|
Review: ATI Radeon X1800 XT CrossFire
Back
to Page 1
The Sound
and The Fury
While the thought of the rendering
capabilties from having two high-end graphics boards such
as the Radeon X1800 XT installed should be enough to whet
the appetite of most hardcore sim-heads or PC gamers, environmental
issues in the form of undesirable power usage and/or sound
output could represent a stumbling block for some. The power
usage of the test system was recorded using an Extech 380801
power meter and sampled with the test system running at the
Windows desktop and while under load the second scenario
created by running 3DMark05's three game tests. System noise
was also sampled using a digital sound meter at the same time
for both scenarios, with the meter placed an inch from the
boards. Worth noting is that both sets of measurements are
affected by other components installed within the test system,
so the recordings shown below reflect their impact on the
measurements (e.g., a CPU will of course draw more power while
running a 3D application compared to sitting at the Windows
desktop, making it impossible to fully isolate the power utilization
of the graphics cards tested in this review).
| Power |
X1800 XT
|
CrossFire
|
| Idle |
134 watts
|
177 watts
|
| Load |
255 watts
|
358 watts
|
The power usage between single- and
dual-card configurations shows an increase as expected, with
a 42 watt increase at idle and a 101 watt increase under load.
If the test system was built using an Intel dual-core processor
the power usage would almost certainly reach close to 400
watts utilization, and this with the test system having only
one hard and optical drive apiece.
| Power |
X1800 XT
|
CrossFire
|
| Idle |
60 dB
|
60 dB
|
| Load |
65 dB
|
66 dB
|
The sound test was somewhat surprising
in that the presence of the second board did not add much
additional noise to the test system in either scenario. Sound
levels aside, however, the specific pitch generated by the
standard fan on the X1800s is noticeable under load, and this
pitch is only amplified by the presence of a second board.
Home system builders with low noise level requirements should
bear this in mind.
Test System
Setup
The graphics boards tested for this
article were installed in an Antec Sonata midtower case and
the testbed built using the following components:
- AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 (2.6 GHz dual
core)
- ASUS A8R-MVP Radeon Xpress 200
motherboard (RD480 chipset)
- 2 GB (2 x 1 GB) of Corsair DDR400
memory (2.5-3-3-6)
- Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB SATA
(16 MB buffer) hard drive
- Plextor PX-712S DVD drive
- Creative SoundBlaster Audigy 2
ZS sound card
- Enermax 550 Watt ATX power supply
unit
- Dell 2405FPW 24" widescreen
LCD
The latest BIOS version and chipset
drivers were installed on the test system, along with the
Catalyst 6.1s. Windows XP Professional (SP2) was configured
to have Automatic Update, System Restore, and all unnecessary
startup services disabled. As a standard baseline, 32-bit
color and trilinear filtering were used during testing, and
the Mipmap detail option placed at high quality in the control
panel. The licensed version of Fraps 2.7.2 was used to record
benchmark scores for applications that lacked the option to
record frame rates, and testing was conducted using the following
software:
- 3DMark05 (v1.2.0)
- Lock On: Flaming Cliffs (v1.11)
- IL-2: Pacific Fighters (v4.02)
- MS Flight Simulator 2004 (v9.1)
- Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (v1.05)
- Call of Duty 2 (v1.01)
- rFactor (v1070)
When possible, application anti-aliasing
was used rather than forced via the driver control panel.
Each simulation/game was initially tested at 1024x768, 1280x1024,
1600x1200, and 1920x1200 without anti-aliasing or anisotropic
filtering enabled, and then the tests were run again with
4x anti-aliasing and 8x anisotropic filtering as a high quality
test category. The resolution of 1920x1200 was chosen since,
as a 16:10 widescreen resolution, it is the highest display
option available on the 2405FPW used with the test system,
and allows an examination of how well a current high-end graphics
board such as the X1800 XT, in single and CrossFire modes,
perform beyond the traditional 1600x1200 threshold.
CrossFire installation is a somewhat
unpleasant experience, and therefore worth briefly discussing.
Once both graphics boards were installed, we booted the test
system up after setting the CrossFire option in the motherboard's
BIOS to dual cards, only to discover that the option in the
Catalyst Control Center (CCC) to enable CrossFire was grayed
out. Puzzled, we set the BIOS option back to Auto. The CCC
then showed the checkbox as available and said to cable the
display to the master card, though at that point it was connected
to its DVI output. Taking this as a suggestion to install
the CrossFire interconnect, we wrestled the cable into place
(not the easiest of tasks) on both boards and then attached
the display's DVI cable to the end of the dongle. The screen
went black, having lost its video signal. Reconnecting the
display to the regular DVI output on the master card (leaving
the dongle still connected), we then checked the enable CrossFire
option in the CCC and again tied the display to the interconnect
cable. At this point the CCC read that CrossFire was enabled.
SimHQ installed a ATI RD480-based
chipset motherboard in this case, the ASUS A8R-MVP
Radeon Xpress 200 in our AMD test system; the A8R-MVP
has two PCI Express graphics slots that share the 16 lanes
dedicated to add-in graphics boards, dividing the lanes into
8 per slot. All testing for a single Radeon X1800 XT was conducted
with the terminator card installed in the second PEG slot,
giving the graphics board the the full bandwidth of a standard
x16 slot.
Go
To Page 3
Click
here to go to top of this page.
Copyright 2008, SimHQ.com. All Rights Reserved. Contact the webmaster.
|