High-End Graphics Card Roundup

Features
By
Published

Graphics Chips And Test Configuration

We used an Intel Core i7-920 CPU for our testing purposes, boosting its clock speed to 3.8 GHz in order to circumvent any potential CPU bottlenecks.

This time, our technical tables are more comprehensive to help us detail how our retail test cards differ from the clock rates for standard reference cards. You'll find three different generations of manufacturing technology represented here as well: 65, 55, and 40 nm all exert influence on maximum power consumption and operating temperatures for graphics chips. These tables also illustrate how overclocking on specialty models boosts fill rates and raw computing power for their graphics chips.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Nvidia Graphics Cards
Manufacturer and Chipset Code Name Graphics RAM GPU clock Shader RAM clock SPs
EVGA GTX 295 Hydro Copper (GeForce GTX 295) 2 x GT200b 2 x 896 GDDR3 720 MHz 4.0, 1,548 MHz 2 x 1,080 MHz 2 x 240
GeForce GTX 295 2 x GT200b 2 x 896 GDDR3 576 MHz 4.0, 1,242 MHz 2 x 999 MHz 2 x 240
Zotac GTX285 AMP Edition (GeForce GTX 285) GT200b 1,024 GDDR3 702 MHz 4.0, 1,512 MHz 2 x 1,296 MHz 240
MSI N285GTX SuperPipe OC (GeForce GTX 285) GT200b 1,024 GDDR3 680 MHz 4.0, 1,476 MHz 2 x 1,250 MHz 240
GeForce GTX 285 GT200b 1,024 GDDR3 648 MHz 4.0, 1,476 MHz 2 x 1,242 MHz 240
MSI N280GTX OC HydroGen (GeForce GTX 280) GT200 1,024 GDDR3 700 MHz 4.0, 1,400 MHz 2 x 1,150 MHz 240
GeForce GTX 280 GT200 1,024 GDDR3 602 MHz 4.0, 1,296 MHz 2 x 1,107 MHz 240
BFG GTX 275 (GeForce GTX 275) GT200b 896 GDDR3 648 MHz 4.0, 1,440 MHz 2 x 1,152 MHz 240
GeForce GTX 275 GT200b 896 GDDR3 633 MHz 4.0, 1,404 MHz 2 x 1,134 MHz 240
GeForce GTX 260 216SPs GT200b 896 GDDR3 576 MHz 4.0, 1,242 MHz 2 x 999 MHz 216
GeForce GTX 260 GT200 896 GDDR3 576 MHz 4.0, 1,242 MHz 2 x 999 MHz 192
GeForce 9800 GTX+ G92b 512 MB GDDR3 738 MHz 4.0, 1,836 MHz 2 x 1,100 MHz 128
GeForce 9800 GTX G92 512 MB GDDR3 675 MHz 4.0, 1,688 MHz 2 x 1,100 MHz 128
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Manufacturer and Chipset Memory bus Fab technology Transistors Interface
EVGA GTX 295 Hydro Copper (GeForce GTX 295) 2 x 448-bit 55 nm 2 x 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 295 2 x 448-bit 55 nm 2 x 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
Zotac GTX285 AMP Edition (GeForce GTX 285) 512-bit 55 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
MSI N285GTX SuperPipe OC (GeForce GTX 285) 512-bit 55 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 285 512-bit 55 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
MSI N280GTX OC HydroGen (GeForce GTX 280) 512-bit 65 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 280 512-bit 65 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
BFG GTX 275 (GeForce GTX 275) 448-bit 55 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 275 448-bit 55 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 260 216SPs 448-bit 55 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce GTX 260 448-bit 65 nm 1,400 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 256-bit 55 nm 754 million PCIe 2.0
GeForce 9800 GTX 256-bit 65 nm 754 million PCIe 2.0
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Manufacturer and Chipset Pixel Fill Rate Gpixel/s Texture Fill Rate Gtexel/s Memory Bandwidth GB/s Die Size mm²
EVGA GTX 295 Hydro Copper (GeForce GTX 295) 2 x 20.2 2 x 46.1 2 x 121.0 2 x 470
GeForce GTX 295 2 x 16.1 2 x 36.9 2 x 111.9 2 x 470
Zotac GTX285 AMP Edition (GeForce GTX 285) 22.5 51.4 165.9 470
MSI N285GTX SuperPipe OC (GeForce GTX 285) 21.8 49.8 160.0 470
GeForce GTX 285 20.7 47.4 159.0 470
MSI N280GTX OC HydroGen (GeForce GTX 280) 22.4 51.2 147.2 576
GeForce GTX 280 19.3 44.1 141.7 576
BFG GTX 275 (GeForce GTX 275) 18.1 41.5 129.0 470
GeForce GTX 275 17.7 40.5 127.0 470
GeForce GTX 260 216SPs 16.1 36.9 111.9 470
GeForce GTX 260 16.1 36.9 111.9 576
GeForce 9800 GTX+ 11.8 47.2 70.4 276
GeForce 9800 GTX 10.8 43.2 70.4 330
Swipe to scroll horizontally
ATI Graphics Cards
Manufacturer and Chipset Codename Graphics RAM GPU Clock Shader Memory clock SPs
Radeon HD 4890 R790 1,024 MB GDDR5 850 MHz 4.1 4 x 975 MHz 800
Radeon HD 4870 X2 R700 (2 x RV770) 2 x 1,024 MB GDDR5 750 MHz 4.1 4 x 900 MHz 2 x 800
Radeon HD 4870 RV770 512 MB GDDR5 750 MHz 4.1 4 x 900 MHz 800
Radeon HD 4850 RV770 512 MB GDDR3 625 MHz 4.1 2 x 993 MHz 800
Radeon HD 4770 RV740 512 MB GDDR5 750 MHz 4.1 4 x 800 MHz 640
111 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Only one ATi card? What happened to all those OC'd 4890s?
    Reply
  • And those HAWX benchmarks look ridiculous. ATi should wipe floor with nvidia with that. Of course you didn't put dx10.1 support on. Bastard...
    Reply
  • cangelini
    quarzOnly one ATi card? What happened to all those OC'd 4890s?
    These are the same boards that were included in the recent charts update, and are largely contingent on what vendors submit for evaluation. We have a review upcoming comparing Sapphire's new 1 GHz Radeon HD 4890 versus the stock 4890. It'll be up in the next couple of weeks, though.
    Reply
  • ohim
    Am i the only one that find this article akward since looking at the tests done on Ati cards on The Last Remnant game makes me wonder what went wrong ... i mean it`s UT3 engine ... why so low performance ?
    Reply
  • curnel_D
    Ugh, please tell me that The Last Remnant hasnt been added to the benchmark suite.

