Last but not least, Company of Heroes: Tales of Valor,
the gap is merely 3.5%
The gap opens to 5% with 4xAA & 16xAF.
You can see from the result that both cards perform at a similar level, with the GeForce GTX260+ edges out by a small margin in most games. Given both cards are selling at the same price, the Nvidia card definitely makes a better choice.
Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
10 May 2009
GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part5
GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part4
Need For Speed: Undercover, again no significant difference between the two.
The GTX260+ almost achieved what is known as "free AA",
while the HD4890 suffered a 12.6% drop in frame rate.
Moving on to the first DX10 game benchmark, FarCry2,
HD 4890 performs much better than its counterpart.
The gap maintained after switching on AA & AF.
Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor
GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part3
Benchmark Result
3Dmark Vantage (Performance),
where GTX260+ leads by 1717 points or 16%,
thanks to its support for PhysX technology.
3Dmark06 running at its default 1280x1024,
shows that both cards are on par.
Moving on to Call of Duty 5, running at 1920x1200 0xAA 0xAF,
GTX260+ is merely 2fps faster, no significant difference between the two.
GTX260+ suffers a drastic drop in performance when AA & AF is turned on.
Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor
GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part2
Test Setup
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.6Ghz (400x9)
Memory: Corsair DDR2-1066 2x1GB
Motherboard: Asus P45
Harddisk: Seagate Barracuda 320GB 7200.10
Power Supply: GreatWall 650W
Display: Hanns.G 28" (1920x200)
Graphics:
Gainward GeForce GTX260+ 55nm 896MB Golden Sample (625/1348/2200)
Radeon HD 4890 GDDR5 1GB (850/3900)
Driver:
Forceware
O/S: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1
Chipset: Intel P45 Vista 9.0.0.1008 WHQL
Framerate: FRAPS 2.9.8
Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor
GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part1
GeForce GTX260+ 55nm vs Radeon HD4890
AMD turns up the heat with an improved core and thus the birth of it's flagship Radeon HD4890. As part of their pricing strategy, ATI has announced that HD4890 will be retailing for under $260, which is also the price point of an overclocked GTX260+. Today, we will find out which card is the most bang for bucks.
Sample GPU-Z screenshot:
GeForce GTX260+ core216 with a 55nm core
Specification Comparison
| Product | GeForce GTX 260+ | Radeon HD4890 |
| Core Code | GT200 | RV790 |
| Process | 55nm | 55nm |
| Transistors | 1400 million | 959 million |
| Core Clock | 625Mhz | 850Mhz |
| Shader | 1348Mhz | 850 Mhz |
| Shader | 216 | 800 |
| ROP | 28 | 16 |
| TMU | 72 | 40 |
| Memory Clock | 2200Mhz | 3900Mhz |
| Memory Bus Width | 448-bit | 256-bit |
| Memory Size/Type | 896MB GDDR3 | 1GB GDDR5 |
Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor
15 March 2009
FEAR 2: Project Origin - GPU Graphics Performance
FEAR 2: Project Origin was released on Febuary, 11 2009. The storyline starts 30-minutes before the nuclear end of the first FEAR game. The game is powered by the LithTech engine, although still DX9, but it incorporates new features such as Havok Physics, per-pixel lighting, particle effect systems, HDR, post-processing & motion blur etc. In the following review (extracted from PConline), we shall find out how it performs on the latest graphics cards.
Test Platform
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33Ghz
Gigabyte X48
Apacer DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15 2x1GB
Seagate 7200.10 SATA 500Gb
Nvidia GeForce 9600GSO (650/1400Mhz)
Nvidia GeForce 9600GT (650/1800MHz)
Nvidia GeForce 9800GT (600/1800MHz)
Nvidia GeForce 9800GTX+ (738/2200MHz)
Nvidia GeForce GTX260 (576/1998MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4670 (750/2000MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4830 (575/1800MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4850 (625/2000MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4870 (750/3600MHz)
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1
Forceware 182.06 / Catalyst 9.2
1440x900
There is no option for GTX260 to run the game at 1440x900.
