3870 X2 Crossfire

[Aberforth]

there you go: http://www.techpowerup.com/?50695 and http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/237,news-237.html

Crysis: 16 frames @ 1280 :roll:

sure with optimized drivers you might want to add 5 more frames to it.

 

[Keysplayr]

"Maybe this is due to the fact that there aren't any official ATI X2 drivers at all, but time will show."

Did you not see this ^^ ??

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
"Maybe this is due to the fact that there aren't any official ATI X2 drivers at all, but time will show."

Did you not see this ^^ ??

I did.

So are you actually expecting this card to perfom miracles later on?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
"Maybe this is due to the fact that there aren't any official ATI X2 drivers at all, but time will show."

Did you not see this ^^ ??

I did.

So are you actually expecting this card to perfom miracles later on?

What miracle? How about just running normally?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
there you go: http://www.techpowerup.com/?50695 and http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/237,news-237.html

Crysis: 16 frames @ 1280 :roll:

sure with optimized drivers you might want to add 5 more frames to it.

You picked out 2 links that show ONE review and come to a conclusion already? I can tell you with ONE 3870 on very high settings and 1280x960 I was getting slightly higher frames so most likely Crossfire isn't even working in that review.

Did you not check out the 3870x2 reviews thread in the forum? Check those out as well.

Also, the release was delayed till Monday so just wait for more reviews.

 

[n7]

Neither this nor the 9800GX2 are what any savvy user is waiting for.

AMD & nV are working hard to force crap we don't want upon us.

 

[zeroburrito]

this is amd's fault for the lack of better products. nvidia has no reason to improve.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If I remember right the GeForce 7950 GX2 when used in SLI was pretty disappointing too... I don't know that that configuration was ever actually supported though. I'm sure there's a lot of overhead in coordinating 4 GPU's. My guess is that performance will get better in time as it seems that both AMD and Nvidia's focus is shifting more towards multi GPU's vs. single ubber powerful GPU's.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: zeroburrito
this is amd's fault for the lack of better products. nvidia has no reason to improve.

If I had a dollar for every time someone suggested this, I'd eat free lunch every day. Nvidia's problems are Nvidia's fault, not Ati's. They sure didn't wait for Ati to catch up before releasing the 8-series. And similarly, when Ati was ahead during the r300 and r580 era, that didn't save Nvidia from releasing the crap FX series, or rehashing the outdated nv40 architecture all the way through g71.

 

[SLU Aequitas]

Originally posted by: n7
Neither this nor the 9800GX2 are what any savvy user is waiting for.

AMD & nV are working hard to force crap we don't want upon us.

Amen to that.

 

[BFG10K]

So are you actually expecting this card to perfom miracles later on?

No, just better than the results you posted.

 

[taltamir]

How about with ACTUAL drivers instead of optimized drivers? I don't expect ANY miracles... but this isn't first release drivers, its some alpha/beta driver...
When I See the first release then I will give judgement...

But I don't expect too much anyways, and I don't care for having 4GPUs at ALL. I am sticking to my one GPU thank you very much...

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
there you go: http://www.techpowerup.com/?50695 and http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/237,news-237.html

Crysis: 16 frames @ 1280 :roll:

sure with optimized drivers you might want to add 5 more frames to it.

wait for better drivers

 

[Sylvanas]

I'll wait from a real review from AT/Xbit/Legitreviews/Bit-tech before I make an opinion, basing it on crappy strung together 'results' that differ from every other 'rumored result' is stupid.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
there you go: http://www.techpowerup.com/?50695 and http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/237,news-237.html

Crysis: 16 frames @ 1280 :roll:

sure with optimized drivers you might want to add 5 more frames to it.

Nice troll. You work for nvidia? Plain old 3870 runs crysis at 19FPS.

I'm quite excited about this card.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Aberforth
there you go: http://www.techpowerup.com/?50695 and http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/237,news-237.html

Crysis: 16 frames @ 1280 :roll:

sure with optimized drivers you might want to add 5 more frames to it.

Nice troll. You work for nvidia? Plain old 3870 runs crysis at 19FPS.

like they say post count is not an indication of a logical brain- you hold true to that. I made genuine arguments, the others responded. You did nothing.

 

[Syntax Error]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: zeroburrito
this is amd's fault for the lack of better products. nvidia has no reason to improve.

If I had a dollar for every time someone suggested this, I'd eat free lunch every day. Nvidia's problems are Nvidia's fault, not Ati's. They sure didn't wait for Ati to catch up before releasing the 8-series. And similarly, when Ati was ahead during the r300 and r580 era, that didn't save Nvidia from releasing the crap FX series, or rehashing the outdated nv40 architecture all the way through g71.

:thumbsup:

Couldn't agree with you more. It's Nvidia's fault for not pushing technology they are capable of; if they wanted to crush AMD to the point of non-existence with whatever supposed cores they already have made, then they could. Nvidia didn't, they probably see AMD being a competitor being more profitable (by holding back technology) and to avoid anti-trust regulations in the graphics market.

