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 |
- Taxing Modern CPUs With Powerful Graphics
- Comparing The GPUs And Test Setup
- Radeon HD 4850
- CrossFire With Radeon HD 4850
- Radeon HD 4870 OC
- CrossFire With Radeon HD 4870 OC
- GeForce GTX 260 OC
- SLI With GeForce GTX 260 OC
- GeForce GTX 280 Superclocked
- SLI With GeForce GTX 280 Superclocked
- Assassin’s Creed v1.02
- Call of Duty 4 v1.6
- Crysis v1.21 High Quality
- Crysis v1.21 Very High Quality
- Enemy Territory: Quake Wars v1.4
- Half Life 2: Episode 2
- Mass Effect
- Microsoft Flight Simulator X SP2
- World in Conflict v1.05
- 3DMark06 1280x1024 v1.1.0
- How Overclocking Affected The MSI Cards
- Overall Performance
- Price/Performance Comparison
- How About Graphics Image Quality?
- Power Consumption, Noise, And Temperature
- Frames-Per-Watt For The GTX 200-Series And HD 4800-Series
- GTX 200-Series And HD 4800-Series At 1280x1024
- GTX 200-Series and HD 4800-Series At 1680x1050
- GTX 200-Series And HD 4800-Series at 1920x1200
- All Cards Compared At 1280x1024
- All Cards Compared At 1680x1050
- All Cards Compared At 1920x1200
- Is The Upgrade Worthwhile?
- Swapping Old Chips For New
- Evaluation Of The New Generation
- Conclusions – Radeon HD 4850 Is The Winner

My one complaint? Why use that CPU when you know that the test cards are going to max it out? Why not a quad core OC'ed to 4GHz? It'd give far more meaning to the SLI results. We don't want results that we can duplicate at home, we want results that show what these cards can do. Its a GPU card comparason, not a complain about not having a powerful enough CPU story.
Oh? And please get a native english speaker to give it the once over for spelling and grammar errors, although this one had far less then many articles posted lately.
Remember, the more you know.
but yes the article was off to a great start, maybe throw some vantage in there as well?
Precisely; several other websites tested with 8.7 and 8.8 long before this article was published. Why couldn't you? Look at the 8.6 release notes; it doesn't even mention the HD4000 series cards as supported devices.
Brilliant guys.
This is another reason why the results are tanked, in XP you get 15% more performance compared to these values
After having the Mythbusters appear, you would think this would be the most comprehensive, "scientific," factual, and update article meeting Tom's usual standards.... I didn't finish reading this.
(82 temperature in 2D 69 in 3D with no fanfix)
Also, I can understand why TH didn't have time to use 8.8 since it was released publicly on August 20, 2008 (Although ATI would have gladly released a beta version to TH for testing purposes).
However, AMD publicly released stable Catalyst 8.7(internal version 8.512) on July 21, 2008. That's more than a month ago. It has numerous improvements (for example, CF performance increase, improved stability and performance under Vista). To be honest, most of the improvements range from 4% to 15%. (In CF case, up to 1.7 X scaling)
TH has rarely been unfair and/or inaccurate and they always owned up to their mistakes before, and I trust them to re-test ATI products with at least 8.7 if not 8.8 to continue to uphold their values and integrity.
Now on to my criticism.
I can understand how you want to keep the results homogeneous with previous results but if you already know that a stock QX6800 will bottleneck the system, be proactive in fixing it. At the very least you should have done a small segment of the review showing the newer cards with a quad core overclocked to 4.0Ghz.
Also, if you have ever read any of the older Toms articles, you would know that you can still minimise the bottleneck from a slow GPU bye raising the resolution. Perhaps you should test the fastest cards at the highest resolutions?
I can also understand why you did not use the latest nVidia drivers. It takes time to create a review of this scale and the GF8/9 series drivers have been stable for some time. As the GT 200 series brings no new features to the table, they would needed little optimisation for their newer cards allowing the slightly dated drivers to perform nicely.
What I can not understand is why you would use ATI's 8.6 drivers??
The 8.7 drivers have been out for more than a month bringing quite a few fixes/optimisations with it. I understand it probably took more than 9 days to complete all of these benchmarks (today is the 29th, the 8.8 drivers were officially released on the 20th) but you should have called ATI and asked for their latest drivers. The 8.8 drivers were leaked at least a week before the official release which means, if you could nurture a relationship with the people you review, they could/probably would have provided them to you. There is still no excuse I can see for testing with the old 8.6 drivers. Seriously, it does not even have official support for the 48X0 cards...
From the title of the article,"The Fastest 3D Cards Go Head-To-Head", I would have assumed that you would have been testing the Fastest 3D cards? What happened to your 4870x2? As you have already attempted to review it, we know you have your hands on one. How can you claim to review the "Fastest 3D Cards" and still leave out the fastest card?
In summation, I liked many things from this article. The layout was nice and a little more technical than we have been seeing as of late. I enjoyed the comparison charts at the end and I think you should adopt a similar method for the CPU and GPU charts. I would have thought this was an excellent and well thought out article if it had not been for the glaring and obvious deficiencies in reason. I give you credit for stepping Toms in the right direction. With a little more unbiased comparison, critical thinking and common sense I could come to see reviews such as this in a very positive light.