• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***The OcUK Graphics Card Performance & Review Thread***

rjk

rjk

rjk

Caporegime
Joined
8 Aug 2007
Posts
25,380
NEW CARDS ADDED - RESULTS HERE

Yesterday i decided to put the techbench at OcUK through its paces and bench some graphics cards.
This is designed to give OcUK customers a simple to read breakdown of how a card performs in a standardised rig.

The test hardware used was a generic setup that a lot of customers tend to use.

i7 920 @ 4GHz
Asus P6T Deluxe [1303 BIOS]
Corsair Dominator 1600MHz DDR3 Triple Channel Kit
Noctua 1366 CPU Cooler [2X Scythe Ultra Kaze 2000RPM fans]
WD 150GB Velociraptor
Corsair 1000W PSU
24" Hyundai Monitor
and
the graphics card being tested



The cards that I have got through so far include all of the top of the range models going down to mid/high end

all of the cards mentioned are the standard, vanilla, stock speed & reference cooler cards - so pre overclocked cards might perform better than my results

the overclocked results were gained by myself overclocking the cards using ATI Overdrive for the ATI and Rivatuner for the Nvidia cards

hopefully this will give anyone buying a card a good indication of a cards performance and a basis of comparison

there are a few new cards on the horizon that i will benchmark using the same methods and add them to the list & charts

other cards will be added as i get more time

-------------------------------

Synthetic Benchmarks:

The first two tests give an indication of how cards perform. the second test - 3dmark vantage takes advantage of PhysX technology - which is only found on Nvidia cards
i decided to enable this option in the Nvidia drivers as it is a feature of the card that may appeal to customers
[please note that scores for nvidia cards without the use of physx will be included over time due to demand]

all these tests were carried out using the standard settings for both versions of 3dmark


3dm062.jpg


Vantage benches now include results with and without PhysX
vantage2.jpg


-------------------------------

real world game benchmarks give a fairer indication of performance
the fc2 benchmark is very unbiased and favours neither brand of graphics card
the crysis benchmark is slightly tipped in nvidias favour - however, the ATI cards do put up quite a fight

1680*1050 Benchmarks

The settings for the crysis benchmark tool were taken from the OcUK forums' Crysis benchmark thread
Benchmark GPU - DX10, 1680*1050, No AA, Overall Quality - Very High

crysis2.jpg


The settings for the FarCry2 benchmark tool were taken from the OcUK forums' FarCry2 benchmark thread
Playback (Demo Ranch) DX10, 1680*1050, No AA, Overall Quality - Ultra High, HDR + Bloom enabled, AI: on

fc22.jpg


1900*1200 Benchmarks
[coming soon]

hopefully this will give you a nice indication of how todays current graphics card market performs
 
Last edited:
Those benchies goes to show much the 295 is ridiculously overpriced.

On the other hand, my 4870 looks like an amateur boxer compared to some heavyweights.

I'm feeling the need to upgrade. :confused::(:p
 
it had to be standardised - not everyone has a 1900*1200+ monitor

i think they are both evenly matched across a range of applications
 
Last edited:
Include some overclocked GTX260-216 results if you want to be a fair comparision, unless you don't want users at OCUK you know the GTX260 is a greater overclocker.

And for god sake add some AA in Far Cry 2.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this.. However:

No AA?

Why would anyone with one of these cards play without AA? Obviously Crysis tends to get dogged down by AA but then again, that is just one of the many reasons to not use Crysis as a benchmarking tool.

4ghz i7 is a "generic setup that a lot of customers tend to use"?

I think a 4ghz i7 setup is perhaps a *little* more powerful than most people's systems. Even those who have overclocked i7 rigs will likely have them running a tad bit slower than 4ghz. Not to mention all the people on 3.2-3.6ghz Kentsfield and below.


I'm trying not to be overly-negative here but the reviewing methodology is rather questionable.
 
Nice idea and your results hold true since they were all done on the same rig but my question is why are there all so low?

I thought the i7 at 4ghz would have meant that your results would beat the pants of my rig however I get 17314 in 3dmark06 and 13861 in vantage and that's with my cpu at 3.4Ghz :confused:

Hell my far cry 2 result was 70.15 fps as well.

Just wondering why yours are so low, not knocking the results as they are all releative to each other.
 
Greebo said:
Nice idea and your results hold true since they were all done on the same rig but my question is why are there all so low?

I thought the i7 at 4ghz would have meant that your results would beat the pants of my rig however I get 17314 in 3dmark06 and 13861 in vantage and that's with my cpu at 3.4Ghz :confused:

Hell my far cry 2 result was 70.15 fps as well.

Just wondering why yours are so low, not knocking the results as they are all releative to each other.
Click to expand...

You've overclocked your GPU - a lot of these are done at stock.
 
Aekeron said:
You've overclocked your GPU - a lot of these are done at stock.
Click to expand...

Granted and I had noticed that but I would have thought it wouldn;t make the huge difference?

For example, I have an older generation cpu at 3.4 vs an i7 at 4Ghz and my overclocked gpu gives me a 18 fps boost in far cry 2 (over 30%???)

My cryis score is halfway between a stock GTX285 and a GTX295.

I'll run a benchie or two later at stock but you must admit it looks wrong????
 
Greebo said:
Granted and I had noticed that but I would have thought it wouldn;t make the huge difference?

For example, I have an older generation cpu at 3.4 vs an i7 at 4Ghz and my overclocked gpu gives me a 18 fps boost in far cry 2 (over 30%???)

My cryis score is halfway between a stock GTX285 and a GTX295.

I'll run a benchie or two later at stock but you must admit it looks wrong????
Click to expand...

That does seem a little high but perhaps you also have different settings in your graphics (e.g. set to 'performance' (etc) rather than 'high quality'). To be honest, Im not familiar with the clocks of the 260s and 280s - how good an overclock is the one on your card?
 
Aekeron said:
That does seem a little high but perhaps you also have different settings in your graphics (e.g. set to 'performance' (etc) rather than 'high quality'). To be honest, Im not familiar with the clocks of the 260s and 280s - how good an overclock is the one on your card?
Click to expand...

about a 20% overclock which is good but will not equate in a 20% or more gain in benchmarks.
 
Chong Warrior said:
Got to love it when someone makes an effort to contribute something to the forums and runs into comments like....

Why bother? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Better to not bother at all than to post something misleading or incorrect as these numbers appear to be. Benchmarks from a company trying to sell the hardware in question should always be looked upon with suspicion.

The post was made, and feedback was given. This is how forums work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom