Why does 290/x best 780ti in multicard setups?

[EliteRetard]

Edit: Apparently Nvidia has a driver issue. I don't have an official statement yet, I'll look for a link/info in a little bit.

With the 290 so close to the 290x in single card setup, would it have a similar performance in CF? If so, a pair of $400 290's ($800) would be much faster than a single 780ti at $700 (for games that work multi-card). There are no more frame pacing issues and if/when we get custom cards/coolers the noise/heat issues should be resolved as well. Even in non multi-card games a single 290 is very fast, so you wont take a big hit vs a 780ti in the games that only use 1 GPU.

Anybody have more insights or thoughts/opinions on this? It would seem that a pair of 290's can run 4K at medium or better settings near 60 FPS. Here's a comparison using the non uber 290x settings as stand in for 290 (then subtracted 5%), I skipped charts for COH2 and Rome 2:

~45 vs 32 ~35% faster (low quality settings at ~78FPS vs 56FPS ~39% faster)

~50 vs 36 ~34% faster

~54 vs 39 ~33% faster

~56 vs 41 ~32% faster

~73 vs 49 ~44% faster

~69 vs 39 ~72% faster

~87 vs 50 ~69% faster

Average about 46% faster at "4k" with medium+ settings at ~14% higher price (800 vs 700).
The difference is just as significant at 1440/1600 resolutions, I might run the numbers for that as well.
Either way, the low price and great performance of the 290 allows you to run a pair ($800) and beat anything else under $1,100.
At the low resolution of 1080/1200 the comparison doesn't matter, any single GPU under $400 should do great.

Edited thread title to sound less abrasive.

-Rvenger

 

[Subyman]

I noticed that too, but Ryan didn't seem to comment much on multi-card performance. To me it seemed like a pretty big deal though especially for high end buyers. The crossfire scaling is incredible. In some of the benches, the 280X Crossfire is beating the 780 TI SLI.

 

[Spidre]

It's most likely drivers.

 

[Daedalus685]

All of those are at 4K. I would actually, despite being skeptical up until about 20 minutes ago, have to think that 780SLI is being bottlenecked by its lower total amount of RAM, and thus loses scaling. It seems to scale perfectly fine at other resolutions.

It could be drivers or SLI glitches at 4K too, but it is interesting. The extra ROPs could help too for the 290, I'm not quite sure how those would affect crossfire scaling though, unless a single cards number crunching isn't enough to make use of the extra until you double the cards... hmmm. I really really wish these reviews included titan SLI so we can know for sure right away

Edit: Though you know what, the 280x vs 7990 numbers don't suffer the same scaling issues. So maybe it isn't the 3GB of ram.

 

[Aithos]

All of those are at 4K. I would actually, despite being skeptical up until about 20 minutes ago, have to think that 780SLI is being bottlenecked by its lower total amount of RAM, and thus loses scaling. It seems to scale perfectly fine at other resolutions.

It could be drivers or SLI glitches at 4K too, but it is interesting. The extra ROPs could help too for the 290, I'm not quite sure how those would affect crossfire scaling though, unless a single cards number crunching isn't enough to make use of the extra until you double the cards... hmmm. I really really wish these reviews included titan SLI so we can know for sure right away

Edit: Though you know what, the 280x vs 7990 numbers don't suffer the same scaling issues. So maybe it isn't the 3GB of ram.

Someone has already posted in another thread: it's driver issues. NVIDIA is having a problem with SLI performance at 4k, has acknowledged it and is working on a fix. It has nothing to do with VRAM. It's also largely pointless because no one is gaming in 4k and no content has been created to natively run in 4k.

4k today is what 1080p was back in 2005 - overpriced and unused. Look at bluray, if you wanted one right away you were paying $600-1000 for a player and $30-40 per movie and there STILL isn't 1080p broadcast or streaming. A few companies (directv and netflix) who offer 1080p content in SOME markets, but most cable companies aren't supporting it (Mediacom in my area is not offering it). So here we are, almost 9 years after 1080p hit the market and it's still not widely adopted except in the computer monitor area.

What's the point? 4k won't be affordable and prevalent until long after this generation of cards has been replaced by something better. The more important comparisons are at 1080p 120hz and 1440-1600p where the current market is more focused. Even the higher of those are not widely adopted because there are nearly no decent gaming options at those resolutions.

 

[Tempered81]

Memory bus width, Raster output, XDMA.

