OC3D Review: XFX GTX295 PCIe Graphics Card

[w3bbo]

The current undisputed king of performance is the mighty 4870x2. It has consistently held off the GTX280, most recently the GTX285 but now the scales are balanced, 2 cores vs 2 cores, mano a mano. In a no holds barred, head to head stand off we pitch the best against the best, card against card to see who holds the winning hand in an OC3D clash of the titans.

Review here

 

[Hassan]

:yumyum:

 

[zak4994]

Compare the price of the GTX295 against the 4870X2. You should have also overclocked the ATI card to make it more fair.

Still a solid good card. ATI's reply to be recieved soon?

 

[w3bbo]

Why would I overclock the ATI to make it fair? Both cards were run stock throughout apart from the overclocking section which showed the possibilities of overclocking the GTX295 (which was the card being reviewed!).

 

[zak4994]

Why would I overclock the ATI to make it fair? Both cards were run stock throughout apart from the overclocking section which showed the possibilities of overclocking the GTX295 (which was the card being reviewed!).

Yeah I meant the overclocking section just to see how the card fares/fairs (Sp?)

 

[Diablo]

I think that review was pretty balanced TBH...BTW I want that card. Just thought, you could stick two of these bad boys in (quad SLI) then have a GTX 285 for a third/PPU/fifth GPU.

Only problem is the price...anybody want a kidney?

 

[VonBlade]

Not much to choose between them. Having had a Nvidia for a few years, and now got a ATI, I'd probably pick the Nvidia just because the drivers seem easier to work with. Either that or I haven't got my head around the CCC.

Anyway, ace review and anyone with either of those cards is going to be thrilled. Shame that, once again, reference design coolers suck twenty kinds of expletive deleted. I can understand companies having rubbish ones on the bottom end to keep Zalman in business and give ASUS and Sapphire something to tweak, but at 400 notes I want the biggest, baddest, quietest cooler technology can build.

 

[premiumgfx]

Both the 4870 and GTX295 look great, although I like the 4870X2 better.(I'm a fanboy )

 

[Diablo]

At least now there's a bit of choice for the discerning enthusiast/fanboy...

 

[fruityness]

ATI then Nvidia, then ATi then Nvidia.. And the fight goes on.

Cant find the price of this specific card, not that I did a huge in depth search but:

Sapphire HD 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 £340

BFG GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £440

Zotac GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £420

EVGA GTX295 1792MB GDDR3 £433

All those prices from ebuyer. Are the 295's really worth THAT much more for so little performance boost - especially considering the only benefit of the 295 seems to be at high resolution with lots of AA?

For me if it were my bucks on the line, not that I am looking for new graphics right now, I'd say no way hosé.

 

[w3bbo]

It's a tough one to call tbh. Anyone who spends that amount of cash on a GPU, be it the 4870x2 or the GTX295 would be mad not to first purchase a large screen and then apply large amounts of AA. With that respect then the GTX295 is the better card. However if you only have a mid size screen say 19-22" and like your AA then the 4870x2 would be more than enough but then so would many other cards.

 

[Jaster]

were not taking price performance ratio...yes the cost is an issue...but you dont play down the baddest boxer in the world cos his mrs says hes crap in bed...yes for most of us mortals this will be an issue...but when it comes to manufacturers reigning top spot performance is the only issue...bragging rights are everything...still I see no reason to shift from my gx2 yet...and yes that is a price related statement...but its a beast of a card...lets see how long nvidia can hold it...because AMD/ATI are seeming to be closing the gap in many many areas

 

[zak4994]

were not taking price performance ratio...yes the cost is an issue...but you dont play down the baddest boxer in the world cos his mrs says hes crap in bed...yes for most of us mortals this will be an issue...but when it comes to manufacturers reigning top spot performance is the only issue...bragging rights are everything...still I see no reason to shift from my gx2 yet...and yes that is a price related statement...but its a beast of a card...lets see how long nvidia can hold it...because AMD/ATI are seeming to be closing the gap in many many areas

4970x2 anyone

 

[monkey7]

Yeah, I'm waiting on news on that too

 

[Rastalovich]

4970x2 anyone

Nope. Unless I was given one perhaps.

