In games where single-GPU is frame capped/sync'd/smoothed I think it is possible for SLI/CF to override that function and exceed the cap whether by drivers or the game itself.
No it isn?t. If the game is limiting frames then the driver can?t make them go faster by adding multiple GPUs into the equation.
I asked you for such examples and you?ve failed to deliver. Furthermore I provided two UT3 engine games that demonstrated they showed no such thing.
One example would be Assassin's Creed, which we know for sure is capped normally, yet SteelSix posted screenshots of frame rates that far exceeded capped frame rates. AT's review also indicated capped frame rates for AC which isn't uncommon as different review sites often have different results.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=16
We can see AT?s results are capped at 60 FPS or thereabouts and neither CF/SLI is removing that cap (how on earth could it?).
If you have evidence that demonstrates multi-GPU/SLI is removing the cap - say all single cards are limited to ~60 FPS while multi-GPU is far higher - you need to post it up or your claims are yet again unfounded.
Again, in cases where CF/SLI are only a few FPS faster than its still valid. Same for single GPU with frame capping or CPU bottlenecking. For instance, if a game is limiting/capping FPS to 60 and you see a spread of a few FPS difference between all the parts, its obvious that there is capping going on and the difference in FPS is just the slower parts spending more time below 60FPS with lower FPS than the faster parts.
Right, right, but nobody is discussing those situations. We all accept and understand what external limitations look like and the ramifications of such.
But what if you have 4870 posting 90 FPS, 4850 posting 75 FPS, 4850 CF posting 130 FPS and 4870 CF posting 131FPS, along with 9800GX2 posting 121 FPS, GTX 280 posting 111 FPS etc. Pretty clear there is CPU bottlenecking going on, with the majority of differences attributable to longer durations spent at lower FPS for the slower parts.
No. it?s not clear at all. The only thing clear would be the 4870 CF being bottlenecked because it?s not much faster than the 4850 CF.
I'm referring to situations where the 4870, GTX 280 and every other single GPU solution is within 5FPS or 10%, like AC, Witcher, and Crysis in AT's review.
That I agree with, but again that was never under contention.
Did you even read annihilat0r's post and methodology? Micro-Stutter thread, 3rd to last post
I don?t think you understand what micro-stutter is especially since you?re claiming it can somehow remove game framerate caps. Micro-stutter is simply the uneven distribution of frames; it doesn?t impact a game?s frame cap.
In 10 ms a single card might get 3 frames while a multi-card might get 5 frames. The difference - and this is what causes the micro-stutter - is the single card?s frames are distributed more evenly than the multi-card?s.
But this in no way invalidates the fact that it?s objectively provable the multi-GPU has a higher framerate because it?s rendered more frames in the same amount of time, something that can?t happen if a framerate or CPU limitation is in place.
asked Derek about some of his results in the 4870 feedback and he said they no longer force Vsync off (due to his findings with Crysis I'm sure).
Well that?s definitely a serious oversight of AT not to mention this. Still, they can?t possible be doing it in all games:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14
Even an LCD set 75 Hz would top out at 75 FPS, something that clearly isn?t shown on that graph.
you're coming up with examples you came across that I never mentioned, and I'm using examples I came across in my points.
Pardon? Let?s quote what you said about UT3 based games:
I don't even have UT3 and I knew about it, not sure why you think I would lie about this, I thought it was relatively well known. I do have Mass Effect, GoW and Bioshock though and can verify it works in those titles if its enabled.
I then produced UT3 and Bioshock benchmarks that debunked your claims. If you?re now saying you don?t think the framerate cap is in effect for those games you need to retract that claim, but don?t go around pretending you never mentioned such examples.
After all this what are you trying to say exactly? That graphs that are close together demonstrate an external limitation? Well no sh!t given everyone here agrees with that.
People are taking issue with your original comment:
Well, I'd say its a bit premature to say GT200 is a flop, if you look at this latest round of reviews I think you'll see that there's quite a bit of CPU bottlenecking and frame capping going on, even at higher resolutions like 16x12 and 19x12. That's not to say 4870 isn't a great part, it is, but clearly a large part of the reason its so close to GTX 280 is because of CPU bottlenecking.
For example, quoted from the AT article:
Performance of the Radeon HD 4870 continues to be strong, but because of the frame rate cap we're not able to see if the GTX 280 could stretch its legs further and eventually outperform the 4870. In actual gameplay, the 4870 and GTX 280 appear to be equals.
Most readers will not notice this, they'll just see the 4870 tying the GTX 280 and move on. But the 4870 even falls victim in some titles and clearly does in CF as it doesn't scale nearly as well as the 4850 in CF and caps out about the same frame rates, which is also very similar to the NV SLI solutions. This is further emphasized with Tri/Quad configs where there is almost no gain from the 3rd card (see Hothardware review).
This posted in the context of a 4xxx thread makes it sound you?re claiming when the 4870 is competitive it?s somehow irrelevant because of some external limitation, most of which are fictional.
Between that and you misquoting Anandtech above along with your comments in other threads ?the 4850 has been reduced to mediocrity because of the 9800 GTX++? and ?when CF is faster than the GTX280 both cards are fast enough so it doesn?t matter? really speak volumes.