XFX GTX295 PCIe Graphics Card

Gaming Benchmarks

 
Unreal Tournament 3 is the highly anticipated game from Epic Games and Midway. The game uses the latest Unreal engine, which combines fast gameplay along with high quality textures and lighting effects. All benchmarks were performed using UTbench with a fly-by of the DM-BioHazard map. As usual, all benchmarks were performed 5 times, with the highest and lowest results being removed and an average calculated from the remaining three.
 
 


GRID
 
Race Driver: Grid is a visually taxing game that presents a challenge to any graphics system. Results were recorded using FRAPS to log the average FPS over a 2 minute race. To ensure consistency, the same track, car and general path of travel was used in each of the 5 benchmark runs for each graphics card, with an average FPS being calculated from the median three results.
 


 
 
Call of Duty 4 is a stunning DirectX 9.0c based game that really looks awesome and has a very full feature set. With lots of advanced lighting, smoke and water effects, the game has excellent explosions along with fast game play. Using the in-built Call Of Duty features, a 10-minute long game play demo was recorded and replayed on each of the GPU's using the /timedemo command a total of 5 times. The highest and lowest FPS results were then removed, with an average being calculated from the remaining 3 results.
 
 
 
Results Analysis

Much the same story was to be had with our first run of benchmarks. All the games above, even the PhysX enabled UTIII favoured the 4870x2, that was until the resolution was increased and AA applied. This is when the GTX295 took hold of the 4870x2 and gave it a solid beating. Thus far we are starting to see a pattern of results that show the GTX295 performing better as the resolution is increased, surprisingly, in spite of it having less memory available than the 4870x2.

Let's move on..

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next»

Most Recent Comments

10-02-2009, 16:34:52

w3bbo
The current undisputed king of performance is the mighty 4870x2. It has consistently held off the GTX280, most recently the GTX285 but now the scales are balanced, 2 cores vs 2 cores, mano a mano. In a no holds barred, head to head stand off we pitch the best against the best, card against card to see who holds the winning hand in an OC3D clash of the titans.

http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...202721460s.jpg

Review here

10-02-2009, 16:41:19

Hassan

10-02-2009, 17:53:49

zak4994
Compare the price of the GTX295 against the 4870X2. You should have also overclocked the ATI card to make it more fair.

Still a solid good card. ATI's reply to be recieved soon?

10-02-2009, 18:00:44

w3bbo
Why would I overclock the ATI to make it fair? Both cards were run stock throughout apart from the overclocking section which showed the possibilities of overclocking the GTX295 (which was the card being reviewed!).

10-02-2009, 18:05:08

zak4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='w3bbo'
Why would I overclock the ATI to make it fair? Both cards were run stock throughout apart from the overclocking section which showed the possibilities of overclocking the GTX295 (which was the card being reviewed!).
Yeah I meant the overclocking section just to see how the card fares/fairs (Sp?)

10-02-2009, 18:11:40

Diablo
I think that review was pretty balanced TBH...BTW I want that card. Just thought, you could stick two of these bad boys in (quad SLI) then have a GTX 285 for a third/PPU/fifth GPU.

Only problem is the price...anybody want a kidney?

10-02-2009, 18:24:49

VonBlade
Not much to choose between them. Having had a Nvidia for a few years, and now got a ATI, I'd probably pick the Nvidia just because the drivers seem easier to work with. Either that or I haven't got my head around the CCC.

Anyway, ace review and anyone with either of those cards is going to be thrilled. Shame that, once again, reference design coolers suck twenty kinds of expletive deleted. I can understand companies having rubbish ones on the bottom end to keep Zalman in business and give ASUS and Sapphire something to tweak, but at 400 notes I want the biggest, baddest, quietest cooler technology can build.

11-02-2009, 03:06:06

premiumgfx
Both the 4870 and GTX295 look great, although I like the 4870X2 better.(I'm a fanboy )

11-02-2009, 03:15:54

Diablo
At least now there's a bit of choice for the discerning enthusiast/fanboy...

