Introduction

GeForce GTX 295 is based on two GPUs running at the same clock specs as GeForce GTX 260, but having more processing cores (240 against 216 or 192, depending on the version). Zotac’s model (ZT-295E3MA-FSP) runs with the default clocks set by nVidia. Let’s see what kind performance you can expect from this beast.

Before talking the technical details from GeForce GTX 295, let’s take a look on Zotac’s product. As you can see on Figures 1 and 2, it is based on nVidia’s reference design, which uses a black rubber cover. What is new on this design compared to the previous one used by GeForce GTX 280 and GTX 260 is the fan, which is now opened on both sides.

click to enlarge
Figure 1: Zotac GeForce GTX 295, front view.

click to enlarge
Figure 2: Zotac GeForce GTX 295, back view.

click to enlarge
Figure 3: Fan.

On Figure 4 you can see the top from the reviewed card. It requires two auxiliary power cables, one with a 6-pin connector and one with an 8-pin connector.

click to enlarge
Figure 4: Top view.

This video card comes with two DVI outputs and one HDMI output. You can have digital audio routed to this HDMI output if you connect the available SPDIF In connector to your motherboard SPDIF out connector, as described in our How to Use The SPDIF Connector Available on GeForce Video Cards tutorial.

 
click to enlarge
Figure 5: Connectors.

The reviewed card from Zotac comes one HDMI cable, one power adapter to convert the 6-pin auxiliary power plug into two standard peripheral power plugs, one power adapter to convert the 8-pin auxiliary power plug into two standard peripheral power plugs, the SPDIF cable, two DVI-to-VGA adapters and three discs, one with drivers, one with 3DMark Vantage and one with the game Racedriver: Grid.

click to enlarge
Figure 6: Accessories.

Let’s now discuss the technical details regarding Zotac GeForce GTX 295.

More Details

To make the comparison between GeForce GTX 295 and the other video cards we included in this review easier, we compiled the table below comparing the main specs from these cards. If you want to compare the specs of the reviewed video card to any other video card not included on the table below, just take a look on our nVidia Chips Comparison Table and on our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table.

GPU	Core Clock	Shader Clock	Processors	Memory Clock	Memory Interface	Memory Transfer Rate	Memory	Price
GeForce GTX 295	576 MHz	1,242 MHz	240	1,000 MHz	448-bit	112 GB/s	896 MB GDDR3	USD 500 – USD 510
GeForce GTX 285	648 MHz	1,476 MHz	240	1,242 MHz	512-bit	159 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 350 - 395
GeForce GTX 280	602 MHz	1,296 MHz	240	1,107 MHz	512-bit	141.7 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 315 - 325
GeForce GTX 260 (192 cores)	576 MHz	1,242 MHz	192	1,000 MHz	448-bit	112 GB/s	896 MB GDDR3	N/A
GeForce GTX 260 (216 cores)	576 MHz	1,242 MHz	216	1,000 MHz	448-bit	112 GB/s	896 MB GDDR3	USD 225 – 270
GeForce 9800 GX2	600 MHz	1,500 MHz	128	1,000 MHz	256-bit	64 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	N/A
GeForce 9800 GTX+	738 MHz	1,836 MHz	128	1,100 MHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 150 – 200
GeForce 9800 GTX	675 MHz	1,688 MHz	128	1,100 MHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 130 – 225
GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB	600 MHz	1.5 GHz	112	900 MHz	256-bit	57.6 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 145 – 155
Radeon HD 4870 X2	750 MHz	750 MHz	800	900 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	USD 425 – 545
Radeon HD 4870	750 MHz	750 MHz	800	900 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	512 MB GDDR5	USD 185 – 245
Radeon HD 4850 X2	625 MHz	625 MHz	800	993 MHz	256-bit	63.5 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 235
Radeon HD 4850	625 MHz	625 MHz	800	993 MHz	256-bit	63.5 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 145 – 190
Radeon HD 4830	575 MHz	575 MHz	640	900 MHz	256-bit	57.6 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 95 – 130
Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2	857 MHz	857 MHz	320	927 MHz	256-bit	59.3 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	N/A
Radeon HD 3870	776 MHz	776 MHz	320	1,125 MHz	256-bit	72 GB/s	512 MB GDDR4	USD 92 – 132

It is important to notice that this table reflects the current prices for the listed video cards at Newegg.com, which are lower than the prices we published in other reviews, since prices tend to drop every day.

