Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Crysis

GeForce GTX 295 Vs. GTX 275 SLI: When Two Are Better Than One
By

Ah, the ultimate yardstick. At High quality settings, Crysis is actually fairly playable at 2560x1600. Above that, it looks like our Core i7 platform is holding back performance, since 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 are quite close.

Nvidia still has a problem at 2560x1600 with 4xAA enabled—we’ve seen this one over and over in a number of different games. Interestingly, the two GTX 275s aren't as hampered at that demanding setting as the 295, though none of the arrangements are playable anyway.

On the other hand, you could probably swing 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 and still see reasonable frame rates. At both resolutions, the GeForce GTX 295 serves up the slowest performance, albeit only slightly.

Display all 51 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 13, 2009 6:12 AM
    been waiting for more on the 295...
  • -9 Hide
    dragonfang18 , May 13, 2009 6:24 AM
    I already ordered 2 295's... $504 each.
  • -7 Hide
    imrul , May 13, 2009 6:43 AM
    "Intel Core i7 920 Extreme (Bloomfield)" (page 3)

    there's no extreme version of i7 920, nor is it bloomfield...
  • 6 Hide
    dragonfang18 , May 13, 2009 6:59 AM
    i7 IS Bloomfield imrul...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7
  • 5 Hide
    reasonablevoice , May 13, 2009 7:01 AM
    What the hell is up with the underclocked cards out performing the others in that H.A.W.X.

    Can the author of the article comment with what they think is going on there?
  • 0 Hide
    cangelini , May 13, 2009 7:20 AM
    reasonablevoiceWhat the hell is up with the underclocked cards out performing the others in that H.A.W.X.Can the author of the article comment with what they think is going on there?


    Happened in WiC w/o AA as well. Difficult to say went on there, but the results are repeatable. Probably more important, though, is that when more of an emphasis is put on the graphics subsystem, you see those stock-clocked boards take the lead, as we'd expect.
  • 1 Hide
    avatar_raq , May 13, 2009 7:39 AM
    1.Very good article, unlike some other author's articles in this site, this article is solid (starting from the test system down to the conclusion) and interesting, this is what I always expect from Chris.
    2.As for the strange issue in L4D, HAWX and WIC where the slower 275s beat the faster ones....Odd indeed. Is there any chance the normally clocked cards automatically clocked down to 2D mode or somthing in-game? In other words the GPUs usage dropped due to the CPU bottleneck or whatever, and the cards' driver decided to clockdown to save energy! I've seen nvidia and ati cards do that. The monitoring utility of rivatuner could have revealed such things since it shows real-time clocks..BTW what software did you use to downclock?
    It would be funny to consider downclocking our cards to 'gain' performance!!
    3.I hope the new (single PCB) 295 will drop in larger quantities, perhaps it will be more practical than the current one, and will tip the balnce here in its favor.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/img/09-05-12/13c.jpg
  • 8 Hide
    Anonymous , May 13, 2009 8:51 AM
    Can you put the "online shop" section underneath the "Next" button for the next page...its really annoying and inconvenient to have it positioned within the article as it seems to be.
    Thanks
  • 4 Hide
    rags_20 , May 13, 2009 9:12 AM
    Please benchmark in Very High.
  • 1 Hide
    JeanLuc , May 13, 2009 9:41 AM
    rags_20Please benchmark in Very High.


    I noticed that to, if I owned that kind of hardware I would be playing every game at the highest settings even if it is Crysis.
  • 1 Hide
    salemi , May 13, 2009 10:50 AM
    very good Article, thnx
  • -8 Hide
    stlunatic , May 13, 2009 11:11 AM
    Who the f$%& spends 500$ on a stupid graphics card...

    Good article anyhow ;) 
  • 2 Hide
    stlunatic , May 13, 2009 11:12 AM
    Btw why dont you OC that cpu to 3ghz+?

    Who buys and i7 to use it at stock?
  • 0 Hide
    JeanLuc , May 13, 2009 11:15 AM
    stlunaticBtw why dont you OC that cpu to 3ghz+?Who buys and i7 to use it at stock?


    People who worry about their voiding there warranty, people who buy from HP/Dell etc.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , May 13, 2009 11:48 AM
    People who buy an HP/Dell don't buy GTX 275s in SLI...

    I feel many of these games may have been bottlenecked by that CPU. Would've liked to see these tests with 3.5ghz.
  • 4 Hide
    daeros , May 13, 2009 12:27 PM
    Quote:
    The most striking result here is the drop from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600. The same bug seen in Crysis manifests itself here as well.


    This isn't a bug, nor is it fixable by a driver update. It's called not having enough VRAM to handle all those MASSIVE textures at quadruple their on-screen resolution. The same thing happens when I move from 1920x1200 to 2048x1536 on my 4870. The only solutions are smaller textures or more VRAM. This is why the "professional" cards (FireGL/FireSTREAM and Quadro/Tesla) will often have 2-4 times the framebuffer as the desktop counterparts.
  • 1 Hide
    JeanLuc , May 13, 2009 12:34 PM
    DaerosThis isn't a bug, nor is it fixable by a driver update. It's called not having enough VRAM to handle all those MASSIVE textures at quadruple their on-screen resolution. The same thing happens when I move from 1920x1200 to 2048x1536 on my 4870. The only solutions are smaller textures or more VRAM. This is why the "professional" cards (FireGL/FireSTREAM and Quadro/Tesla) will often have 2-4 times the framebuffer as the desktop counterparts.


    IF the problem is VRAM then why isn't the same result replicated in the GTX 275 benchmarks? Bear in mind SLI setups can only address half the available ram so in this case both cards have the same amount of VRAM.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , May 13, 2009 12:38 PM
    It would have been interesting to see the performance of 2 GTX 295 in SLI. Let's face it, if GTX 275 SLI can outperform a single GTX 295, then the _ONLY_ argument left for a 295 is SLI.
  • 1 Hide
    daeros , May 13, 2009 12:46 PM
    Well, let's see: the 275 at stock clocks went from 31.3 to 7.4, the 275 at 295 speeds went from 28.2 to 8.1, and the 295 went from 28.7 to 7.9. So you tell me how it didn't happen in the 275 benchmarks.

    ps- If you want validation of my remarks, just take a look at all the benchmarks comparing the 4870 512MB to the 4870 1GB. You can see the exact same thing there. Or, if you want to stick with the green, go back to when the 8800GT 256MB came out. At low resolutions it was fine; but crank up either the resolution or the AA/AF, and it chokes.
  • 0 Hide
    daeros , May 13, 2009 12:49 PM
    Minor correction to my first post- I meant 1920x1440, not 1920x1200.
Display more comments