Test Settings
The biggest problem we’ve encountered when using high-end graphics solutions is that at the highest resolutions and settings, the cards cannot get data fast enough from the CPU and RAM to keep their graphics cores busy. In an effort to reduce this so-called “CPU bottleneck,” we overclocked our Core i7 processor to 4.00 GHz at a 200 MHz base clock.
Test System Configuration | |
|---|---|
CPU | Intel Core i7 920 (2.66 GHz, 8.0 MB Cache) |
Overclocked to 4.00 GHz (BCLK 200) | |
CPU Cooler | Swiftech Liquid Cooling: Apogee GTZ water block, |
MCP-655b pump, and 3x120mm radiator | |
Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-EX58-Extreme |
Intel X58/ICH10R Chipset, LGA-1366 | |
RAM | 6.0 GB Crucial DDR3-1600 Triple-Channel Kit |
Overclocked to CAS 8-8-8-16 | |
GTX 295 Graphics | 2x GeForce GTX 295 |
2x 576 MHz GPU, GDDR3-1998 | |
GTX 280 Graphics | 3x EVGA GeForce GTX 280 PN: 01G-P3-1280-AR |
602 MHz GPU, GDDR3-2214 | |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 Graphics | 2x Sapphire HD 4870 X2 PN: 100251SR |
2x 750 MHz GPU, GDDR5-3600 | |
Hard Drives | Seagate Barracuda ST3500641AS |
0.5 TB, 7,200 RPM, 16 MB Cache | |
Sound | Integrated HD Audio |
Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking |
Power | |
ATX12V v2.2. EPS12V, 850W, 64A combined +12V | |
Optical | LG GGC-H20LK 6X Blu-ray/HD DVD-ROM, 16X DVD±R |
Software | |
OS | Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit SP1 |
Graphics | NVidia Forceware 181.20 Beta |
ATI 8.561.3.0000 Beta | |
Chipset | Intel INF 8.3.0.1016 |
Cooling an overclocked Core i7 CPU isn’t a task for lightweights, so we added Swiftech’s latest Apogee GTZ water block to the liquid-cooling kit we normally use for motherboard testing.
Feeding data quickly to the CPU are three 2.0 GB DDR3-1600 modules from Crucial. These particular samples are part of an upcoming High-End Triple-Channel shootout; watch for it in a few days.
Including 3-way SLI tests required a motherboard with proper slot spacing. Gigabyte’s EX58-Extreme worked well on our open platform, though the third card does extend below the lowest slot on standard cases.
Our second card came from MSI; its N295GTX-M201792 arrived overclocked to 655MHz GPU with GDDR3-2100 memory. We actually had to underclock this card to 576MHz/GDDR3-2000 reference speeds to make it cooperate with our reference card in Quad SLI. MSI says it'll be releasing an overclocked board soon, which we'll be anxiously awaiting.
Our GTX-295 graphics cards were set to reference clock speeds, so it made sense to use reference-speed HD 4870 X2s in an apples-to-apples comparison. Our cards came from Sapphire.
Finally, the GTX 280 sets the standard for judging GTX 295 performance improvements. We tested three reference-speed cards in single, SLI, and 3-way SLI.
Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
Call of Duty: World at War | Patch 1.1, FRAPS/saved game |
Crysis | Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool |
Far Cry 2 | DirectX 10, Steam Version, in-game benchmark |
Left 4 Dead | Very High Details, No AA / No AF, vsync off |
World in Conflict | Patch 1009, DirectX 10, timedemo |
3D Mark Vantage | Version 1.02: 3DMARK, GPU, CPU scores |
they would have been better off overclocking the original card they have rather than downclocking the new model since this will mess with results
also it has been proven better test results can be gotten useing a pair of 280 in sli then useing a card such as a 9600 gso as a seperate card to handle physX and ECUDA
its built into the drivers and does give better performance that 3 280 in sli
its alot cheaper as well since xfx recetly started selling their own 9600 gso directly from the site for £50
which is about a £200 saveing over the 3rd 280
gaming at 2560x1600? I'll take normal 1080p res.
Exactly! Your tests mean diddly squat these days as you choose to use resolutions that nobody uses... well except for yourselves.
You have succeeded in convincing me of 2 things with your tests.
Don't bother buying crysis; it is either poorly written software or so demanding of resources it isn't worth it.
High end cards aren't worth the money as they won't do anything a midrange card can't do at the resolution I would use.
I agree with THW that any expensive graphics solution should be nenchmarked by demanding games @ high resolutions, no body spends alot of money to play @ 1280x1024!!
Personally, after I read this article I started to think about replacing my 8800GT with a single GTX 295 after 2-3 months (after the price get reduced and any issues get resolved)..I wonder if my p35 mobo (PCI-e v.1) and my E6750 @ 3.6Ghz will pose a bottlenck to its performance. Any ideas on that people? Help!
I think the observation that should have been pointed out here is that the framebuffer on the GTX 295 is limited, in comparison to the 4870x2... It's simple memory, the 4870X2 has 2 x 1GB where the GTX 295 has 896mb per card, and even with 4 cards there is no sharing of this memory.
Really, it's the only failing in the GTX 295, but how many people play at 2560x1200 anywaay?
On your specs, you state that you used Vista 32-bit, wouldn't that limit how much of your system & video ram the OS could access?
lol who spends that much on GPU to underclock it.
If you want to invest that sort of cash then its safe to assume there is a knowledge of overclocking. Shoulda cranked the cards.