1680x1050 4xAA
Project Orignal seems to be less demanding to the system than its previous releases, even lower end graphics cards like HD4670 and 9600GSO are able to handle the game with maximum graphics details, scoring above 50fps.
1920x1200 4xAA
HD4870 512MB dominates this game at every resolution. While on the mainstream side, HD4670 512MB & 9600GSO 256MB manage to chink out playable frame rates, even at this high resolution with anti-aliasing turned on.
08 March 2009
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 vs E8200 vs E7300 Part5
E7500 is overclocked to 4.4Ghz with only 1.312v!
Overclocked benchmark result:
Page 1: Introduction & CPU-Z
Page 2: Test System & 3DMark Vantage
Page 3: CineBench & Wprime
Page 4: FarCry2 & Crysis
Page 5: Overclocking Result
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 vs E8200 vs E7300 Part4
It's a draw between E7500 & E8200 in FarCry 2.
Crysis performs better with larger L2 cache.
Page 1: Introduction & CPU-Z
Page 2: Test System & 3DMark Vantage
Page 3: CineBench & Wprime
Page 4: FarCry2 & Crysis
Page 5: Overclocking Result
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 vs E8200 vs E7300 Part3
E7500 edges out 8.2% faster.
Clock frequency is a more important than L2 cache size as shown in the 2 scenarios above.
Page 1: Introduction & CPU-Z
Page 2: Test System & 3DMark Vantage
Page 3: CineBench & Wprime
Page 4: FarCry2 & Crysis
Page 5: Overclocking Result
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 vs E8200 vs E7300 Part2
Test System
Core 2 Duo E7300 3MB 2.66Ghz 1066Mhz
Core 2 Duo E7500 3MB 2.93Ghz 1066Mhz
Core 2 Duo E8200 6MB 2.66Ghz 1333Mhz
Intel P45 mainboard
Corsair CM2X1024-6400G 2GB（2x1G）
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 250GB
NVIDIA GeForce 9800GTX+ (740/1836/2200)
CoolerMaster RealPower 500W
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1
Intel Chipset Device Software Driver 9.0.0.1008 Vista
ForceWare 180.48 WHQL Vista
3DMark Vantage Performance overall score
3DMark Vantage Performance CPU score
E8200 loses marginally to E7500 despite having a faster FSB & double the amount of L2 cache.
Page 1: Introduction & CPU-Z
Page 2: Test System & 3DMark Vantage
Page 3: CineBench & Wprime
Page 4: FarCry2 & Crysis
Page 5: Overclocking Result
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 vs E8200 vs E7300 Part1
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 vs E8200 vs E7300
Launched in January earlier this year is the Intel Core 2 Duo E7500, clocked at 2.93Ghz with 3MB worth of L2 cache. Like all other E7xxx, it is based on the Wolfdale core built on 45nm technology. The following is an abstract of the original article.
This chip is currently retailing at NewEgg for $139.99.
R0 stepping as seen in the CPU-Z screenshot,
vcore range is 0.85~1.3625V
Page 1: Introduction & CPU-Z
Page 2: Test System & 3DMark Vantage
Page 3: CineBench & Wprime
Page 4: FarCry2 & Crysis
Page 5: Overclocking Result
30 November 2008
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Benchmark Scores
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Benchmark Result
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores
| Test | Resolution | 9600GSO 768MB | 9600GT 512MB | % difference |
| 3DMark06 v1.1.0 | 1024x768 | 11353 | 10910 | 4.1% |
| fps (average) | ||||
| Lost Planet DX10 | 1280x1024 | 32.2 | 30.3 | 6.3% |
| Crysis v1.1 | 1280x1024 | 31.1 | 29.8 | 4.4% |
| Call of Duty 4 DX10 | 1280x1024 | 87.6 | 80 | 9.5% |
| Call of Juarez | 1280x1024 | 36 | 32.3 | 11.5% |
| UT3 demo | 1280x1024 | 148 | 134 | 10.4% |
The 9600GSO beats 9600GT in every benchmark, an average of 6.6%!
