NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 Preview - Performance King Returns
Testing Methodology and System Setup
Though GPUZ doesn't have a complete grasp of what it is looking at here, most of the information is accurate. Note that since only a single GPU's specs are shown at a time, the 240 unified shaders represent half of the total on the card as does the memory size, fill rate, etc in terms of theoretical limits.
Graphics card testing has
become the most hotly debated issue in the hardware enthusiast
community recently. Because of that, testing graphics cards has become
a much more complicated process than it once was. Before you might
have been able to rely on the output of a few synthetic, automatic
benchmarks to make your video card purchase, that is just no longer the
case. Video cards now cost up to $500 and we want to make sure that we
are giving the reader as much information as we can to aid you in your
purchasing decision. We know we can't run every game or find every bug
and error, but we try to do what we can to aid you, our reader, and the
community as a whole.
With that in mind, all the
benchmarks that you will see in this review are from games that we
bought off the shelves just like you. Of these games, there are two
different styles of benchmarks that need to be described.
The first is the
"timedemo-style" of benchmark. Many of you may be familiar with this
style from games like Quake III; a "demo" is recorded in the game and a
set number of frames are saved in a file for playback. When playing
back the demo, the game engine then renders the frames as quickly as
possible, which is why you will often see the "timedemo-style" of
benchmarks playing back the game much more quickly than you would ever
play the game. In our benchmarks, the FarCry tests were done in this
matter: we recorded four custom demos and then played them back on each
card at each different resolution and quality setting. Why does this
matter? Because in these tests where timedemos are used, the line
graphs that show the frame rate at each second, each card may not end at the same time precisely
because one card is able to play it back faster than the other -- less
time passes and thus the FRAPs application gets slightly fewer frame
rates to plot. However, the peaks and valleys and overall performance
of each card is still maintained and we can make a judged comparison of
the frame rates and performance.
The second type of benchmark
you'll see in this article are manual run throughs of a portion of a
game. This is where we sit at the game with a mouse in one hand, a
keyboard under the other, and play the game to get a benchmark score.
This benchmark method makes the graphs and data easy to read, but adds
another level of difficulty to the reviewer -- making the manual run
throughs repeatable and accurate. I think we've accomplished this by
choosing a section of each game that provides us with a clear cut path.
We take three readings of each card and setting, average the scores,
and present those to you. While this means the benchmarks are not
exact to the most minute detail, they are damn close and practicing
with this method for many days has made it clear to me that while this
method is time consuming, it is definitely a viable option for games
without timedemo support.
The second graph is a bar
graph that tells you the average framerate, the maximum framerate, and
the minimum framerate. The minimum and average are important numbers
here as we want the minimum to be high enough to not affect our gaming
experience. While it will be the decision of each individual gamer
what is the lowest they will allow, comparing the Min FPS to the line
graph and seeing how often this minimum occurs, should give you a good
idea of what your gaming experience will be like with this game, and
that video card on that resolution.
Our tests are completely based around the second type of benchmark method mentioned above -- the manual run through.
System Setup and Comparisons
Because we had such a short time with the card, and because NVIDIA was a bit limiting in what they wanted us to talk about with the cards this early, we only had time to pit the new GeForce GTX 295 against the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and the GeForce GTX 260+ cards. The Radeon HD 4870 X2 is its direct competition and these two cards will go head-to-head for the title of most-bad-ass graphics card. The GTX 260+ provides us a great respresentative point for the rest of the single-GPU market including the GTX 280 (that performs VERY close to a GTX 260+) and the Radeon HD 4870 1GB.
Also, you won't see us talking about noise and power consumption on the GTX 295 - NVIDIA might still have another firmware revision in them for the card before it hits retail so getting numbers now might be misleading. When the card is fully launched on January 8th, we'll have all the comparison and details you will still be striving to learn about.
Test System Setup
|Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650|
|EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI Motherboard - NVIDIA GPUs|
|OCZ Technology 2 x 2GB DDR-1333|
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Value
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB
Galaxy GeForce GTX 260+ 896MB
|NVIDIA Forceware 177.38 Beta
AMD Catalyst HD 4830 Beta
|Power Supply||PC Power and Cooling 1000 watt|
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
- Call of Duty: World at War
- Far Cry 2
- Left 4 Dead
- World in Conflict
- 3DMark Vantage