Some important observations regarding this table:

• All nVidia chips are DirectX 10 (Shader 4.0), while all AMD/ATI chips are DirectX 10.1 (Shader 4.1).
• The memory clocks listed are the real memory clock. Memory clocks are often advertised as double the figures presented, numbers known as “DDR clock”. Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 use GDDR5 chips, which transfer four data per clock cycle and thus the “DDR clock” for these video cards is four times the value presented on this table (i.e. 3.6 GHz).
• GeForce GTX 295, GeForce 9800 GX2, Radeon HD 3870 X2, Radeon HD 4850 X2 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 have two GPU’s. The numbers on the table represent only one of the chips.
• All video cards included on our review were running at the chip manufacturer default clock configuration (i.e. no overclocking), except Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2. The official core clock for Radeon HD 3870 X2 is 825 MHz, while the official memory clock is 900 MHz. So this card was a little bit overclocked. We couldn’t reduce these clocks to their reference values and since we hadn’t any other Radeon HD 3870 X2 available we included this video card anyway.
• Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review. Prices marked as “N/A” (Not Available) means that this particular video card wasn’t found on this store for sale.
• We couldn’t find Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 for sale. This model will be more expensive than cards from other vendors based on the same GPU because it features water cooling. Just for you to have an idea, prices on the regular Radeon HD 3870 X2 are quoted between USD 285 and USD 450.

Before going to our tests let’s recap the main features from Zotac GeForce GTX 295.

Main Features

Zotac GeForce GTX 295 main features are:

• Graphics chip: GeForce GTX 295 (two GPUs running at 576 MHz each).
• Memory: Two groups of 896 MB GDDR3 memory (448-bit interface) running at 1 GHz (“2 GHz”), one for each GPU.
• Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
• Connectors: Two DVI and HDMI output.
• Video Capture (VIVO): No.
• Cables and adapters that come with this board: HDMI cable.
• Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: Three.
• Games that come with this board: Racedriver: Grid.
• Programs that come with this board: 3DMark Vantage.
• Minimum Required Power Supply: 680 W.
• More information: http://www.zotac.com

Average price in the US:  We couldn’t find this product from Zotac being sold on the day we published this review. GeForce GTX 295 from other manufacturers can be found on the USD 500 range.

How We Tested

During our benchmarking sessions we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable device was the video card being tested.

Hardware Configuration

• CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz, 1,600 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 memory cache).
• Motherboard: EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI (P05 BIOS)
• Memories: Crucial Ballistix PC3-16000 2 GB kit (BL2KIT12864BE2009), running at 2,000 MHz with 9-9-9-28 timings.
• Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache).
• Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (LCD, 30”, 2560x1600).
• Power supply: OCZ EliteXStream 1,000 W.
• CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
• Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
• Desktop video resolution: 2560x1600 60 Hz

Software Configuration

• Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
• Service Pack 1

Driver Versions

• nForce driver version: 15.17
• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.5
• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.6 + hotfix (8.501.1.0, 6/21/2008) (Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.520.0.0 (Radeon HD 4870 X2)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.10 (Radeon HD 4830)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.542.0.0 (Radeon HD 4850 X2)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.11 (FarCry 2, Fallout 3)
• nVidia video driver version: 175.16
• nVidia video driver version: 177.34 (GeForce GTX 260, GTX 280)
• nVidia video driver version: 177.79 (GeForce 9800 GT, 9800 GTX+)
• nVidia video driver version: 178.24 (FarCry 2, Fallout 3)

• nVidia video driver version: 181.22 (GeForce GTX 285, GTX 295)

Used Software

• 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 + October 2007 Hotfix
• 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
• Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.6
• Crysis – Patch 1.2.1 + HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.3.0.0
• Half-Life 2: Episode Two – Patch June 9^th 2008 + HardwareOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
• Unreal Tournament 3 – Patch 1.2 + HardwareOC UT3 Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
• FarCry 2
• Fallout 3 - Patch 1.0.0.1.5

Resolutions and Image Quality Settings

Since we were comparing very high-end video cards, we ran all our tests under three 16:10 widescreen high resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. We always tried to run the programs and games in two scenarios for each resolution, one with low image quality settings and then maxing out the image quality settings. The exact configuration we used will be described together with the results of each individual test.

