GeForce GTX 295 overclocking

[posix_memalign]

I'm going to buy a GTX 295 very soon, and in that relation I'm wondering which GTX 295 should I buy?

1) Are there any types of GTX 295 that are factory overclocked without a dramatic increase in price?

2) Are there any types of GTX 295 that are more readily overclockable than others? E.g. are Asus GTX 295 better to overclock than lets say Gainward GTX 295?

3) Are there any modified air cooling products that can be bought for the GTX295 that will actually give a better overclocking envelope?

4) How far can the average batch of GTX 295 be overclocked on stock cooling, if at all?

Thanks in advance!

 

[DeMoB]

qq, what resolution are you gaming at that a stock clocked 295 isn't fast enough?

Dan

 

[Ghosthud1]

1) usually all factory overclocked graphics cards are more expensive

2) no they all have the same design, unless its a factory water-cooled card

3) its either standard air cooling from the factory or water cooling

4) depends totally on its environment and fan speeds, you can usually reach past 600+mhz core on these cards

 

[posix_memalign]

qq, what resolution are you gaming at that a stock clocked 295 isn't fast enough?

Dan

Crysis, at any resolution.

No, I'm not satisfied with ~45 FPS "average" at a high resolution, which means far less than that when there is a lot of action -- exactly when you need high FPS in the first place. Who cares what the FPS is when you're walking around in the jungle without enemies in sight, only to see the FPS drop when you meet them?

I know no card is good enough for Crysis at this time, but I can still try to make the best out of it.

 

[Ghosthud1]

i dont understand why people benchmark there system on an unoptimzed poor game like crysis, and also people like to base there systems specs off of crysis when you wont even play the sodding game!

 

[zak4994]

... and also people like to base there systems specs off of crysis when you wont even play the sodding game!

They do this because, if they know that their computer will run Crysis, chances are it will run most other games easily, if not then all other games.

 

[Toxcity]

i dont understand why people benchmark there system on an unoptimzed poor game like crysis, and also people like to base there systems specs off of crysis when you wont even play the sodding game!

I am with you mate. Crysis is not worth a 400quid graphic card (trust me I know). It is a terrible game and to tell you the truth I think it is ugly. Much prefer the graphics of GTA IV.

You can run everything at max on any game even if you cannot on Crysis. Such a badly written game. Needs a serious overhaul.

But meh?

I am sure in the future companies will bring out new heatsinks and fans for the GTX295 (that is if they haven't already).

Factory overclocked cards are a waste of good money since you can do it yourself.

 

[posix_memalign]

I find both of you guys' blatant disrespect for the developers of Crysis to be highly offensive -- it is as if you're saying they're idiots.

EDIT: Just to be clear, "Both of you guys", yes, that means Toxcity and Ghosthud1.

I find it highly likely neither of you have any idea how much work goes into developing a product like Crysis, not to mention the real works -- which the programmers do. Shame on you.

I'm quite certain neither of you even know how to program, if you did, then you would know how extremely difficult this is. Have you ever tried to write OpenGL, or write your own 3D engine? I have, and I am in awe of Crysis, and other games. Show some respect.

You guys seem to fail to realize the fact that Crysis was released in November 2007 while e.g. Far Cry 2 was released around a year later; if you didn't know, a year is a long time in the video game business.

Furthermore, you have probably not even compared in detail the various features, functionality and technology present in the CryEngine 2 vs. the Dunia engine; while CryEngine 2 might be less optmized (that depends on A LOT) than other engines it came out in 2007 and it is still unrivaled in the technological graphical aspects. If you don't like the graphics in the aesthetic sense, then that is a completely different matter.

You don't like black cars but prefer pink cars? Fine. But does that mean the black sports car has to be a bad car, even if it uses a lot more gas? Jesus, come on, think a little.

 

[lasher]

Seem to have gone off on a tangent, back on track....

I purchased a GTX280OCX and it still overclocks handsomely.

Having not had experience of the 295 then i couldn't make an educated guess as to what percentage OC you could achieve.

Your obviously aware they are rather toasty cards and the fan will probably run full tilt, mines underwater and hits 55 degrees under full load running folding@home.

If you like i can run some FPS tests later at stock ( pre overclocked ) then OC'd by myself to see if there's any FPS gain when it gets "busy". Not sure what resolution your gaming at, I'm on 1680x1050.

( Personally have no issues with Crysis ( other than the poor gameplay in the freeze sections, the jungle sections are fantastic ) and lets keep this about the GPU otherwise the thread will be cleaned or moved to software / gaming )

 

[°TheMadDutchDude°]

Posix, don't get defensive here. The game was poorly programmed and that is a fact!

Yes, the game is fantastic, both visually stunning and great game play. However, it has flaws and you have to be willing to accept that.

Personally, I don't have a clue how to program so I am not going to go into that. But for someone like EA games to produce a game that no computer in the world (other than an NVIDIA Tesla system) can run properly, what is the point?

/Rant.

