Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
The Fastest 3D Cards Go Head-To-Head
By ,
1. Taxing Modern CPUs With Powerful Graphics

Nvidia and ATI have really shaken up the 3D market in the past couple of months. While the GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 280 hold a number of speed records (simultaneously making the GeForce 9-series look geriatric), AMD’s Radeon HD 4850 and HD 4870 provide good performance at aggressive prices. We have been seeing prices steadily sliding in the past few weeks. The GTX 280 started at $649, and it can now be purchased for just $419.

To find the best performing and least expensive combination, we put the fastest graphics cards through a series of tests consisting of 60 benchmarks, numerous side-by-side comparisons, and a price analysis.

This story seeks to answer a number of questions. First, is it worth changing from a Radeon HD 3850, HD 3870, or GeForce 8800 GTS 512 to one of these new GPUs? Second, how well do the old GeForce 8800 GTX and 8800 GTS 512 cards hold up? Third, which of the current cards is fastest? Fourth, are the drivers for CrossFire and SLI already well-optimized? Fifth, where can you expect increases in performance? And finally, how fast is the card you want at 1280x1024, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200?

The best cards from AMD and Nvidia were tested both as single cards and in SLI/CrossFire configurations.

If you’re not sure about the right power supply to drive your graphics setup, we have recommendations for power supply sizes. These should be considered guidelines, as PC configurations differ considerably.

The CPU in our test system reaches its limits here—the Core 2 Extreme X6800 at 2.93 GHz is barely capable of keeping up with current dual-card graphics setups. These twin-configs often show little or no improvement in overall 3D performance. Your resolution of choice often determines whether it is worth purchasing a pair of your favorite cards or if an individual board would be better.

The highlights of our comparison are the factory-overclocked models from MSI. As a result of the faster clock speeds, there is additional performance guaranteed by the manufacturer. Special drivers or tools are unnecessary, as the improved specifications are automatically set in each board’s BIOS. To ensure a fair comparison, each graphics card runs at its normal rate, with a detailed analysis of the overclocking given as an additional feature. All overclocked variations are tested at 1920x1200 pixels with anti-aliasing, and the performance differences over standard clock speeds can be compared directly using the frame rates with percent evaluation.

2. Comparing The GPUs And Test Setup

The test includes the 3800- and 4800-series models from AMD, as well as the GeForce 8-, 9-, and GTX 200-series boards from Nvidia. The lower limits are bound by the Radeon HD 3650 and GeForce 8600 GT.

Nvidia graphics cards
Chip Code name Memory GPU rate Shader Memory rate SPs
GeForce GTX 280 SLI GT200 1024 GDDR3 602 MHz 4.0, 1296 MHz 2214 MHz 240
GeForce GTX 280 GT200 1024 GDDR3 602 MHz 4.0, 1296 MHz 2214 MHz 240
GeForce GTX 260 SLI GT200 896 GDDR3 576 MHz 4.0, 1242 MHz 1998 MHz 192
GeForce GTX 260GT200 896 GDDR3 576 MHz 4.0, 1242 MHz 1998 MHz 192
GeForce 9800 GX2 2xG92 2x512 MB GDDR3 600 MHz 4.0, 1500 MHz 2000 MHz 2x128
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI G92 512 MB GDDR3 675 MHz 4.0, 1688 MHz 2200 MHz 128
GeForce 9800 GTX G92 512 MB GDDR3 675 MHz 4.0, 1688 MHz 2200 MHz 128
GeForce 9600 GT SLI G94 1024 MB GDDR3 650 MHz 4.0, 1625 MHz 1800 MHz 64
GeForce 9600 GT G94 1024 MB GDDR3 650 MHz 4.0, 1625 MHz 1800 MHz 64
GeForce 8800 GTS OC G92 512 MB GDDR3 730 MHz 4.0, 1825 MHz 1944 MHz 128
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI G92 512 MB GDDR3 650 MHz 4.0, 1625 MHz 1944 MHz 128
GeForce 8800 GTS G92 512 MB GDDR3 650 MHz 4.0, 1625 MHz 1944 MHz 128
GeForce 8800 GT SLI G92 1024 MB GDDR3 600 MHz 4.0, 1500 MHz 1800 MHz 112
GeForce 8800 GT G92 1024 MB GDDR3 600 MHz 4.0, 1500 MHz 1800 MHz 112
GeForce 8800 GT SLI G92 512 MB GDDR3 600 MHz 4.0, 1500 MHz 1800 MHz 112
GeForce 8800 GT G92 512 MB GDDR3 600 MHz 4.0, 1500 MHz 1800 MHz 112
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI G80 768 MB GDDR3 612 MHz 4.0, 1512 MHz 2160 MHz 128
GeForce 8800 Ultra G80 768 MB GDDR3 612 MHz 4.0, 1512 MHz 2160 MHz 128
GeForce 8800 GTX G80 768 MB GDDR3 576 MHz 4.0, 1350 MHz 1800 MHz 128
GeForce 8800 GTS G80 640 MB GDDR3 500 MHz 4.0, 1188 MHz 1600 MHz 96
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI G80 320 MB GDDR3 500 MHz 4.0, 1188 MHz 1600 MHz 96
GeForce 8800 GTS G80 320 MB GDDR3 500 MHz 4.0, 1188 MHz 1600 MHz 96
GeForce 8600 GTS G84 512 MB GDDR3 675 MHz 4.0, 1450 MHz 2016 MHz 32
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI G84 256 MB GDDR3 675 MHz 4.0, 1450 MHz 2016 MHz 32
GeForce 8600 GTS G84 256 MB GDDR3 675 MHz 4.0, 1450 MHz 2016 MHz 32
GeForce 8600 GT SLI G84 256 MB GDDR3 540 MHz 4.0, 1180 MHz 1400 MHz 32
GeForce 8600 GT G84 256 MB GDDR3 540 MHz 4.0, 1180 MHz 1400 MHz 32

Chip Memory bus Manufacturing process Transistors Interface
GeForce GTX 280 SLI 512 Bit 65 nm 1400 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 280 512 Bit 65 nm 1400 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 260 SLI 448 Bit 65 nm 1400 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 260 448 Bit 65 nm 1400 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9800 GX2 2x256 Bit 65 nm 2x754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9800 GTX 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9600 GT SLI 256 Bit 65 nm 505 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9600 GT 256 Bit 65 nm 505 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GTS OC 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GTS 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GT SLI 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GT 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GT SLI 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 GT 256 Bit 65 nm 754 MB PCIe 2.0
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI 384 Bit 90 nm 681 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8800 Ultra 384 Bit 90 nm 681 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8800 GTX 384 Bit 90 nm 681 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8800 GTS 320 Bit 90 nm 681 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI 320 Bit 90 nm 681 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8800 GTS 320 Bit 90 nm 681 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8600 GTS 128 Bit 80 nm 289 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI 128 Bit 80 nm 289 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8600 GTS 128 Bit 80 nm 289 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8600 GT SLI 128 Bit 80 nm 289 MB PCIe 1
GeForce 8600 GT 128 Bit 80 nm 289 MB PCIe 1

AMD graphics cards
Chip Code name Memory GPU rate Shader Memory rate SPs
Radeon HD 4870 CF RV770 512 MB GDDR5 750 MHz 4.1 3600 MHz 800
Radeon HD 4870 RV770 512 MB GDDR5 750 MHz 4.1 3600 MHz 800
Radeon HD 4850 CF RV770 512 MB GDDR3 625 MHz 4.1 1986 MHz 800
Radeon HD 4850 RV770 512 MB GDDR3 625 MHz 4.1 1986 MHz 800
Radeon HD 3870 X2 R680 2x512 MB GDDR3 825 MHz 4.1 1802 MHz 2x320
Radeon HD 3870 CF RV670 512 MB GDDR4 775 MHz 4.1 2252 MHz 320
Radeon HD 3870 RV670 512 MB GDDR4 775 MHz 4.1 2252 MHz 320
Radeon HD 3850 CF RV670 256 MB GDDR3 670 MHz 4.1 1658 MHz 320
Radeon HD 3850 RV670 256 MB GDDR3 670 MHz 4.1 1658 MHz 320
Radeon HD 3650 CF RV635 512 MB GDDR3 725 MHz 4.1 1602 MHz 120
Radeon HD 3650 RV635 512 MB GDDR3 725 MHz 4.1 1602 MHz 120

Chip Memory bus Manufacturing process Transistors Interface
Radeon HD 4870 CF 256 Bit 55 nm 965 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 4870 256 Bit 55 nm 965 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 4850 CF 256 Bit 55 nm 965 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 4850 256 Bit 55 nm 965 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3870 X2 2x256 Bit 55 nm 2x666 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3870 CF 256 Bit 55 nm 666 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3870 256 Bit 55 nm 666 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3850 CF 256 Bit 55 nm 666 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3850 256 Bit 55 nm 666 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3650 CF 128 Bit 55 nm 378 MB PCIe 2.0
Radeon HD 3650 128 Bit 55 nm 378 MB PCIe 2.0