Of course, any speculation of Nvidia actually holding back technology is just that: speculation. No way to know for sure unless someone here deep within Nvidia's organization would like to enlighten us...

 

[iroc409]

So many people jump on AMD about how much they suck this and that because in A YEAR they haven't been able to top the Core 2 architecture, or they haven't smashed down the barriers with their graphics cards (which at least the current set seems quite cost-competitive).

How long did Intel reel from their mistakes and AMD's trump CPU? How long does it take to get a completely new architecture conceptualized, tested, finalized and to market? Intel can do it in 2-3 years if they dump untold sums of money (that AMD doesn't have). I imagine the time to market for graphics solution is a bit quicker than CPUs, but give them a break. At least they are being competitive again.

I'm not saying you have to buy AMD, but I imagine a lot of the delays aren't really in the hands of the R&D teams.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: zeroburrito
this is amd's fault for the lack of better products. nvidia has no reason to improve.

is u retarded?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Aberforth
there you go: http://www.techpowerup.com/?50695 and http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/237,news-237.html

Crysis: 16 frames @ 1280 :roll:

sure with optimized drivers you might want to add 5 more frames to it.

Nice troll. You work for nvidia? Plain old 3870 runs crysis at 19FPS.

like they say post count is not an indication of a logical brain- you hold true to that. I made genuine arguments, the others responded. You did nothing.

But others did. Yet their arguments went ignored.
There is nothing genuine about your thread here. You post completely premature benchmarks/reviews that openly state that there are no drivers for this thing yet. No bells went of in that brain of yours (despite your post count as you put it) and you made the thread anyway. I don't see you making any changes to anything despite the information you have been given.

So please tell us. What IS your argument, and what is genuine about it.???

 

[Aberforth]

you guys seem to be labouring under the delusion that i posted something against this card or AMD. All i did was post the link like many users do here. Yes, i don't expect this card to perform well in Crossfire because AMD drivers are as poor as nvidia's and technology is not so advanced as I would have hoped for.

Also the benchmarks of a single card setup show that it peforms very close to 8800 Ultra that was released several months ago, AMD matching the speeds of "almost out of production" cards of nvidia and users being very excited about it does not show any logic involved, they are either AMD fans who want AMD to do something great or just people who like being involved in the hype. Users are actually looking forward to buy an outdated card, wait for a better card or if you are itching to blow some money then donate it to poor geeks who cannot afford this pile of crap.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
you guys seem to be labouring under the delusion that i posted something against this card or AMD. All i did was post the link like many users do here. Yes, i don't expect this card to perform well in Crossfire because AMD drivers are as poor as nvidia's and technology is not so advanced as I would have hoped for.

Also the benchmarks of a single card setup show that it peforms very close to 8800 Ultra that was released several months ago

Keysplayr - The "benchmarks" show a card without a proper driver. You're not "hearing" us.

, AMD matching the speeds of "almost out of production" cards of nvidia and users being very excited about it does not show any logic involved, they are either AMD fans who want AMD to do something great or just people who like being involved in the hype. Users are actually looking forward to buy an outdated card, wait for a better card or if you are itching to blow some money then donate it to poor geeks who cannot afford this pile of crap.

It does not matter whether or not you're against the card. That's not the issue here. The issue is that you are comparing this card to others when you should not be doing this........... yet.

I'll try one last time. How can you compare the X2 to ANYTHING right now, when there are no drivers for it?
That is like taking a brand new 8800GT and letting Windows load the default MS driver for it, and run benchmarks with it, then say it doesn't look pretty.... I don't know any other ways of putting it, but you just won't "hear" us.

One more time. There are no official drivers for the 3870X2. None. Nada. You cannot compare it to anything. Not a thing.
This thread should never have been made.

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here. Just a "smart"-ass.

EDIT: And WTF is this?? Here is a quote of yours from the 9800GX2 thread:

"you don't get it. The hardware is as efficient as the software, as long as we don't get true 9800gx2 drivers we cannot estimate the actual performance. You might as well add 30% extra frames to an 8800 Ultra benchmarks but that's inappropriate."

Again, WTF????? So you DO understand what we are talking about. So you gave the GX2 the benefit of not having "true 9800GX2 drivers", but not the 3870X2.

What are your comments on this before you get labeled?

 

[Mech0z]

From what I read, drivers and NDA is this Monday and damm I hate my 8800gts 512 if this is true

 

[Blacklash]

I am guessing they used all very high like when Tri-SLi was tested PC Perspective

http://img134.imageshack.us/im...crysis1280vhbarqm1.jpg

Source-
http://www.pcper.com/article.p...495&type=expert&pid=12

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Mech0z
From what I read, drivers and NDA is this Monday and damm I hate my 8800gts 512 if this is true

Why, does your 8800GT suck or something? I understood they were pretty decent cards.