Well of course in titles where the GTX 280 is already showing high performance and the CF or SLI performance is near double that of a single card, its obvious neither solution is CPU bottlenecked.
And in titles where it
isn't showing high performance but CF/SLI is significantly higher? What then? Are you claiming a CPU bottleneck is responsible for the GTX280 which magically doesn?t affect multi-GPU?
If Average Frame rate is very close to a target/capped or Vsync frame rates than smoothing is clearly capping FPS.
But again you can't claim that if CF/SLI are faster. You also can?t claim that if the graphs aren?t flat-lining of which there are numerous examples.
Deferred rendering can be similar if the engine is targeting a certain FPS level.
No, repeat after me: deferred rendering has no impact to the timing of a framerate. Deferred rendering is just another way to render a scene.
Well that's what I saw after looking over the latest round of reviews, especially when comparing 4850CF to 4870CF.
I'm not sure what examples you were looking at. While there were plenty that agreed with you, plenty did not:
http://www.firingsquad.com/har...performance/page12.asp
I'm not sure how anyone can claim CPU limitations, frame smoothing or a framecap is responsible for those figures. In Bioshock the 4870
is faster than the GTX280 without AA, no two ways about it, and you can see CF is significantly faster with the gap widening as the resolution increases. This is GPU bottlenecking 101.
Furthermore there is no flat-lining at or near 62 FPS or the refresh like you claim..
When you see a single card solution showing 55-58 avg. FPS and a multi-GPU solution with 62-64FPS than I think its pretty obvious is mostly a sync/timing issue (tied to micro-stutter also) and not a real performance difference.
Perhaps, but we aren't talking about those situations. We're talking about 159.8 vs 78.9 which is a vast change.
You're basically saying "well, the 4870 isn't faster than the GTX280 because in the situations it is, it's because of CPU limitations or [insert reason X]. Likewise multi-GPU isn't faster, it's micro-stutter".
That argument is nothing more than green propaganda.
Tell me, when the GTX280 is faster than the 4870 do you also chalk that up to CPU limitations or other nonsensical reasons? Or how about when the GTX280 is faster than the 8800 Ultra? Is that also not really faster using your reasoning?
Someone actually broke it down in that micro-stutter thread showing frame timing dumps from FRAPs where they looked at 3 frames at a time and averaged FPS based on the lowest of the three, which basically negated the spikes/fast frames and inflated FPS.
I was heavily involved in that thread and I produced numerous graphs. But I can tell you that the framerate increase here can't be explained by micro-stutter. In fact micro-stutter is totally irrelevant to this argument since multi-GPU cannot provide a performance gain to begin with if there?s a bottleneck elsewhere.
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 never said you were lying, I asked you to provide recent benchmarks of it in action, otherwise it's irrelevant.
I do have Mass Effect, GoW and Bioshock though and can verify it works in those titles if its enabled
Sure, but I've provided Bioshock examples that demonstrate no such cap is in effect. Again you need to provide real examples or stop dismissing benchmarks on the basis of fictional hypothetical situations.