Performance in games

Testbed:

• Intel Core2 Extreme QX9650 (3000 MHz) CPU
• Zotac 790i Ultra motherboard on NVIDIA nForce 790i Ultra
• 2GB DDR3 SDRAM Corsair 2000MHz
• WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA hard drive
• Tagan TG900-BZ 900W PSU
• Windows Vista 32-bit SP1, DirectX 10.1
• Dell 3007WFP 30-inch monitor
• ATI CATALYST 9.3/9.4; NVIDIA 181.22/185.66 drivers
• VSync disabled

Benchmarks:

• Far Cry 2 (Ubisoft) -- DirectX 10.0, shaders 4.0 (HDR), built-in benchmarking utility (the Middle level), maximum settings.
• S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky 1.507 (GSC Game World/THQ) -- DirectX 10.0, maximum quality settings (dynamic lighting enabled); demo, copy files to the savegames folder, run the game, load level 'ixbt4', and type "demo_play ixbt4" in the console. This game does not support AA.
• 3DMark Vantage 1.02 (FutureMark) -- DirectX 10.0, shaders 4.0, multitexturing, 'Extreme' settings.
• CRYSIS 1.2 (Crytek/EA), DirectX 10.0, shaders 4.0, 'Very High' settings, 'Rescue' level; batch file, e-mail us to obtain the timedemo.
• CRYSIS Warhead (Crytek/EA), DirectX 10.0, shaders 4.0, 'Very High' settings, 'Cargo' level; batch file, e-mail us to obtain the timedemo.
• Company Of Heroes Opposing Fronts (Relic Entertainment/THQ) -- DirectX 10.0, shaders 4.0, maximum settings; batch file, run the game, invoke graphics settings and click the test button.
• World In Conflict 1.007 (Massive Entertainment/Sierra) -- DirectX 10.0, shaders 4.0, 'Very High' settings with adjusted AA and AF; run the game, invoke graphics settings and click the test button.
• Devil May Cry 4 (CAPCOM) -- DirectX 10.0, 'Super High' settings with adjusted AA and AF; Scene 1.
• Lost Planet Extreme Condition Colonies Edition (CAPCOM) -- DirectX 10.0, 'Super High' settings (with adjusted AA and AF); Scene 1.

Note that performance charts are located on dedicated pages.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky

Performance charts: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

World In Conflict

Performance charts: World In Conflict

CRYSIS, Rescue, DX10, Very High

Performance charts: CRYSIS, Rescue, DX10, Very High

CRYSIS Warhead, Cargo, DX10, Very High

Performance charts: CRYSIS Warhead, Cargo, DX10, Very High

Far Cry 2

Performance charts: Far Cry 2

Company Of Heroes

Performance charts: CoH

3DMark Vantage, Graphics MARKS

Performance charts: 3DMark Vantage, Graphics MARKS

Devil May Cry 4, SCENE1

Performance charts: Devil May Cry 4, SCENE1

Lost Planet EC Colonies, SCENE1

Performance charts: Lost Planet EC Colonies, SCENE1

Conclusions

What have we got here? A mighty competitor to the new AMD RADEON HD 4890. Indeed, GTX 275 demonstrates excellent results, significantly outperforming its competitor in most tests. But will it have an adequate price?

If the HD 4890 and GTX 275 have the same price tags, the choice will be easy -- GTX 275, even though it has less memory (896 MB is more than enough these days). But if the HD 4890 card is cheaper, lower temperatures and power consumption of the 4890 will outweigh advantages of the GTX 275.

However, it will depend on personal preferences, some users will choose GTX 275 because of higher fps, despite its higher power consumption and heat release. Others will go for the product with lower operating temperatures. We should justify the cooler installed on the GTX 275: it's quieter than the one on 4890.

BFG GeForce GTX 275 OC 896MB is a reference card. Nothing much to say about its design. It operates at a little higher frequencies. So having test results of the reference GTX 275 as well as the card from Zotac, you can figure out the performance level of this BFG product. The manufacturer offers a 10-year warranty for this card after registration on its web site.

Zotac GeForce GTX 275 AMP! Edition 896MB is the same reference card, but it comes with a better bundle. Besides, it has much higher operating frequencies. It's also backed up by the 5-year warranty.

Palit GeForce GTX 275 896MB is made by Palit. Despite the problem with offset SLI connectors, it's still a very interesting product with a quiet cooling system.

Haven't NVIDIA seen such a small performance difference between the 275 and 285 models? The GTX 275 is apparently killing its senior brother, offering just a little lower performance for much less money.

The best example here is to compare the overclocked GTX 275 and 285 cards. That's when you feel this marketing mistake. However, the GTX 285 may be leaving the market soon, to be replaced with something like GTX 290 (or a dual-GPU solution like GTX 295, but operating at reduced frequencies, or a single-GPU 285 card operating at higher frequencies). But it's only our conjecture.

As for now, we can only state that the GTX 275 is a very good product. Competition with the 4890 card is very intense. It's very difficult to point out a leader here, because both products have pros and cons. We should mention one drawback of the 4890, which is not present in the GTX 275 -- quality of video drivers. With hand on heart, I can say that NVIDIA drivers are much more pleasant to deal with. In case of Catalyst, we always worry whether its installation will go smoothly or not (various problems come and go from version to version, including failures to detect cards, etc). That may be another argument for this or that product.

We also got official information from NVIDIA about a very large run of GTX 275 cards, so we disprove the previous comment about this card being a limited edition.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!