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

ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 CrossFire Tested

malware

New Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
5,422 (0.72/day)
Location
Bulgaria
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 VID: 1.2125
Motherboard GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3P rev.2.0
Cooling Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme + Noctua NF-S12 Fan
Memory 4x1 GB PQI DDR2 PC2-6400
Video Card(s) Colorful iGame Radeon HD 4890 1 GB GDDR5
Storage 2x 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 32 MB RAID0
Display(s) BenQ G2400W 24-inch WideScreen LCD
Case Cooler Master COSMOS RC-1000 (sold), Cooler Master HAF-932 (delivered)
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic + Logitech Z-5500 Digital THX
Power Supply Chieftec CFT-1000G-DF 1kW
Software Laptop: Lenovo 3000 N200 C2DT2310/3GB/120GB/GF7300/15.4"/Razer
The title says it all. Sounds monstrously, but in reality benchmark results are not so promising. Maybe this is due to the fact that there aren't any official ATI X2 drivers at all, but time will show. Test system: INTEL Core 2 Duo QX9650, MSI X48 Platinum, Samsung M378BZ873CZ0-CF8 2x1024MB DDR3, Seagate Barracuda 10 SATAII 750GB (ST3750330AS/P,7,200rpm), Windows Vista. Read the full story here.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Wicked cool! Can't wait to read this...

UPDATE: That's rather disappointing, but I look forward to the official drivers and a re-run of benchies!
 
Pointless. If there are no true drivers then why benchmark it. Thats like running a car in first gear to find the cars top speed.
 
ok for the drivers, but, how can those monsters only reach 20.70 or 16.28 FPS in Crysis?? Isn't that so poor? Also, are those FPS results? :confused:
 
Lol... what a crappy ass review. They run 3dmark, and Crysis only? Plus there is no useful information, it's all just question marks, with random words in between.:laugh: (sarcasm)

Just a single GPU can run Crysis at those frames. And I think at this point, everybody is sick of Crysis anyways.
 
What stupid resolutions to run them at as well.
 
so this tested...no bugs or problems with teh software?
 
i have to say "wait people " it is just to soon i guess not good drivers not programs tweaked..etc
 
i have to say "wait people " it is just to soon i guess not good drivers not programs tweaked..etc

We've waited long enough for a 'magical' driver for the HD2900 XT to unlock its true potential, wonder where it is.

While ATI is regular with its driver updates for sure, you can't expect performance-blessing drivers from ATI on a regular basis.

On topic: Can't wait to see this compare to a tri-SLI setup of three 8800 GTX units, I'm expecting this to win.
 
How the hell does the top card get any air into the fan?
 
Hey can you essentaly have 4 of those X2 HD370 and have like a total of 8 FRAKING GPUS!

Is should be possable should it not?
 
^Looking at the fact that the card has only one gold-finger, I would say no. The four card jacob's ladder is already built with two cards.
 
They only have 1xCF connector on the PCB so I think they can only run in dual card mode.
 
We've waited long enough for a 'magical' driver for the HD2900 XT to unlock its true potential, wonder where it is.
The 2900 has come miles from it's launch. Took a few months to get there, but it did. I'd pit mine against a G80 GTS any day.
 
Pointless. If there are no true drivers then why benchmark it.

To give ATI-haters something to feel confident about? Let's see if it works.
 
3dmark06 is an useless program now.
now its just an cpu test and the X2 drivers are crap now:shadedshu
 
visual representation of whats happening
Click herel:laugh:
 
This review smells fishy...
Especially when the result are so poor and one of the main "benchmark softwares" is a game notorious for being ATI "unfriendly".
I'm used to trust Tom's Hardware less and less with each "review" they post since that famous "AMD fries, Intel works even without a cooler" review.
 
This review smells fishy...
Especially when the result are so poor and one of the main "benchmark softwares" is a game notorious for being ATI "unfriendly".
I'm used to trust Tom's Hardware less and less with each "review" they post since that famous "AMD fries, Intel works even without a cooler" review.
But that was true.

I bet the driver for 4 GPUs isn't even out yet.
 
Seeing it on that motherboard... they're not as long as I thought they were.
 
Seeing it on that motherboard... they're not as long as I thought they were.
It's because of the camera angle -- what you're not aware of is that the motherboard is actually four feet long.
 
But that was true.

I know, I was trying to point out that some of their articles are bordering the pointless.
To explain (a bit off-topic): who cares what happens to your CPU if you remove the heatsink while it's working... To me, that article was just as bad and pointless as a Home Shopping Network ad...
Sorry for not being more specific in the first place!
 
This review smells fishy...
Especially when the result are so poor and one of the main "benchmark softwares" is a game notorious for being ATI "unfriendly".
I'm used to trust Tom's Hardware less and less with each "review" they post since that famous "AMD fries, Intel works even without a cooler" review.

The reviewer in that site does not have the Quad CFX drivers. Those are currently internal only and there are no reviewers (as of writing this post) that has them. Terrible editor and terrible review.
 
Thats pretty g@y. And you guys (that posted the article) need to change the Intel Core 2 Duo QX9650 to Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650. Is has more then two cores.
 
Back
Top