Error Margin

We adopted a 3% error margin. Thus differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.

3DMark06 Professional

3DMark06 measures Shader 3.0 (i.e. DirectX 9.0c) performance. We run this software under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, first with no image quality enhancements enabled – results we call “low” on the charts and tables below –, then setting 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. See the results below.

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1680x1050 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	17557	13.37%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	16729	8.02%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	16260	4.99%
GeForce 9800 GX2	15623	0.88%
GeForce GTX 295	15487
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	15472	0.10%
GeForce GTX 285	15374	0.74%
GeForce GTX 280	14904	3.91%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	14589	6.16%
Radeon HD 4870	14215	8.95%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	13701	13.04%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	13355	15.96%
GeForce 9800 GTX	12759	21.38%
Radeon HD 4850	11842	30.78%
GeForce 9800 GT	11471	35.01%
Radeon HD 4830	10898	42.11%
Radeon HD 3870	10694	44.82%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	17414	10.12%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	16294	3.04%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	15891	0.49%
GeForce GTX 295	15813
GeForce 9800 GX2	15547	1.71%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	15489	2.09%
GeForce GTX 285	15365	2.92%
GeForce GTX 280	14215	11.24%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	13267	19.19%
Radeon HD 4870	13017	21.48%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	12668	24.83%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	12206	29.55%
GeForce 9800 GTX	11631	35.96%
Radeon HD 4850	10691	47.91%
GeForce 9800 GT	10253	54.23%
Radeon HD 4830	9787	61.57%
Radeon HD 3870	9454	67.26%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	15920	2.20%
GeForce GTX 295	15577
Radeon HD 4850 X2	14140	10.16%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	13490	15.47%
GeForce 9800 GX2	13015	19.68%
GeForce GTX 285	12573	23.89%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	12315	26.49%
GeForce GTX 280	11766	32.39%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	10568	47.40%
Radeon HD 4870	10159	53.33%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	9894	57.44%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	9365	66.33%
GeForce 9800 GTX	8743	78.17%
Radeon HD 4850	8077	92.86%
GeForce 9800 GT	7679	102.85%
Radeon HD 4830	7308	113.15%
Radeon HD 3870	6823	128.30%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	16260	5.64%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	16134	4.82%
GeForce GTX 295	15392
Radeon HD 4850 X2	14997	2.63%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	13942	10.40%
GeForce 9800 GX2	13900	10.73%
GeForce GTX 285	13390	14.95%
GeForce GTX 280	12157	26.61%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	11088	38.82%
Radeon HD 4870	11063	39.13%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	10617	44.98%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	9391	63.90%
GeForce 9800 GTX	8981	71.38%
Radeon HD 4850	8881	73.31%
Radeon HD 4830	7943	93.78%
GeForce 9800 GT	7899	94.86%
Radeon HD 3870	6915	122.59%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	15580
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	15489	0.59%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	15313	1.74%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	13809	12.82%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	13231	17.75%
GeForce 9800 GX2	12213	27.57%
GeForce GTX 285	12018	29.64%
GeForce GTX 280	10991	41.75%
Radeon HD 4870	10014	55.58%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	9904	57.31%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	9450	64.87%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	8144	91.31%
Radeon HD 4850	7972	95.43%
GeForce 9800 GTX	7811	99.46%
Radeon HD 4830	7109	119.16%
GeForce 9800 GT	6826	128.24%
Radeon HD 3870	6114	154.82%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	13339
Radeon HD 4870 X2	12479	6.89%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	12315	8.32%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	10854	22.89%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	10499	27.05%
GeForce 9800 GX2	9829	35.71%
GeForce GTX 285	9575	39.31%
GeForce GTX 280	8704	53.25%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	7707	73.08%
Radeon HD 4870	7550	76.68%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	7285	83.10%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	6065	119.93%
Radeon HD 4850	5896	126.24%
GeForce 9800 GTX	5774	131.02%
Radeon HD 4830	5213	155.88%
GeForce 9800 GT	5045	164.40%
Radeon HD 3870	4319	208.84%

3DMark Vantage Professional

3DMark Vantage is the latest addition to the 3DMark series, measuring Shader 4.0 (i.e. DirectX 10) performance and supporting PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of nVidia) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Physics is used to calculate how objects interact (for example, if you shoot what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it – Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back?). Notice that we didn’t upgrade the PhysX to the latest version, which would make the physics calculations for CPU Test 2 to be made by the GPU instead of the CPU on nVidia video cards (since we aren't considering CPU or 3DMark scores this change wouldn't produce any increase in our results anyway).