Memory rate = DDR clock rate doubled; physical rate is half
DDR5 clock rate quadrupled, physical rate is one quarter
SPs = stream processors; P and V = Pixel shader and Vertex shader
TC = Turbo Cache
HM = Hyper Memory
OC = Overclocked (clock rate higher than default)
SLI = Parallel operation with 2 Nvidia cards
3 SLI = Parallel operation with 3 Nvidia graphics chips
4 SLI = Parallel operation with 4 Nvidia graphics chips
CF = CrossFire parallel operation with 2 AMD cards
3 CF = CrossFire parallel operation with 3 ATI graphics chips
4 CF = CrossFire parallel operation with 4 ATI graphics chips
R680 = 2x RV670
Shader 2.0 = DirectX 9.0; 3.0 = DirectX 9.0c; 4.0 = DirectX 10; Shader 4.1 = DirectX 10.1

Nvidia single graphics cards, AMD single and CrossFire graphics cards
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93 GHz (11x 266 MHz),
Socket 775, 1.28 V, 65 nm, L2 cache 4096 KB
FSB 1066 MHz (4x 266 MHz)
Motherboard Asus P5E3 Deluxe, PCIe 2.0 2x16, ICH9R
Chipset Intel X38
Memory 2x 1 GB, Ballistix (Crucial Technology) 1.5 V,
DDR3 1066 7-7-7-20 (2x 533 MHz)
Audio Intel High Definition Audio
LAN Intel 1000 Pro
Drives Western Digital WD5000AAKS 500 GB, SATA, 16 MB Cache,
Hitachi 120 GB, SATA, 8 MB Cache
DVD Gigabyte GO-D1600C
Power Supply CoolerMaster RS-850-EMBA 850 W

Nvidia SLI graphics cards
Motherboard Asus P5N-T Deluxe, PCIe 2.0 2x16
Chip set Nvidia nForce 780i SLI
Memory 2x 1 GB, A-Data Technology 1.8 V, DDR2 800 5-5-5-18 (2x 400 MHz)
Audio ADI 1988B SoundMax
LAN Marvell 88E1116 Gigabit

Drivers & Configuration
Graphics AMD Catalyst 8.6
Nvidia ForceWare 175.16, GTX 260 and GTX 280 Forceware 177.39
Operating system Windows Vista Enterprise SP1
DirectX 10 and 10.1
Chipset driver X38 Intel 8.3.1.1009
780i Nvidia nForce 9.64

3. Radeon HD 4850

The flat 60 mm fan generates 41.2 dB(A) under full load.

The 3D rendering speed of the Radeon HD 4850 is excellent. Compared to its predecessor, the HD 3850, we measured up to 47.5% more overall performance. MSI does not offer an overclocked model. Rather, the card runs at default clock rates of 625 MHz for the GPU and 1,986 MHz for the memory. The graphics chip supports DirectX 10.1, and the memory subsystem includes 512 MB of GDDR3.

AMD has done a lot with the price of the Radeon HD 4850. At just $179, it puts the GeForce 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS 512, and 9800 GTX under serious pressure, and is responsible for the serious price reductions of the Radeon HD 3850, HD 3870 and GeForce 8800 GT.

Many gamers are waiting with bated breath for the 4850 sporting a two-slot fan, as the one-slot version is plenty quiet, but heats the interior of the PC considerably. If you do not have good case ventilation, you will want to change this or use the HD 4870 instead.

AMD has kept the fan speed very low, which reduces the volume while sitting on the Windows desktop to 36.3 dB(A), but the graphics chip (GPU) reaches temperatures of at least 78 degrees C. This affects the other components in the system, because the default fan only circulates the air within the case. In 3D mode, the GPU temperature increases to 83 or 85 degrees C, and anything requires the fan to kick into high gear.

The power consumption of the full system using the Radeon HD 4850 at idle is 122 watts. Under full 3D load, it can be as high as 237 watts.

Factory overclocking is not available on the 4850 model.There are no CrossFire jumpers included in the box.

A PCIe power connection with six pins is necessary.Four cards can be slung together using two CrossFire connections on each board.

The fan is one slot high; hot air remains in the PC case.The card is 9.25” (23.5 cm) in length, and the power connection is at the rear.

The I/O panel has one video connection and two DVI outputs.VGA and HDMI adapters are supplied by MSI.

4. CrossFire With Radeon HD 4850

Used together in CrossFire, the two graphics cards can reach a noise level of up to 46 dB(A).

On our test system, the Radeon HD 4850 in CrossFire mode only gains a bit of performance on average compared to the HD 4870 at 1680x1050 pixels with anti-aliasing turned on. This benefit of up to 5% in performance isn’t actually worthwhile at current prices and taking energy consumption into consideration. A pair of Radeon HD 4850s would cost $360, while the single HD 4870 can be purchased for $270.

You should also take a good look at the results for the individual games, though. With anti-aliasing, the HD 4850 in CrossFire is faster at many resolutions. For example, Mass Effect running at 1920x1200 with 4xAA achieves 38.6 fps with the HD 4870, but hits 50.2 fps with the HD 4850 CrossFire. World in Conflict at 1920x1200 with 4xAA runs at 34.8 fps on the HD 4870, but 44.5 fps with the HD 4850 in CrossFire.

In 2D mode, the power consumption of the entire system increases to 177 watts. Under full 3D load, it is 367 watts, which is 79 watts more than an individual HD 4870 requires. Anyone who wishes to operate AMD’s Radeon HD 4870 in CrossFire mode will need a solid power supply with between 300 and 340 watts and 25 to 28 A on the 12 volt rail for a standard system.

In 2D mode, the paired cards are nice and quiet at just 36.3 dB(A). Only when under full load does the noise increase to a significantly louder 46 dB(A), which is also achieved by a single HD 4870. The temperatures are two degrees higher in 2D mode (for CrossFire) versus a single card. You need to remember though, that from now on you have two substantial heat sources tucked away in your PC case. Even with very good ventilation, the temperature of the remaining components should be checked frequently.

5. Radeon HD 4870 OC

The 75 mm fan produces 46 dB(A) under full load.

The overclocked MSI Radeon HD 4870 runs at 780 MHz (GPU) and 4,000 MHz GDDR5 RAM clock rate—the stock clock would be 750 MHz and 3,600 MHz. The graphics chip can handle DirectX 10.1, and the sample has 512 MB. At the 1920x1200 resolution with anti-aliasing, the MSI overclock results in a 13% boost in Crysis. When you consider all of the games of the benchmark suite as a whole, 3D performance increases by 3.5% over card at stock clocks.

Its toughest opponent is Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 260. Due to the serious drop in prices, these cards are now much more competitively priced. AMD’s offering is a bit cheaper, but the GTX 260 compensates with that little extra bit of 3D speed. Still, AMD has the edge. The GTX 260, under load, is pretty loud. But it’s still much quieter than the other GT200-based card from Nvidia. AMD’s disadvantage is that power consumption in 2D mode is 147 watts for the entire system, though this is set to change with an upcoming driver.

The greatest advantage of the HD 4870 over AMD’s Radeon HD 4850 is its two-slot fan that expels hot air from the PC chassis. In 2D mode, AMD has taken acoustic output into consideration, but the slow fan speed means that the GPU temperatures hovers around 76 degrees C and more heat is transferred to other PC components. In order to avoid these high figures, check out the Gainward Expertool v4.0 for the 4870, which enables manual fan control.

The fan on our MSI sample gets alternates between loud and soft in 2D mode. The stock configuration, not overclocked, does not use this fan profile. Either the RPMs either remain constant on that board, or the change is too quiet to be heard. Under 3D load, the power supply for the test system using the Radeon HD 4870 draws up to 288 watts. A branded power supply with 240 to 280 watts and 20 to 23 A on the 12 volt rail should be sufficient for a standard system.

The card tested is the OC model from MSI.The card employs two PCIe power connections, each with six pins.

A jumper for CrossFire is supplied.Four cards can be chained together using two CrossFire connections on each board.

The card is 9.4” (24 cm) in length; the two power connections are at the rear.

The I/O panel has one video and two DVI outputs.VGA and HDMI adapters are available.

6. CrossFire With Radeon HD 4870 OC

Joined through CrossFire, the duo is loud at up to 54.5 dB(A).

The overclocked values are slightly better for two Radeon HD 4870 in CrossFire mode. At a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels with anti-aliasing, the MSI overclock results in an 18.6% performance increase in Crysis (where a single MSI HD 4870 OC card is 13%). If you consider all games in the benchmark suite together, the 3D performance over the standard card increases by 3.8% (a single MSI HD 4870 OC card is 3.5%).

Paired in CrossFire mode, the cards are no longer quiet. The noise level on the Windows desktop rises from 41.8 to 42.4 dB(A), but the higher fan speed drops the temperature to 63 degrees Celsius. In 3D mode, temperatures drop by 10 degrees compared to a single card. However, the noise level at 54.5 dB(A) is extremely loud, at roughly the same level as Nvidia’s GTX 260 or GTX 280.

