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

Quad core vs Dual core CPU for xfire/SLI

Trizmatic

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
34 (0.01/day)
In light if the guru3D i7 review revealing the huge gains in xfire and SLI performance my question arises....what about quad cores? They only tested a dual core to compare to the i7. Has anyone seen a dual core vs quad core comparison to see if it makes a difference for SLI and xfire? I haven't come across anything yet.. :banghead:
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
3,267 (0.75/day)
System Name Thakk
Processor i7 6700k @ 4.5Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Z170N ITX
Cooling Deepcool Maelstrom 120k / H55
Memory 16GB Corsair LPX DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) GTX1080ti Founders Ed. AIO Cooled
Storage Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD / Intel 250GB SSD / Samsung Pro 512 SSD / 3TB Seagate SV32
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 100hz IPS Gsync / HTC Vive
Case Cougar QBX mini itx
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150 > Creative Gigaworks T40 > AKG Q701
Power Supply Thermaltake 600w 140mm
Mouse Logitech G900
Keyboard Ducky Shine TKL MX Blue + Vortex PBT Doubleshots
Software Windows 10 64bit
Benchmark Scores http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12108888
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,438 (1.33/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
4,875 (1.14/day)
Location
Joplin, Mo
System Name Ultrabeast GX2
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 4.0GHZ 24/7
Motherboard Gigabit P35-DS3L
Cooling Rosewill RX24, Dual Slot Vid, Fan control
Memory 2x1gb 1066mhz@850MHZ DDR2
Video Card(s) 9800GX2 @ 690/1040
Storage 750/250/250/200 all WD 7200
Display(s) 24" DCLCD 2ms 1200p
Case Apevia
Audio Device(s) 7.1 Digital on-board, 5.1 digital hooked up
Power Supply 700W RAIDMAXXX SLI
Software winXP Pro
Benchmark Scores 17749 3DM06
looks like processor scaling really is keeping sli and cfx down. Also, GTX280s choke like a cheap whore on anything above 1920x1200...
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
3,267 (0.75/day)
System Name Thakk
Processor i7 6700k @ 4.5Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Z170N ITX
Cooling Deepcool Maelstrom 120k / H55
Memory 16GB Corsair LPX DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) GTX1080ti Founders Ed. AIO Cooled
Storage Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD / Intel 250GB SSD / Samsung Pro 512 SSD / 3TB Seagate SV32
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 100hz IPS Gsync / HTC Vive
Case Cougar QBX mini itx
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150 > Creative Gigaworks T40 > AKG Q701
Power Supply Thermaltake 600w 140mm
Mouse Logitech G900
Keyboard Ducky Shine TKL MX Blue + Vortex PBT Doubleshots
Software Windows 10 64bit
Benchmark Scores http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12108888
From other graphs that I've seen, looks like multi GPU users (current GPUs at least) are the ones who would greatly benefit from an i7 platform.

single GPU on an i7 is another thing though...
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,438 (1.33/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
You know, reviewing the link in more detail... especically the OTHER pages earlier in the article, shows some issues in the tests:

1./ 2x SLI GTX260 is FASTER than some charts with 3x SLI GTX280 :wtf:

I suspect there was a problem with 3x SLI setup on the nForce chipset that X58 solves.

So yes, performance is MUCH BETTER on x58 with i7. BUT something isnt working out with the comparison against 3x SLI.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,438 (1.33/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
If it *IS* really only down to memory bandwidth, then that's really interesting.

  • AMD made the right decision to adopt onboard memory controllers early on.
  • AMD is in big trouble, because their "cores" must be rubbish, but the difference has been hidden due to a real win on the memory bandwidth side. But that is now over. They have some serious work to do.
  • BUT, IIRC, cache is still quicker than DDR3 latency and bandwidths, therefore, cache is king, and we should see bigger FPS scaling on different cache sizes on Core 2, but we dont.