Highlight: How to Softmod 9600GSO into 8800GTS
Despite having the advantage of an optimized G94 core with higher clocks and memory bandwidth, the 9600GT with 32 shaders less lost to the re-branded 9600GSO.
Do note that the market is flooded different flavors, result would be very different between 9600GSO of 192MB vs 384MB vs 768MB (even 1536MB), on top of different factory overclocks. Its a pity that we cannot possibly test our every version out there. Prices varies widely as well, so do take clocks, memory size, output types, warranty duration, package contents into your purchase consideration.
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores
Source: SanHaoStreet
Other popular posts:
- Radeon HD 4870X2 CrossfireXvsGeForce GTX 280 Tri-SLI
- Radeon HD3850 X2 + GeForce 8600GT
- GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870
- Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review
- Intel Core i7 Specifications
- Core2Duo E8200 E8400 E8500 Gaming Performance
- GeForce 9500 GT Specifications & Benchmark
- AMD B3 Phenom X4 9850 Benchmarked
- Nvidia GeForce 9800 GX2 vs AMD Radeon HD 3870 X2
- GeForce 9600 GT vs Radeon HD 3850
- Triple Core 8600 vs Quad Core 9600
- Radeon HD 3870X2 vs GeForce 8800 Ultra
- Core 2 Quad Q9300 vs Q6600
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Test Platform
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Test Platform
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores
Processor: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 @ 3.0Ghz
Motherboard: Asus Striker II Formula
Memory: Apacer 2x1GB DDR2-800 @ 5-5-5-15 2T
Storage: Seagate 7200.10 320GB SATA
Display: Dell 30" LCD
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate + DirectX 10
Driver: Forceware 174.88 beta
Graphics Card use in this review (Core/Shader/Memory):
Gainward 9600GSO 768MB (600/1500/1800)
Nvidia reference 9600GT 512MB (650/1650/1800)
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Specifications Compared
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Specifications Compared
| Product | 8800GS | 9600GSO | 9600GT |
| Core | G92 | G92 | G94 |
| Transistors | 754million | 754million | 505million |
| Core Clock | 550Mhz | 550Mhz | 650Mhz |
| Shader | 1375Mhz | 1375Mhz | 1625Mhz |
| Process | 65nm | 65nm | 65nm |
| ROPS | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Stream Processors | 96 | 96 | 64 |
| Memory Clock | 800Mhz | 800Mhz | 900Mhz |
| Memory Bus Width | 192-bit | 192-bit | 256-bit |
| Memory Size | 384MB GDDR3 | 384MB GDDR3 | 512MB GDDR3 |
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Introduction
GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Introduction
GeForce 8800GS was an unpopular product when it was launched. Nvidia simply injected a doze of 9-series (marketing) magic into it and, *poof!* 8800GS evolves into 9600GSO overnight. What changed? Just the name, same G92 core with 96 shaders running on 192-bit memory interface remained unchanged. But this time round, card makers are given more freedom in designing their own custom PCB, the amount of memory, as well as the clocks.
The official clocks for GeForce 9600GSO is 550/1375/1600 (core/shader/memory), which is exactly the same as 8800GS, yet slightly lower than the announced reference clocks of 580/1450/1400 earlier on. I guess this move will encourage partners to come out with more profitable overclocked editions.
Do note that Forceware 174.14 WHQL can support GeForce 9 series products as well as MCP78 chipset. The only difference is that Forceware 174.88 added in support for the 9600 GSO.
Some Pictures
8800GS
9600GSO
9600GT
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores
27 October 2008
GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870
GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870
Initially, the GT200 based GeForce GTX280 and GTX260 were priced so high, the price/performance ratio was so bad that it didn't make any sense to pay the huge premium over the little performance gain. Of course we are comparing it against Radeon HD4800 series. To boost sales, Nvidia cut GeForce GTX280 price by 62%; GTX260 by 33%, placing the latter in the same price point with Radeon HD4870.
