10.1 Crossfire Eyefinity Report

[dook43]

3840x1200 res, system in sig, GPUs clocked to 850/1100 core/mem

Crysis Warhead: WORKS! Activity on GPU1 and GPU2. However, this game really requires 2GB of framebuffer per GPU for Eyefinity resolutions. I turned shaders down to Gamer and left everything enthusiast at 2xAA. Performance was great throughout Below Thunder, but from Hell's Heart was noticeably starved for memory bandwidth ( character starts the level riding on a train through the jungle. The level hiccups, with fast performance accompanied by 2-5fps slowdowns as you pan the view around the screen.) I backed down to single monitor and the game absolutely FLIES 1920x1200, 4xAA, everything enthusiast.

Dirt2: Does not work. Game launches in 1920x1200 and when the eyefinity resolution is selected, screens turn black, although both GPUs show activity after the resolution change.

Batman AA: Does not work. Game launches and runs in 3840x1200, but only GPU2 shows activity. Probably a non issue since the game doesn't require dual GPUs to perform at peak.

 

[Finkus]

I cannot get both GPU's on my 5970 to work with the 10.1 or 10.1 hotfix drivers. I've tried nuking all traces of ATI/AMD and fresh installs of both drivers, as well as 9.12, then 10.1 and then the hotfix installs.

I've tried resetting to factory defaults in the CCC preferences as someone mentioned someone else suggested somewhere (on the interwebz) as well as rebooting, uninstalling only the CCC and reinstalling etc. etc. Also tried disabling and re-enabling different levels of Catalyst AI. Same results. Only one GPU working in Eyefinity resolutions.

Nothing seems to get both GPU's to work with these drivers.

Games tested:
-Burnout Paradise (Both working at 1920x1080. Not 5760x1080)
-Batman (Both working 1920x1080. Not 5760x1080)
-L4D2 (Both working 1920x1080. Not 5760x1080)
-TF2 (Both working 1920x1080. Not 5760x1080)
-Dirt2 (Both working at 1920x1080. Not 5760x1080) Actually seeing Dirt2 running at 60fps minimum at 8XMSAA on the native res of my monitor with Ultra settings, with no stuttering and a working vsync made me wonder why I bother with Eyefinity. The game is stunning when everything actually works.
-Battlefield BC2 Beta. (Both working 1920x1080. Not 5760x1080)
-Crysis Warhead. (Both GPU's are working in this game at 1920x1080)

Can anyone with a 5970 confirm they can get both GPU's working (shown by changes in framerates with and without catalyst AI enabled).

The positive part of this mess is that L4D2, TF2 and Burnout Paradise actually run at 5760x1080 with only one GPU, which means vsync works. So when I play those games at least I can disable Catalyst AI and have working vsync now.

Still, Dirt2 and Battlefield are unplayable with half framerates so I need to fix this or it's back to 9.12 again.

 

[dook43]

I edited Dirt2's configuration file to enable 3840x1200 resolution, and the game launches and runs (BOTH GPUs active), but I get 6 less average frames per second in Crossfire than when Crossfire is disabled.

 

[Finkus]

I edited Dirt2's configuration file to enable 3840x1200 resolution, and the game launches and runs (BOTH GPUs active), but I get 6 less average frames per second in Crossfire than when Crossfire is disabled.

Ouch. I found Dirt2 scales beautifully with my 5970's cores. With 9.12 hotfix drivers I get exactly half framerates with only one core enabled.

 

[dook43]

Does anyone on [h] staff know if AMD plans to stabilize the EF/Xfire dilemma soon? We really need a "State Of" editorial on the subject.

 

[MJZ]

Ah Fermi can not come soon enough.

 

[dook43]

I wouldn't purchase Fermi because of the SLI requirement for Eyefinity. I'd consider a single card solution , as I figure I'd be able to cut loose both of my 5850's and get one.

 

[MJZ]

I wouldn't purchase Fermi because of the SLI requirement for Eyefinity. I'd consider a single card solution , as I figure I'd be able to cut loose both of my 5850's and get one.

That's a non-issue.

Eyefinity is not targeted at budget users, and someone running Eyefininity is not going to tolerate 30FPS anyway.

I would not consider running Eyefinity on my one 5870 for example.

2x Fermis would be the "Nfinity" setup, while two 5870s or two 5850s or a 5970 (2x core) will be the usual "Eyefinity" setup.

 

[dook43]

Of course it's an issue! My 5850's set me back $521 total, while a 5970 is $700 (for about the same performance as two 5850s) and two 5870's are 800. You have to believe that two Fermis at launch would be at least $800. It's an issue for me because I'd have to eat at least 400 dollars out of pocket to get a pair of Fermi cards considering what I already own.

I can tolerate Dirt2 and Crysis just fine at 30 fps fwiw.

 

[Finkus]

That's a non-issue.

Eyefinity is not targeted at budget users, and someone running Eyefininity is not going to tolerate 30FPS anyway.