11-02-2009, 03:16:19

fruityness
ATI then Nvidia, then ATi then Nvidia.. And the fight goes on.

Cant find the price of this specific card, not that I did a huge in depth search but:

Sapphire HD 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 £340

BFG GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £440

Zotac GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £420

EVGA GTX295 1792MB GDDR3 £433

All those prices from ebuyer. Are the 295's really worth THAT much more for so little performance boost - especially considering the only benefit of the 295 seems to be at high resolution with lots of AA?

For me if it were my bucks on the line, not that I am looking for new graphics right now, I'd say no way hosť.

11-02-2009, 04:44:04

w3bbo
It's a tough one to call tbh. Anyone who spends that amount of cash on a GPU, be it the 4870x2 or the GTX295 would be mad not to first purchase a large screen and then apply large amounts of AA. With that respect then the GTX295 is the better card. However if you only have a mid size screen say 19-22" and like your AA then the 4870x2 would be more than enough but then so would many other cards.

11-02-2009, 07:21:31

Jaster
were not taking price performance ratio...yes the cost is an issue...but you dont play down the baddest boxer in the world cos his mrs says hes crap in bed...yes for most of us mortals this will be an issue...but when it comes to manufacturers reigning top spot performance is the only issue...bragging rights are everything...still I see no reason to shift from my gx2 yet...and yes that is a price related statement...but its a beast of a card...lets see how long nvidia can hold it...because AMD/ATI are seeming to be closing the gap in many many areas

11-02-2009, 11:48:03

zak4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Jaster'
were not taking price performance ratio...yes the cost is an issue...but you dont play down the baddest boxer in the world cos his mrs says hes crap in bed...yes for most of us mortals this will be an issue...but when it comes to manufacturers reigning top spot performance is the only issue...bragging rights are everything...still I see no reason to shift from my gx2 yet...and yes that is a price related statement...but its a beast of a card...lets see how long nvidia can hold it...because AMD/ATI are seeming to be closing the gap in many many areas
4970x2 anyone

11-02-2009, 11:56:34

monkey7
Yeah, I'm waiting on news on that too

11-02-2009, 11:56:49

Rastalovich
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='zak4994'
4970x2 anyone
Nope. Unless I was given one perhaps.

I don't have any extreme prejudice against the ATI camp for the sake of it, for me it's all to do with confidence in the product in so much as I install it and anything else I do to it maintenance wize will be looking to improve the performance over an existing stable platform.

nVidias drivers do go through their rotations, but if the ccc were as-good, I'd have no hesitation. And to be fair I hear they've vastly improved over the last few years - needless to say, improved and being as-good are two different things.

Plastic benchmarks and claims of the likes of 4870x2 don't impress me tbh.

Time spent messing on a pc costs money too, more importantly time u can't get back for a priceless amount. Spend £150+ more for the card ? For me, if it means this priceless time is not lost - then yes.

11-02-2009, 15:24:03

Allargando
Cost per frame was a nice metric imo...but then again if you're going to shell out £400 for a card I guess that doesn't matter so much

CPF would push me towards a 4870x2

11-02-2009, 17:10:11

zak4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='fruityness'
ATI then Nvidia, then ATi then Nvidia.. And the fight goes on.

Cant find the price of this specific card, not that I did a huge in depth search but:

Sapphire HD 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 £340

BFG GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £440

Zotac GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £420

EVGA GTX295 1792MB GDDR3 £433

All those prices from ebuyer. Are the 295's really worth THAT much more for so little performance boost - especially considering the only benefit of the 295 seems to be at high resolution with lots of AA?

For me if it were my bucks on the line, not that I am looking for new graphics right now, I'd say no way hosť.
Well if you are going to be running at those high resolutions, then we can expect you to have an expensive screenie and be willing to pay the £100-ish more for the higher AA capabilities.