We ran this program under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, first using the “Performance” profile, then using the “Extreme” profile – which basically enables anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x and put all details settings at their maximum value (called “extreme”). The combination of 2560x1600 resolution with extreme settings didn’t produce reliable results according to the program, so we aren’t going to add them here. The results we are comparing are the “GPU Score” achieved by each video card.

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1680x1050 - Performance	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	13992
Radeon HD 4870 X2	11697	19.62%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	10420	34.28%
GeForce GTX 285	9391	48.99%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	8050	73.81%
GeForce GTX 280	7695	81.83%
GeForce 9800 GX2	6990	100.17%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	6467	116.36%
Radeon HD 4870	6193	125.93%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	5898	137.23%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	5651	147.60%
Radeon HD 4850	4797	191.68%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	4499	211.00%
Radeon HD 4830	4220	231.56%
GeForce 9800 GTX	3805	267.73%
GeForce 9800 GT	3691	279.08%
Radeon HD 3870	2977	370.00%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1920x1200 - Performance	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	11317
Radeon HD 4870 X2	9472	19.48%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	8292	36.48%
GeForce GTX 285	7384	53.26%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	6355	78.08%
GeForce GTX 280	6106	85.34%
GeForce 9800 GX2	5379	110.39%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	5084	122.60%
Radeon HD 4870	4880	131.91%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	4582	146.99%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	4336	161.00%
Radeon HD 4850	3725	203.81%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	3370	235.82%
Radeon HD 4830	3301	242.84%
GeForce 9800 GT	2951	283.50%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2891	291.46%
Radeon HD 3870	2269	398.77%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 2560x1600 - Performance	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	6474
Radeon HD 4870 X2	5542	16.82%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	4756	36.12%
GeForce GTX 285	4259	52.01%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	4197	54.25%
GeForce GTX 280	3549	82.42%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	2927	121.18%
GeForce 9800 GX2	2910	122.47%
Radeon HD 4870	2728	137.32%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	2640	145.23%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	2382	171.79%
Radeon HD 4850	2050	215.80%
Radeon HD 4830	1837	252.42%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	1815	256.69%
GeForce 9800 GT	1638	295.24%
GeForce 9800 GTX	1557	315.80%
Radeon HD 3870	1244	420.42%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1680x1050 - Extreme	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	11091
Radeon HD 4870 X2	8405	31.96%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	8093	37.04%
GeForce GTX 285	7253	52.92%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	6859	61.70%
GeForce GTX 280	6005	84.70%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	5055	119.41%
GeForce 9800 GX2	4858	128.30%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	4531	144.78%
Radeon HD 4870	4360	154.38%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	3567	210.93%
Radeon HD 4850	3445	221.94%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	3201	246.49%
Radeon HD 4830	2982	271.93%
GeForce 9800 GT	2741	304.63%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2703	310.32%
Radeon HD 3870	1855	497.90%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1920x1200 - Extreme	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	8727
Radeon HD 4870 X2	6916	26.19%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	6420	35.93%
GeForce GTX 285	5745	51.91%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	5554	57.13%
GeForce GTX 280	4732	84.43%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	3954	120.71%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	3576	144.04%
GeForce 9800 GX2	3508	148.77%
Radeon HD 4870	3490	150.06%
Radeon HD 4850	2753	217.00%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	2669	226.98%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	2399	263.78%
Radeon HD 4830	2349	271.52%
GeForce 9800 GT	2136	308.57%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2038	328.21%
Radeon HD 3870	1439	506.46%

Call of Duty 4

Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact (for example, if you shoot what exactly will hapen to the object when the bullet hits it – Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back?), giving a more realistic experience to the user.