 

[mindbomb]

64 rops

 

[EliteRetard]

*snip*Edit: Though you know what, the 280x vs 7990 numbers don't suffer the same scaling issues. So maybe it isn't the 3GB of ram.

Yeah, that's why I posted...I'm surprised by the CF numbers with the new cards. Especially since they do get beat in the single card setup occasionally. It couldn't really be the 1GB extra RAM could it? I'm wondering if it really is because of the new CF over PCI-E but I don't know how fast Nvidia's SLI connector runs or any details on that.

Even at 1440p the performance is fantastic on these new cards. Even in the games where multi-card is broken the performance is top of the charts with the 290/x and minimums are better than Nvidia near 30FPS.

Somebody mentioned drivers, but usually people attribute Nvidia to having better drivers, on top of the fact that the 780ti is not a new card like the 290/x is. If anything I would think the drivers are less mature for AMD's new cards.

I kind of muddied my own topic with the discussion of price/performance of the 290 CF...especially since I don't have hard numbers for it here. But because of the stunning results I see in CF I'm thinking a pair of 290's will be the best bang for the buck EVER up to now. We actually know they're future proof since "4k" is the future and they run it really well.

 

[Spidre]

Yes, SLIing the cards gives ~11% increase because of ROPs

It's a driver issue, they even mentioned in those reviews that SLI 4k was having problems and would be patched.

 

[EliteRetard]

Someone has already posted in another thread: it's driver issues. NVIDIA is having a problem with SLI performance at 4k, has acknowledged it and is working on a fix. It has nothing to do with VRAM. It's also largely pointless because no one is gaming in 4k and no content has been created to natively run in 4k.

4k today is what 1080p was back in 2005 - overpriced and unused. Look at bluray, if you wanted one right away you were paying $600-1000 for a player and $30-40 per movie and there STILL isn't 1080p broadcast or streaming. A few companies (directv and netflix) who offer 1080p content in SOME markets, but most cable companies aren't supporting it (Mediacom in my area is not offering it). So here we are, almost 9 years after 1080p hit the market and it's still not widely adopted except in the computer monitor area.

What's the point? 4k won't be affordable and prevalent until long after this generation of cards has been replaced by something better. The more important comparisons are at 1080p 120hz and 1440-1600p where the current market is more focused. Even the higher of those are not widely adopted because there are nearly no decent gaming options at those resolutions.

LOL your post just sounds retarded. "They don't make games for 1080p because CABLE!" "So that means no 1440-1600p or "4k" either!"

Except I can get a "4k" monitor right now, and these cards can run almost any game at that resolution very well. There are hundreds if not thousands of gaming options that run on 1600p. In fact these high resolution monitors can be had for as low as $400 (or less!) nowadays.

You can't argue PC gaming with examples from the TV industry. They have nothing to do with each other. That's like arguing about swimming because cars suck at it. WTFBBQ?!

If Nvidia is indeed having driver issues at "4k" that's news to me. Even then that doesn't change the great performance of these new AMD cards, which is very good. I'm drooling over the thought of custom cards/coolers...these things will be beastly with a good cooler on them (and a better PCB/power setup for overclocking).

Inflammatory language needs to stop.
- Elfear

 

[EliteRetard]

Yes, SLIing the cards gives ~11% increase because of ROPs

It's a driver issue, they even mentioned in those reviews that SLI 4k was having problems and would be patched.

Confused by your post? There's a lot more than 11% scaling.

 

[Teizo]

It does get a sound beating in some games, but still not sure 4K is relevant yet. It's just a feature point for marketing. Works on both sides of the isle, btw. AMD just has the better experience at 4K right now.

 

[Spidre]

Metro LL

780 TI - 31.8 fps
SLI 780 TI- 35.6fps

I should have said "as low as 11%", but this result alone should have tipped you off that something was wrong. I would say give them until the end of the week to fix the drivers before this becomes a problem, realistically even if you bought these cards as soon as possible you wouldn't have them before the weekend.

 

[x3sphere]

You still can't just look at the FPS when comparing mGPU. PCPer said they still felt SLI was smoother despite the lower frame rate in Crysis 3, and GRID 2. In other games like BioShock AMD won out however.

[H] also said Far Cry 3 was far smoother on AMD.

 

[krumme]

Memory bus width, Raster output, XDMA.

Imho memory controller efficiency more than bandwith.

