EPTIm asking if anyone here's playing Sc2 in CrossfireX and if yes what are the performance outcomes and does he have any problems with ATI drivers and such
Thanks.
Feel free to share any feedback .
Anyone here playing Starcraft 2 in CrossfireX?
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
Crying
Bulgaria778 Posts
Im asking if anyone here's playing Sc2 in CrossfireX and if yes what are the performance outcomes and does he have any problems with ATI drivers and such Thanks. Feel free to share any feedback . | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
But I didn't keep the setup long. The extra screens were better for my use. If you already have the cards, then I say try it. Go ahead. But if you're planning on building a system around a Crossfire set-up, do your research (i.e. go look at more in-depth specialty forums, not here on TL). | ||
Nagisama
Canada4481 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
echO [W]
United States1495 Posts
| ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
And you'd need a more powerful PSU. And it'd take up more space, generate more heat, require more babysitting, etc. Generally not a good idea unless you really want to mess with that stuff like Mr. Jingle above. And if that's the case, you're going to want to read up on it instead of getting general advice. It'll be ok as a start-up build, but you might find it more headache than you'd like. | ||
|
Chylith
Canada167 Posts
That said, if you're building a new system(or if a better card would cost around the same or a little more than two in crossfire) it's definitely better just to get one card. Crossfire is a real pain in the ass if you don't know what you're doing or don't want to frig around with it. ;p | ||
|
Filter
Canada620 Posts
| ||
|
Crying
Bulgaria778 Posts
So XFIRE doesnt work at all? | ||
|
TMStarcraft
Australia686 Posts
On August 18 2011 21:18 Crying wrote: Geee , i have 1x5770 and i want to Xfire them but seeing these comments,i've read alot about that and some people says it works for them some doesn't work .. weird So XFIRE doesnt work at all? For SC2 you're probably not going to see much improvement for all the reasons outlined above. Why do different people get different results? Because people are funny :D | ||
|
Growiel
Korea (South)363 Posts
You do have a little increase when playing with both, but it's unoticable. | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On August 18 2011 21:18 Crying wrote: Geee , i have 1x5770 and i want to Xfire them but seeing these comments,i've read alot about that and some people says it works for them some doesn't work .. weird So XFIRE doesnt work at all? What is your reason for Crossfiring the HD 5770? Better question. What resolution are you playing at? If you're not playing above 1600x1050, and only play SC2, you have no real good reason to even upgrade, much less waste good money on getting another HD 5770 for Crossfiring and getting minimal gains. My HD 5770 handles well with Medium-High settings at 1920x1080. What I mean by well is it doesn't lag at all in large crapfest Phantom battles. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work. As others have said here, we've gotten to work. A lot of times, people will whine about stuff not working because they don't know how to make it work. That goes for a lot of even easy things, which is why you have to take product reviews with a grain of salt a lot of the time. When you're dealing with something even more complicated like Crossfiring, that becomes even more important. But I'm not saying this to encourage to Crossfire. I'm trying to discourage you. TBH, I think the only good reason you (or anyone) should want to Crossfire is for the learning experiences. | ||
|
Crying
Bulgaria778 Posts
| ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On August 18 2011 21:18 Crying wrote: Geee , i have 1x5770 and i want to Xfire them but seeing these comments,i've read alot about that and some people says it works for them some doesn't work .. weird So XFIRE doesnt work at all? As I said in a previous thread, there is absolutely no reason for AMD or nVidia to devote resources to improving dual GPU performance in a game that is close to being dependent on the CPU. The game itself can be close to being maxed out by a single $200 GPU and isn't even targeted towards hardware enthusiasts. I mean it doesn't even officially support commonly found quality settings like anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering! There is a benefit to using Crossfire/SLI in Starcraft 2...though the real benefits it seems limited to 2560x1440 resolution, with 4x anti-aliasing being forced through the drivers. nVidia does quite a bit better here and I suspect its because they've got the better drivers for that sort of stuff. All I can tell you is that AMD's HD5000 series (Evergreen) has woeful Crossfire scaling so don't bother buying another HD5770. The HD6000 series, however, has some pretty sick Crossfire scaling so I'm doubtful its an "AMD has no drivers" issue. On August 18 2011 22:02 Crying wrote: I want to crossfire to play Ultra, cos now i get only 80fps at the beggining and that on 2player maps and then it can go to 20fps in big battles .. I'm willing to believe that its less of a GPU problem and more of a CPU one. | ||
|
Crying
Bulgaria778 Posts
And since i can have 200fps at low at start, that means that i can have 200fps too on ultra,just my card cant support it. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Anyway, that significant of a performance drop based on Army size is almost invariably CPU related. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
And since i can have 200fps at low at start, that means that i can have 200fps too on ultra,just my card cant support it. No it doesn't. Absolutely not. If you simply dial up the quality settings, your GPU will be forced to work much, much harder from the get go...which obviously why it doesn't run at 200FPS @ Ultra. Outside of certain events, such as the mothership's cloak effect, the GPU performance shouldn't change TOO significantly. However this is different when it comes to the CPU. When army sizes grow, the more and more is required from your CPU and your frame rate starts to dip rapidly. This is exaccerbated by the "Ultra" setting too - simply setting "Ultra" also means you have selected CPU intensive settings, such as Physics... You are expecting too much from your GPU and CPU combination - the GPU itself can handle ultra fairly well provided you are using an extremely high clocked, high end CPU (Techspot used a i7 920 @ 3.7Ghz). Even if your i3-540 is clocked at 4Ghz, I doubt it can actually handle huge late game battles as well as you think it can. To conclude three things: 1) Unit counts drive CPU requirements, image quality/resolution drive GPU requirements. 2) Both Intel and AMD have segmented their products by purposely "gimping" them - this can range from removing turbo boost and locking multipliers to removing cache and physical cores. This is done to protect their high profit margin processors (i5s, i7s) from overclocked low end processors. You may overclock that i3-530 to 4Ghz however it cannot make up for architectural deficiencies, such as missing cache. 3) You can probably run "Ultra" image quality settings if you turn off frivolous quality settings, like 3D Portraits. | ||
|
ensign_lee
United States1178 Posts
That being said, it definitely won't DECREASE performance. With two crossfired 5870s I was getting about 175 fps on most ladder maps on ultra. OF course, I hear humans can't notice the difference with anything > 60... | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On August 18 2011 23:11 ensign_lee wrote: Starcraft 2 is not GPU intensive, so it wouldn't be that helpful. That being said, it definitely won't DECREASE performance. With two crossfired 5870s I was getting about 175 fps on most ladder maps on ultra. OF course, I hear humans can't notice the difference with anything > 60... Neither can most typical displays. Refresh rates and all. You can definitely see chop at 23 though, credits for Captain America gave me a damn headache watching them bounce along without having some motion blurring. Anyway, ignoring subjective differences in perception, without motion blur being added, the exact FPS needed to appear smooth depends on the speed of the "motion". If you were playing a game at 1 FPS, but nothing on the screen was moving, would you be able to tell your FPS was low? No. 60 would look like 1. A very slow motion with a weak framerate would likewise be relatively indiscernible. This is actually an advantage SC2 has, since you're on the outside looking in, from a long relative distance, the slow relative motion on screen of most units makes frame chop harder to see. | ||
|
Souljah
United States423 Posts
While crossfire support was shit when SC2 first came out.. its gotten alot better through driver and profile updates. | ||
| ||