We ran this game under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e. everything was put on their maximum values on the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the game internal benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by nVidia called wetwork. We are putting this demo for downloading here if you want to run your own benchmarking. We updated the game to version 1.6. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Call of Duty 4 - 1680x1050 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	149.9
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	136.3	9.98%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	134.6	11.37%
GeForce GTX 285	125.8	19.16%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	120.0	24.92%
GeForce 9800 GX2	106.2	41.15%
GeForce GTX 280	105.3	42.36%
Radeon HD 4870	93.4	60.49%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	91.8	63.29%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	91.0	64.73%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	75.7	98.02%
Radeon HD 4850	72.4	107.04%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	72.2	107.62%
GeForce 9800 GTX	69.1	116.93%
Radeon HD 4830	65.8	127.81%
GeForce 9800 GT	61.3	144.54%
Radeon HD 3870	43.0	248.60%

Call of Duty 4 - 1920x1200 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	147.9
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	121.3	21.93%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	120.6	22.64%
GeForce GTX 285	111.5	32.65%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	105.7	39.92%
GeForce 9800 GX2	94.5	56.51%
GeForce GTX 280	91.7	61.29%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	80.7	83.27%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	77.1	91.83%
Radeon HD 4870	76.4	93.59%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	61.3	141.27%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	59.5	148.57%
Radeon HD 4850	59.1	150.25%
GeForce 9800 GTX	57.7	156.33%
Radeon HD 4830	52.6	181.18%
GeForce 9800 GT	50.8	191.14%
Radeon HD 3870	35.4	317.80%

Call of Duty 4 - 2560x1600 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	117.2
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	86.7	35.18%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	83.8	39.86%
GeForce GTX 285	78.9	48.54%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	70.5	66.24%
GeForce 9800 GX2	64.8	80.86%
GeForce GTX 280	64.8	80.86%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	55.3	111.93%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	53.5	119.07%
Radeon HD 4870	48.1	143.66%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	40.6	188.67%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	39.7	195.21%
GeForce 9800 GTX	38.3	206.01%
Radeon HD 4850	36.7	219.35%
Radeon HD 4830	33.4	250.90%
GeForce 9800 GT	33.3	251.95%
Radeon HD 3870	22.4	423.21%

Crysis

Crysis is a very heavy DirectX 10 game. We updated this game to version 1.2.1 and used the HOC Crysis Benchmarking Utility to help us collecting data. Since we don’t think the default demo based on the island map stresses the video card the way we want, we used the HOC core demo available with the abovementioned utility. We ran this demo under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, first with image quality set to “low” and then with image quality set to “high”. Since all video cards achieved a number of frames per second below 10 at 2560x1600 with image details set to “high”, we are not including this test as the results aren’t reliable. We ran each test twice and discarded the first result, as usually the first run achieves a lower score compared to the subsequent runs since the game loses time loading files. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1680x1050 - Low	Score	Difference
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	134	20.72%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	125	12.61%
GeForce GTX 280	125	12.61%
GeForce GTX 285	124	11.71%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	120	8.11%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	115	3.60%
GeForce GTX 295	111
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	107	3.74%
Radeon HD 4870	101	9.90%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	99	12.12%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	91	21.98%
GeForce 9800 GTX	84	32.14%
Radeon HD 4850	84	32.14%
GeForce 9800 GX2	75	48.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	75	48.00%
Radeon HD 4830	74	50.00%
Radeon HD 3870	71	56.34%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	122	28.42%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	119	25.26%
GeForce GTX 280	115	21.05%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	115	21.05%
GeForce GTX 285	113	18.95%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	108	13.68%
GeForce GTX 295	95
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	91	4.40%
Radeon HD 4870	84	13.10%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	83	14.46%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	76	25.00%
GeForce 9800 GTX	69	37.68%
Radeon HD 4850	67	41.79%
GeForce 9800 GX2	63	50.79%
GeForce 9800 GT	61	55.74%
Radeon HD 4830	61	55.74%
Radeon HD 3870	58	63.79%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	103	60.94%
GeForce GTX 280	95	48.44%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	86	34.38%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	85	32.81%
GeForce GTX 285	77	20.31%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	71	10.94%
GeForce GTX 295	64
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	60	6.67%
Radeon HD 4870	53	20.75%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	52	23.08%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	49	30.61%
GeForce 9800 GTX	44	45.45%
Radeon HD 4850	43	48.84%
GeForce 9800 GX2	42	52.38%
GeForce 9800 GT	39	64.10%
Radeon HD 4830	38	68.42%
Radeon HD 3870	35	82.86%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	57	39.02%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	55	34.15%
GeForce GTX 285	50	21.95%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	47	14.63%
GeForce GTX 280	42	2.44%
GeForce GTX 295	41
Radeon HD 4870	37	10.81%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	37	10.81%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	32	28.13%
GeForce 9800 GTX	29	41.38%
Radeon HD 4850	29	41.38%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	29	41.38%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	26	57.69%
GeForce 9800 GX2	25	64.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	25	64.00%
Radeon HD 4830	25	64.00%
Radeon HD 3870	19	115.79%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	47	38.24%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	45	32.35%
GeForce GTX 285	41	20.59%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	39	14.71%
GeForce GTX 280	34	0.00%
GeForce GTX 295	34
Radeon HD 4870	30	13.33%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	30	13.33%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	26	30.77%
Radeon HD 4850	23	47.83%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	23	47.83%
GeForce 9800 GTX	22	54.55%
GeForce 9800 GX2	21	61.90%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	20	70.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	20	70.00%
Radeon HD 4830	20	70.00%
Radeon HD 3870	16	112.50%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two