 

[Erenhardt]

What is worth mentioning are reviewers thoughts below graphs:
Metro:

Meanwhile looking at GTX 780 Ti SLI performance, the SLI setup tops the charts at 2560 for everything short of the 290X in uber mode, though in this case (like most cases) two high-end GPUs is on the verge of being overkill even at 2560. Otherwise looking at 4K, NVIDIA’s poor 4K scaling on Metro once again makes itself present here, with NVIDIA’s performance only minimally benefitting from the second card. In the case of Metro at 4K, the 290X CF is going to be by far the faster option.

In case someone didn't see graphs - SLI 780ti was 3 fps behind CF 290X(Uber) in best case scenario. So, topping charts but not.
Bioshock:

Meanwhile for the AFR matchup, with a pair of GTX 780 Ti’s we’re either looking framerates that will make a 120Hz gamer happy, or enough horsepower to take on 4K at our highest settings and still come out well ahead. At 57.3fps the GTX 780 Ti is several frames per second ahead of the 290X CF, coming up just short of averaging 60fps even at this very high resolution.

By "several frames per second ahead of 290X CF" they meant actually 2fps behind it.

BF3:

Moving on to SLI performance, the GTX 780 SLI is once again a chart topper. Even 3840x2160 and with Ultra quality, the GTX 780 Ti still more than enough to deliver more than 60fps, making this a fully playable resolution with minimum framerates that should easily be over 30fps.

Chart topper (ahead in 1 of 3 charts)

And my favorite one in

Moving on, even when we double up on cards the GTX 780 Ti and 290X remain close. At 2560 it’s a virtual tie at 87fps apiece, while at 4K the GTX 780 Ti SLI takes a slight lead.

88 for SLI 780Ti vs 98 CF 290X is a tie and at 4K SLI takes slight lead being 20% slower?!

I case someone want to jump on me. I see what they did there. Next time on anandtech: amazing race through firestrike benchmark on idle clocks! See which card idles faster!

 

[Kenmitch]

I read this AM AMD is predicting 90-94% CF scaling in BF4 real soon on the 290's after a couple performance tweaks currently in development....Not Mantle related.

Link in another thread but on phone so cant dig it up. Something about AMD rep response on another forum.

Found it. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-1863987/official-amd-radeon-representatives.html#11877136

 

[Aithos]

LOL your post just sounds retarded. "They don't make games for 1080p because CABLE!" "So that means no 1440-1600p or "4k" either!"

Except I can get a "4k" monitor right now, and these cards can run almost any game at that resolution very well. There are hundreds if not thousands of gaming options that run on 1600p. In fact these high resolution monitors can be had for as low as $400 (or less!) nowadays.

You can't argue PC gaming with examples from the TV industry. They have nothing to do with each other. That's like arguing about swimming because cars suck at it. WTFBBQ?!

If Nvidia is indeed having driver issues at "4k" that's news to me. Even then that doesn't change the great performance of these new AMD cards, which is very good. I'm drooling over the thought of custom cards/coolers...these things will be beastly with a good cooler on them (and a better PCB/power setup for overclocking).

You completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't comparing pc gaming to the TV industry, I was using it as an EXAMPLE of a similar situation. Can you get 4k monitors today? Yes. Can you get 4k monitors at 60hz today for a reasonable price? No. Can you get a good gaming monitor at 1600p today? No. They all have horrible input lag, even if you drop to 1440p there are maybe a handful of panels that aren't in the 25-30ms range for lag, which for any gaming except single player is worthless.

Secondly, you can obviously scale a game to a higher resolution just the same as you can scale to a lower resolution. However, the fact remains that content is created for a specific resolution using an engine that has maximum capabilities. Games today are not being optimized for 1440p, let alone 4k. Can you upscale? Absolutely. Will it look better? Sure. Will it be the same as a game 10 years from now on an engine optimized for 4k when a large portion of the community is on that high of a resolution? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

You want an example? Go download the original Counterstrike and run it in 1080p and then download CS:GO and run it in 1080p and you tell me which game looks better. Games at higher resolutions are not optimized for that resolution, it's exactly like arguing that 6-8 cores are better for gaming (hint: they aren't). The fact you *can* run something on 8 cores doesn't mean it's optimized for it. Until 4k is an overwhelming standard the game creators won't spent the millions-billions of dollars it would take to create an engine powerful enough to develop games for native 4k.

I was using the TV example to make the point that the vast majority of content today isn't even 1080p. Cable, Satellite and Broadcast are all still 720p/1080i. Why? Because even with as long as 1080p has been out a lot of people don't have devices capable and the overhead involved in upgrading the technology behind your service isn't worth the cost for those companies. People are already upset enough about how much cable costs, imagine if they boosted prices $100 a month across the board to justify upgrade costs to 1080p? People would freak out.