On reflection, I think the results are BOGUS. There is no way the i7 will score 65% performance gain (brothers in arms) or 75% (Far Cry 2) over QX9770 unless they are at different clocks.

We know from other benchmarks that HT adds hardly zero value to game FPS, and that i7 core can outcalculate a Core2 at about 10% at the same clocks, same code. (SSE4.x obviously faster, but that is code specific pipeline which I doubt these games are relying on).

There is no way there is another 50% FPS performance from memory bandwidth alone. It just cant be done unless the whole game is relying on memory alone and 100% cache misses. And I dont believe that.

So the results are BOGUS, or the clocks are vastly different, or the X58 is setup is optimum, and the other setups were handicapped in some way.
 

EarlZ

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
339 (0.07/day)
Processor Intel Core i7 2600K @ 4.8Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte P67A-UD4-B3 Rev1.1
Cooling Noctua D14
Memory 4GB G.Skill 9-10-9-27-1T 2133Mhz
Video Card(s) GTX580 1.5Gb
Storage 2x Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB
Display(s) Samsung T220
Case Lian Li PC-P80
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Extreme Music
Power Supply Silverstone Strider Gold 850
Software Windows 7 Ultimate x64
It also made me wonder after checking out that review, in other CPU based benchmarks it does not beat a C2Q on the same clock by more than 50%, not even close to 15% in most cases.
 

Fitseries3

Eleet Hardware Junkie
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
15,508 (3.50/day)
Location
Republic of Texas
i want to remind you guys that if you think x58 is too much, wait a few months for the dualcore lynnfield nehalem chips and their respective boards to come out.

the reason x58s are so expensive is due to the 8 layer PCB that it requires to get it all to work.

the p55(i presume) will be on a 6 layer PCB that costs much less then the 8 layer x58s. the dualcore lynnfields will of course be cheaper and more affordable as well.

just something to keep in mind. it seems as though everyone has forgotten about that.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
4,875 (1.14/day)
Location
Joplin, Mo
System Name Ultrabeast GX2
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 4.0GHZ 24/7
Motherboard Gigabit P35-DS3L
Cooling Rosewill RX24, Dual Slot Vid, Fan control
Memory 2x1gb 1066mhz@850MHZ DDR2
Video Card(s) 9800GX2 @ 690/1040
Storage 750/250/250/200 all WD 7200
Display(s) 24" DCLCD 2ms 1200p
Case Apevia
Audio Device(s) 7.1 Digital on-board, 5.1 digital hooked up
Power Supply 700W RAIDMAXXX SLI
Software winXP Pro
Benchmark Scores 17749 3DM06
i want to remind you guys that if you think x58 is too much, wait a few months for the dualcore lynnfield nehalem chips and their respective boards to come out.

the reason x58s are so expensive is due to the 8 layer PCB that it requires to get it all to work.

the p55(i presume) will be on a 6 layer PCB that costs much less then the 8 layer x58s. the dualcore lynnfields will of course be cheaper and more affordable as well.

just something to keep in mind. it seems as though everyone has forgotten about that.
not to mention when the technology is the best, that is exactly what you are paying for.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
2,585 (0.59/day)
Location
time 4 a 775/1366 Overclocking 2018 Winter Fest.
i want to remind you guys that if you think x58 is too much, wait a few months for the dualcore lynnfield nehalem chips and their respective boards to come out.

the reason x58s are so expensive is due to the 8 layer PCB that it requires to get it all to work.

the p55(i presume) will be on a 6 layer PCB that costs much less then the 8 layer x58s. the dualcore lynnfields will of course be cheaper and more affordable as well.

just something to keep in mind. it seems as though everyone has forgotten about that.
BAM! Also unless you are running benches, or uber big screens, then going to the I7 will not gain you anything since you have not even maxed out your chips you have today.

TO me the I7 is for someone that has cash to play, or wants to show off numbers or is MR. Bling with their 37" Monitors and tri sli or quad crossX. Every new, i mean really new growth in the desktop market takes 6-9 months to just shake out the bugs.