Things got interesting when Nvidia launched a new GTX260 version known as GeForce GTX 260+ Core 216, containing 216 shader processors as compared to the original GTX260's 192 SP. Bla bla bla.. Let's not waste anymore time on complex technical details, time to watch the triple-threat match of GeForce GTX260 192SP vs GTX260+ 216SP vs Radeon HD 4870!
Test Platform
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 |
| Motherboard | GIGABYTE GA-X48T-DQ6 |
| Memory | A-DATA DDR3-1066 Extreme CL7 2x1GB |
| Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 192SP 896MB |
| Inno3D GeForce GTX 260 GOLD 216PS 896MB | |
| ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB | |
| Power | GIGABYTE ODIN GT 1200W |
| OS | Windows Vista SP1 |
| Driver | Forceware 177.43 |
| ATI Catalyst 8.8 |
Benchmark Result
| GeForce GTX 260+ 216SP 896MB | Radeon HD 4870 800SP 512MB | GeForce GTX 260 192SP 896MB | |
| 3DMark 05 | |||
| 16 x 10 | 17487 | 18840 | 17335 |
| 19 x 12 | 16975 | 18367 | 16712 |
| 16 x 10 8AA | 15415 | 17328 | 15281 |
| 19 x 12 8AA | 14299 | 16238 | 14025 |
| 3DMark 06 | |||
| 16 x 10 | 14260 | 14125 | 13948 |
| 19 x 12 | 13246 | 13183 | 12844 |
| 16 x 10 8AA | 9448 | 10606 | 9339 |
| 19 x 12 8AA | 8755 | 9704 | 8607 |
| 3DMark Vantage | |||
| High (GPU) | 5726 | 5133 | 5321 |
| Extreme (GPU) | 4030 | 3604 | 3712 |
| Company of Hero (DX10, High) | |||
| 16 x 10 | 57.1 | 56.1 | 55.9 |
| 19 x 12 | 54.5 | 52.9 | 52.2 |
| 16 x 10 8AA | 45.3 | 52.4 | 43.1 |
| 19 x 10 8AA | 38.9 | 48.5 | 36.1 |
| Crysis (DX 10, High) | |||
| 16 x 10 | 41.46 | 39.46 | 39.21 |
| 19 x 12 | 35.06 | 33.02 | 32.81 |
| 16 x 10 8AA | 30.54 | 35.54 | 29.25 |
| 19 x 10 8AA | 24.33 | 29.38 | 23.33 |
| PT Boat (DX10, High) | |||
| 16 x 10 | 56.9 | 46.2 | 55.6 |
| 19 x 12 | 54.3 | 43.9 | 52.8 |
| 16 x 10 8AA | 40.3 | 23.7 * | 39.1 |
| 19 x 12 8AA | 34.4 | 16.5 * | 33.2 |
| Lost Planet (DX10, High) | |||
| 16 x 10 | 87.5 | 51.4 | 82.2 |
| 19 x 12 | 71.1 | 42.8 | 68.1 |
| 16 x 10 8AA | 61.4 | 48.7 | 58.7 |
| 19 x 12 8AA | 49.7 | 40.9 | 48.1 |
On average, the new GTX260 containing 216SP outperforms it's 192SP brother by around 5%.
Source: http://game.ali213.net/thread-2275669-1-1.html
26 October 2008
Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part4
AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part4:
CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3
CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3
Maximum quality; shader made @ DX10.
HD4830 is struggling to keep up at 1440x900, else they are pretty on par at other resolutions.
Very high settings on DX10 mode, tested using the in-game benchmark tool.
Maximum quality, again tested with in-game benchmark tool.
Clear victory for the RV770LE based card.
Maximum quality with V-sync disabled.
The result looks very inconclusive. But overall, with 20/29 benchmarks in hand, the winner is no doubt Radeon HD4830, in terms of raw performance.
Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3
Source: http://diy.pconline.com.cn/graphics/reviews/0810/1452670.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
