Crossfire limitation
- Thread starter Slappi
- Start date
Dave Baumann said:
LOL, did they steal the template from ATI's "X700 and the competition" presentation?
Dave Baumann said:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/CrossfireTruth/images/CrossfireTruth-18.jpg
I think the real limitation of crossfire is the lack of gigabit networking myself...
Other than that, how about waiting for the hardware to be available then actually test the hardware and report the results? The slave card isn't a display device, the dvi connection isn't analog, so worrying about refresh rates is rather pointless. If there is anything to this, I would be guessing it would be a FRAMERATE limitation, and you are talking about whether you get 100fps instead of 200fps at 2048x1536@85Hz.
True, but some motherboard vendors are putting out boards with separate gigabit networking chips on them. As far as the networking is concerned, I'm personally more concerned about the performance data. I would assume that this data was compiled from the currently-available Radeon Xpress 200 motherboards, so it should be easily verifiable. Haven't seen anybody test the networking performance of these motherboards, though.Himself said:I think the real limitation of crossfire is the lack of gigabit networking myself...
I would assume that this performance problem would show itself whether using a chip integrated into the motherboard or an addin card.
It would be a convenience for people on a home LAN. If you're just using your internet connection for internet connectivity, of course, there's no reason to go above 10baseT. I know in the home LAN's I've set up in the past I've been in the position where, for example, a CD-ROM drive wasn't working on one computer, so I installed it from another. Another situation was copying an updated City of Heroes program folder, so that I didn't have to download the 511MB update that is now required after a fresh install of the game twice, one on each computer.radeonic2 said:Why do desktops need gigabit networking
But here's my question: is this performance problem related to the bandwidth of the bus, and thus not affect lower-bandwidth interfaces or applications? Is it a fluke in the testing? Is it a general problem with networking on ATI hardware due to timings or somesuch? Or is it just that nVidia's that much better due to having optimized for networking?
radeonic2 said:Why do desktops need gigabit networking
They don't need GigE, but why would you not jump on the natural evolution of the ethernet standards? The only 'problem' I see with this is that network product vendors have been a bit slow in releasing good and affordable GigE switches. They seem to be more interested in locking in GigE as a novelty for their business products when it is not really a novelty anymore at all.
I am sure that someone asked the same question about F.Ethernet when it came out. "Why do out desktops need 100Mbps connections. 10Mbps is fine for the end points, we only need 100Mbps between network segments." It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. The only difference is that GigE comes matches the performance of typical desktop drives an moves the network transfer bottleneck away from the network interface (something every technology should strive for; moving the bottlneck away from itself).
And, of course it speeds up everything, though not evenly across the board due to access latencies, but you can pretty much count on GigE being at least 5 times faster than F.Ethernet (100Mbps) and it also brings other good things to the table like autosensing MDIX ports (no need for crossover cables) as standard.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, does ATI have a utility that dynamically adjusts the clockspeeds of the motherboard chipset from within Windows? Because nTune allows this (I'd say it's the software's primary function). That's a fairly significant difference for enthusiasts.trinibwoy said:Hmmm. They quoted the Inquirer!!
Ya, I assume gigabit switches and routers are a bit more expensive and unless you're constantly moving big files around, it seems like a waste.wireframe said:
Some people at home use a single server for their storage needs, so that's one thing, but I'm fine with just shoving more hdds in my pc.
I have 3 in now and hope to get 1 or 2 more of those 400GB drives, or 500GB if the price is right.
my boot drive is a slow maxtor 40GB drive.. 7200rpm but alot slower than even my 80GB WD 800JB.
Gigabit switches currently seem to be very reasonable. It's routers that haven't yet gotten cheap.radeonic2 said:
Well, I think it's definitely a bonus for a high-end motherboard chipset. And since your typical SLI system would tend to be high-end, well, it sounds like it is at least as worthy of being on that checklist as anything else there (and more worthy than some things). Not that everybody would consider it a bonus, of course.ChrisRay said:
The supposed crossfire limitation is mentioned on quite a few of the leaked internal marketing/sales slides linked on Anandtech.
These slideshows always disappoint me with the level of inaneness. In one slide there is a whole column of green ticks against Sli and a whole column of red crosses against Crossfire .. one of the ticks is against ntune, unsurpisingly Crossfire does not have this feature and gets a big red cross.
These slideshows always disappoint me with the level of inaneness. In one slide there is a whole column of green ticks against Sli and a whole column of red crosses against Crossfire .. one of the ticks is against ntune, unsurpisingly Crossfire does not have this feature and gets a big red cross.
http://www.penstarsys.com/#upd_xfire
Hmm, more fuel for the fire.
The overall impression that I am starting to get is that ATI had to make so many compromises to get the extra features and overall performance in, that the limitations that were talked about are the direct consequence. While NV may put out a presentation pointing at the Sil 1161, I think their focus is on the wrong place...
Can't wait til Dave's review of it. That should really answer some questions.
Hmm, more fuel for the fire.
The overall impression that I am starting to get is that ATI had to make so many compromises to get the extra features and overall performance in, that the limitations that were talked about are the direct consequence. While NV may put out a presentation pointing at the Sil 1161, I think their focus is on the wrong place...
Can't wait til Dave's review of it. That should really answer some questions.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Tools and Software