The entire system in 2D mode consumes 242 watts, while in 3D mode this leaps to 460 watts. Anyone who wishes to use a HD 4870 in CrossFire will need a reliable power supply with somewhere between 380 and 420 watts and 32 to 35 A on the 12 volt rail.

In terms of performance, the HD 4870 CrossFire competes against the GeForce GTX 260 at 1680x1050 pixels with anti-aliasing. Backed by a more powerful CPU, we’d expect 3D performance to increase by a fair amount. The Core 2 used here means that the overall results—namely, a gain of 3.8% at double the price for two cards—is of less interest.

If you use the single card with the default clocking rate as the basis, the overclocked MSI models only show a 7% to 10% increase. If you look at the resolutions separately, the increase gained by CrossFire at 1920x1200 pixels with anti-aliasing is nearly 20%. At 1680x1050 pixels with AA, it is 18%. And at 1280x1024 pixels with AA, the gain is limited to around 6%.

These values are not unexpected. Only the new CPU classes are able to free up more performance with two cards. Older CrossFire combinations like the HD 3650, running current games and matched up with our CPU, are now able to achieve an increase in overall performance of over 60%. If you look at some of the games and resolutions carefully, CrossFire can be worth spending extra money on today. Mass Effect at 1920x1200 and 4xAA with the HD 4870 runs at 38.6 fps, but with the HD 4870 CrossFire it hits 74.0 fps. World in Conflict at 1920x1200 and 4xAA with the HD 4870 achieves 34.8 fps, yet with HD 4870 CrossFire reaches 44.6 fps.

7. GeForce GTX 260 OC

The 75 mm fan generates 54 dB(A) under full load.

The GeForce GTX 260 is fitted with 896 MB of GDDR3 memory (on a 448-bit bus) and supports DirectX 10. The default clock rates are 576 MHz for the GPU, 1,242 MHz for the shaders, and 1,998 MHz for the memory. On our sample, MSI overclocked those frequencies to 620, 1,296 and 2,160 MHz, respectively. The best gain is seen in Mass Effect (UT3 Engine) at 1920x1200 pixels with anti-aliasing enabled—the overclocked values yield a frame rate increase of 14.2%. If you take the average of all the games included in the benchmark suite, the gain is 4.5%, which halves the gap between GeForce GTX 260 and a normally-clocked GTX 280.

In 3D performance, the GTX 260 puts up a tough fight against AMD’s Radeon HD 4870. At 1280x1024, the GTX 260 is actually better, while at 1680x1050 pixels (without anti-aliasing) the HD 4870 wins by 1.4%. With anti-aliasing enabled, the GTX 260 is 10% faster. At 1920x1200 without AA, the HD 4870 wins by a couple of frames per second, but with anti-aliasing turned on, the GTX 260 is 6% faster. Here the fast GDDR5 memory on the Radeon card starts to make itself felt. The considerable drop in price to $290, makes the GTX 260 a good alternative to the slightly weaker and now comparably-priced AMD Radeon HD 4870.

Unusually, the noise the GTX 260 generates while sitting on the Windows desktop is reasonable, in the neighborhood of 38.1 dB(A). After testing in 3D mode, the fan couldn’t make up its mind. The temperature dropped to 45 degrees C, but the speed didn’t change. The card was running without load, but we could still hear up to 44.2 dB(A). The speed re-adjustment only occurred in the test with the X38-based motherboard. It did not manifest itself on the 780i-based board.

The power consumption of the GTX 260 in 2D mode is considerably lower than either of AMD’s offerings. As soon as the GTX 260 comes out of 3D mode, it switches to its low-power 3D profile (GPU at 400 MHz, shaders at 800 MHz, and memory at 600 MHz), where it draws 125 watts of power for the entire system. After a few more seconds of idle, the clock rate is switched into 2D mode (GPU at 300 MHz, shaders at 600 MHz, and memory at 200 MHz). Overall consumption falls to 111 watts. Under 3D full load, the GeForce GTX 260 consumes 336 watts. A solid power supply with 280 to 320 watts of overall power and 23 to 27 A on the 12 volt rail should be sufficient here.

Our GTX 260 sample is the OC model from MSI.MSI's bundle includes the Colin McRae Dirt racing game.

There is an internal SPDIF connection for sound via the HDMI adapter.Two PCIe connections, each with six pins, handle power delivery.

The SLI connections are hidden under a cover.Three graphics cards can be joined using two SLI connections.

The fan is two slots high, and exhaust air is expelled from the PC case.The card is almost 11” (27) cm in length; the two power connections are at the sides.

The I/O panel has one video and two DVI outputs.VGA and HDMI adapters are supplied by MSI.

8. SLI With GeForce GTX 260 OC

In SLI dual package form, the GTX 260 OC generates up to 56 dB(A).

In SLI mode, we encountered two issues with the GeForce GTX 260. First, the fan on the card proved insufficient for the load test, and second, the CPU processing power of the test system was not enough to always properly drive the configuration.

With regard to CPU performance, one argument in favor of a more powerful processor is that anyone who invests in two GTX cards will have the cash available to buy the fastest quad-core chip. While you are not going to get much more graphics performance with a quad-core CPU running below 3 GHz, there are still games that react better to CPU clock speeds versus the number of processing cores. With a pair of GTX cards, you have three options: the game is optimized for quad-core chips and the four cores do their work on a quartet of threads, you buy a dual-core chip that emphasizes frequency for its performance gains, or you wait for a more powerful generation of processors.

MSI’s overclock yields a total benefit of just 2.2% with the GTX 260 running in SLI, while the single-card setup boosts performance by 4.5%. In the individual evaluation at various resolutions, SLI is only perceptibly faster at 1680x1050 pixels with anti-aliasing enabled and at 1920x1200 pixels. SLI becomes more interesting in Assassin’s Creed and World in Conflict at higher resolutions with anti-aliasing. In Call of Duty 4 and Mass Effect the values are considerably better as well. Crysis shows the best increase running at Very High Quality settings with AA. In Quake Wars, Half Life 2: Episode 2, and FSX, performance is lower.

If you select your games carefully and give the SLI combo a little more CPU power, then you will surely net a few extra frames. Here a couple of highlights: World in Conflict at 1920x1200 pixels with 4xAA on a single card yields 27.6 fps—with the GTX 260 in SLI it provides 43.3 fps (MSI’s overclock yields 44.5 fps). Mass Effect at 1920x1200 pixels and 8xAA with a single card delivers 49.3 fps, but the GTX 260 in SLI hits 72.8 fps (MSI’s overclock hits 77.8 fps).

When testing maximum power consumption, the fan of the GTX 260 reached its limit in SLI mode—the graphics processor throttles performance when temperatures exceed 105 degrees Celsius due to overheating. With a manually-configured 100 percent fan duty cycle and a noise level of 56 dB(A), the card reached its 105 degree ceiling without problems. The test system had a maximum power consumption of 610 watts, which then dropped to 490 to 505 watts as a result of thermal throttling.

With automatic fan control, a noise level of 55 dB(A) is reached and the computer can crash, but this does not always occur. As soon as the 105 degree limit is exceeded, the thermal GPU throttle starts up and a yellow warning LED starts to flash. Power consumption then fluctuates between 550 and 610 watts. Of course, in both of these situations, the system no longer runs at full 3D performance since the thermal throttle is only an unintended "energy saving" mode.

Without additional cooling, the GPU can throttle performance in the event of overheating. A yellow LED flashes as a warning.

This overheating phenomenon also occurs with cards plugged in next to each other with no gap between them. For example, in a 3-way SLI setup employing a trio of Geforce 8800 Ultras, the gap between boards is too small and the graphics card fans are unable to draw in enough air. However, this is not just an Nvidia problem—the ATI X1950 XTX in CrossFire mode also cannot really survive without additional cooling. What does help is fresh air from the side provided by an 80 mm fan, which drops the GPU temperature of the GeForce GTX 260 SLI to 101 degrees.

The test for maximum power consumption is an extreme case that does not necessarily occur in real-world use. During normal game play, utilization fluctuates, only very rarely reaching the maximum value—as a result, the graphics chips have more time to cool down. If you wish to use the GTX cards for constant processing, you will soon feel the effects of the thermal limits and the restrictions of the cooling system.

The power consumption in 2D mode is 211 watts, while in 3D mode the top value with the entire system is 610 watts (power at the wall). If you wish to operate the GTX 260 OC in an SLI configuration, you will need a branded power supply with between 510 and 550 watts and 42 to 46 A on the 12 volt rail.

9. GeForce GTX 280 Superclocked

The 75 mm fan is very audible at 54.7 dB(A) under full load.

The GTX 280 is fitted with 1,024 MB of GDDR3 RAM (on a 512-bit bus) and supports DirectX 10. The overclocked MSI card is available in two versions. The default runs at 602 MHz for the GPU, 1,296 MHz for the shaders and 2,214 MHz for the memory. The overclocked version from MSI uses 650, 1,296 and 2,300 MHz respectively. And the superclocked version we’re testing uses 700, 1,400 and 2,300 MHz clock speeds. The overclocking improves frame rates in Mass Effect (UT3 Engine) at 1920x1200 pixels with anti-aliasing by 16%. If you take the average of all games in the benchmark suite, you get 5.8%—the best value of the tested overclocked models from MSI.