I don't have any extreme prejudice against the ATI camp for the sake of it, for me it's all to do with confidence in the product in so much as I install it and anything else I do to it maintenance wize will be looking to improve the performance over an existing stable platform.

nVidias drivers do go through their rotations, but if the ccc were as-good, I'd have no hesitation. And to be fair I hear they've vastly improved over the last few years - needless to say, improved and being as-good are two different things.

Plastic benchmarks and claims of the likes of 4870x2 don't impress me tbh.

Time spent messing on a pc costs money too, more importantly time u can't get back for a priceless amount. Spend £150+ more for the card ? For me, if it means this priceless time is not lost - then yes.

 

[Allargando]

Cost per frame was a nice metric imo...but then again if you're going to shell out £400 for a card I guess that doesn't matter so much

CPF would push me towards a 4870x2

 

[zak4994]

ATI then Nvidia, then ATi then Nvidia.. And the fight goes on.

Cant find the price of this specific card, not that I did a huge in depth search but:

Sapphire HD 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 £340

BFG GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £440

Zotac GTX295 1792MB DDR3 £420

EVGA GTX295 1792MB GDDR3 £433

All those prices from ebuyer. Are the 295's really worth THAT much more for so little performance boost - especially considering the only benefit of the 295 seems to be at high resolution with lots of AA?

For me if it were my bucks on the line, not that I am looking for new graphics right now, I'd say no way hosé.

Well if you are going to be running at those high resolutions, then we can expect you to have an expensive screenie and be willing to pay the £100-ish more for the higher AA capabilities.

 

[fruityness]

were not taking price performance ratio...yes the cost is an issue...but you dont play down the baddest boxer in the world cos his mrs says hes crap in bed...yes for most of us mortals this will be an issue...but when it comes to manufacturers reigning top spot performance is the only issue...bragging rights are everything...still I see no reason to shift from my gx2 yet...and yes that is a price related statement...but its a beast of a card...lets see how long nvidia can hold it...because AMD/ATI are seeming to be closing the gap in many many areas

The thing is though, it is NOT the baddest boxer in the world. The x2 pimp slaps it in 3dmark`05 and 06, Its even holding its own in a physx enabled game - UT3 - quote "All the games above, even the PhysX enabled UTIII favoured the 4870x2, that was until the resolution was increased and AA applied".

More standard resolutions and the 295 looses out not by a little but by a lot, its only at 2560x1600 and 4AA that 295 seems to have a lead, and then thats not the case in Grid. And I'd be willing to bet that if you used those resolutions and that level of AA then the game would jitter and lag anyway - you know how it is, fighting away, hear a sound from behind so you spin about quickly - the game lags temorarily etc etc..

As for bragging rights? I'd chuckle if a friend say they bought this, its no performance gain really, it looses out by a big margin at resolutions the majority use.

Waste the £100 extra, many will, if it were me I'd wait for a card which blows the other out the water THEN cough up the money. Not for a trickle of extra (and I bet real world unusable) performance.

 

[Rastalovich]

People do need to take their regular resolutions into account. And perhaps resolutions they're gonna get soon.

24" is quality aspiration for most imo. Whilst 20" is a solid standard.

I do think it's about time the 1024x768, and possibly even 1280x1024 were less concentrated on for runs or standards for benching tools.

Believe OC3D use a pretty good range of resolutions for their tests. The 2560 ranges are quite silly to be fair, but interesting.

*peers at w3bb0's monitor*

 

[Diablo]

Bear in mind, the people likely to buy the highest end kit will probably have other high end kit e.g. that 30" monitor. If you think the 4870x2 drivers have had more time to mature, its not surprising the 295x2 drivers are a little behind