NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295: Leading the Pack
by Derek Wilson on January 12, 2009 5:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Crysis Warhead Performance
This game is another killer at 2560x1600. Only multi-GPU solutions will cut it at this resolution with Gamer settings and Enthusiast shaders enabled. Once (if) the 64-bit patch is released, we should see some general performance improvement as well, but graphics limitations are the name of the game here. Crysis was tough on PCs, and while Warhead is a bit more optimized, this one is still a system killer.
With a 30" display, a minimum of a GTX 295 is required for playability with the settings we chose. Of course, dropping the settings down a bit will certainly help out, but even on smaller panel sizes a high end single card will be desireable for the highest image quality settings. Luckily for fans, running in DX9 mode with slightly lower settings is very playable and not that much of a sacrifice.
Crysis Warhead seems to favor SLI over CrossFire as the single 4870 1GB leads the GTX 260 while the GTX 260 SLI wins out over the 4870 X2. This isn't so much a question of what architecture handles the game better as what multi-GPU solution handles the game better. Either way, it comes out in NVIDIA's favor.
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.