    And I'm not exactly sure why the writer decided to bench on Endwar instead of World In Conflict. Why is that exactly?

    And despite Quarz2's apparent fanboism, I think HAWX would have been better benched under 10.1 for the ATI cards, and used the highest stable settings instead of dropping off to DX9.
    Reply
  • anamaniac
    The EVGA 295 is the stuff gods game with.

    I would love that card. I would have to replace my whole system to work it properly however.
    I want $1500 now... i7 920 (why get better? They all seem to be godly overclockers) and EVGA 295.

    How about a test suit of the EVGA GTX 295 in crossfire for a quad-gpu configuration? I know there's driver issues, but it would be fun to see what it could do regardless. Along with seeing how far Toms can OC the EVGA GTX 295.
    Actually... Toms just needs to do a new system building recommendation roundup. I find them useful personally, and would have used it myself had my cash source had not lost his job...
    Reply
  • Weird test:
    1) Where are the overclocking results?
    2) Bad choice for benchmarks: Too many old DX9 based graphic engines (FEAR 2, Fallout 3, Left4Dead with >100FPS) or Endwar which is limited to 30FPS. Where is Crysis?
    3) 1900x1200 as highest resolution for high-end cards?
    Reply
  • EQPlayer
    Seems that the cumulative benchmark graphs are going to be a bit skewed if The Last Remnant results are included in there... it's fairly obvious something odd is going on looking at the numbers for that game.
    Reply
  • armistitiu
    Worst article in a long time. Why compare how old games perform on NVIDIA's high end graphic cards? Don't get me wrong i like them but where's all the Atomic stuff from Saphire, Asus and XFX had some good stuff from ATI too. So what.. you just took the reference cards from ATI and tested them? :| That is just wrong.
    Reply
  • pulasky
    WOW what a piece of s********** is this """"""review"""""" Noobidia pay good in this days.
    Reply