WEBVTT

00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:08.320
so the purpose of today's video is going to be to evaluate quad crossfire with

00:00:05.680 --> 00:00:11.040
dual Radeon 6990s which you can see on my bench right now

00:00:09.760 --> 00:00:18.560
against quad sli with dual dual jewel dual gtx

00:00:15.320 --> 00:00:20.400
590 so those are

00:00:18.560 --> 00:00:25.119
about to go on the bench so i'm going to be using a different test platform from

00:00:22.720 --> 00:00:31.679
what i normally use this is a Gigabyte g1 sniper motherboard

00:00:28.720 --> 00:00:37.600
and it is running with an Intel core i7 980 x at 4.26 gigahertz or something

00:00:35.040 --> 00:00:45.440
like that so i'm well over 4 gigahertz i have 12 gigs of ddr3 1600 RAM i am using

00:00:43.200 --> 00:00:49.680
a different power supply as well but i've got my regular testing hard drive

00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:54.480
and then because my external drive broke i'm using a wd green drive for my steam

00:00:52.079 --> 00:00:59.280
files so that is the test bench i will be using to determine which of these

00:00:56.719 --> 00:01:03.440
configurations runs better you may have noticed already that it's a little on

00:01:01.039 --> 00:01:07.040
the warm side oh no not warm side it's a little on the loud side the reason for

00:01:04.960 --> 00:01:12.400
that is that you can see these rubber spacers that come on the 6990s

00:01:10.159 --> 00:01:15.520
here yeah now you can see it that is to give it see you can see at

00:01:14.240 --> 00:01:19.119
the bottom it's very close together at the top it's

00:01:17.600 --> 00:01:23.680
slightly separated that gives it a little bit of a gap for that fan to

00:01:21.520 --> 00:01:28.400
intake air but it still has to work pretty hard to cool those two gpus

00:01:26.479 --> 00:01:31.920
so it is a little on the loud side here you

00:01:30.159 --> 00:01:36.720
can see my lost planet two results i'm going to be comparing

00:01:33.840 --> 00:01:41.520
the quad crossfire against the quad sli and then if i have time i will also run

00:01:38.479 --> 00:01:45.200
individual 6990 and individual gtx 590

00:01:41.520 --> 00:01:46.720
numbers to compare against their dual

00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:50.799
graphics equivalents although it's not equivalent

00:01:48.640 --> 00:01:54.960
at all so i've got most of my testing done i'm

00:01:53.119 --> 00:02:02.399
just running the lost planet 2 bench on the gtx 590 quad sli configuration so of

00:01:59.759 --> 00:02:06.360
note about this particular video is the fact that i will be using a higher

00:02:04.079 --> 00:02:11.319
resolution than normal you can see my 1920x1080 monitor is actually back there

00:02:09.200 --> 00:02:16.560
behind my 30 inch 2560x1600 monitor also because we are

00:02:14.080 --> 00:02:20.239
using very high-end GPU configurations i will be using higher anti-aliasing in

00:02:18.560 --> 00:02:24.879
isotropic filtering settings than i normally do so i'll be cranking up

00:02:22.879 --> 00:02:28.640
as high as they go for all of the games in my testing suite which will be

00:02:26.480 --> 00:02:33.360
battlefield bad company 2 crisis 2 metro 2033 and lost planet 2. so for the first

00:02:31.760 --> 00:02:37.840
three games i'll be doing my own custom run-throughs recorded with fraps and for

00:02:35.040 --> 00:02:41.840
lost planet 2 i'm using test b you can see here i have the gtx 590s on

00:02:40.319 --> 00:02:45.760
the test bench they're not nearly as loud as the 6990s

00:02:44.160 --> 00:02:49.680
although they do get toasty and they do get loud running in a configuration like

00:02:47.680 --> 00:02:55.040
this especially that top card although you can see the spacing is significantly

00:02:51.680 --> 00:02:57.040
more than we were seeing previously with

00:02:55.040 --> 00:03:02.239
our other config you can actually see all the way through it and both cards