12-02-2009, 03:54:31

fruityness
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Jaster'
were not taking price performance ratio...yes the cost is an issue...but you dont play down the baddest boxer in the world cos his mrs says hes crap in bed...yes for most of us mortals this will be an issue...but when it comes to manufacturers reigning top spot performance is the only issue...bragging rights are everything...still I see no reason to shift from my gx2 yet...and yes that is a price related statement...but its a beast of a card...lets see how long nvidia can hold it...because AMD/ATI are seeming to be closing the gap in many many areas
The thing is though, it is NOT the baddest boxer in the world. The x2 pimp slaps it in 3dmark`05 and 06, Its even holding its own in a physx enabled game - UT3 - quote "All the games above, even the PhysX enabled UTIII favoured the 4870x2, that was until the resolution was increased and AA applied".

More standard resolutions and the 295 looses out not by a little but by a lot, its only at 2560x1600 and 4AA that 295 seems to have a lead, and then thats not the case in Grid. And I'd be willing to bet that if you used those resolutions and that level of AA then the game would jitter and lag anyway - you know how it is, fighting away, hear a sound from behind so you spin about quickly - the game lags temorarily etc etc..

As for bragging rights? I'd chuckle if a friend say they bought this, its no performance gain really, it looses out by a big margin at resolutions the majority use.

Waste the £100 extra, many will, if it were me I'd wait for a card which blows the other out the water THEN cough up the money. Not for a trickle of extra (and I bet real world unusable) performance.

12-02-2009, 06:24:08

Rastalovich
People do need to take their regular resolutions into account. And perhaps resolutions they're gonna get soon.

24" is quality aspiration for most imo. Whilst 20" is a solid standard.

I do think it's about time the 1024x768, and possibly even 1280x1024 were less concentrated on for runs or standards for benching tools.

Believe OC3D use a pretty good range of resolutions for their tests. The 2560 ranges are quite silly to be fair, but interesting.

*peers at w3bb0's monitor*

12-02-2009, 06:43:48

Diablo
Bear in mind, the people likely to buy the highest end kit will probably have other high end kit e.g. that 30" monitor. If you think the 4870x2 drivers have had more time to mature, its not surprising the 295x2 drivers are a little behind

12-02-2009, 07:07:38

Sleekit
I got a nVidia 260 black edition but I was this!!!

*drools*

*claws screen*

12-02-2009, 08:06:05

Rastalovich
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Diablo'
Bear in mind, the people likely to buy the highest end kit will probably have other high end kit e.g. that 30" monitor. If you think the 4870x2 drivers have had more time to mature, its not surprising the 295x2 drivers are a little behind
Lookup how much the Dell 30" costs, I`d be half as likely to own one of those than a 295x2.

I'd not see much point in going for a cheap 30" that just upscales a 24" screen.

Quality 24" are more like the similar price for top cards.

12-02-2009, 10:03:51

w3bbo
I can see both sides of the discussion. On the one hand if you have a 20-22" screen then either of these two cards is overkill. 24" and especially a 30" monitor then both these cards come into their own and this is who the cards are targetted at. Alot more money is to be made by selling mid range cards as this is where the majority buy. Much better to sell 20 or 30 midrange cards than 1 or 2 top end ones (I don't know if thats the correct ratio, it would most likely be alot more).

However, both these cards are Flagship products. Products that advertise who is best. It's willy waving at the most extreme scale. At the moment that title goes to Nvidia, recently it was ATI and no doubt when the 5 series arrive ATI will reclaim that crown. This is great news for us, the consumer as competition is healthy.

Whether you 'need' these cards is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to enthusiasts. I mean who really needs 24gb of ram and a 4ghz top of the line cpu. Very few, if anyone actually needs that kind of power but it doesn't stop us all from WANTING.

I want a Maclaren F1. Do I need one? No but if I could afford one, it would be highest on my shopping list. Not so much for bragging rights (ok maybe it would be a little bit) but because 'it's the best'.

12-02-2009, 10:12:46

Diablo
Also with the arrival of stereo output (3d woot) massive processing power suddenly makes sense
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.