1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Crossfire Bottleneck 2.0 x16 & 2.0 x4

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Durvelle27, Sep 20, 2012.

  1. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    How much of a bottleneck will i have by using 2x 2.0 x16 Slots @x16 & x4 ? thx

    :cool:
  2. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    from 5% to 50%, with 6950's. Depends on the game. Most are closer to that 5%.
  3. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
  4. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    That's just single cards. Multi-GPU is a bit different, too. YOu cna see the 680 loses like 15% at times on it's own, never mind having to communicate with another card.

    8x8 tohugh, doesn't seem to matter to much, and sometimes is faster than x16/x16. :p I dunno WTF is up with THAT.:laugh: Probably a driver-related thing.
  5. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    how much will i see. i play Battlefield 3, Sleeping Dogs, Batman AC, NBA 2K12 Call of Duty MW2, MW3, Black OPs, Skyrim, Max Payne 3

    Edit: i got a new mobo because the one i currently have doesn't support cpus over 95W, Sata 6GBs, USB 3.0. so the one i got which is a ASUS M5A97 EVO has everything i wanted plus an additional PCIe slot which i thought i could use to increase my gaming experience on my 1920x1080 monitor
  6. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    I had one of those. Not a bad board.

    with 6950's, and Tri-Fire benchamrking, use Catalyst 12.3 with 12.3 app profile, or 11.11c "performance" driver.


    I'm using the 12.8's with the most recent app profile for BF3 every day, and they are not capable of playing @ 2560x1600 on ultra, at all. In fact, just 2650x1600 is near impossible iwth many titles. 1920x1080 is OK, 1920x1200 sees some slowdowns.

    I had as many as 4x 2 GB 6950's, testing, was not overly impressed with it, to be honest, and I ran with 1100T, 8150, 2600K, 3770K, 3960X, 3820, with PCIe configs from x16/x4/ all the way up to x16/x16/x16/x16.

    Fortunately, it only takes a quick load of BF3 to find out that the 4th card was basically useless, so I got rid of it, and kept 3. :p
  7. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    i use 12.8 right now so if i crossfire it would be better to use 12.3
  8. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,246 (10.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    I have the two 6950's with 12.8 and no caps as it runs BF3 on ultra settings maxed 60FPS steady. One thing you will have to take into account is that I have sandybridge at 4.5ghz
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
  10. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,246 (10.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Yes it does, I believe 1155 will only do that
    Crunching for Team TPU
  11. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    see mines run at x16/x4
  12. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    @ 1080P. :p.


    And yeah, Brandon has my 4th GPU. :laugh:
    brandonwh64 says thanks.
  13. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,246 (10.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,882
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Yep 1080P for me :)
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,142 (13.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,592
    Not an optimal setup. I've seen quite a few that have problems running CrossFire with this configuration, however those that don't have problems generally don't post about it.
  15. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Sub-optimal performance isn't nessecarily a problem. It also leads to forced power savings. :p
  16. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,643 (7.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,969
    Location:
    some AF base
    2.0 X4 is just as fast as 1.0 X8 which was a widely used standard on a lot of boards. Might loose some performance, but I would assume the performance gains of 2 cards out weighs that a bit...
  17. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    I'm pretty sure I read an interview with some ATI dude that stated that it wasn't just about bandwidth, but also the number of lanes, as although 4 lanes could feasibly be enough, the card in that x4 slot still needs to use some of those 4 lanes to communicate with the other card, making that overall bandwidth figures meaningless.

    To prove this, you smiply need test with PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 2.0, and look for linear performance losses based on lanes, rather than the bandwidth. ;) And guess how that works out on PCIe 3.0...? :roll:
  18. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,643 (7.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,969
    Location:
    some AF base
    Good call...
  19. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Don't get me wrong...I don't REALLY understand how this al lworks..I just know what I've been told, and what the test results give me.


    I tell you, trying to find decent Eyefinity performance has lead to some interesting performance testing.
  20. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,142 (13.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,592
    From issues I've seen it also leads to CrossFire not working correctly. I'm thinking some sort of sync issues... or something. Like I said though, it's possible there may be no problem at all.
  21. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    so is it worth it as i can get another HD 6950 2GB cheap and also i want be going pas 1080p anytime soon
  22. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    I've run into that, but I cannot say that I saw it in BF3. Some much software cna change things, I think it's probably something that happens on an individual basis, kinda like Realtek drivers taknig a crap on many systems.


    Codemasters titles seem the most sensitive to the lane change, and Source games for sync issues, kinda basic stuff, some of it I am sure could be dealt with by drivers, perhaps, but I don't think that AMD really intends for such configurations to have high-performance graphics cards.

    I'll ahve to check out how the 8150 reacts, jsut got the OS installed this morning. I've decided I want to get the most performance possible for the least amount of power, but still be able to play BF3 @ 1920x1080. Then I want to make it as small as is possible.
  23. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    ???
  24. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,395 (4.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,471
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Will it be faster, FPS-wise?

    YES.

    Will there be a bottleneck with x16/x4?

    YES.

    Is there a potential for problems?

    YES.

    Is it worth it?

    I dunno. If you had a x8/x8 motherboard, I'd say sure, no question.

    If you are willing to deal with potential issues, then sure, it's worth it. I'd make plans ofr a motherboard upgrade part of that though, but personally, I see it as a worthy expense. There are many affordable x8/x8 boards out there, and I know you cna get 6950's for very little as well.

    Do both, for less than $200, and yeah, i think it's worth it. You'll get near double the FPS @ x8/x8, nvidia, or AMD. Dual-GPU usually works pretty good now.
  25. Durvelle27

    Durvelle27

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,036 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    429
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    well when i got my mobo i got it an a FX 8120 for $150

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page