In terms of overall performance, the GeForce GTX 280 is the fastest card in the test, able to convincingly distance itself from AMD’s competition. It came in first place for five of the six test resolutions. Between the GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 280, the overall performance only shows a difference of 8.7%, which hardly warrants a cost of almost $150 more. The pressure from the competing Radeon HD 4870 pushed the initial price of the GTX 280 down from $649 to $420.

Although the GTX 280 at 11” (27 cm) is the same size as the GTX 260, and it uses higher clock rates, it isn’t much louder. In 2D mode, the temperature rises to 53 degrees Celsius (the GTX 260 goes to 49 degrees), but the fan only generates 37.7 dB(A) whereas the GTX 260 comes in at 38.1 dB(A). Problems with overly aggressive fan speeds in desktop mode do not occur. As long as the graphics chip (GPU) is cooled, the fan remains quiet. In 3D mode, the GTX 280 screams at 54.7 dB(A)— louder than the GTX 260. But it only hits an 85 degree Celsius maximum temperature (the GTX 260 reaches 105 degrees).

The GTX 280 clocks lower in 2D mode, which makes it even more economical than the HD 4850 from AMD. As soon as the GTX 280 comes out of 3D mode it switches to its low power 3D profile (GPU at 400 MHz, shaders at 800 MHz, and memory running at 600 MHz), which draws 130 watts of power (for the entire system). After a few seconds at idle, the clock rate is lowered into 2D mode (GPU at 300 MHz, shaders at 600 MHz, memory at 200 MHz), and overall consumption falls to 117 watts. Under full load, the GeForce GTX 280 consumed 352 watts. A branded power supply rated at 290 to 330 watts with 24 to 28 A on the 12 volt rail should be sufficient for a standard system.

The GTX 280 card is the superclocked model from MSI.MSI's bundle includes the Colin McRae Dirt racing game.

An internal SPDIF connection transfers sound to the HDMI adapter.Power delivery is handled by two PCIe connections, one with six pins and one with eight pins.

The SLI connections are hidden under a cover.Three graphics cards can be joined using two SLI connections.

The fan is two slots high, and exhaust air is expelled from the PC case.The card is almost 11” (27 cm) in length, and the two power connections are at the sides.

The GTX 280's circuitry is hidden under a cover that spans the whole card.The fan is located slightly off to the side, pushing warm exhaust air out of the case.

The I/O panel has one video and two DVI outputs.The VGA and HDMI adapters are supplied by MSI.

10. SLI With GeForce GTX 280 Superclocked

In SLI testing, our boards only generate a noise level of 49.4 dB(A), while a single GTX 280 reaches 54.7 dB(A).

If you thought the GeForce GTX 280 would suffer the same temperature problems in SLI as the GTX 260 in SLI mode, then you’d be mistaken. However, the powerful two-card solution encounters other problems. For instance, maximum power consumption is 540 watts, but both overclocked cards should fallen between 640 and 710 watts with the test system. The lower power consumption in SLI mode means that the temperature and noise level is lower than for a single card.

Thermal throttling of the graphics chip (as seen on the GTX 260) is not the reason why the GTX 280 in SLI only hits 85 degrees. A defect is also not likely, as the frame rates are slightly higher than the level of the Geforce GTX 260 in SLI. And both GTX 280 cards function normally when they’re running on their own. The loss of performance can only be explained by the lack of CPU horsepower to help facilitate scaling, which can be clearly seen from our overclocking results.

Although both GTX models are overclocked from the factory, the overall evaluation shows a loss of performance. If you average all the games of the benchmark suite, the overclocked GTX 280 in SLI saw a drop in performance of 1.1%, whereas the single card has a 5.8% increase. In Mass Effect (UT3 Engine), the single card at 1920x1200 pixels—with anti-aliasing—achieved an increase in frame rate of around 16%. In SLI mode, it decreased 0.8%.

Here are some highlights: World in Conflict at 1920x1200 pixels with 4xAA achieved 32.8 fps on a single card. With GTX 280 in SLI it hit 45.6 fps (the MSI overclock produced 44.2 fps). Mass Effect at 1920x1200 pixels with 8xAA and a single card reached 60.6 fps, and with the GTX 280 in SLI hit 74.6 fps (the MSI overclock was at 74.0 fps).

As you can see, SLI adds an acceptable level of additional power at the right resolutions, but without the platform to back that configuration up, you’ll actually sacrifice performance. If you look at the individual benchmarks, the worst values come from low resolutions and badly optimized games, which react negatively to SLI if they react at all. An important factor is now also the CPU—with more power, higher frame rates should be possible, and MSI’s factory overclocking should also provide additional gains. But without a powerful processor it is better to stick to a single card for 3D games, as the GTX 280 in SLI requires a little more in the way of system performance.

In 2D mode, the power consumption is 203 watts, while in 3D mode the pair draws 540 watts (from the wall). The GTX 260 in SLI drew 610 watts. According to the manufacturer’s specifications, both 3D cards should lie between 640 and 710 watts with the test system. If you wish to operate the overclocked GTX 280 in SLI mode, you will need a branded power supply with between 530 and 570 watts and 44 to 48 A on the 12 volt rail for a standard system. If the entire system reaches the top value of 710 watts (from the wall) a branded power supply with between 600 and 650 watts on that rail should be sufficient.

11. Assassin’s Creed v1.02

Assassin’s Creed runs on DirectX 10 and responds well to CrossFire and SLI with mainstream graphics cards. With the new Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870, GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 280 models, the gains achieved through using two cards are either low, non-existent, or only visible in the higher resolutions with anti-aliasing. As single cards, all the new graphics chips are fast enough, letting you play smoothly at all test resolutions.

12. Call of Duty 4 v1.6

Call of Duty 4 runs on DirectX 9 and gets additional performance out of all cards with CrossFire and SLI. Only the Radeon HD 3650 and GeForce 8600 fall below 25 fps at 1920x1200 with anti-aliasing. All other graphics chips and test resolutions are smooth.

Dual chip cards like the Radeon HD 3870 X2 or GeForce 9800 GX2 run the test scene slower than two individual cards in SLI or CrossFire mode. If you focus your point of view on less intricate areas, the frame rates increase in a direct comparison, so where this dual chip card limitation on maximum frame rates comes from is not clear. The Radeon HD 3850 CrossFire occasionally caused the game and the test system with drivers to crash.

13. Crysis v1.21 High Quality

Crysis runs in DirectX 10 mode where the Very High image quality setting shows off the full HDR rendering effects of the sun and beautiful reflections in the water. Without anti-aliasing you are able to set at least High and Very High, while the benefits of CrossFire and SLI are apparent in the higher resolutions.

14. Crysis v1.21 Very High Quality

With anti-aliasing, the CPU in our test platform makes the situation look worse than it really is. Very few of the cards get over a 25 fps rate. A fast quad-core system should raise the values and better utilize the more powerful graphics chips. In terms of percent, the performance gain with Very High settings and anti-aliasing at 1920x1200 pixels is impressive. The GeForce GTX 260 in SLI gains 71.5% over the GTX 260 when used as a single card.

The GeForce 9800 GX2, 9800 GTX and 9800 GTX in SLI have some minor problems in the highest resolution, where the weaker 512 MB frame buffer on a 256-bit bus hurts performance. The 8800 GTS 320 also suffers from a lack of memory throughput, although we were aware of this issue. Good gains can be achieved by the GeForce 9600 GT and 8800 GT 1,024 MB versions, and SLI shows good scaling as well.

15. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars v1.4

Quake Wars runs with OpenGL and reacts very differently to SLI and CrossFire. Whereas the older graphics chips do at least benefit from the doubling of 3D power in the higher resolutions, the Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870, GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 280 show no improvement. The new graphics chips require a lot of CPU performance, and the older engine from id hardly challenges these GPUs.

Only the test systems with the Radeon HD 3650 and GeForce 8600 have trouble coping at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 pixel resolutions with anti-aliasing—all other graphics chips and test resolution combinations are smooth. In CrossFire mode, 3D objects flicker with the Radeon HD 3650. At the lower resolutions without anti-aliasing, the graphics cards reach the CPU limit, where the maximum frame rate fluctuates badly—up to 5 fps is possible as an average result.

16. Half Life 2: Episode 2

Half Life 2: Episode 2 runs on DirectX 9. A CrossFire configuration results in good performance increases with the AMD cards. Since the CPU and frame rates are already running at their limits when using the Radeon HD 4850 CrossFire, the frame rate improvements can only be seen at 1920x1200 with anti-aliasing turned on. The HD 4870 CrossFire loses 3D power, as the CPU and the second graphics chip slow each other down.

With Nvidia and SLI the situation is similar. The weaker graphics chips are able to increase frame rates at the higher resolutions, and the more powerful graphics cards almost all lose speed in SLI mode. The new GTX 260 and GTX 280 generate more power in single mode.

