setup that can't be reasonably managed by a pair of high end graphics cards (Crysis back in 2007 is the only example I can think of when that wasn't the case). 3 or 4 cards will always just be for people chasing crazy benchmark scores.
    Reply
  • frozentundra123456
    I am not a great fan of mantle because of the low number of games that use it and its specificity to GCN hardware, but this would have been one of the best case scenarios for testing it with BF4.

    I cant believe the reviewer just shrugged of the fact that the games obviously look cpu limited by just saying "well, we had the fastest cpu you can get" when they could have used mantle in BF4 to lessen cpu usage.
    Reply
  • Reynod
    Great article as always Chris ... sweet and to the point without bias.
    Reply
  • west7
    i wasn't expecting 295x2 in crossfire review in any time soon well done toms
    Reply
  • noobsaibot99
    Nothing to do here :D
    Reply
  • noobsaibot99
    Nothing to do here :D
    Reply
  • Matthew Posey
    The first non-bold paragraph says "even-thousand." Guessing that should be "eleven-thousand."
    Reply
  • EricJohn2004
    Lol, I notice that too.
    Reply
  • Haravikk
    How does a dual dual-GPU setup even operate under Crossfire? As I understand it the two GPUs on each board are essentially operating in Crossfire already, so is there then a second Crossfire layer combining the two cards on top of that, or has AMD tweaked Crossfire to be able to manage them as four separate GPUs? Either way it seems like a nightmare to manage, and not even close to being worth the $3,000 price tag, especially when I'm not really convinced that even a single of those $1,500 cards is really worth it to begin with; drool worthy, but even if I had a ton of disposable income I couldn't picture myself ever buying one.
    Reply