I would not consider running Eyefinity on my one 5870 for example.

2x Fermis would be the "Nfinity" setup, while two 5870s or two 5850s or a 5970 (2x core) will be the usual "Eyefinity" setup.

One 5870 will run many games perfectly well in Eyefinity resolutions. Especially 20-23" screens. You can also drop your resolution in Eyefinity, which is what I imagine a great many 30" users do already when games are demanding. This will become more of an option once they start putting in more aspect ratio correct resolution options (10.1 drivers already offer 4800x900 as an option for my 5760x1080 setup and that's roughly the same amount of pixels as existing 2560x1600 users)

I'm sure a 5850, with smaller screens, or smaller eyefinity resolutions could manage Eyefinity in many games as well. L4D2, TF2, Burnout Paradise and Batman all run like a dream on one core of my 5970 in 5760x1080 Eyefinity, which is going to be slower than a single 5870.

To say that 1+ grand of Fermi is a non-issue for Eyefinity is outrageous. It's a massive barrier to adoption. No wonder nvidia felt there was no market there, if they didn't consider single card solutions, mid range cards, or lower resolutions.

 

[morfinx]

It's a non-issue. A BMW M3 costs $60K, and thus does not target budget drivers. A driving enthusiast who would go for a M3 should have no problems going for a $120K Audi R8, right?

That was sarcasm, in case people didn't get it

Back on topic, with Catalyst 10.1, you can select a lower resolution with the correct aspect ratio if performance at native resolution is not high enough to your liking.

 

[MJZ]

Of course it's an issue! My 5850's set me back $521 total, while a 5970 is $700 (for about the same performance as two 5850s) and two 5870's are 800. You have to believe that two Fermis at launch would be at least $800. It's an issue for me because I'd have to eat at least 400 dollars out of pocket to get a pair of Fermi cards considering what I already own.

I can tolerate Dirt2 and Crysis just fine at 30 fps fwiw.

Well, who says you need to get top of the line Fermis at launch? You can do the same thing, get mid-range Fermis and SLI them, and they will perform slightly faster anyway (estimated what 20%) than the ATI cards.

 

[MJZ]

One 5870 will run many games perfectly well in Eyefinity resolutions. Especially 20-23" screens. You can also drop your resolution in Eyefinity, which is what I imagine a great many 30" users do already when games are demanding. This will become more of an option once they start putting in more aspect ratio correct resolution options (10.1 drivers already offer 4800x900 as an option for my 5760x1080 setup and that's roughly the same amount of pixels as existing 2560x1600 users)

I'm sure a 5850, with smaller screens, or smaller eyefinity resolutions could manage Eyefinity in many games as well. L4D2, TF2, Burnout Paradise and Batman all run like a dream on one core of my 5970 in 5760x1080 Eyefinity, which is going to be slower than a single 5870.

To say that 1+ grand of Fermi is a non-issue for Eyefinity is outrageous. It's a massive barrier to adoption. No wonder nvidia felt there was no market there, if they didn't consider single card solutions, mid range cards, or lower resolutions.

Those games you listed are old or run on old engines that a 9800 could run perfectly fine on lower resolutions.

 

[MJZ]

It's a non-issue. A BMW M3 costs $60K, and thus does not target budget drivers. A driving enthusiast who would go for a M3 should have no problems going for a $120K Audi R8, right?

That was sarcasm, in case people didn't get it

Back on topic, with Catalyst 10.1, you can select a lower resolution with the correct aspect ratio if performance at native resolution is not high enough to your liking.

Actually yes, an M3 is $60k, which means your income should be six figures and your net worth on its way towards the 7 figures. They would have no problems dropping $120k for an R8 (which is nice, but no enthusiast would do that "upgrade" for anything less than the $150k R8 V10).

The problem is people who make $60k a year think they can afford an M3 - and that is how the whole effing credit crisis began. Hint: You can't, you should be making a lot more to consider a $60k car.

 

[dook43]

Well, who says you need to get top of the line Fermis at launch? You can do the same thing, get mid-range Fermis and SLI them, and they will perform slightly faster anyway (estimated what 20%) than the ATI cards.

A "midrange" Fermi solution will cost me $800. 20% isn't enough improvement for a 47% increase in cost. Same reason why I bought 5850s instead of 5870s or a 5970.

 

[MJZ]

A "midrange" Fermi solution will cost me $800. 20% isn't enough improvement for a 47% increase in cost. Same reason why I bought 5850s instead of 5870s or a 5970.

Hmmm well, we'll see. If midrange Fermis cost $400, then Nvidia is not going to get anyone's business!

I'm think $300, according to what I think is the current structure:

Midrange - 5770
Mid-high - 5850
High end - 5870
Ultra - 5970

By the way, you may end up eating some words because Nvidia drivers kill ATI ones in general for usage and stability. I almost have no doubt that Nfinity will have better driver support and not have nearly as BS that ATI is doing. Is 20% increase in performance and 100% increase in stability worth the 47% increase in cost? Good question right?

