Western Digital Caviar Black 1 TB 7,200 RPM, 32 MB Cache SATA 3.0 Gb/s
Integrated HD Audio
Integrated Gigabit Networking
Windows Vista Home Premium x64 SP1
NVidia Forceware 186.18
Intel INF 22.214.171.1247
Digital Storm’s Gaming Dominator was still on our bench from its review (which you'll see later this week), its 3.8 GHz overclocked processor already set to the target frequency we wanted to use for today’s graphics comparison. Using it allowed us to reuse some of its test data while providing more information on its graphics capabilities.
Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA Test Set 2: Very High Quality, No AA Test Set 3: Very High Quality, 8x AA
Far Cry 2
Far Cry 2 Benchmark Tool 126.96.36.199 Test Set 1: High Quality (DX 10), No AA Test Set 2: Ultra High Quality (DX 10), No AA Test Set 3: Ultra High Quality (DX 10), 8x AA
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X
Game Version 1.00, in-game performance test Test Set 1: Highest Details, DX10, SSAO, No AA Test Set 2: Highest Details, DX10, SSAO, 4x AA Test Set 3: Highest Details, DX10, SSAO, 8x AA
Left 4 Dead
Game Version 188.8.131.52, custom timedemo Test Set 1: Highest settings, No AA, No AF Test Set 2: Highest settings, 4x MSAA, 8x AF Test Set 3: Highest settings, 8x MSAA, 16x AF
Clear Sky Benchmark File Version 184.108.40.206 Test Set 1: High preset, DX10, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra preset, DX10, No AA Test Set 3: Ultra preset, DX10, 4x MSAA
World in Conflict
Patch 1009, DirectX 10, in-game performance test Test 1: High Details, No AA / No AF Test 2: Very High Details No AA / No AF Test 3: Very High Details 4x AA / 16x AF
3D mark Vantage
Build 1.01 (3DMark, GPU, CPU Scores) Performance, High, Extreme Presets Disable PPU in Options table
wow... that was quite pointless, i was really expecting a good article but it was the same numbers basically, why not just have a single page with the average gains with 2gb vs 1gb (which was completely nonexistent anyways)
astrodudepsuWell, all I can say is good try. Not some of your best work, but worth exploring nonetheless.
Tom's Hardware was hoping to find more 2560x1600 scenarios where the 2GB advantage would play out. When very few advantages were found, Tom's did the honest thing and published the numbers anyway.
I think you can take a lot from this article. I just spoke to a guy who asked "2GB or water cooling?" when looking at cards of the same price. He has a powerful water cooling loop, so the answer was easy.
I think it is a great article. Too often people approach me thinking a larger frame buffer means extra performance. Actually, just recently a co-worker wanted to get a GTX 285 with 2GB of VRAM. Great article, keep it up!
CrashmanTom's Hardware was hoping to find more 2560x1600 scenarios where the 2GB advantage would play out. When very few advantages were found, Tom's did the honest thing and published the numbers anyway.
Which is why I said it was worth exploring. I realize you wouldn't do all this work and NOT publish your results, as mundane as they may be.
If a card is going to cost $350-$400, and perform as much as %50 less than the car that costs $500....get the $500 card. You are already spending an insane amount for a card, might as well go all the way. As for me, I'm waiting for the DX11 cards to come out.
rambo117it was quite informative and worth exploring like astrodude said. just wish that it was a little more 'exciting'.. idk, maybe an sli 2gb vs 1gb will prove to be possibley more interesting.
Three-way would have been best, but there's just not enough samples to go around.