GeForce Experience & The Test

Before jumping into our test results, there’s one last thing we wanted to touch upon quickly. Along with announcing the GTX 690 at the NVIDIA Gaming Festival 2012, NVIDIA also used the occasion to announce a new software utility called GeForce Experience.

For some time now NVIDIA has offered a feature they call Optimal Playable Settings through GeForce.com, which are a series of game setting configurations that NVIDIA has tested and is recommending for various GeForce video cards. It’s a genuinely useful service, but it’s also not well known and only covers desktop GPUs.

With GeForce Experience NVIDIA is going to be taking that concept one step further and offering an application that interfaces with both the game and the successor to NVIDIA’s OPS service. The key difference being that rather than having the settings on a website and requiring the user to punch in those settings by hand, GeForce Experience can fetch those settings from NVIDIA and make the settings changes on its own. This would make the process much more accessible, as not only do users not need to know anything about how to access their settings or what they do, but the moment NVIDIA includes this with their drivers it will be far more widespread than OPS ever was.

The other change is that NVIDIA is going to be moving away from manual testing in favor of automated testing. OPS are generated by hand, whereas GeForce Experience settings are going to be based on automated testing, allowing NVIDIA to cover a wider range of games and video cards, most importantly by including mobile video cards. NVIDIA already has GPU farms for driver regression testing, so this is a logical extension of that concept to use those farms to generate and test game settings.

GeForce Experience will be launching in beta form on June 6th.

The Test

The press drivers for the GTX 690 are 301.33, though it sounds like NVIDIA will actually launch with a slightly newer version today. As the GTX 690 is launching so soon after the GTX 680 these drivers are virtually identical to the GTX 680 launch drivers. Meanwhile for the GeForce 500 series we’re using 301.24, and for the AMD Radeon cards Catalyst 12.4

We’d also like to give a shout-out to Asus, who sent us one of their wonderful PA246Q 24” P-IPS monitors to allow us to complete our monitor set for multi-monitor testing. From here on we’ll be able to offer multi-monitor results for our high-end cards, and a number of cards have already had that data added in Bench.

Next, based on an informal poll on our forums we’re going to be continuing our existing SLI/CF testing methodology. All of our test results will be with both cards directly next to each other as opposed to spaced apart in order to test the worst case scenario. Users with such a configuration are a minority based on our data, but there are still enough of them that we believe it should be covered.

Finally, we’d like to note that since we don’t have a matching pair of 7970 reference cards, we’re using our one reference card along with XFX’s R7970 BEDD. For gaming performance, power consumption, and temperatures this doesn’t have a material impact, but it means we don’t have meaningful noise performance for the 7970.

CPU: Intel Core i7-3960X @ 4.3GHz
Motherboard: EVGA X79 SLI
Chipset Drivers: Intel 9.​2.​3.​1022
Power Supply: Antec True Power Quattro 1200
Hard Disk: Samsung 470 (256GB)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1867 4 x 4GB (8-10-9-26)
Case: Thermaltake Spedo Advance
Monitor: Samsung 305T
Asus PA246Q
Video Cards: AMD Radeon HD 7970
AMD Radeon HD 6990
AMD Radeon HD 6970
AMD Radeon HD 5970
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580
Video Drivers: NVIDIA ForceWare 301.24
NVIDIA ForceWare 301.33
AMD Catalyst 12.4
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

 

Overclocking Crysis: Warhead
POST A COMMENT

200 Comments

View All Comments

  • Makaveli - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Some of us don't buy 16:9 monitors or TN panels!

    I want results at 1920x1200 and other 16:10 resolution you can shut up with your amd bias which you have no proof of other than your flawed logic.

    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Then you don't buy much. 1920x1200 is a very rare monitor. Reply
  • Parhel - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    1920x1200 was very common for several years. Until a few years ago, they were much more common than 1920x1080. I even have an old laptop that's 1920x1200. Looking at what's available to buy new, today, doesn't tell the whole story. Because people don't replace their monitors every day.

    Anandtech has always recommended spending up and getting a quality monitor. You see it in nearly every review. So, I think the readers here are more likely than the average guy on the street to own less common screens. I've had the same 2560x1600 monitor through 3 computers now, and I spent more on it than I've ever spent on any computer.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Yes, you're all super premium monitor buyers, and moments ago you were hollering the videocards are way too expensive and you cannot possibly afford them unless you are an idiot with too much money.
    I love this place, the people are so wonderfully honest.
    Reply
  • Makaveli - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    1920x1200 is only rare now. i've gone thru enough monitor to know what I like and cheap 16:9 TN panels are not if its that good enough for you then enjoy.

    As for your other comment about v-sync and 4xAA Guess what some of us don't care to have 8x AA and 16XAF running all the time.

    I would rather play at 1200p at high settings with AA and AF off if it means playable fps and a enjoyable experience. This isn't [H] i'm not gonna spend $1000 on a Gpu so I can meet your approved settings for playing games dude. Get a clue!
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    But you'll spend well over $400 for 11% more monitor pixels because "you'd rather".. "all of a sudden".
    LOL
    Way to go, thanks for helping me.
    Reply
  • anirudhs - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    No...I couldn't afford one but I very much wanted to buy one. It is much prettier than 16:9 for workstation purposes. New ones are being released all the time. You just have to pay more, but its worth it. Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Oh, so someone who almost wants to be honest.
    So isn't it absolutely true a $500 videocard is much easier to buy when your monitor doesn't cost half that much let alone twice that much or $2,000 plus ?
    You don't need to answer. We all know the truth.
    Everyone in this thread would take a single videocard 680 or 7970 and a 1080P panel for under $200 before they'd buy a $450 1200P monitor and forfeit the 680 or 7970 for a $200 videocard instead.
    It's absolutely clear, no matter the protestations.
    In fact if they did otherwise, they would be so dumb, they would fit right in. Oh look at that, why maybe they are that foolish.
    Reply
  • InsaneScientist - Saturday, May 05, 2012 - link

    Oh? A little over a year ago, I had some money for an upgrade and I wanted to upgrade either my monitor or my video card.
    Now, I have (and play) Crysis, which can only now, just barely, be handled by a single card, so obviously I could have used the GPU upgrade (still can, for that matter). I also had a decent (though not great) 22" 1920x1200 monitor.

    However, despite that, I chose to buy a new monitor, and bought a used 3008WFP (30" 2560x1600). I have not regretted that decision one bit, and that was a lot more money than your $200-300 upsell for 1920x1200
    Now, admittedly, there were other factors that were a consideration, but even without those, I would have made the same decision. Putting money into a good monitor which I'll use ALL the time I'm on the computer vs. putting money into a good video card that I'll use some of the time is a no-brainer for me.
    If all of my electronics were taken and I were starting from scratch, I'd get another 2560x1600 monitor before I even bought a video card. I'd suffer through the integrated IGP as long as I needed.

    Now, that's my choice, and everyone's needs are different, so I wouldn't demand that you make the same decision I did, but, by the same token, you shouldn't be expecting everyone to be following the same needs that you have. ;)
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 06, 2012 - link

    You've jumped from 1920 to 2560 so who cares, not even close.
    In your case you got no video card. ROFL - further proving my point, and disproving everyone elses who screamed if you get this card you have another two grand for monitors as well - which everyone here knows isn't true.

    I never demanded anyone follow any needs, let alone mine which are unknown to you despite your imaginary lifestyle readings, and obverse to the sudden flooding of monitor fanboys and the accompanying lies.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now