CrossFire Versus SLI Scaling: Does AMD's FX Actually Favor GeForce?

We've heard it said before that AMD's GPUs are more platform-dependent than Nvidia's. So, what happens when you drop a Radeon and a GeForce into an FX-8350-based system? Does AMD's CPU get in the way of its GPU running as well as it possibly could?

For years, we heard that ATI's graphics cards are more platform-dependent than Nvidia's and, depending on who had the fastest processor at the time, should really be used with that CPU. So, when AMD's highest-end processors started falling further and further behind Intel's quickest models, we weren't surprised when Nvidia started introducing AMD-compatible chipsets. Intel even forged a similar partnership with ATI, and we looked forward to the RD600 platform overshadowing Intel's own 975X as the premiere enthusiast chipset for Conroe-based processors. 

Many of us were confused when AMD decided to buy ATI rather than solidify its ties to Nvidia. Intel abandoned ATI's RD600 altogether and went off to develop X38 Express. Nvidia eventually dropped out of the PC chipset business entirely. But enthusiasts still took comfort in the notion that AMD’s acquisition might carry it through the rough times ahead. ATI was, after all, slightly more competitive.

Now that AMD and ATI are integrated (as well as two large companies can be after several years), we'd expect its CPU and GPU technologies to be extensively optimized for each other. Nevertheless, the suggestions continue that Radeon cards need more processing power behind them to achieve their performance potential. If that's true, the implication is that whenever one of our Intel-based platforms shows a Radeon and GeForce card performing similarly, an AMD-based system would actually show the GeForce performing better. Wait. What?

We began our tests with an evaluation of clock rate and its effect on CrossFire in FX Vs. Core i7: Exploring CPU Bottlenecks And AMD CrossFire. Intel started out at a lower frequency and consequently had the most to gain. AMD couldn’t go very far beyond its stock clock rate without more exotic cooling, so it had the least to gain.

At the end of the day, both of our CPUs ended up at comparable clock rates with similarly-little effort, making that article a great head-to-head match. But that slight speed-up from AMD meant that a second GeForce-based article with the same CPU settings wouldn’t have given us very much new information. So, I decided to jump straight to the point: Does AMD’s flagship FX processor, overclocked, favor Nvidia graphics?

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
14 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • RaysonViswas
    so get amd bulldozer fx 6300 save money overclock. then spend extra money on graphics cards and don't play f1 which many don't play skyrim which still gets good fps and metro 2033 which again noone plays. and you should be fine.
    -1
  • Xerpadon Xerilious
    Dumbass review comparing a Z77 Pci-e 3.0 vs 990FX Pci-e 2.0 no shit the amd performs less. luckily the R2.0 gen3 out performs the intel.
    0
  • RaysonViswas
    what r2.0 gen3
    0
  • c94w
    To be fair your pitting Intel's high end CPU which costs around £280 against AMD's flagship which cost's at most £200 so already yeah Intel is gong to be 'better'. This is my opinion change out the 3770K for the i5 3570K which is in the same price range and has similar performance. To me those results would be much more valid.
    0
  • c94w
    To be fair your pitting Intel's high end CPU which costs around £280 against AMD's flagship which cost's at most £200 so already yeah Intel is gong to be 'better'. This is my opinion change out the 3770K for the i5 3570K which is in the same price range and has similar performance. To me those results would be much more valid.
    0
  • finder
    latest site updates look very good with lots of data to read
    0
  • daglesj
    Echoooo
    0
  • blibba
    "So, when AMD's highest-end processors started falling further and further behind Intel's quickest models, we weren't surprised when Nvidia started introducing AMD-compatible chipsets."

    Nvidia was producing AMD socket chipsets long before then.
    0
  • blibba
    Anonymous said:
    To be fair your pitting Intel's high end CPU which costs around £280 against AMD's flagship which cost's at most £200 so already yeah Intel is gong to be 'better'. This is my opinion change out the 3770K for the i5 3570K which is in the same price range and has similar performance. To me those results would be much more valid.


    This test isn't about the relative performance of those two CPUs. It's about SLI and CF scaling on different platforms.
    1
  • lankystreak
    nice article, had to check the price of an i7 3770k and it's £100 more expensive than the FX8350!! common sense says amd & spend the saved cash on a beefier card!!!
    0
  • computer_noob
    What's up with all the triple posting?
    0
  • Xerpadon Xerilious
    Anonymous said:
    what r2.0 gen3


    The Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Gen3 is a newer series of motherboards, R2.0 standing for Revisited 2 second version and the Gen3 3rd generation or in other words Pci-E 3.0 which gives a bit more performances in games.