It doesn’t actually matter for playing the game—all of the current graphics cards are well over 60 fps, even with 1920x1200 pixels and anti-aliasing. Even the GeForce 8600 GT can produce 35 fps, where the Radeon HD 3650 is too slow in the 1680 and 1920 resolutions with AA.

17. Mass Effect

Thanks to the UT3 Engine, Mass Effect runs in DirectX 10 mode under Vista. SLI and CrossFire run excellently at 1920x1200 pixels. With anti-aliasing turned on, a second graphics card almost doubles the frame rate. With the more powerful Nvidia models, SLI benefits are only visible as of the higher resolutions with AA. CrossFire, on the other hand, can provide a little more power even without anti-aliasing.

The GeForce 8600 has minor problems with anti-aliasing—the game may crash or freeze, and with the lower frame rate, Mass Effect is not playable. Without anti-aliasing, only the GeForce 8600 and Radeon HD 3650 are too slow. But with anti-aliasing in the higher resolutions, more cards start to run out of steam. The additional graphics memory increment—from 512 to 1,024 MB—had no effect on the 8800 GT.

In order to get the anti-aliasing to work with the Radeon HD 3000-series cards, you need to rename MassEffect.exe to Bioshock.exe. This can lead to graphics errors, but the test system and benchmark scene showed no signs of this. The new Radeon HD 4000-series doesn’t need to have this trick applied. Anti-aliasing is supported with no problems. Resolutions marked with a value of zero indicate that they did not work properly with the specified test card.

18. Microsoft Flight Simulator X SP2

There is a DirectX 10 preview with Service Pack 2 (SP2) for the Flight Simulator (FSX). Since the release of SP1 for Vista, frame rates have dropped back to 15 fps from 30 fps. Without Vista SP1, up to 70 fps was possible. AMD has optimized CrossFire for slower cards, so there it is possible to achieve more frames, but with the faster cards and SLI there are almost always losses. Generally speaking, FSX runs better on Nvidia hardware than it does on AMD’s.

The results shouldn’t be too much cause for concern, since in many combinations the frame rates increased with anti-aliasing. Since the graphics card does more work, the pressure on the CPU is relieved slightly, and this sets free more power for the app. The GeForce 8600 and 8800 GTS 320 have problems with the 1920 resolution and anti-aliasing applied—frame rates may decline rapidly.

19. World in Conflict v1.05

World in Conflict runs on DirectX 10, and as soon as the resolution increases, SLI and CrossFire bring about a visible boost. In fact, if anti-aliasing is activated, some combinations can almost double performance. The optimization of the new graphics chips is interesting. Although the game was originally sponsored by Nvidia, the ATI Radeon HD 4870 clearly has more power than a GTX 260 or GTX 280, with the Radeon HD 4850 only just behind.

In SLI or CrossFire configurations, the new graphics chips enter into a relentless duel. With a more powerful CPU, all models should be in a position to generate more performance. The results of the GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 280 were very unstable, mind you—the frame rates fluctuated at an extreme rate and numerous runs were needed to complete the test.

20. 3DMark06 1280x1024 v1.1.0

21. How Overclocking Affected The MSI Cards

The first table shows an overview of clock speed. The profile with low-power 3D was introduced by Nvidia, as the GTX 200-series card switch from 3D mode to an intermediate level before finally switching to 2D on the Windows desktop. The 3D profile does not apply to the overclocked MSI test cards, as these are running with modified values.

With the Radeon HD 4870 from AMD, the memory is usually clocked at the same rate in both 2D and 3D mode. For a standard card, the correct clock specification would be 500/500/1,800 MHz, and the 2D table specification refers to the overclocked MSI version with a 2,000 MHz memory rate. As you can see, all cards clock back in 2D mode.

Clocking rates MHz 2D Low Power 3D 3D normal 3D OC (MSI)
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 300/600/100 400/800/300 602/1296/1107 700/1400/1150
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 300/600/100 400/800/300 576/1242/999 620/1296/1080
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 500/500/2000 0 750/750/1800 780/780/2000
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 500/500/750 0 625/625/993 0

Order of the clocking specifications: GPU/shader/Memory
Otherwise, memory rate is given doubled

This is how the overclocked speeds of the MSI cards affected the individual benchmarks. All test values were recorded at a resolution of 1920x1200, with anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering and maximum image quality activated:

Assassin’s Creed
4xAA, Game AF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 46.0 46.3 0.7
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 47.8 49.2 2.9
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 46.3 46.3 0.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 41.1 43.5 5.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 43.7 43.9 0.5
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 43.5 44.0 1.1

Call of Duty 4
4xAA, 8xAF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 135.9 132.9 -2.2
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 103.2 111.8 8.3
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 122.5 123.4 0.7
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 87.4 92.7 6.1
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 111.7 111.6 -0.1
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 94.7 98.4 3.9

Crysis
4xAA, 8xAF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 22.4 22.0 -1.8
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 16.3 17.7 8.6
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 21.6 22.2 2.8
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 12.6 13.2 4.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 14.5 17.2 18.6
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 10.8 12.2 13.0

ET: Quake Wars
4xAA, 8xAF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 73.8 74.6 1.1
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 81.2 84.2 3.7
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 73.1 74.6 2.1
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 80.5 81.1 0.7
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 52.9 55.1 4.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 64.1 66.8 4.2

Half Life 2 Episode 2
4xAA, 8xAF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 77.7 79.6 2.4
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 99.0 99.0 0.0
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 77.0 79.3 3.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 96.5 98.8 2.4
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 96.2 98.3 2.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 100.1 100.2 0.1

Mass Effect
8xAA, Game AF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 74.6 74.0 -0.8
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 60.6 70.3 16.0
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 72.8 77.8 6.9
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 49.3 56.3 14.2
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 72.2 76.5 6.0
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 37.8 39.6 4.8

Microsoft Flight Simulator X SP2
Game AA, Game AF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 26.5 25.1 -5.3
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 31.3 30.5 -2.6
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 26.0 25.9 -0.4
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 30.3 28.8 -5.0
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 25.3 23.9 -5.5
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 25.6 24.8 -3.1

World in Conflict
4xAA, 4xAF
fps normal fps OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 45.6 44.2 -3.1
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 32.8 35.8 9.1
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 43.3 44.5 2.8
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 27.6 29.5 6.9
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 44.6 46.8 4.9
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 34.8 36.3 4.3

AMD displays the highest values in Crysis, but the frame rates still drop to unplayable levels below 25 fps. The MSI cards with Nvidia GPUs increase considerably with the UT3 Engine in Mass Effect. The increase with the GTX 260 may have a positive effect on the game. In Flight Simulator, negative values caused by overclocked 3D cards is normal, as less graphics performance relieves the CPU of load so the net effect can be higher.

Overall results, OC Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) -1.1
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 5.8
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 2.2
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 4.5
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 3.8
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 3.5

The MSI GeForce GTX 280 Superclocked has great potential with a 5.8% overall improvement. With normal overclocking, 3% is normal, and a 4-5% increase in overall results is a very good result. With a faster CPU, the SLI and CrossFire combinations should be able to achieve even greater increases. The test computer reaches its limit with the faster dual-card combos, as can be seen from the negative test values.

22. Overall Performance

The first percentage value given (Percent fps) is the ratio between the cards, if the overall result is calculated using the frame rates of all tested games added together as the basis. It acts as a method of orientation, so that you are better able to evaluate the basic power of each card. It is a useful overview if you do not know what resolution you wish to use for gaming. The second reason for this table is that, even with extremely different frame rates, the slowest graphics card is still the point of reference at 100%.

Overall performance fps Percent fps
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 3765.6 4 02.2
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 3534.8 377.6
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 3522.0 376.2
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 3505.8 374.5
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 3482.9 372.0
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 3481.1 371.8
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 3468.9 370.5
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 3467.2 370.3
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 3464.8 370.1
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 3411.9 364.4
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 3355.7 358.4
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 3351.4 358.0
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 3318.1 354.4
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 3241.4 346.2
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 3119.8 333.2
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 3037.2 324.4
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 2982.7 318.6
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 2965.6 316.8
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 2940.1 314.0
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 2926.4 312.6
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 2893.2 309.0
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 2788.0 297.8
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 2787.8 297.8
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 2751.3 293.9
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 2589.3 276.6
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 2473.2 264.2
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 2451.8 261.9
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 2386.7 254.9
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 2369.6 253.1
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 2126.0 227.1
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 2009.9 214.7
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 1780.7 190.2
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 1646.4 175.9
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 1516.4 162.0
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 1257.9 134.4
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 1129.6 120.7
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 1002.3 107.1
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 936.2 100.0

The second percentage value (Percent norm.) shows the results of each game separately in percentage terms. The normalization means that the different frame rates across the benchmarks are evened out—otherwise Call of Duty 4 with 180 fps would be weighted six times as much as Crysis at 30 fps. Also, powerful cards with extremely high frame rates would have less influence on the overall results.

The sequence of the cards in this table may change when compared to the overall results. The different frame rates achieved in the individual benchmarks are here evened out, so you can see the actual percentage increase in performance.

