Articles: Graphics
 

Bookmark and Share

(6) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 ]

Performance Summary

The diagrams are based on the average frame rate in the games only. First, let’s see how faster the CrossFireX configurations of Radeon HD 5770 and HD 5750 cards are in comparison with the respective single cards. Here are the diagrams for the low-quality settings:

The Radeon HD 5750 boasts better scalability than the Radeon HD 5770 at 1280x1024: +79.7% against +70.2% on average across all the games. At a resolution of 1920x1200 the addition of a second card produces a bigger effect and the scalability of the two configurations is similar: +84.7% and +80.1%.

CrossFireX is even more effective at the high-quality settings.

The average performance growth is higher now: +81.4% for the HD 5750 and +76.2% for the HD 5770 at 1280x1024, and +81.2% and 81.1%, respectively, at 1920x1200.

Next, let’s compare the CrossFireX Radeon HD 5750 configuration with the Radeon HD 5850 and the CrossFireX Radeon HD 5770 configuration with the Radeon HD 5870. The single top-end cards are the point of reference in the diagrams.

In the low-quality test mode the CrossFireX tandems enjoy an advantage of 9.3-12.4% at 1280x1024 and 8.9-10% at 1920x1200. The only game where the CrossFireX tandems fail to win is Borderlands, at 1920x1200 only.

When FSAA and AF are turned on, the narrow 128-bit memory bus of the Radeon HD 5770 and HD 5750 affects their performance and the gap from the top-end single cards shrinks.

The CrossFireX configurations of entry-level cards are 5.2-7.7% ahead of the Radeon HD 5870 and HD 5850 at 1280x1024 and 3.5-5.6% ahead at 1920x1200. Besides the loss in Borderland we’ve already seen, the CrossFireX tandems now fall behind in Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War II. In the rest of the games the CrossFireX configurations are equal or better than their opponents. On the other hand, you should be aware that the diagrams are based on the average frame rate while the CrossFireX tandems are generally worse when it comes to bottom speed. This is all due to the AFR mode together with the 128-bit memory bus, which limit the graphics subsystem’s performance in high-quality modes.

The next pair of diagrams compares the GeForce GTX 260 (taken as the reference point) with the Radeon HD 5770.

As you can see, the GeForce GTX 260 wins more tests.

And the last pair of summary diagrams compares the Radeon HD 5770 1GB with the Radeon HD 4770 512MB.

The newer card is 196% and 329% faster than the Radeon HD 4770 512MB in Unreal Tournament 3 and Far Cry 2 but the diagrams are built to the same scale, so you can see only 100% there. The Radeon HD 5770 is 24-29% ahead of the Radeon HD 4770 in the low-quality mode and 35-70% ahead in the FSAA+AF mode.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 6
Discussion started: 12/20/09 07:26:02 PM
Latest comment: 01/05/10 09:54:43 PM

View comments

Add your Comment