Half-Life 2 is a popular franchise and we benchmark the video cards using Episode Two with the aid of HOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two benchmarking utility using the “HOC Demo 1” provided by this program. We ran the game in three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, with quality set to maximum, x16 anisotropic filtering and 16xQCS anti-aliasing. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4850 X2	158.0	6.76%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	157.0	6.08%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	157.0	6.08%
GeForce GTX 285	152.0	2.70%
GeForce GTX 295	148.0
Radeon HD 4870	144.0	2.78%
GeForce 9800 GTX	137.9	7.32%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	126.1	17.37%
GeForce 9800 GX2	125.4	18.02%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	125.0	18.40%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	121.0	22.31%
Radeon HD 4850	116.2	27.37%
Radeon HD 4830	101.0	46.53%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	94.0	57.45%
GeForce GTX 280	89.3	65.73%
GeForce 9800 GT	80.0	85.00%
Radeon HD 3870	68.3	116.69%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	157.0	6.80%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	152.0	3.40%
GeForce GTX 295	147.0
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	144.0	2.08%
GeForce GTX 285	135.0	8.89%
Radeon HD 4870	124.0	18.55%
GeForce 9800 GTX	116.3	26.40%
GeForce 9800 GX2	111.1	32.31%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	106.5	38.03%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	105.0	40.00%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	101.0	45.54%
Radeon HD 4850	97.2	51.23%
Radeon HD 4830	85.0	72.94%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	74.0	98.65%
GeForce GTX 280	70.3	109.10%
GeForce 9800 GT	63.0	133.33%
Radeon HD 3870	56.8	158.80%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	130.0	5.69%
GeForce GTX 295	123.0
Radeon HD 4850 X2	108.0	13.89%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	95.0	29.47%
GeForce GTX 285	86.0	43.02%
Radeon HD 4870	75.0	64.00%
GeForce 9800 GTX	71.3	72.51%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	64.0	92.19%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	61.0	101.64%
Radeon HD 4850	58.4	110.62%
Radeon HD 4830	51.0	141.18%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	50.6	143.08%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	39.0	215.38%
GeForce 9800 GX2	37.5	228.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	36.0	241.67%
GeForce GTX 280	35.5	246.48%
Radeon HD 3870	34.9	252.44%

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 is based on an entire new game engine called Dunia, which is based on DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10-compatible video card. We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to “high”, no anti-aliasing and running the demo “Ranch Small” three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.

Unfortunately we had already returned to the manufacturer several of the video cards included in the previous comparisons and that is why you are seeing less video cards being included on this bechmarking.

FarCry 2 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	85.2
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	84.4	1.00%
GeForce GTX 285	80.7	5.61%
GeForce GTX 280	71.7	18.78%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	68.4	24.65%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	66.9	27.46%
Radeon HD 4870	63.1	34.95%
Radeon HD 4850	54.3	56.87%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	53.6	59.06%

FarCry 2 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	85.5
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	80.3	6.44%
GeForce GTX 285	76.3	12.06%
GeForce GTX 280	68.8	24.27%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	62.8	36.16%
Radeon HD 4870	61.9	38.12%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	61.0	40.25%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	53.6	59.50%
Radeon HD 4850	51.1	67.44%

FarCry 2 - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	75.9
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	63.0	20.60%
GeForce GTX 285	57.2	32.68%
GeForce GTX 280	52.0	45.89%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	45.9	65.40%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	43.3	75.21%
Radeon HD 4870	40.4	87.97%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	38.1	99.16%
Radeon HD 4850	34.4	120.57%

Fallout 3

Fallout 3 is based on the same engine used by The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and it is a DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) game. We configured the game with “ultra” image quality settings, 4x anti-aliasing and 15x anisotropic filtering. To measure performance we used the utility FRAPS running an outdoor scene at God mode running through enemy fire, trigging post processing effects and ending with a big explosion in front of Dupont Circle.

