CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Fallout 3
We have played this game numerous times and still have not visited every location on the map or completed all seventy or so side-quests. It could be that the game’s ambiance does not seem to match its predecessors. Alternatively, maybe some of the bugs present that result in NPC characters disappearing have us longing to play Oblivion or KOTR again. Even so, we still love the game. We have moved on to playing the new content pack, Operation: Anchorage, until Dragon Age: Origins ships.
The game engine is based on the one utilized in Oblivion with a few updates, so performance is similar. We set the quality settings to Ultra, AA to 2x, and AF to 8x. Our test consists of following a path back to Megaton and in the process fighting off a couple of Raiders. We utilize FRAPS to capture our results.
Truthfully, this game does not benchmark well. The game’s level-of-detail mechanism makes constant changes as you cross the map. The LOD adjustments create a seesaw effect in the frame rates and it is difficult to tell if the sudden pause or shudder in frame rates is from the video card or the game engine. That said, the Intel i7 platform simply performs best in this game.
Once again, in our single card testing at 1680x1050 each setup is very close with the Intel Q9550 holding a 4% advantage in average frame rates over the Phenom II 940. The Phenom II posts slightly better minimum frame rates once again. In CrossFire testing the Q9550 holds a small 1% advantage, close to our error of margin. The Q9550 picks up some steam when overclocked and holds an 8% advantage over the Phenom II 940 in average frame rates and 13% in minimum frame rates with a 7% clock speed advantage. The i7 leads our two competitors in overclocked CrossFire performance by 6% and 13% respectfully.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 4% and minimum frame rates stay the same for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 2% in average frame rates and 11% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 3% and minimum rates decrease by 7%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 14%~19% improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
The 1920x1200 results are similar with the Q9550 and Phenom II 940 scoring nearly the same in single card and CrossFire. We just do not see any real benefits in having CrossFire at stock speeds with the Q9550 or Phenom II 940. Once we overclocked each processor, we noticed an 11% increase in CrossFire performance on these two platforms. The Q9550 holds a slight advantage in minimum frame rates with CrossFire when overclocked while the Phenom II 940 leads at stock clock speeds.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 4% and minimum frame rates by 15% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of less than 1% in average frame rates and no changes in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 6% and minimum rates increase 5%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 12%~17% improvement in average frame rates with the Core i7 benefiting the most.
Our Core i7 scores better with a single card setup than the other two platforms with CrossFire. The same holds true with the stock i7 CrossFire results scoring higher than our two overclocked competitors do. Overclocking the i7 CrossFire setup results in a 17% increase in average frame rates that required a 50% increase in core clock speeds.
As far as game play experiences, we noted no differences between the Intel Q9550 and Phenom II 940 platforms. Each one offered a very good experience with minimum frame rates on each platform being acceptable. The amount of LOD adjustments in the game was disconcerting at times . When we experienced them, the game stutter was minimized on the i7 setup compared to the other two platforms with CrossFire enabled. All three platforms responded in the same manner with a single card setup. Overall, we would not recommend CrossFire for this game at present; even overclocking the processors resulted in a minimum improvement in frame rates.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
balancedthinking - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
If these Settings were used for the Phenom II 940, at least it is not as bad as I first thought:http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=55...">http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=55...
That would mean an NB frequency around 2450. That is quite okay though it can be tweaked a bit further.
Still, it would be nice to know which settings were actually used for the Phenom II.
hooflung - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
That is a very, very well done article. Keep it up guys. Can't wait til' income tax and I am going to get a e8500 and a pII 940 to upgrade my P35 and 790GX, respectively.7Enigma - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Thank you for finally including this information in the charts!This has been a HUGE peev of mine for a while now and it really helps to see which card (or in this case system) is actually better than the other at a particular game where the average frame rate may not tell the whole story.
Please make sure the rest of the Anandtech crew starts using this format for future testing.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Although I understand the intent of using the highest OC possible I do believe the results can lead to another conclusion. A few of us discussing the CPU OC, CF results. It appears (so far) that the reason why the Q9550 came out ahead in CF results was a direct result of it's overclock. Some believe that if the PII 940 was OC'd that high (yes we read the other article about this) or the Q9550 was OC'd down, results would be different.The reason for this point of view is that most are not able to get Q9550 at 4.25GHz on air.
jusme - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I found this article very informative. It now puts into perspective where the PII 940 stands in the gaming arena. Thanks Anandtech for taking the time to do it. I myself have 3 computers, 2 capable of of either the quad 9550(P45) or PII 940 Deneb(780g). It is very good to know that which ever solution I choose, xfire on P45 or single on 780g, I know the performance capabilities of both, and I like both. Hell, you got that Q9550 up to 4.05 oc for these tests? Wow! I knew they were capable, but to run these games that well under the load is alone impressive. You sure it was'nt the Q9650? I alone was going to shoot for a modest 3.8 for gaming, stability and temp management. In closing, it is also good to know that those who jumped on the I7 bandwagon real fast are sitting pretty, I know it was'nt cheap, but alot of those builders skimped on graphics.zenguy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
In your review, it you stated that your testing did not reveal any difference between the P45 and P48 for CrossFire Limits so a P45 board was chosen.However, based on a few other reviews I have read, the 4850 can be noticably limited by the P45 board and ergo I presume the limits on a 4870 1GB card would be much much higher.
An example of one such review is below...........
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/10/intel_p4...">http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/...s_x48_cr...
Could this explain the "Unusual Drop" in performance or unexpected low framerates for the Intel Platform that you noted?
AtenRa - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I am 100% sure that the results of the Core 2 Quad 9550 wild be much higher with an Intel X48 chipset than with the P45 in Cross Fire.Never the les, the article DOES show that Phenom II 940 is competitive in real life gaming at High resolutions.
zenguy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Yes the PII is a valid solution.AMD Finally re-entered the game in my Mind with the release.
SLI - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Hammonds famous line in Jurrasic Park.Indeed, for 95% of folks, these ultra high benchmarks are useless. But for those of us in the 5%, thesy serve as a reminder on the ridiculous amounts of money we spend to squeeze just tha extra few FPS out. But then again the other 95% just dont get it...why?
Here is a paragraph I have kept near and dear for some years and it explains it eloquently.
"To upgrade or not to upgrade, that is the question that crosses many enthusiasts' lips on a daily basis. The upgrade bug is a high infectious, wallet-stripping disease that spreads fast once it gets a hold of you. Hardware manufacturers propagate this infection by offering you, the consumer, faster, more desirable hardware each month. Almost every facet of the hardware world begs you to get the next model up, or to break open the piggy bank and buy an 'upgraded version' of what you already have. Speak to a number of enthusiasts and they'll tell you that upgrading is more addictive than gambling (Biz387, 2003)."
So, you see, it's not our fault. Were simply sick. I type this as I play crysis at DX10 Very High spec everything at maximum @ 1900x1200@ 40fps average. Pulling about 830watts at the outlet, lol.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
If I were to use your number, the inclusion of more mainstream benchmark results pulls in nearly 95% more hits to this website then it would be beneficial for both anandtech and it's viewer base. Puts things into prospective doesn't it? LOL