2

Now this is obviously a very specific question but i'll try to keep it as broad as possible.

My question as stated in the title would be what the 'real' difference between crossfire and a "new" graphics card. Now just thinking about this i get that giving a correct answer to this question would be very hard to do, so for the sake of keeping it simple lets assume that the hardware specs would not differ between the crossfire cards or the new cards.

(the crossfire cards in their propper setup give the same performance as the single graphics card)

My question would be; if your case allows it, would it be wiser to go with double cards (crossfire) or a single high-end card.

Edit

A possible addition to this question would be that if the difference turns out to be neglectable or personal preference, what would each setup shine at? So would the crossfire cards be good for gaming while the single card would be better for rendering or the other way around.

Marco Geertsma
  • 121
  • 4
  • I'd say the main argument is that crossfire requires a compatible motherboard (they're not all compatible, usually, crossfire-ready boards are more expensive), and more power to run, meaning a more powerful PSU. – mveroone Apr 22 '14 at 07:30
  • Yes, but lets say you had the choice of buying either a new graphics card (and selling the old one) and buying another graphics card (which is competable). What would be the best choice and why? (also see my edit) – Marco Geertsma Apr 22 '14 at 07:32
  • I hink you can't say both setp are equivalent and ask for differences. maybe precise which part of their specs is equivalent (memory ? number of vertex shadfers ? clock speeed ? there are many more parameters) I'd add to my previous comment that two cards will probably be more noisy too. – mveroone Apr 22 '14 at 07:35
  • For the sake of simplicity lets just say that both systems are exactly the same ( i know this is really hard to achieve but otherwise i feel like there is no real way of answering this question ). – Marco Geertsma Apr 22 '14 at 08:12
  • 2
    There are many other factors - power usage, price, reliability of the setup, cooling/heat dissipation, etc., etc.. I'm not sure this question is really answerable - as it is, it is far too vague (and "which is better" doesn't necessarily have a solid answer). – Bob Apr 22 '14 at 08:15
  • 1
    One good single card has a huge advantage of simplicity and less issues and problems. People are most likely to toss in a SLI or Xfire card to thier present system because it can be cheaper, older cards sold used are very inexpencive. To me the combining of 2 render engines vrses one primo one even with 2 processors on it is trouble , but that is all opinion, after having no troubles and reading about all the troubles and lack of total shared usage of both engines. – Psycogeek Apr 22 '14 at 08:16
  • @Psycogeek So having a single card is more stable then crossfire but crossfire is a cheaper method. Did i understand this right? – Marco Geertsma Apr 22 '14 at 08:19
  • It isnt always cheaper :-) there are gamers who will put in 2 $900 cards or 3&4. I just see a lot of people saying they are going that route as the cheaper path to upgrade. There are also a few 2cheap VS 1 primo hardware benchmark testings out there. the results can vary, but for me it was relative, with the possibilty for more problems with the 1more item. – Psycogeek Apr 22 '14 at 08:34
  • 1
    Crossfire/SLI also allows to use more displays, which can be an important parameter if you need 6+ monitors... – mveroone Apr 22 '14 at 09:40

0 Answers0