    The old First series of Sabertooth 990FX (Bios 1604)(Pci-E 2.0) vs Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Gen3 (Bios 0305)(Pci-E 3.0).
    0
  • Xerpadon Xerilious
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous said:
    To be fair your pitting Intel's high end CPU which costs around £280 against AMD's flagship which cost's at most £200 so already yeah Intel is gong to be 'better'. This is my opinion change out the 3770K for the i5 3570K which is in the same price range and has similar performance. To me those results would be much more valid.


    This test isn't about the relative performance of those two CPUs. It's about SLI and CF scaling on different platforms.


    like i said their doing an entire wrong setup.. their doing a Pci-e 2.0 vs Pci-e 3.0 motherboards. in my opinion that's down right unfair. that's the same thing as putting a medium weight MMA fighter vs a Heavy weight MMa fighter Or putting a "hi-speed" train from netherlands to france (200km/h) vs the Japanse hi-speed magnetic train(300km/h), their total different classes the speed difference in benchmarking is greatly notice-able Vary 8% up to 20% (depending on the games used in reviews including resolutions and settings).
    0
  • Laxblade
    I'm no fan-boy, but It proves also that the FX-8350 is a decent card for the Amazon UK Price off only £155.00 -:
    against the slightly more powerful i7 3770K Costing a whooping £260.00 at Amazon retail boxed price. Thats £105.00 of a difference which could buy you a classic AMD FX-8350 & 990FX Motherboard, or not too far away... Like I have been buying intel from 2006 every year, I think my next Project will have to be the new PileDriver with the upgraded firmware updates to be released throughout the coming year.. very excited indeed.. I'm only a 'casual gamer' and use the PC for more Labour intensive tasks, like video rendering, and DTP... and the AMD FX-8350 Going by these benchmarks which are always fair at TOMS-HARDWARE, in my opinion is certainly worth the investment together with a "GA 990FXA-UD3" OR "ASUS Sabetooth 990FX R2.0"

    FOR a long time I heard nothing but bad press regarding AMD AM3+ Boards, & FX-Piledrivers and bulldozers, however it appears AMD Must have been working hard on their flagship processor, the FX-8350 Which certainly is much cheaper than my intel 3570K which cost me a whooping £177.00 Retail Boxed compared to the AMD-FX 8350 Which is only £155.00 like I said earlier in my post.On Amazon UK.

    So, Yes, I will NOT be leaving Intel behind, certainly NOT, but I will invest some cash in an AMD Rig with the "Flagship FX-8350" to give it a Fair crack off the whip.!! and there is NO better time than NOW before AMD decide to put the prices UP...

    In Amazon the AMD FX-8350 gets nothing But Completely "5 star reviews" thought the whole reviews thread from people or customers who were confirmed purchasers...NOT one Single 4, 3, 2, 1 Star reviews, no, all over "35" 5 Star reviews on Amazon UK website for all to see.. which is amazing, as these are all confirmed purchases by Amazon. So, Im taking no risk or Gamble because I know the new Pile-driver going by reading lots of good reports from some decent Professional websites give it the thumbs up mainly because of the price compared to the Intel i7 3770K which is £105.00 more which is close to the price of the:
    Gigabyte GA 990FXA-UD3 motherboard, "which is a Top end piece of equipment".
    Amazon UK are doing and offer on the TOP Motherboard by Gigabyte somewhere around £128.50 for the "Golden TOP End"; Gigabyte GA 990FXA-UD5. a price that you will not find elsewhere. So, £155+ £128 and all you need is a decent cooler and drop it into some other Case, and p=other parts you may have lying around the house. I have a spare "Zalman Z11 Plus Case" which will do nicely Plus a Spare matching set of DDR3 RAM Sticks too.. together with a power supply I bought for another rig but didn't need to use it, so I have most of the Kit already, just need the AMD CPU and GIGABYTE BOARD. (I Plan to use a spare GT 440 Nvidea GPU) TO GET ME Started, then if I'm happy with the progress I will buy a "GIGABYTE GTX 660 GPU" to match the MOTHERBOARD... I still have a sweet spot for Intel, and that will not change overnight, however at the curent price for an 8 core CPU, I think I will pay my money and take my chance while they are so more more cheaper than a 3770K. (Thanks for reading).. Cheers! - LaxBlade
    0