CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Call of Duty: World at War
While not our favorite Call of Duty game, World at War certainly improves upon the graphics quality of previous versions. We play through the first few minutes of the Semper FI level by following a repeatable course and capture our performance results with FRAPS. We set the various graphics and texture options to their highest settings with AA at 2x and AF at 8x.
This game is not particularly hard on either the GPU or CPU, but we do hit a hard cap at 94fps. At 1680x1050 the Phenom II platform is able match either Intel platform in single card and CrossFire mode, although minimum frame rates favor Intel slightly. When overclocked, the Phenom II is only about 2% slower in average frame rates but minimum frame rates are 20% lower.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 12% and minimum frame rates decrease 2% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an 11% increase in average frame rates and 4% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 13% and minimum rates decrease by 12%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 2%~5% improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the greatest.
We have roughly the same performance results at 1920x1200 when comparing the platforms. The Phenom II is competitive with the Intel platforms in single card and CrossFire operation, though minimum frame rates in CrossFire mode trail the Intel solutions around 5% on average. Once we overclock the CPUs, the minimum frame rate is about 16% lower on the Phenom II compared to the Intel products.
Installing a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 27% and minimum frame rates increase 16% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has a 28% increase in average frame rates and 24% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 29% and minimum rates increase by 30%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 4%~5% improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
We did not notice any difference in game play quality at either resolution between the platforms after playing through several of the levels. Each platform offered a very smooth and fluid gaming experience. We thought the higher minimum frame rates on the Intel systems would be noticeable during the action scenes in the jungle, but we honestly could not tell the systems apart during testing.
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