CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Crysis Warhead
Crysis Warhead is an update to the original game with a storyline that takes place on the other side of the Island during the same time-period as the first. The game features an enhanced and optimized version of the CryEngine 2 but is still a resource monster. We set the graphics options to Gamer, DX10, and 2xAA and play back a timedemo that covers the Ambush level. We have to admit at these settings that the game looks fantastic during action scenes and game play is acceptable.
At 1680x1050, all three platforms are clustered together in single card and CrossFire configurations. We also see why a single GPU card can be a better value than a dual GPU solution at this resolution in certain games. It is not until we overclock that we notice some separation between the platforms with the i7 taking a decent lead, but its minimum frame rates do not improve compared to a single card setup. However, our Phenom II setup offers the best minimum frame rates when overclocked and actually offers a slight improvement over its single card scores.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 2% and minimum frame rates decrease 12% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has a decrease of 1% in average frame rates and 19% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 8% and minimum rates decrease by 20%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 22%~36% improvement in average frame rates with the Core i7 benefiting the greatest.
Our 1920x1200 test follows a similar pattern with all three solutions equal in single card testing and CrossFire showing a slight advantage to the i7. The Phenom II is slightly ahead of the Q9550 when overclocked, though it is at a 7% clock speed disadvantage. We have noticed CryEngine 2 will respond to improved memory bandwidth and latencies as we clock up the processors. The i7 holds a 14% advantage in average frame rates while the Phenom II once again impresses us with the best minimum frame rates when overclocked. However, not having a 20fps minimum frame rate is a disappointment with our multi-GPU setups. The NVIDIA 260/285 solutions scale better in SLI than the ATI HD 4870 products. We hope that ATI can improve their drivers for this game.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 20% but minimum frame rates do not change for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 17% in average frame rates and a decrease of 6% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 27% and minimum rates increase 18%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 14%~22% improvement in average frame rates with the Core i7 benefiting the most.
After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise. Of course, if you have the funds, we would recommend the i7 platform for best possible performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
Myrandex - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I agree that you would probably not see a difference at all, but you can get 6GB of Ram in a PhenomII system and still keep your Dual Channel Goodness:2 x 2GB & 2 x 1GB = 6GB in all 4 slots, operating at dual channel mode.
Jason
Goty - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
This is true, but then you run into the problems AMD's IMCs have when you populate all four DIMM slots.monovillage - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Good review and thanks for doing the work, i look forward to seeing the power numbers. With 2 very similarly priced platforms and the premium (but not out of reach i7 920) I was glad to see the P2 940 give a good account of itself.duploxxx - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
not sure how you guys whant to run a review, but perhaps start a comparing review with competing price configurations.q9400 = p2 940 in price, so it's useless to throw in a q9550, it's 20% more expensive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi...43%20401...
then trying to memic a same price range by choosing a very expensive motherboard while a same spec mobo kosts about 50$ less.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
so there is already a 10% price difference.
not to mention that a q9400 also has the same hard time getting above that 4GHZ border and is already shown in many reviews including yours that this was the marketing target against p2 940 then why the hell testing a q9550.
I call this review total crap and waste of time for readers and reviewers.
Just remove the first page on your review, with this kind of review you just prooven that you are not open for the best whoever it provides.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Unless I misunderstand their intent, it appears to me that they clearly showed the PII 940 is better then a Q9550.Erif - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I think the purpose of this test is to see if AMD's latest processors are fast enough for higher-end crossfire setups or not.As for comparing the performance of specific CPUs and their prices- Anandtech did that in their Phenom II review back in January 8 review.
Goty - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
If you're going to try and tear down someone else's article, you might want to check your spelling so you don't come off as a complete idiot.duploxxx - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
wow nice post, your added value is very high. Lets try some writing here and start with several languages, french, dutch, german, english, let's see how good you are at foreign languages.The fact remains that the platform is not balanced on price and marketing.
Spoelie - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Total platform price was the same. The motherboard you linked1) was an open box, i.e. second-hand
2) had the 790GX chipset, while the motherboard in the review was the FX version. The feature set of this last one is more suited to running crossfire. Of course, you would have known that from actually reading the review instead of glancing at it.
In fact, it's a rather interesting comparison for the purpose: cpu with a little more grunt (Q9550) paired with a mainstream chipset (P45) compared to a cheaper cpu (940) paired with an enthusiast chipset (FX).
I presume the FX was able to provide a nice boost.
duploxxx - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
FX does not boost at all, unless you require the pci-e 2.0 16x bandwith which is already shown in normal CF setups that it is not required.here is another one.... board cost 100$ and although it is with the sb600, there is nothing wrong with it, the P45 is also a midrange board.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...