Unfortunately we had already returned to the manufacturer several of the video cards included in the previous comparisons and that is why you are seeing less video cards being included on this bechmarking.

Fallout 3 - 1680x1050 - Ultra	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 285	76.4	2.17%
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	76.3	2.10%
GeForce GTX 280	76.2	1.93%
GeForce GTX 295	74.8
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	74.1	0.89%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	73.6	1.58%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	73.5	1.69%
Radeon HD 4870	69.5	7.51%
Radeon HD 4850	61.1	22.32%

Fallout 3 - 1920x1200 - Ultra	Score	Difference
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	77.0	2.30%
GeForce GTX 280	76.1	1.10%
GeForce GTX 285	75.6	0.46%
GeForce GTX 295	75.3
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	73.3	2.69%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	72.4	3.98%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	71.7	4.95%
Radeon HD 4870	64.6	16.61%
Radeon HD 4850	53.0	42.02%

Fallout 3 - 2560x1600 - Ultra	Score	Difference
GeForce GTX 295	75.8
EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW	73.2	3.53%
GeForce GTX 285	71.4	6.05%
GeForce GTX 280	68.1	11.23%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	61.6	23.03%
GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.)	61.1	23.98%
GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.)	60.9	24.49%
Radeon HD 4870	47.4	59.88%
Radeon HD 4850	35.6	112.72%

Conclusions

On the previous pages you can see detailed comparisons between GeForce GTX 295 and other video cards.

The main problem with GeForce GTX 295 at this moment is its price, around USD 500 in the US. The most expensive video card based on an AMD/ATI chip, Radeon HD 4870 X2, can be found between USD 425 and USD 545.

In our tests GeForce GTX 295 outperformed Radeon HD 4870 X2 in some scenarios. On 3DMark Vantage it was between 17% and 19% faster with no image quality enhancements enabled, but when we cranked them up performance difference increased to between 26% and 32%. On Call of Duty 4, GTX 295 was between 11% and 40% faster than HD 4870 X2.

On Crysis, however, GeForce GTX 295 achieved a performance lower than GeForce GTX 285, most probably because Crysis couldn’t recognize the two GPUs, even though we manually enabled SLI mode.

On Half-Life 2: Episode Two Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 6% and 7% faster. And on 3DMark06, which simulates older DirectX 9.0c games, Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 10% and 13% faster at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 with no image quality enhancements enabled, with both cards achieving the same performance on other configurations.

Unfortunately we have already shipped back the Radeon HD 4870 X2 to the manufacturer, so we couldn’t run Far Cry 2 or Fallout 3 with this card.

Compared to GeForce GTX 285, GTX 295 is a lot faster: around 50% faster on 3DMark Vantage, between 20% and 50% on Call of Duty 4 and up to 33% faster on FarCry 2. On Crysis GTX 285 was between 12% and 22% faster (probably because the game didn’t recognize the two GPUs from GTX 295, as mentioned before), and on Half-Life 2: Episode Two at 1680x1050 both achieved the same performance, but at 2560x1600 GTX 295 was 43% faster. On Fallout 3 they both achieved the same performance level, but at 2560x1600 GTX 295 was 6% faster.

GeForce GTX 295 is surely the fastest video card based on an nVidia solution (if your game can improve its performance under SLI mode), but at USD 500 we simply can’t recommend it for the average user: only rich high-end users can afford it. GeForce GTX 285, even though presenting a lower performance, comes with a far more accessible price, and we can buy one today for USD 350 and thus presenting a better cost/benefit ratio for users that want an nVidia-based high-end video card.

Originally at http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/693

---

© 2004-9, Hardware Secrets, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Total or partial reproduction of the contents of this site, as well as that of the texts available for downloading, be this in the electronic media, in print, or any other form of distribution, is expressly forbidden. Those who do not comply with these copyright laws will be indicted and punished according to the International Copyrights Law.

We do not take responsibility for material damage of any kind caused by the use of information contained in Hardware Secrets.