So to me, I would love and dream of getting the I7 but I kill any game i play with my Q9650 and GTX280, and my wokr systems rock too, so I am saving and watching FIT, and will make my decisions next year, when the second gen come out and are more stable, cheaper and have proven track records.....
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
3,267 (0.75/day)
System Name Thakk
Processor i7 6700k @ 4.5Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Z170N ITX
Cooling Deepcool Maelstrom 120k / H55
Memory 16GB Corsair LPX DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) GTX1080ti Founders Ed. AIO Cooled
Storage Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD / Intel 250GB SSD / Samsung Pro 512 SSD / 3TB Seagate SV32
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 100hz IPS Gsync / HTC Vive
Case Cougar QBX mini itx
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150 > Creative Gigaworks T40 > AKG Q701
Power Supply Thermaltake 600w 140mm
Mouse Logitech G900
Keyboard Ducky Shine TKL MX Blue + Vortex PBT Doubleshots
Software Windows 10 64bit
Benchmark Scores http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12108888
Is it the CPU or huge memory bandwidth that makes the difference?
Based from my early tweaking days when I got my system, Ive seen no significant FPS gains in SLI from 800Mhz C5 to 1066Mhz C5 (unlocked). I was gaining more FPS when I OC the proc itself (may it be through multiplyer [400*9] or FSB [450*8] the gain was just the same). It may be from the new architecture of how mems are controlled though. But then again I'm not one for conjecture ^^.

AMD is in big trouble, because their "cores" must be rubbish, but the difference has been hidden due to a real win on the memory bandwidth side. But that is now over. They have some serious work to do.
Tis' time for some wicked corporate espionage action for em I guess
 

SiliconSlick

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
76 (0.02/day)
Location
USA
System Name LOL - Sorry that's a bit much
Processor Wolfdale
Motherboard P45
Cooling 4x heatpipe tower
Memory 2x2 6400/800
Video Card(s) GTX 260
Storage 2x 640 raid 0 + 500/ata133
Display(s) 2x 19"
Case Area51 - love it - best case - she loves it too
Audio Device(s) 110db 8channel 7.1
Power Supply 500W
Software Everything
Benchmark Scores 9600se agp > 14,000 3dmark2001 (lol)
Hmm- don't forget the 16000 triple mem

looks like processor scaling really is keeping sli and cfx down. Also, GTX280s choke like a cheap whore on anything above 1920x1200...
Great review link I read a day or two ago but one should remember the triple mem @ 16000 and he has some ocz smokers in there as I recall.

So I say without the mem bandwidth bang the diff would be reduced - you know take the e8400 vs now old quad (since new quad is "oct 4HT")...

Anyway - I think the integrated cpu mem controller and smoking 16000 triple channel is doing the work there - plus the "bus" optimization then that follows - not so much the cpu number crunching power...'cept the e8400 is maxxed.

PS - Would be nice to see xfire 4870 1 gigs huh ... and see what happens - link yet anyone ?
Oh sorry there it is - similar enough with CF 4870 and 4870x2 times two - wow
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/12
 
Last edited:

SiliconSlick

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
76 (0.02/day)
Location
USA
System Name LOL - Sorry that's a bit much
Processor Wolfdale
Motherboard P45
Cooling 4x heatpipe tower
Memory 2x2 6400/800
Video Card(s) GTX 260
Storage 2x 640 raid 0 + 500/ata133
Display(s) 2x 19"
Case Area51 - love it - best case - she loves it too
Audio Device(s) 110db 8channel 7.1
Power Supply 500W
Software Everything
Benchmark Scores 9600se agp > 14,000 3dmark2001 (lol)
I agree somewhat

If it *IS* really only down to memory bandwidth, then that's really interesting.
snip
On reflection, I think the results are BOGUS. There is no way the i7 will score 65% performance gain (brothers in arms) or 75% (Far Cry 2) over QX9770 unless they are at different clocks.
snip
So the results are BOGUS, or the clocks are vastly different, or the X58 is setup is optimum, and the other setups were handicapped in some way.
Yes I go with you somewhat - however they're reaching the maxx on the two older cpu's with the tri and quad setup - so I think it's a combination of (slightly)cpu power and I give the edge to the integrated memory controller- faster triple lanes - and therfore less "bus" talking needed.
So I'd say architecture of the "ramtalk" lanes and triple channel speed...