Overall performance fps Percent norm.
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 3765.6 479.1
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 3522.0 457.3
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 3534.8 457.3
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 3481.1 453.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 3482.9 448.9
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 3467.2 444.3
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 3464.8 437.2
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 3505.8 436.6
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 3468.9 435.4
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 3351.4 427.2
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 3411.9 425.5
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 3318.1 425.0
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 3355.7 424.6
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 3241.4 424.0
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 3119.8 391.9
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 2893.2 387.0
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 3037.2 375.4
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 2965.6 370.5
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 2787.8 368.4
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 2982.7 367.3
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 2926.4 364.0
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 2940.1 361.8
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 2788.0 342.2
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 2751.3 335.0
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 2589.3 333.1
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 2386.7 301.3
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 2451.8 296.2
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 2369.6 285.0
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 2473.2 268.5
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 2009.9 239.3
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 2126.0 231.3
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 1646.4 210.1
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 1780.7 185.6
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 1516.4 160.6
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 1257.9 148.4
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 1129.6 122.1
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 1002.3 121.7
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 936.2 102.3

Since the percent value is expressed relative to the minimum value, it is possible that none of the graphics cards drops to 100 percent in all of the games. The basis of the 100 percent is the minimum values of all test candidates.

23. Price/Performance Comparison

The Radeon 3850 is an interesting data point. The 256 MB version was more expensive than the 512 MB model on the day the price research was carried out, so the price listed in the table refers to the 512 version. The Geforce 8800 GT with 1024 MB has become considerably more expensive.

Price comparison dollars
Geforce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 840
Geforce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 540
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 540
Geforce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 420
Geforce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 400
Geforce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 380
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 350
Geforce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 340
Geforce GTX 260 (896 MB) 290
Geforce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 280
Geforce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 280
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 270
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 250
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 250
Geforce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 240
Geforce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 200
Geforce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 190
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 175
Geforce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 170
Geforce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 160
Geforce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 160
Geforce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 140
Geforce 8800 GT (512 MB) 120
Geforce 8600 GT SLI (512 MB) 120
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 130
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 120
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 90
Geforce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 80
Geforce 8600 GT (256 MB) 70
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 60

The “dollar per frame” figures below show the current graphics chips sorted according to price/performance ratio. The lower the number, the better the ranking. People looking for the best price/performance ratio should purchase a Geforce 8800 GT.

Price/performance comparison dollars per frame
Geforce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 0.238
Geforce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 0.166
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 0.155
Geforce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 0.127
Geforce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 0.114
Geforce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 0.111
Geforce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 0.109
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 0.108
Geforce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 0.098
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 0.089
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 0.086
Geforce GTX 260 (896 MB) 0.083
Geforce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 0.084
Geforce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 0.083
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 0.080
Geforce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 0.079
Geforce 8600 GT (256 MB) 0.074
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 0.073
Geforce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 0.071
Geforce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 0.070
Geforce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 0.068
Geforce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 0.067
Geforce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 0.067
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 0.060
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 0.059
Geforce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 0.057
Geforce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 0.057
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 0.054
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 0.044
Geforce 8800 GT (512 MB) 0.043

24. How About Graphics Image Quality?

A still image was used to check and contrast the 3D image quality of the current graphics chips. The scene shows Mass Effect at 1280x1024, anisotropic filtering selected via the game, and 4xAA enabled through the graphics driver. Mass Effect uses the UT3 3D engine and runs under Vista using DirectX 10. The game is set to maximum image quality in the graphics options, and the scene shows stairs to see how anti-aliasing corrects the numerous sloping lines.

The Radeon HD 4850 and HD 4870 are lighter with the illumination, which can clearly be seen by the reflections and the shadow reflexes in the left banister. Otherwise, the visual comparison shows no further differences among the cards.

25. Power Consumption, Noise, And Temperature

The power consumption in watts always refers to the entire test platform. The 2D value is the normal Windows interface without load or the Aero interface (minimum value). The 3D value is measured when the CPU and graphics card are running at maximum load (maximum value). For this, we used the start screen of Mass Effect (UT3 Engine) at 1920x1200 pixels without anti-aliasing. The CPU reaches a load of 100% as a result.

Examples of power consumption with other CPU classes, where the values always refer to the entire test platform. The E2160 @ 1.8 GHz is between 17 and 32 watts less. E2160 @ 2.41 GHz is between 15 and 25 watts less. E6750 @ 2.67 GHz is between 12 and 16 watts less. Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz (G0) is between 2 and 5 watts more. And Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz (G0) is between 20 and 35 watts more.

Approximate power consumption of the test system: X38 platform on the Windows desktop is 65 watts, X38 under 3D load is 90-110 watts, the 780i platform in 2D mode is 20 watts, and the 780i running 3D is between 145 and 155 watts. Since all of these measurements were made at the power connection, the actual power supply load of the measured consumption must be calculated by multiplying the watt ratings by 0.83 (the efficiency factor).

Power consumption in watts 2D (Vista Desktop) 3D (Mass Effect)
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 203 540
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 117 352
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 211 610
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 111 336
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 173 368
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 235 462
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 126 264
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 182 302
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 102 187
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 127 277
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 230 445
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 126 269
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 184 326
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 103 198
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 203 392
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 115 239
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 294 580
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 154 313
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 146 296
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 138 256
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 234 420
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 127 240
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 98 178
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 164 277
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 93 172
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 155 253
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 89 160
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 242 460
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 147 288
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 177 367
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 122 237
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 132 350
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 124 323
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 95 216
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 111 279
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 88 192
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 112 235
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 89 167

Noise level at 1 m 2D dB(A) 3D dB(A)
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 39.0 48.8 - 49.4
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 37.7 54.5 - 54.7
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 39.6 55.1 - 56.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 38.1 - 44.2 53.5 - 54.0
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 38.4 53.6 - 54.1
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 37.0 48.6 - 49.1
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 36.2 44.7 - 45.7
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 37.7 46.4 - 47.0
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 36.9 42.6 - 43.3
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 36.2 40.3 - 40.7
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 38.5 43.7 - 44.1
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 36.2 40.1 - 40.5
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 37.5 43.8 - 44.1
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 36.5 40.4 - 40.9
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 36.2 48.4 - 51.0
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 35.8 42.2 - 42.7
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 38.7 49.9 - 50.7
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 37.0 46.5 - 48.1
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 36.8 47.8 - 48.4
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 36.9 39.7 - 40.2
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 37.6 41.2 - 41.7
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 36.3 38.2 - 38.7
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 48.0 48.0
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) passive passive
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) passive passive
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 42.2 42.2
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 40.8 40.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 41.8 - 42.4 53.7 - 54.5
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 35.5 45.5 - 46.0
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 36.3 46.0
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 36.3 41.2
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 36.6 48.3 - 49.4
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 36.4 48.2 - 48.7
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 36.5 38.7 - 39.4
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 36.9 40.2 - 40.8
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 36.2 37.5
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 41.7 41.7
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 40.0 40.0

For SLI and GX2, several values are specified; these refer to the individual graphics chips (GPUs). For CrossFire, the value of the primary, hotter GPU is shown in the table.

Temperature in degrees Celsius 2D (Vista Desktop) 3D (Mass Effect)
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 48 / 50 82 / 83
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 53 85
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 49 / 64 101 / 105
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 45 - 49 105
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 68 / 71 87 / 91
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 62 / 62 76 / 78
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 60 75
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 38 / 53 56 / 77
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 45 70
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 62 89
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 62 / 73 85 / 90
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 60 86
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 46 / 53 61 / 67
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 46 61
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 61 / 69 96 / 98
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 63 97
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 66 / 69 86 / 91
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 60 82
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 60 82
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 60 82
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 54 / 61 84 / 85
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 53 84
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 41 57
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 67 / 51 99 / 98
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 56 95
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 48 / 52 65 / 73
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 47 65
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 63 73
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 76 83 - 85
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 80 83 - 85
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 78 83 - 85
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 58 82
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 62 95
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 53 90
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 55 91
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 49 90
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 45 78
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 39 62

26. Frames-Per-Watt For The GTX 200-Series And HD 4800-Series

This table shows the relationship between the 3D performance and the power consumption (in watts) of the entire system under full load. The more frames-per-watt that are achieved, the better the result (2D mode is not evaluated). The greater efficiency in 3D mode is held by AMD, while the Nvidia cards are only slightly behind. The GTX 280 does slightly better than the GTX 260, which is down to the higher 3D performance. A more powerful CPU may improve the relationship in CrossFire and SLI modes.

Rating Relationship between performance and 3D watt fps per watt
1 Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 12.51
2 Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 11.65
3 GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 10.70
4 GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 10.31
5 Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 8.83
6 Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 7.57
7 GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 6.52
8 GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 5.71

27. GTX 200-Series And HD 4800-Series At 1280x1024

At 1280x1024 pixels without AA, CrossFire and SLI are slower than the individual cards, as the CPU affects this resolution more. Only when anti-aliasing is activated are the two-card solutions able to pass the AMD boards. The difference between the GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 280 is 6%, while from the Radeon HD 4850 to the HD 4870 it is almost 11%.

