Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: COD World At War

GeForce GTX 295 In Quad-SLI
By

Nvidia leads the way in Call of Duty: World at War, with only a single GTX 280 falling behind any AMD graphics solution. Quad-SLI leads the way, with two GeForce GTX 295s edging out 3-way GTX 280s even at a 2560x1600 resolution.

Cranking up the details lets the 3-way GTX 280 setup take away the top position. Then again, all configurations were fast enough for perfectly smooth game play at our highest resolution.

GeForce GTX 295s still hold a high-end gaming value advantage over GTX 280s, since two $500 cards are cheaper than three $400 cards and one $500 card is far cheaper than two $400 cards. AMD’s $500 cards (Ed.: soon to be found closer to $449, according to AMD) are found at the bottom of the chart, just above the single GTX 280.

Display all 7 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 15 January 2009 18:06
    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
  • 0 Hide
    waxdart , 15 January 2009 22:18
    gaming at 2560x1600? I'll take normal 1080p res.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 16 January 2009 02:47
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    avatar_raq , 16 January 2009 03:10
    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!
  • 0 Hide
    Syranetic , 16 January 2009 06:10
    Quote:
    With AA enabled and AF forced through the drivers, the GTX 295 is still unplayable at a resolution of 2560x1600. This is one of the few places Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics in CrossFireX shines, but the winning result has little significance.


    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?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 16 January 2009 08:00
    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?
  • 0 Hide
    pr2thej , 16 January 2009 17:30
    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.
React To This Article