Without looking again I think you're right about wondering where 75% difference comes from - it's unusual but then so is triple and quad sli and 4xCF with the tops cards
 
Last edited:

SiliconSlick

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
76 (0.02/day)
Location
USA
System Name LOL - Sorry that's a bit much
Processor Wolfdale
Motherboard P45
Cooling 4x heatpipe tower
Memory 2x2 6400/800
Video Card(s) GTX 260
Storage 2x 640 raid 0 + 500/ata133
Display(s) 2x 19"
Case Area51 - love it - best case - she loves it too
Audio Device(s) 110db 8channel 7.1
Power Supply 500W
Software Everything
Benchmark Scores 9600se agp > 14,000 3dmark2001 (lol)
Sorry for 3 posts in a row but you made me wonder

You know, reviewing the link in more detail... especically the OTHER pages earlier in the article, shows some issues in the tests:

1./ 2x SLI GTX260 is FASTER than some charts with 3x SLI GTX280 :wtf:

I suspect there was a problem with 3x SLI setup on the nForce chipset that X58 solves.

So yes, performance is MUCH BETTER on x58 with i7. BUT something isnt working out with the comparison against 3x SLI.
Yes, you really got me curious. This is what he says on the added page to the article:

" Now this is the stuff you only can discover if you have a massive amount of GPU power under the hood. With 2-way SLI GTX 260 the numbers would be much closer to each other as the 2 GPUs do not need a processor of the caliber that Core i7 965 harbors. "

So basically he is saying NOT true in just SLI - but the triple, YES, really needs more.
( he kind of leaves it unanswered because he says the cpu - but we have to include the "ramtalk" speed as part of the cpu now since they integrated it )
I guess it makes sense to me if I think the triple setup needs some SPECIAL "info" (not required in sli) that the integrated mem controller or some oddity in the new core is providing much faster - something that is requested often- so a difference in that bit of info is showing up in fps loss or gains.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,438 (1.33/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
Yes, so you basically agree with my observation. You can't square the circle on the data in that review. Something is wrong. Whether the data is wrong, or the hardware is not performing consistently, it should have been obvious to the reviewer that further investigation and diagnotic was necessary. He didnt even notice.

I think we have to wait for a better review/reviewer to get to the bottom of this.
 

Trizmatic

New Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
34 (0.01/day)
If you look at their graphs, they mess up the CPU/Board combo a lot. They say they are using the E8400 on the X58 board in a few graphs.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I either missed that part when I read the article or they added it some time after I read it.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,438 (1.33/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
We dont.

The comment isnt that there is no difference in FPS by cache, but that we would see much bigger scaling. By going from 1MB to 4MB cache there is between 0% and 10% performance gain in gaming in the link you gave.

So how does i7 get 70%. It isnt due to microcode. Since the gains here are 5% as shown in other benchmarks. And it just isnt possible to say this is from the new memory architecture alone. Because if 4MB vs 1MB cache, which is significantly faster than DDR3, can give us an extra 10%, how do we get 70% from DDR3? By extrapolation (which is just an approximation, assuming FPS scales by memory speeds and is unlimited by GPU), if quadrupling the cache (1MB to 4MB) gets you 10% gain, then you would need to quadruple the cache 7x to get 70% performance gain, which would require 4GB cache. ie. the WHOLE GODDAM MEMORY SYSTEM would be operating at cache speeds. Which isnt true. QED.
 

