NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295: Leading the Pack
by Derek Wilson on January 12, 2009 5:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Now that we have some hardware in our hands and NVIDIA has formally launched the GeForce GTX 295, we are very interested in putting it to the test. NVIDIA's bid to reclaim the halo is quite an interesting one. If you'll remember from our earlier article on the hardware, the GTX 295 is a dual GPU card that features two chips that combine aspects of the GTX 280 and the GTX 260. The expectation should be that this card will fall between GTX 280 SLI and GTX 260 core 216 SLI.
As for the GTX 295, the GPUs have the TPCs (shader hardware) of the GTX 280 with the memory and pixel power of the GTX 260. This hybrid design gives it lots of shader horsepower with less RAM and raw pixel pushing capability than GTX 280 SLI. This baby should perform better than GTX 260 SLI and slower than GTX 280 SLI. Here are the specs:
Our card looks the same as the one in the images provided by NVIDIA that we posted in December. It's notable that the GPUs are built at 55nm and are clocked at the speed of a GTX 260 despite having the shader power of the GTX 280 (x2).
We've also got another part coming down the pipe from NVIDIA. The GeForce GTX 285 is a 55nm part that amounts to an overclocked GTX 280. Although we don't have any in house yet, this new card was announced on the 8th and will be available for purchase on the 15th of January 2009.
There isn't much to say on the GeForce GTX 285: it is an overclocked 55nm GTX 280. The clock speeds compare as follows:
| Core Clock Speed (MHz) | Shader Clock Speed (MHz) | Memory Data Rate (MHz) | |
| GTX 280 | 602 | 1296 | 2214 |
| GTX 285 | 648 | 1476 | 2484 |
We don't have performance data for the GTX 285 yet, but expect it (like the GTX 280 and GTX 295) to be necessary only with very large displays.
| GTX 295 | GTX 285 | GTX 280 | GTX 260 Core 216 | GTX 260 | 9800 GTX+ | |
| Stream Processors | 2 x 240 | 240 | 240 | 216 | 192 | 128 |
| Texture Address / Filtering | 2 x 80 / 80 | 80 / 80 | 80 / 80 | 72/72 | 64 / 64 | 64 / 64 |
| ROPs | 28 | 32 | 32 | 28 | 28 | 16 |
| Core Clock | 576MHz | 648MHz | 602MHz | 576MHz | 576MHz | 738MHz |
| Shader Clock | 1242MHz | 1476MHz | 1296MHz | 1242MHz | 1242MHz | 1836MHz |
| Memory Clock | 999MHz | 1242MHz | 1107MHz | 999MHz | 999MHz | 1100MHz |
| Memory Bus Width | 2 x 448-bit | 512-bit | 512-bit | 448-bit | 448-bit | 256-bit |
| Frame Buffer | 2 x 896MB | 1GB | 1GB | 896MB | 896MB | 512MB |
| Transistor Count | 2 x 1.4B | 1.4B | 1.4B | 1.4B | 1.4B | 754M |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 55nm | TSMC 55nm | TSMC 65nm | TSMC 65nm | TSMC 65nm | TSMC 55nm |
| Price Point | $500 | $??? | $350 - $400 | $250 - $300 | $250 - $300 | $150 - 200 |
For this article will focus heavily on the performance of the GeForce GTX 295, as we've already covered the basic architecture and specifications. We will recap them and cover the card itself on the next page, but for more detail see our initial article on the subject.
The Test
| Test Setup | |
| CPU | Intel Core i7-965 3.2GHz |
| Motherboard | ASUS Rampage II Extreme X58 |
| Video Cards | ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 SLI NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 SLI NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 |
| Video Drivers | Catalyst 8.12 hotfix ForceWare 181.20 |
| Hard Drive | Intel X25-M 80GB SSD |
| RAM | 6 x 1GB DDR3-1066 7-7-7-20 |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1 |
| PSU | PC Power & Cooling Turbo Cool 1200W |
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.