This is coming from someone who would much rather support ATI.

 

[dook43]

Hmmm well, we'll see. If midrange Fermis cost $400, then Nvidia is not going to get anyone's business!

You'd be wrong about that, FWIW

I'm think $300, according to what I think is the current structure:

No chance. $400 for the 448SP Fermi and at least $550 for the full part. I could easily see 448SP Fermi going for $500 and the full part being $650 at launch, if the 448 part truly is 20% faster than a 5870.

Even so, my crossfired 5850's will still beat it at only $21 more out of pocket -- win-win for me.

By the way, you may end up eating some words because Nvidia drivers kill ATI ones in general for usage and stability. I almost have no doubt that Nfinity will have better driver support and not have nearly as BS that ATI is doing. Is 20% increase in performance and 100% increase in stability worth the 47% increase in cost? Good question right?

This is coming from someone who would much rather support ATI.

Fine. I bought my second 5850 knowing full well it probably wasn't supported yet, and you can't fault a company for not fully supporting a feature when they out and say it isn't supported. As to problems with PowerPlay, dual monitors, and GL/GSOD, all I've experienced is dual monitor flickering at 157/300 speeds, which I was happy to correct via manual overclocking.

 

[lanlord510]

60K a Year buying a 65K dollar M3 = Fail!!!!!! ... even more so because 60K a year Smart people buy a 35K Subaru STI or Mitsubishi Evo and KILL that M3 and after killing it go Snowboarding in the hills SANS Chains! LOL.

 

[Finkus]

Those games you listed are old or run on old engines that a 9800 could run perfectly fine on lower resolutions.

I still really don't understand your argument there. What is your point exactly? You seem to be saying that a 5870 single card Eyefinity solution isn't viable because it won't run tomorrow's game engines at max rez with full effects and that people shouldn't consider triple monitor gaming unless they can drop over a grand on dual Fermi?

You can add Modern Warfare 2 and Aliens vs Predator to the list as well as they both run at max frames, max settings on just one core of my 5970 at 5760x1080.

P.S. There are mid-range Fermi's? I thought the only announcements so far were an 'expensive' card and a 'stupidly expensive' card.

 

[sbuckler]

Stil waiting for proof that there isn't some fundamental bandwidth problem with xfire and eye infinity (i.e. the xfire link isn't fast enough to transfer the huge eye infinity resolutions between the cards).

Think about it:
a) A 5970 has always worked near perfectly with eye infinity - the only difference between it and normal xfire is the two cards are on one pcb and therefore you could assume they have a better link then the standard xfire one.

b) All cards work perfectly at non eye infinity resolutions in xfire, yet they can't get eye infinity and xfire to work? As far as the game is concerned eye infinity is just a higher resolution - all the eye infinity bit should mean is the card outputing to the screens has to split the final image in three. I can't see why it would make the slightest bit of difference to xfire before the final output as surely the cards are just drawing to say 5760*1080 instead of some lower single screen resolution.

The only conclusion I can come too is there is a fundamental problem with the speed of the link between the cards - the link is fine for any single screen resolution, but for the higher eye infinity resolutions it doesn't cut it.

A critical look at this by [H] would be appreciated, although I am sad to say unlikely to happen due to the somewhat biased coverage eye infinity gets here - I'd be very happy to be proved wrong however.

 

[Finkus]

Stil waiting for proof that there isn't some fundamental bandwidth problem with xfire and eye infinity (i.e. the xfire link isn't fast enough to transfer the huge eye infinity resolutions between the cards).

Think about it:
a) A 5970 has always worked near perfectly with eye infinity - the only difference between it and normal xfire is the two cards are on one pcb and therefore you could assume they have a better link then the standard xfire one.

b) All cards work perfectly at non eye infinity resolutions in xfire, yet they can't get eye infinity and xfire to work? As far as the game is concerned eye infinity is just a higher resolution - all the eye infinity bit should mean is the card outputing to the screens has to split the final image in three. I can't see why it would make the slightest bit of difference to xfire before the final output as surely the cards are just drawing to say 5760*1080 instead of some lower single screen resolution.

The only conclusion I can come too is there is a fundamental problem with the speed of the link between the cards - the link is fine for any single screen resolution, but for the higher eye infinity resolutions it doesn't cut it.

A critical look at this by [H] would be appreciated, although I am sad to say unlikely to happen due to the somewhat biased coverage eye infinity gets here - I'd be very happy to be proved wrong however.

I think it's just the issue that they have 3 sets of drivers in development at any time. The 9.12 hotfix have Eyefinity Crossfire but the 10.1's don't. I can't imagine it's a technical issue. All the features and fixes will catch up with each other at some point over a 3 month window, I guess.

You can just revert to 9.12 hotfix if you're desperate for it. I'm happy with 10.1 for the time being as I have found out that pretty much everything runs well in Eyefinity on a single core of a 5970, apart from Dirt2 with DX11 features on.