Slashdot Mirror
ATI Launches Crossfire... Finally
Steve from Hexus writes "After a long wait, ATI's multi-GPU solution - CrossFire - is finally here. Hexus checks out Crossfire using an X850 Crossfire setup, which can be beaten in performance by a single GeForce 7800 GTX in some games. Too little too late, or will R520 based Crossfire prove more fruitful? Hexus also examines how Crossfire works, how easy it is to setup and what its limitations are with current hardware." Looks very interesting - I'd love to get one for review.
Coral Cache
(begin karma whoring)
Coral Cache
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/crossfire/r ossfire_detail/1.htmle viewxxx/e id=730&cid=2e /index.x?pg=1/ index.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/09/26/ati_c
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/crossfireatir
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODE1
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articl
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=168
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=404
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/ati-crossfir
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050926
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1862962 ,00.asp
NVidia currently has a couple SLI cards, which perform quite well. I recently picked up a 7800 GT, the low-end of the high-end cards, for around $350. The plan is to pick up a second one when the price drops to around $100. It's very reminiscent of my Voodoo 2 experience - the first cost $300 and the second cost $30.
Of course, Crossfire has the benefit of working with any other ATI card past a certain point. With NVidia's offerings, you have to match the card exactly (though supposedly the manufacturer doesn't matter). For my needs, it doesn't matter all that much, but it's something to consider.
Not that I'm a fanboy of either vendor. My last card was a Radeon 9800 Pro, which has worked great these last couple years. Now it seems that NVidia has the card that works best for my needs. Ain't competition grand?
It sounds like, even though Crossfire might not be the glorious thing everyone has been waiting for, that in the future it might prove better than SLI. I for one though, feel that it would be better to just wait for that one graphics card than to get two at the moment, considering how fast they become obsolete.
Anyways, from what I've read and been told, SLI requires special profiles to be taken advantage of in games, while crossfire simulates 1 graphics card and doesn't require anything but the default drivers to be taken advantage of.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
Page 2 :
"By definition, a single-link DVI connection only has enough bandwidth at its maximum clock rate to carry a 1600x1200 image at up to 60Hz, or a 1900x1200 image displayed at 54Hz. Therefore in terms of what the slave can send the master board for output via the compositing chip, it's limited to those resolutions."
Limited only if you read the original DVI spec. How does he think people run the HP and Apple 23" displays and the Dell 24" display over a single-link connection?
All card manufacturers, and 1920x1200 display manufacturers, allow you to run the channel with a reduced blanking interval, and so squeeze in the extra bandwidth needed for 1920x1200x60.
Bad start to the review - I'm not going to continue reading (even if I could after it has been slashdot'ed.
60Hz is essentially the maximum you can achieve over DVI-D at 1600x1200.
Take a peek at high end nVidia cards, and it's a different story. Dual-link DVI with both ports combined you can push it to 3840x2400. I believe that to be at 60Hz, but don't quote me. We've got a FX3000 running at that at 15Hz.
jh
There aren't any games that require a 7800 SLI configuration and probably won't be for some time. If NVIDIA wasn't worried about releasing a card to wipe out ATI in performance, they could of released the 7800 series in another year or two and everyone would of been happy as pigs in shh.
If Radeon can offer their SLI combination at an affordable price, there's nothing stopping me from saving a few hundred dollers and purchasing a card that generally is in the same era that games are currently in.
Sometimes it's not all about speed, nor price, but value.
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
Considering that Steve Kerrison from Hexus submitted both stories (but with a difference email address for the previous story) I'd say he's asking for it, literally.
SLI works well for game developers who are writing for next generation hardware. While I agree that there is a lot of gimmicky marketing involved, I think it is a good attempt to raise the bar on what it means to be 'High End' as a response to market demand. Maybe some people do what you suggest, but I know a handfull of people who bought two cards right off the bat. As long as people are willing to spend the money, you can't blame nVidia or ATI for giving them more opportunities to do just that. Also, I don't know what you are suggesting by saying that it convinces people to buy a more expensive video card. All of nVidia's PCIe cards in the 6000 and 7000 generation support SLI (even the non-GT ones that don't have a bridge) since the 77 drivers came out (at the 7800 launch). That includes the cheap ones (if you can call any of those cards cheap).
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
I don't know why monitors don't just double scan things to reduce the flicker to make it bearable to view. I'd be happy with a 50Hz screen refresh if the monitor was displaying it at 100Hz, heck, when I'm not gaming a 25Hz refresh would probably be good enough if quadrupled in the monitor.
I think cinemas do something similar where each frame is displayed twice such that the flicker is less noticable while the frame rate remains the same. Maybe it's more expensive/difficult for a CRT.
-- Mike
Maybe read the FAQ?
http://slashdot.org/faq/suggestions.shtml#su900
No. LCD pixels aren't just "more persistent" than CRT pixels.
LCD pixels hold their current state until the input signal changes. There is no scan period on an LCD, the 60Hz signal is simply a convenient way to bridge the gap between raster scan displays and active-matrix displays.
So, if you send an LCD a set of successive white screens, after the initial white screen no pixels will change, ever. A CRT, on the other hand, will write a white pixel to every part of the screen once every 1/60th of a second...and while the beam is not concentrated on a particular pixel, its brightness will fade.
It has nothing to do with LCDs' slower reponse time, as you implied.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.