00:02:59.040 --> 00:03:05.519
are able to sit straight in their slots

00:03:02.239 --> 00:03:06.879
you may ask why i chose to use the slots

00:03:05.519 --> 00:03:10.640
that are right next to each other on this board versus this one right here

00:03:09.120 --> 00:03:15.760
and the reason as you can see in the PCIe slot there is that

00:03:13.040 --> 00:03:21.599
this bottom slot is only wired for 8x so if i were to use these two high-end gpus

00:03:18.959 --> 00:03:26.560
uh in the top and the bottom PCIe 16x slots on the g1 sniper i'd be running

00:03:23.360 --> 00:03:28.560
them at 16x and 8x mode respectively and

00:03:26.560 --> 00:03:32.319
based on my recent testing with PCIe bandwidth i felt that was not really

00:03:30.319 --> 00:03:36.319
appropriate so i would have liked to use the two 16x slots which is what i've

00:03:34.239 --> 00:03:40.640
decided to do here so i will be back with the results once i'm finished

00:03:37.680 --> 00:03:45.200
running my single gtx 590 tests all right guys so i'm using the latest

00:03:42.720 --> 00:03:48.560
drivers available at the time of filming and benchmarking which is all on the

00:03:47.120 --> 00:03:53.040
same night tonight and uh here are the settings that i was

00:03:50.560 --> 00:03:57.760
using so crisis 2 is obviously at maximum so the game that scaled the best

00:03:56.080 --> 00:04:03.040
out of the ones in my test suite was obviously battlefield bad company too uh

00:04:00.239 --> 00:04:08.239
the 6990s um actually scale more than a hundred

00:04:05.599 --> 00:04:11.599
percent which makes no sense but uh we'll just consider that within the

00:04:09.599 --> 00:04:17.440
margin of error and we'll call it 100 scaling and then for the 590s we saw

00:04:14.879 --> 00:04:22.320
almost 100 scaling something like 90 scaling so excellent scaling on that

00:04:19.600 --> 00:04:26.400
particular game 590 scaled very very well in crisis 2. 69.90 besides the

00:04:24.800 --> 00:04:30.880
flickering bug which made the game pretty much unplayable

00:04:28.479 --> 00:04:35.040
also didn't scale very well AMD has some work to do on the crisis 2 performance

00:04:33.360 --> 00:04:40.240
of their 6990 but i'm sure that's something they'll resolve with a driver

00:04:36.479 --> 00:04:43.600
issue in the future metro 2033

00:04:40.240 --> 00:04:46.560
6990 scaled quite well uh adding another

00:04:43.600 --> 00:04:50.880
50 performance to itself as well as the 590 590 actually scaled quite well as

00:04:48.479 --> 00:04:56.320
well but still falls short of the quad crossfire setup in terms of overall

00:04:52.880 --> 00:04:58.400
performance on lost planet 2 we see very

00:04:56.320 --> 00:05:05.040
poor scaling across the board and the 590 sli beats a little crossfire

00:05:01.320 --> 00:05:08.320
as well as on battlefield bad company 2

00:05:05.040 --> 00:05:09.919
the 590 quad sli wins so basically the

00:05:08.320 --> 00:05:15.680
objective today was not to determine a clear winner it was more to look at the

00:05:12.880 --> 00:05:18.960
state of quad GPU gaming as a whole i'm not going to say

00:05:16.880 --> 00:05:22.320
who but i well actually okay i got blue screens with both solutions during my

00:05:21.120 --> 00:05:26.240
testing among other sort of random issues that

00:05:24.400 --> 00:05:30.479
did crop up so i would go as far as to say that there's definitely some work to

00:05:28.080 --> 00:05:34.720
do on the drivers for uh both of these cards and uh but once that's resolved

00:05:32.880 --> 00:05:39.919
they definitely deliver some crazy performance numbers in the

00:05:37.520 --> 00:05:44.479
right scenarios remember these are all benchmarked at 2560 by 1600 so we're

00:05:42.880 --> 00:05:48.320
looking at battlefield bad company 2 numbers well over 100 FPS