Categories:

GeForce GTX 295 In Quad-SLI : Meet The New "GX2"

Meet The New "GX2"

Rumors of a GT200-based dual-GPU solution from Nvidia quickly began circulating after AMD’s Radeon HD 4870 X2 knocked the GeForce GTX 280 from its performance thrown. Nvidia certainly had the design experience, with its GeForce 7950 GX2 and GeForce 9800 GX2 paving the way for further improvements in its multiple-GPU product line. However, those rumors were quickly quashed by the logic that two full GTX 280 processors at 65nm would require too much power and create too much heat to be combined in a single package.

A recent die-process shrink from 65nm to 55nm helped to reduce both heat and power consumption, allowing Nvidia to pursue its two-cards-in-a-brick GX2 design using the most recent variation of its high-end graphics processor. As with previous GX2 products, Nvidia further reduced heat and power consumption by slightly downgrading its twin graphics processors. The new board uses the memory interface and clock speeds of its GeForceGTX 260, but with the full 240 stream processors its GeForce GTX 280 is known for.

Given Nvidia’s propensity for recycling the names of former high-end parts, one might have expected the company to call its new product the “GTX 280 GX2” or “GTX 380 GX2”. Instead, it chose a middle road, removing the GX2 designation to title this product the GeForce GTX 295.

We saw excellent performance in our GeForce GTX 295 preview, but wondered what advancements improved drivers could bring. Also in the backs of our minds were SLI scaling issues that had plagued 7950 GX2 and 9800 GX2 Quad-SLI configurations, causing these to fall behind SLI pairs of single-GPU 7900 GTX and 8800 GTX cards at ultra-high graphics settings. With these questions in mind, we set about procuring a second GTX 295 unit and two HD 4870 X2 cards for comparing Quad SLI to CrossFireX performance, plus three GTX 280 cards to compare Nvidia’s highest-end 3-way SLI to its current Quad-SLI solution.


  • Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment
  • Content also available in:
Sponsored links
Talkback
Anonymous 15/01/2009 13:06
Hide
-0+

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

waxdart 15/01/2009 17:18
Hide
-0+

gaming at 2560x1600? I'll take normal 1080p res.

Anonymous 15/01/2009 21:47
Hide
-0+

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.

avatar_raq 15/01/2009 22:10
Hide
-0+

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!

Syranetic 16/01/2009 01:10
Hide
-0+

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?

Anonymous 16/01/2009 03:00
Hide
-0+

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?

pr2thej 16/01/2009 12:30
Hide
-0+

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.

Comments are closed on this page.
Sponsored links
Ad
Ad

Best offers

The Graphics Cards Articles and reviews
Sponsored links

Newsletters