1280x1024 0AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 662.3 117.4
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 633.9 112.4
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 625.8 110.9
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 595.1 105.5
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 584.4 103.6
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 570.9 101.2
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 570.7 101.2
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 564.2 100.0

1280x1024 AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 687.2 133.9
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 645.1 125.7
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 632.5 123.2
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 622.4 121.3
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 622.3 121.3
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 596.5 116.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 595.1 116.0
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 513.2 100.0

1280x1024 total fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 1349.5 121.8
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 1270.9 114.7
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 1229.0 110.9
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 1216.9 109.8
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 1193.2 107.7
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 1193.1 107.7
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 1160.7 104.7
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 1108.3 100.0

28. GTX 200-Series and HD 4800-Series At 1680x1050

At a resolution of 1680x1050 pixels, the Geforce GTX 280 increases the gap over the Geforce GTX 260 to almost 10%; the difference between the Radeon HD 4850 and the HD 4870 increases to over 13%. SLI and CrossFire start to gain in importance here.

1680x1050 0AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 628.9 117.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 595.8 111.1
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 587.8 109.6
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 560.5 104.5
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 559.4 104.3
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 556.9 103.8
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 536.8 100.1
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 536.5 100.0

1680x1050 AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 634.0 143.5
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 610.7 138.3
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 602.8 136.5
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 600.6 136.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 565.8 128.1
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 532.9 120.6
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 512.7 116.1
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 441.7 100.0

1680x1050 total fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 1262.9 129.1
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 1170.1 119.6
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 1163.3 118.9
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 1157.5 118.3
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 1153.6 117.9
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 1108.5 113.3
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 1069.7 109.4
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 978.2 100.0

29. GTX 200-Series And HD 4800-Series at 1920x1200

At 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 280 increases the gap over the GeForce GTX 260 to almost 11%. The difference between the Radeon HD 4850 and HD 4870 is now 16%, and the frame rate difference between the HD 4870 and GTX 260 is now only 2%. The GeForce GTX 260 in SLI and GTX 280 in SLI with anti-aliasing now beat the single cards. A CrossFire setup with the Radeon HD 4850 can almost match the performance of the HD 4870.

1920x1200 0AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 593.5 122.3
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 553.1 113.9
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 550.4 113.4
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 547.8 112.9
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 545.2 112.3
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 545.1 112.3
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 523.1 107.8
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 485.4 100.0

1920x1200 AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 605.6 153.8
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 582.7 148.0
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 559.7 142.2
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 557.5 141.6
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 495.2 125.8
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 487.9 123.9
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 467.8 118.8
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 393.7 100.0

1920x1200 total fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 1158.7 131.8
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 1153.2 131.2
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 1130.5 128.6
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 1102.7 125.4
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 1040.3 118.3
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 1018.2 115.8
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 1011.0 115.0
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 879.1 100.0

30. All Cards Compared At 1280x1024

Here are the frame rates and the percentage evaluation results at 1280x1024, split by anti-aliasing setting. This makes comparison easier if you are looking for a graphics card for a particular screen size or resolution.

Remember that the image quality of an LCD monitor looks best in its native resolution (such as 1680x1050 for a 22 inch unit).

1280x1024 without AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 662.3 281.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 633.9 269.2
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 625.8 265.7
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 610.2 259.1
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 607.0 257.7
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 606.6 257.6
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 605.2 257.0
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 605.2 257.0
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 602.9 256.0
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 602.4 255.8
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 600.3 254.9
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 596.8 253.4
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 595.1 252.7
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 590.3 250.7
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 588.2 249.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 584.4 248.2
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 570.9 242.4
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 570.7 242.3
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 565.6 240.2
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 564.3 239.6
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 564.2 239.6
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 564.2 239.6
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 539.5 229.1
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 536.7 227.9
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 536.3 227.7
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 524.4 222.7
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 522.2 221.7
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 500.2 212.4
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 486.4 206.5
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 475.3 201.8
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 466.2 198.0
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 420.0 178.3
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 398.6 169.3
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 359.0 152.4
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 291.6 123.8
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 283.9 120.6
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 261.7 111.1
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 235.5 100.0

1280x1024 with AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 687.2 446.2
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 645.1 418.9
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 637.7 414.1
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 636.0 413.0
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 634.7 412.1
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 632.5 410.7
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 630.6 409.5
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 626.8 407.0
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 624.9 405.8
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 622.4 404.2
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 622.3 404.1
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 612.6 397.8
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 596.5 387.3
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 595.1 386.4
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 588.7 382.3
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 551.4 358.1
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 541.7 351.8
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 537.9 349.3
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 536.0 348.1
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 513.2 333.2
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 513.2 333.2
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 511.2 331.9
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 505.7 328.4
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 488.7 317.3
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 468.2 304.0
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 463.1 300.7
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 452.5 293.8
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 447.4 290.5
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 409.6 266.0
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 394.9 256.4
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 335.2 217.7
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 331.7 215.4
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 295.2 191.7
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 265.0 172.1
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 232.9 151.2
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 214.1 139.0
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 176.9 114.9
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 154.0 100.0

31. All Cards Compared At 1680x1050

Here are the frame rates and the percentage evaluation results at 1680x1050, split by anti-aliasing setting. This makes comparison easier if you are looking for a graphics card for a particular screen size or resolution.

1680x1050 without AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 628.9 335.6
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 595.8 317.9
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 591.5 315.6
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 589.3 314.5
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 587.8 313.7
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 582.3 310.7
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 577.3 308.1
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 573.3 305.9
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 568.9 303.6
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 560.5 299.1
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 559.4 298.5
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 556.9 297.2
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 555.0 296.2
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 545.4 291.0
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 536.8 286.4
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 536.5 286.3
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 534.8 285.4
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 534.0 285.0
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 523.3 279.2
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 513.4 274.0
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 507.3 270.7
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 494.8 264.0
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 493.6 263.4
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 490.6 261.8
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 488.4 260.6
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 464.9 248.1
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 460.6 245.8
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 434.0 231.6
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 426.0 227.3
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 410.2 218.9
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 401.2 214.1
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 345.0 184.1
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 328.8 175.5
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 296.7 158.3
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 233.3 124.5
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 226.6 120.9
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 205.2 109.5
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 187.4 100.0

1680x1050 with AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 634.0 583.3
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 610.7 561.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 602.8 554.6
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 602.5 554.3
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 600.6 552.5
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 595.6 547.9
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 584.9 538.1
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 580.4 533.9
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 565.8 520.5
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 564.1 519.0
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 558.3 513.6
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 538.8 495.7
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 532.9 490.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 512.7 471.7
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 498.2 458.3
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 466.3 429.0
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 462.1 425.1
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 458.4 421.7
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 445.7 410.0
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 445.5 409.8
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 441.7 406.3
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 432.8 398.2
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 430.0 395.6
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 414.3 381.1
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 376.6 346.5
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 372.2 342.4
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 362.9 333.9
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 354.9 326.5
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 316.8 291.4
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 310.1 285.3
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 258.0 237.4
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 246.2 226.5
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 210.5 193.7
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 206.5 190.0
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 176.2 162.1
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 131.0 120.5
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 117.9 108.5
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 108.7 100.0

32. All Cards Compared At 1920x1200

Here are the frame rates and the percentage evaluation results at 1920x1200, split by anti-aliasing setting. This makes comparison easier if you are looking for a graphics card for a particular screen size or resolution.

1920x1200 0AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 593.5 401.0
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 572.8 387.0
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 560.7 378.9
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 555.9 375.6
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 554.0 374.3
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 553.1 373.7
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 551.6 372.7
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 550.4 371.9
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 547.8 370.1
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 545.2 368.4
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 545.1 368.3
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 531.8 359.3
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 524.5 354.4
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 523.1 353.4
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 488.5 330.1
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 486.3 328.6
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 485.7 328.2
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 485.4 328.0
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 476.7 322.1
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 469.9 317.5
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 466.0 314.9
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 461.5 311.8
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 448.8 303.2
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 443.3 299.5
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 439.6 297.0
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 424.3 286.7
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 402.2 271.8
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 374.5 253.0
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 364.5 246.3
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 340.8 230.3
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 334.0 225.7
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 289.5 195.6
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 270.6 182.8
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 246.3 166.4
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 187.4 126.6
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 180.2 121.8
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 166.2 112.3
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 148.0 100.0

1920x1200 with AA fps Percent
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 605.6 759.8
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 582.7 731.1
GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) 575.6 722.2
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 559.7 702.3
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 557.5 699.5
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) 513.9 644.8
GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) 507.3 636.5
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 495.2 621.3
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) 493.4 619.1
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 487.9 612.2
GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) 481.7 604.4
GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) 477.4 599.0
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 468.8 588.2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 467.8 587.0
GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) 425.0 533.2
Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) 398.3 499.7
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 393.7 494.0
GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) 384.0 481.8
Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) 383.3 480.9
GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) 383.2 480.8
GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) 378.1 474.4
GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) 365.1 458.1
GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) 348.6 437.4
GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) 339.1 425.5
GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) 303.4 380.7
Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) 297.8 373.7
GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) 282.4 354.3
Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) 268.4 336.8
GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) 228.5 286.7
Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) 200.7 251.8
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) 198.1 248.6
Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) 172.9 216.9
GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) 144.8 181.7
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) 136.5 171.3
GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) 112.7 141.4
Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) 97.3 122.1
GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) 93.8 117.7
GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) 79.7 100.0

33. Is The Upgrade Worthwhile?

Between the praise heaped on the new graphics chips, the hype surrounding the Radeon HD 4800-series following Nvidia’s GTX 200-series launch, and the rapid drop in price of many top cards means that many people are a little unsure of whether or not their cards are due for an upgrade. The following charts allow you to make a visual determination of the performance differences among the current 3D models.