Edit: Oh, and a lot of PS3 and XB360 games still aren't 1080p either, because the game companies don't want to invest in new engines before they have to. I also don't find it surprising that nVidia's 4k support isn't as good in their drivers as they generally are, it's a fraction of a fraction of the community at the resolution. I think it's actually kind of silly that AMD is touting it so strongly on their new cards when it should be obvious to everyone who has been around PC gaming more than 10 years (1998 for me) that by the time 4k means anything ALL these cards will be junk.

 

[Ryan Smith]

I noticed that too, but Ryan didn't seem to comment much on multi-card performance.

We covered it in far more detail in the 290X launch article. For the GTX 780 Ti review we made the performance data available in our charts, but from a commentary perspective the scaling factors and the reasons behind them have not changed since the 290X article where we compared GTX 780 SLI to 290X CF.

Erenhardt: From our testing notes on page 3:

Meanwhile on a housekeeping note, we want to quickly point out that we’ll be deviating a bit from our normal protocol and including the 290X results for both normal (quiet) and uber modes. Typically we’d only include results from the default mode in articles such as these, but since we need to cover SLI/Crossfire performance and since we didn’t have 290X CF quiet mode results for our initial 290X review, we’re throwing in both so that we can compare the GTX 780 Ti to the 290X CF without being inconsistent by suddenly switching to the lower performance quiet mode numbers. Though with that said, for the purposes of our evaluation we will be focusing almost entirely on the quiet mode numbers, given the vast difference in both performance and noise that comes from using it.

Our policy is to always compare out of the box performance when possible. The inclusion of the uber mode numbers is essentially a one-time event.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's only at 4k...mostly irrelevant.

 

[blastingcap]

Someone has already posted in another thread: it's driver issues. NVIDIA is having a problem with SLI performance at 4k, has acknowledged it and is working on a fix. It has nothing to do with VRAM. It's also largely pointless because no one is gaming in 4k and no content has been created to natively run in 4k.

4k today is what 1080p was back in 2005 - overpriced and unused. Look at bluray, if you wanted one right away you were paying $600-1000 for a player and $30-40 per movie and there STILL isn't 1080p broadcast or streaming. A few companies (directv and netflix) who offer 1080p content in SOME markets, but most cable companies aren't supporting it (Mediacom in my area is not offering it). So here we are, almost 9 years after 1080p hit the market and it's still not widely adopted except in the computer monitor area.

What's the point? 4k won't be affordable and prevalent until long after this generation of cards has been replaced by something better. The more important comparisons are at 1080p 120hz and 1440-1600p where the current market is more focused. Even the higher of those are not widely adopted because there are nearly no decent gaming options at those resolutions.

You know, some of us game on 3 x 1080p monitors = 3K. Heck, there are people out there who game on 3 x 1440p or 3 x 1600p. So 4K benches are still useful.

That said, OP, rumor has it that NV is working on fixing their drivers to improve SLI scaling at 4K.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You know, some of us game on 3 x 1080p monitors = 3K. Heck, there are people out there who game on 3 x 1440p or 3 x 1600p. So 4K benches are still useful.

That said, OP, rumor has it that NV is working on fixing their drivers to improve SLI scaling at 4K.

Single monitor performance doesn't translate to multi monitor directly does it? I heard there can be scaling issues that disappear when you run single monitor.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Ive read somewhere on pcper that there is a bug with nVIDIA/SLI and 4K.. Im thinking its more to do with the drivers not being optimized for 4K res since not many people (0.001%?) use it.

 

[SolMiester]

I wonder if its the bridge not being wide enough to pass the display output back to the primary card @ 4K?, as was the case with AMD XF bridge...
Crossfire scaling is fantastic, SLI is looking a bit second hand for sure.

 

[Silverforce11]

Ive read somewhere on pcper that there is a bug with nVIDIA/SLI and 4K.. Im thinking its more to do with the drivers not being optimized for 4K res since not many people (0.001%?) use it.

It has to be driver related because Titan and 780Ti isn't neutered in terms of bandwidth, ROPs, TMUs etc, there's nothing EXCEPT XDMA CFX which would be the cause for the massive lead at 4K. Is the new CF interface the culprit? Who knows.. wait and see, NV may do a nice driver update and its all fixed.