NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295: Leading the Pack
by Derek Wilson on January 12, 2009 5:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Fallout 3 Performance
Fallout 3 is based on the Gamebryo engine that powered Oblivion, though it has gone through modifications and tweaks along the way. The game looks great with all the settings cranked and it's pretty fun as well. We disabled vsync and set iPresentInterval to zero, but we still had some quirks with framerate. It seems like we may be system limited in some ways, which is impressive given our system. In the future we will try to refine our test to make it more graphically intense though some .ini file tweaks and see if that helps out.
Framerates are compressed up near the 77 frames per second. The lead the NVIDIA hardware has here is thus also compressed. In running around, it is clear framerate is not limited: we saw max FPS up over 110, but the benchmark we ran just ends up coming out this way. This is a straight line outdoor run at twilight.
Again, the single Radeon HD 4870 1GB leads the GTX 260, but GTX 260 SLI outperforms the 4870 X2 indicating an SLI advantage over CrossFire (or an NVIDIA driver advantage over AMD -- without more low level technical data we can't assess what exactly the issue is). But as this article focuses on the GTX 295, even though the gap looks small we can say that this one goes to NVIDIA as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games.
SiliconDoc - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
Oh, on the 7th SPAM reposting, you deleted some of your idiocy, the last few lines of overtly excessive bs, as compared to the former bs plain lines you decided to keep.So, psycho $3v3n spamfanboy, you feel corrected now ? rofl
I asked about your feelings because that's what you post about. lol
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
SiliconDoc - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
After you claim one card is cheaper than another, then you claim if you have money to throw on either one you don't care about the power savings from NVidia.Clearly you are deranged.
Hxx - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
You will understand in time that not everything that is been released its actually worth the money , especially with computer hardware with a high depreciation factor.SiliconDoc - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
Now you're off on another argument, since you made a fool of yourself on the former one.Tell us how Corvette's are always a waste of money, too. I'm sure we're all waiting for your condsiderate opinion on the matter. Do tell us as well how adults in this forum, even I, do not understand such a concept, I'm sure some other idiot will believe you.
You done stuffing your own shoe in your mouth ?
I certainly don't believe you are as ignorant as the last statement you typed, nor that anyone here is as ignorant as you claim possible.
Adults in a tech not understanding that some modern items purchased may be overpriced, even beyond their percieved consumer value ?
Surely you jest, bs artist.