The distribution of the charts consists of the game benchmark frame rates and the resolutions used. The distribution goes from right to left, increasing from 1280 to 1680 to 1920 pixels, followed by the resolutions in the same order but with anti-aliasing enabled. The height of the measured points is the frame rate achieved. In an ideal situation, you will have two peaks in sequence with a slope line that starts top left and drops down towards bottom right.

A change between the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 and 9800 GTX cannot be felt, as both cards use the G92 graphics chip, the same 256-bit memory connection, and nearly identical clock speeds.

The drop in price of the GeForce 8800 GTX means that the older G80 graphics chip is an alternative option again. The increases only make a difference with anti-aliasing at 1680x1050 pixels. In new games, the 8800 GTS 512 is often the better choice.

If you can’t make up your mind between the GeForce GTX 280 and GTX 260, here are the differences. First, Crysis shows slight increases, though the frame rate with a Core 2 CPU barely gets over 25 fps. Second, in Mass Effect, performance can be improved slightly, and the additional power of the GTX 280 should be visible in World in Conflict at higher resolutions. Finally, if you overclock the GTX 260 a little, or go for an MSI overclocked model, you can get closer to the GTX 280’s performance.

34. Swapping Old Chips For New

Swapping a GeForce 9800 GX2 for a GTX 280 provides slight benefits in Crysis and in World in Conflict (at high resolution with anti-aliasing), but the dual-chip card had minor optimization problems in the test. In the other games, the increases are beyond 60, 80 or 100 fps.

Taking an older GeForce 8800 GTS 512 and putting in a new GTX 260 will actually only show visible improvements in World in Conflict. In Mass Effect, the new GTX 260 brings slight benefits with anti-aliasing at high resolutions—you actually feel the effects of the faster memory. In Crysis the increases are good, but the frame rates remain under 25 fps.

If you add the Radeon HD 4850 to this comparison, the results don’t get much better. The AMD chip provides benefits in World in Conflict and leaves the competition way behind.

A change from the Radeon HD 3850 to the Radeon HD 4850 brings visibly more power. The UT3 Engine (Mass Effect) responds particularly well to the new graphics chip. Assassin’s Creed and World in Conflict reach smooth playing ranges, with excellent optimization of DirectX 10 and anti-aliasing.

The change from the Radeon HD 3870 to the HD 4870 is similar to that going from the 3850 to the 4850—the UT3 Engine of Mass Effect runs better, and Assassin’s Creed and World in Conflict can be played more smoothly with full graphics quality and high resolutions.

Changing from the dual-chip card with the Radeon HD 3870 X2 to the new HD 4870 isn’t very sensible. The difference in performance in the lower regions is too low. But for a new purchase, you should take advantage of the additional performance and go straight for the Radeon HD 4870.

35. Evaluation Of The New Generation

Some readers have complained about the lack of clear recommendations and awards for the new graphics cards. Since Nvidia and AMD put out their products at different times, no direct match-up has been made until now. This test is a perfect basis for comparison, since all graphics chips have completed the same benchmarks with the same test system. We have evaluated 3D performance, power consumption, price, and noise levels. To keep the evaluation simple, we award from one to four points for each category—the better the card does, the more points it is given.

The power consumption in watts is evaluated separately for the 2D and 3D modes, so there are points for both categories. The performance per watt has not been evaluated, as we are only interested in the overall efficiency of the samples. In 3D mode, the Nvidia cards are insatiable, while in 2D mode, AMD does poorly. Although all of the cards drop their clock speeds, the power consumption of the HD 4850 and HD 4870 remain high. At the moment, the high clock speed of the GDDR5 RAM on AMD’s HD 4870 has a negative influence on 2D power levels.

We have heard rumors that current versions of the PowerPlay energy saving function do not work properly. The clocking rate is reduced, but the voltage remains the same, which might explain the high 2D consumption.

1. Power consumption
watts
2D mode Low Power 3D 3D mode Points
2D
Points
3D
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 117 130 352 3 1
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 111 125 336 4 2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 147 0 288 1 3
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 122 0 237 2 4

Power consumption, entire system, 2D = Desktop Vista, 3D = Full load

When it comes to noise levels, only the Radeon HD 4850 is reasonable. The HD 4870 is very loud, while the GTX 260 and GTX 280 generate extreme acoustic output under full load. The overclocked HD 4870 from MSI does not have a constant fan speed in 2D mode. Rather, the fan gets louder and then quieter again. A new VGA BIOS may solve this problem. The points are a mixed result of 2D and 3D.

2. noise level dB(A) 2D dB(A) 3D dB(A) Points
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 37.7 54.5 - 54.7 2
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 38.1 - 44.2 53.5 - 54.0 1
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 35.5 45.5 - 46.0 3
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 36.3 41.2 4

The overall performance is quite clear; the gaps between values are not evaluated.

3. overall performance fps Percent Points
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 3765.6 127.0 4
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 3464.8 116.8 3
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 3355.7 113.2 2
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 2965.6 100.0 1

This evaluation only shows the level of MSI overclocking in percent. The Radeon HD 4850 is supplied at default clocking, and is thus not included. To ensure that the evaluation is fair, the overclocked value is included in the end result once, and ignored once.

4. OC power 1920x1200 AA (MSI) Percent Points
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 5.8 3
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 4.5 2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 3.5 1

Price is also quite clear, with the gaps between the figures not evaluated.

5. The price dollars Points
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 420 1
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 290 2
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 270 3
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 180 4

On points, the Radeon HD 4850 is the clear winner. If you want a little more performance, though, you would be well advised to go for the HD 4870 or GTX 260, both of which represent serious competition for AMd due to price.

6. Evaluation of points without OC with OC
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 11 14
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 12 14
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 12 13
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 15 15

36. Conclusions – Radeon HD 4850 Is The Winner

The minimum values can barely be achieved even by the fast graphics chips, but working upwards, the increase in frame rates are considerably higher. The GDDR5 RAM is not a wondrous answer to performance holes caused by anti-aliasing or minimum values, but Assassin’s Creed, Half Life 2: EP2, and World in Conflict do become evened out slightly. The HD 4870 has an almost identical progress to the HD 4850, just at a higher level.

The switch from a Radeon HD 3850 to a 4850 really is worth it. The overall results show an increase of up to 47.5%, while an upgrade from the HD 3870 to HD 4870 achieves a total of 40.6% more frames. If you are happy with a little less 3D performance, then the HD 3850 at $90 is a good buy, and is currently the best in terms of price/performance.

With the Nvidia cards, you need to take a closer look. Changing from a GeForce 8800 GTS 512 to an 8800 GTX or 9800 GTX would be pretty silly, as all three models show very little difference in the overall results. An upgrade from the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 to the GTX 260 would bring a total of around 18% more power, while changing to the HD 4870 would result in a 14% to 15% performance increase. The Nvidia recommendation is the 8800 GT for $120, which holds second place in the price/performance comparison.

Special models with old chips should always be compared against the Radeon HD 4850. A GeForce 9600 GT or 8800 GT, even with 1,024 MB of memory or higher clock rates, is only slightly faster than the new AMD card. A direct price and performance comparison is always worthwhile, as more graphics memory cannot compensate for higher basic 3D performance.

The GeForce GTX 280 is still a little too expensive. At the moment, it is a very powerful 3D beast, which when unleashed, becomes extremely power-hungry. The MSI Superclocked version can achieve a little extra in the higher resolutions, but the overclocked GTX 260 comes very close to the normally-clocked GTX 280.

The clear price recommendation goes to AMD’s Radeon HD 4850. It is quiet, but at the expense of performance versus the other current-generation GPUs. Bear in mind two issues, though. First, the standard design only has a single-slot cooler that gets very warm, which means your PC case needs excellent ventilation. Second, the test values were achieved using a good Core 2 Quad, and the card needs a lot of CPU power to achieve high frame rates. We’re also expecting dual-slot 4850s soon, which might be even more attractive for addressing cooling.

One recommendation goes to the Radeon HD 4870 and the other to the GeForce GTX 260. Both cards produced results too similar for us to single out just one of them. What the HD 4870 gains with its aggressive price, the GTX 260 compensates for via its 3D performance. Both cards have a two slot fan that exhausts heated air out of the case. AMD’s disadvantage is increased power consumption in 2D mode and very high temperatures. Nvidia’s disadvantage is high noise, but for that price, we’re willing to live with it.