Geforce GTX 295 previews

[Timorous]

Bit-Tech have a preview of the 295 and in Fallout 3 @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA the 4870X2 is 52% faster than the 295.

Bit-Tech Preview

Considering how long the 4870X2 has been out I would have thought Nvidia would have been able to achieve a good 10-20% performance increase at these super high settings across the board. While the drivers may be a bit immature I do not see them gaining much performance between now and release.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Timorous
Bit-Tech have a preview of the 295 and in Fallout 3 @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA the 4870X2 is 52% faster than the 295.

Bit-Tech Preview

Considering how long the 4870X2 has been out I would have thought Nvidia would have been able to achieve a good 10-20% performance increase at these super high settings across the board. While the drivers may be a bit immature I do not see them gaining much performance between now and release.

Ya that's a really comprehensive review, includes all the corresponding SLI/CF set-ups also. The Fallout 3 results mirror what the other sites have been showing at 2560, with the 295 dropping off quite a bit. Most seem to think its bandwidth and/or VRAM, which would make sense, especially with the high-res texture pack. Could also be immature drivers but I think overall the results show a convincing win for the 295. I doubt we'll ever see wins across the board anymore due to scaling issues or games that favor certain vendors, even the 4870X2 loses to the GTX 280 in some games and settings.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Timorous
Bit-Tech have a preview of the 295 and in Fallout 3 @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA the 4870X2 is 52% faster than the 295.

Bit-Tech Preview

Considering how long the 4870X2 has been out I would have thought Nvidia would have been able to achieve a good 10-20% performance increase at these super high settings across the board. While the drivers may be a bit immature I do not see them gaining much performance between now and release.

The 9000GX2 stomped the 4870X2 in Crysis..... So?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Timorous
Bit-Tech have a preview of the 295 and in Fallout 3 @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA the 4870X2 is 52% faster than the 295.

Bit-Tech Preview

Considering how long the 4870X2 has been out I would have thought Nvidia would have been able to achieve a good 10-20% performance increase at these super high settings across the board. While the drivers may be a bit immature I do not see them gaining much performance between now and release.

The 9000GX2 stomped the 4870X2 in Crysis..... So?

And the 280 stomps the 4870X2 in some reviews/settings. So? You have to go with the overall picture.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: chizow
Haven't fully read through but I did notice the card has a top vent, so not all the hot air will be externally vented out the back.

Ah, was hard to see that vent in early pics. Looks like a solid design. Enter whining about dumping heat into case though.

Solution.. bigger case, bigger fans. Resistance is futile..

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: chizow
Haven't fully read through but I did notice the card has a top vent, so not all the hot air will be externally vented out the back.

Ah, was hard to see that vent in early pics. Looks like a solid design. Enter whining about dumping heat into case though.

Solution.. bigger case, bigger fans. Resistance is futile..

Ya I don't remember seeing it on those early pics either. Seems to make sense though as that back exhaust seemed obstructed. Depending on the case though I'd look at maybe reversing the side intake fans to have it exhaust air instead. One of my few gripes about the 1200 is that the positioning of the side fan is too far back to really bring cool air to the card's intake. Can also toss in a few of those cheapo Antec exhaust blowers on either side of the card.

 

[Blacklash]

This card should be a good option for people on an older Intel platform with a 1920x monitor.

 

[nosfe]

people on older platforms don't usually buy $500+ video cards

@chizow
the only word that comes to my mind when talking about the airflow in the 1200 and 900 is overkill, i even disabled one of the fans on my 900 and my case temp stayed the same so even if they'd move the fans on the 1200 there wouldn't be any difference whatsoever, there's too much airflow already inside do feel any difference

 

[Timorous]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Timorous
Bit-Tech have a preview of the 295 and in Fallout 3 @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA the 4870X2 is 52% faster than the 295.

Bit-Tech Preview

Considering how long the 4870X2 has been out I would have thought Nvidia would have been able to achieve a good 10-20% performance increase at these super high settings across the board. While the drivers may be a bit immature I do not see them gaining much performance between now and release.

The 9000GX2 stomped the 4870X2 in Crysis..... So?

There was no 9800GX2 in that preview

Also with regard to crysis, If you look at the Very High 2560x1600 the 4870X2 achieves a 25% higher min frame rate but a 10% lower average. When you drop the settings down to High and put on 2x AA the 4870X2 is just about playable but the 295 is no where near.

At the sort of settings you would expect to run these graphics cards at the 295 does not seem to provide the performance increase over the 4870X2 I would have expected.

I also expect that due to the 295's lower bandwidth and less memory the 4870X2 might well manage to last longer assuming games continue eating up more vram and bandwidth.

I suppose Nvidia specced it like this so that 280's in sli is faster so they can still sell their SLi chipsets.

It feels like the 3870X2 vs the 8800Ultra, nice part, a bit faster in general but too late and not as impressive as people were hoping for.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Timorous
Bit-Tech have a preview of the 295 and in Fallout 3 @ 2560x1600 with 8xAA the 4870X2 is 52% faster than the 295.

Bit-Tech Preview

Considering how long the 4870X2 has been out I would have thought Nvidia would have been able to achieve a good 10-20% performance increase at these super high settings across the board. While the drivers may be a bit immature I do not see them gaining much performance between now and release.

Ya that's a really comprehensive review, includes all the corresponding SLI/CF set-ups also. The Fallout 3 results mirror what the other sites have been showing at 2560, with the 295 dropping off quite a bit. Most seem to think its bandwidth and/or VRAM, which would make sense, especially with the high-res texture pack. Could also be immature drivers but I think overall the results show a convincing win for the 295. I doubt we'll ever see wins across the board anymore due to scaling issues or games that favor certain vendors, even the 4870X2 loses to the GTX 280 in some games and settings.