r9

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
2,615 (0.63/day)
System Name Desktop | Poweredge r410
Processor i5 6500 4.5GHz@1.275V | 2 x E5620 @2.4GHz
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty Gaming | Intel 5500
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400MHz | 32GB ECC DDR3
Video Card(s) RX480 8GB |On-Board
Storage 250GB SSD + 512GB SSD|4x320GB
Display(s) 27" Dell + 2 x 24" LCD Setup
Case Fractal Design Define Nano S
Software Windows 10 | Server 2012 r2
looks like processor scaling really is keeping sli and cfx down. Also, GTX280s choke like a cheap whore on anything above 1920x1200...
LOL
 

r9

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
2,615 (0.63/day)
System Name Desktop | Poweredge r410
Processor i5 6500 4.5GHz@1.275V | 2 x E5620 @2.4GHz
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty Gaming | Intel 5500
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400MHz | 32GB ECC DDR3
Video Card(s) RX480 8GB |On-Board
Storage 250GB SSD + 512GB SSD|4x320GB
Display(s) 27" Dell + 2 x 24" LCD Setup
Case Fractal Design Define Nano S
Software Windows 10 | Server 2012 r2
If it *IS* really only down to memory bandwidth, then that's really interesting.

  • AMD made the right decision to adopt onboard memory controllers early on.
  • AMD is in big trouble, because their "cores" must be rubbish, but the difference has been hidden due to a real win on the memory bandwidth side. But that is now over. They have some serious work to do.
  • BUT, IIRC, cache is still quicker than DDR3 latency and bandwidths, therefore, cache is king, and we should see bigger FPS scaling on different cache sizes on Core 2, but we dont.

On reflection, I think the results are BOGUS. There is no way the i7 will score 65% performance gain (brothers in arms) or 75% (Far Cry 2) over QX9770 unless they are at different clocks.

We know from other benchmarks that HT adds hardly zero value to game FPS, and that i7 core can outcalculate a Core2 at about 10% at the same clocks, same code. (SSE4.x obviously faster, but that is code specific pipeline which I doubt these games are relying on).

There is no way there is another 50% FPS performance from memory bandwidth alone. It just cant be done unless the whole game is relying on memory alone and 100% cache misses. And I dont believe that.

So the results are BOGUS, or the clocks are vastly different, or the X58 is setup is optimum, and the other setups were handicapped in some way.
Good point.
 

r9

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
2,615 (0.63/day)
System Name Desktop | Poweredge r410
Processor i5 6500 4.5GHz@1.275V | 2 x E5620 @2.4GHz
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty Gaming | Intel 5500
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400MHz | 32GB ECC DDR3
Video Card(s) RX480 8GB |On-Board
Storage 250GB SSD + 512GB SSD|4x320GB
Display(s) 27" Dell + 2 x 24" LCD Setup
Case Fractal Design Define Nano S
Software Windows 10 | Server 2012 r2
Maybe got to do with the chipset maybe integrated mem controler + triple channel + influence of the x58 + some abducted alien technology known only to intel :D
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
3,267 (0.75/day)
System Name Thakk
Processor i7 6700k @ 4.5Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Z170N ITX
Cooling Deepcool Maelstrom 120k / H55
Memory 16GB Corsair LPX DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) GTX1080ti Founders Ed. AIO Cooled
Storage Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD / Intel 250GB SSD / Samsung Pro 512 SSD / 3TB Seagate SV32
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 100hz IPS Gsync / HTC Vive
Case Cougar QBX mini itx
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150 > Creative Gigaworks T40 > AKG Q701
Power Supply Thermaltake 600w 140mm
Mouse Logitech G900
Keyboard Ducky Shine TKL MX Blue + Vortex PBT Doubleshots
Software Windows 10 64bit
Benchmark Scores http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12108888
Maybe got to do with the chipset maybe integrated mem controler + triple channel + influence of the x58 + some abducted alien technology known only to intel :D
They have a frozen Megatron in their basement
 
Top