Let's get back on topic here... What resolution are you planning to game at?

 

[posix_memalign]

Fine, I will refrain from discussing the matter further, even if I strongly disagree with the criticism of Crysis.

I had in mind running Crysis at 1280x1024 on a 24" display even though it supports 1920x1200 -- which is pointless given the brutal requirements of the program.

Full specifications are so far:

Asus P5Q Pro

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

Nexus FLC-3000 cooler

MSI GeForce GTX295

Corsair Dominator TWIN2X PC8500 4GB DDR2 kit/w fan

Northq Black Magic Flex 850W PSU

I will hopefully run the CPU closer to 4 GHz than 3 GHz when it is overclocked to the maximum stable limit.

I make the conjecture this will run Crysis at high settings on 1280x1024 on an average of around 45 FPS. I'm guessing minimum FPS will drop to below 30 though, even at 1280x1024, which is rather sad.

However, I'm also considering a quad core instead of dual core, and I'm wondering about 4890 CF and GTX285 in SLI instead of GTX295.

Isn't SLI better supported in general than CF, in the real world?

 

[monkey7]

At .... whát resolution?

I can run it fairly at 1900*1200 on my HD4850 (admitted, no AA and other settings to medium too) with quite playable framerates. Your gtx295 should kick the crap out of the game even at 1900*1200.

 

[Ghosthud1]

as going back too my original statement, crysis is shoddy even upgrading to a quad core will not get your anywhere in fact it will lower your frames, core 2 duo at 4ghz just destroys games

here are the kind of results you should be getting in crysis with one gtx 295

 

[posix_memalign]

Since I'm left crippled by the forum rules (I'm not allowed to post links, yet) I can't post links, but techPowerUp has a review on CF with 4890 where the GTX295 offers around 49 FPS on 1280x1024 on a Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz, which my Core 2 E8400 can't compete with -- thus I would expect to get less than 49 FPS, ~45 FPS or so, this is the basis of my conjecture and I think it is pretty accurate given that the techPowerUp-test is accurate.

 

[TopSecret]

I would wait and see how the game plays on your setup, instead of getting too hung up on FPS comparisons. You may find you have been worrying needlessly.

Regards Crysis, I think that people here are commenting on the playability of the game and not the quality of the coding. It is pretty boring after 10 minutes or so, I bought it on release and still haven't bothered to finish it. Stunning visuals do not guarantee that a game is worthy of being called a classic.

 

[posix_memalign]

At .... whát resolution?

I can run it fairly at 1900*1200 on my HD4850 (admitted, no AA and other settings to medium too) with quite playable framerates. Your gtx295 should kick the crap out of the game even at 1900*1200.

At medium Crysis turns into a completely different creature and is actually playable on a lot of hardware -- but I'm quite sure you are far below 60 FPS at minimum, again like I said it doesn't matter what your maximum FPS is, nor what your average FPS is, the only thing that matters is the minimum FPS, why? Because the minimum is what you see when there is the most action on the screen and in a game like Crysis that is the achilles heel of the gaming experience in the context of performance.

Often in games you can have a very high average of e.g. around 100 or more FPS, but that easily drops below 60 when there is numerous players, enemies and explosions on the screen at the same time.

There is a big difference between 'playable' and having no lag at all, I doubt there even exists a proper definition for it, but I think it is fair to say that > 60 FPS minimum gives no lag in general.

 

[Toxcity]

Woah! Right, I didn't mean to be offensive in any way, shape or form. I do program and yes I can understand the amount of work which has gone into a video game such as Crysis.

HOWEVER, I feel Crysis should not be classed as a 'game' per se, but as a demo of the power of hardware since the actual game aspect of it is (to say the least) terrible: a generic shooter with pretty jewellery is all it is. As I said, I believe the RAGE engine has so much more scope than the Cryengine2 even if neither are fully optimized.

I apologise for any offence.

Right, I'll leave you guys yo get back on topic.

 

[Hypherion]

Factory Overclocked cards are mostly more expensive, and that while the overclock is so small about EVERY other card could have done it. On the nVidia side, I like EVGA though, they have a very good waranty, not the cheapest cards though.

Although I think the EVGA cards are worth there extra price in warranty and bundled software. They have a nice overclocking utility there for you. And guess what, you can blow your card without losing warranty

 

[Rastalovich]

In the main, unless the company boasts a customed cooling method that the reference doesn't have, u would be better buying the stock base card and clock it urself.

With the 2 gpus, how does the oc'ing go ? U change the hertz the same way as a single gpu card and it applies to both ? (I assume) Or each gpu clocked seperately.

 

[Toxcity]

In the main, unless the company boasts a customed cooling method that the reference doesn't have, u would be better buying the stock base card and clock it urself.

With the 2 gpus, how does the oc'ing go ? U change the hertz the same way as a single gpu card and it applies to both ? (I assume) Or each gpu clocked seperately.

It clocks both cards at the same time. This is what seems to happen on both normal SLI setups and double single setup.