2560 8xAA Maximum Quality would be the only situation where the GTX295 might chop down lower than the X2. Thats the 1.7gb frame buffer that cannot compete with 2GB like GTX280 sli, or 4870X2.

Overall the GTX295 rules the single card scene in all resolutions from 1024 x 768 0xAA ----> 2560 x 1600 2x/4xAA.

If you want to run FC3 and Warhead and other titles at 2560 8xAA, you may as well use 2 or 3GB vmem frame buffer or more (GTX295 quadsli, 4870X2 quadfire)...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Like I said, it doesn't matter how much faster it is. If it's faster there's people who live for benchmarks and records who will just pay whatever to have the latest thing. Benchmarks sell cards.

Sales figures generated by the benchmarking community are going to be miniscule compared to those purchased by mainstream gamers. I think the overwhelming sales of 4850 cards showed that most people are fed up with the $400-$600 price tag normally associated with high end graphics cards.

You missed the point...totally.

People check reviews and look at cards within their budget. Then they say ok so x card is faster than y card in the following benchmarks. Period...end of story.

 

[Cookie Monster]

This card stumbles at the resolution of 2560x1600 with 8xAA. Hopefully this will change the final specifications of this card to a full fledged G206 core, making it have 1GB of vram and relieving it from having to run out memory at those high res AA/AF scenarios.

 

[geokilla]

Hardware Canucks Preview

Hardware Canucks actually tested the card out.

 

[Cookie Monster]

List of previews added.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: chizow
Ya I don't remember seeing it on those early pics either. Seems to make sense though as that back exhaust seemed obstructed. Depending on the case though I'd look at maybe reversing the side intake fans to have it exhaust air instead. One of my few gripes about the 1200 is that the positioning of the side fan is too far back to really bring cool air to the card's intake. Can also toss in a few of those cheapo Antec exhaust blowers on either side of the card.

Yep I have a 1200, the side fan hits right where the cards' exaust port would be. Reversing it would work quite nicely...

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: nosfe
people on older platforms don't usually buy $500+ video cards

@chizow
the only word that comes to my mind when talking about the airflow in the 1200 and 900 is overkill, i even disabled one of the fans on my 900 and my case temp stayed the same so even if they'd move the fans on the 1200 there wouldn't be any difference whatsoever, there's too much airflow already inside do feel any difference

All the fans set to low though make for a quiet case with excellent airflow. I thought I'd miss my P182.. very happy with a 1200!

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
This card stumbles at the resolution of 2560x1600 with 8xAA. Hopefully this will change the final specifications of this card to a full fledged G206 core, making it have 1GB of vram and relieving it from having to run out memory at those high res AA/AF scenarios.

Shh.. ongoing debate about that very subject. Let's not wake the beast(s)..

I'd like to meet the chap who'll use 8xAA at that res though.

 

[Tempered81]

Yah, it does slow a bit at 2560 8xAA (1920 8xAA in Warhead). Has to be the 1.7GB Frame buffer.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Actually its only 896MB, since they dont share the framebuffer. And im guessing its the lack of memory bandwidth too.

 

[Tempered81]

oh yes... 448bit gddr3.

here are some more benches from OBR:

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilust...5_preview/vysledky.png

 

[WelshBloke]

So is there a bet on when Nv EOL's this GX2?

Comes out in January yes? I'm gonna go with 2 months

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
That stuff just looks like leaked marketing material to me. The graphs are skewed to make the card look twice as fast as the 4870x2, when in reality it's perhaps 20% faster.

Even if it is 20% faster, that's a disappointment to me.

Why is it a disappointment to you?

I'm enjoying my GTX295 very much, seems to kick ass at the games I've played on it.

If it's 20% faster than a 4870X2, launches with a $499 MSRP as suggested, I'd say everyone in the market for a single slot multi GPU should be happy.

ATi will have to lower prices, and buyers will have an option that gives them some very nice advantages in driver flexibility and vendor specific features.

 

[Tempered81]

yes the 295 is the new "fastest graphics card". I think if you're going for 2560 8xAA top-of-the-line, then you'll be using X58 Tri-sli GTX280 anyway. So this doesn't even give an edge to the X2.

Oh well, looking forward to 40nm gems from both ATi & Nvidia!

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Like I said, it doesn't matter how much faster it is. If it's faster there's people who live for benchmarks and records who will just pay whatever to have the latest thing. Benchmarks sell cards.

Sales figures generated by the benchmarking community are going to be miniscule compared to those purchased by mainstream gamers. I think the overwhelming sales of 4850 cards showed that most people are fed up with the $400-$600 price tag normally associated with high end graphics cards.

This just isn't true Creig.

There are lots of people who wouldn't think twice about spending $600 on a video card, there are just more that want to spend <$200..

More people buy Toyota Corollas than Cadillac Escalades also, doesn't mean people are sick of nice cars.

I just bought a motherboard, didn't even consider anything but the i7 965 Extreme for the CPU. Same with this card. Best = the thing to buy.

 

[ronnn]

Quick look at firingsquad shows only the same 4 games. That is a disappointment. Also at 8x AA seems the 4870x2 does pretty good.

Must admit this card not coming until January - does make me wonder what the hold up is. Generally very low sales time. Hope this doesn't mean no next generation for several months.


Anyways the die shrink seems good for the 260 and 280 - uses less power and cheaper to make.