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

[rjk]

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

Vantage benches now include results with and without PhysX

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

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

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

1900*1200 Benchmarks
[coming soon]

hopefully this will give you a nice indication of how todays current graphics card market performs

 

[rjk]

it had to be standardised - not everyone has a 1900*1200+ monitor

i think they are both evenly matched across a range of applications

 

[rjk]

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.

i benched all the cards i had access to - obviously i could only use the test/sample cards we had available

cant be ripping stock out of the warehouse now!!!

Thanks for the review OcUK.
I think that a Vantage graph with Physx turned off would be interesting though.

i really did consider turning physx off but the tech team discussed it an all agreed that physx is a feature of the card and should therefore be used

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.

ok - perhaps i was being a little brash

the reason i sued 1680*1050 was because the ocuk forum benchmarks use that res
it is a common res that everyone can relate to

the whole point of the results is to give newcomers aplace to check/ask questions on what the best card for them is

the results, whilst not being performed to everyones requirements - give a clear indication of the performance of each card
i had limited time to bench each card - that meant each card got one run at each bench

i would have personally liked to include another benchmark
perhaps world in conflict or perhaps a time demo of cod4/waw [although i am not aware of any standardised benchmark tools for those games]

i could have run the test rig at stock speed

but that would just be...

boring

i have tried my best to be unbiased and that meant giving each card the best possible platform to run on

i would have liked to do crossfire/sli results - but it meant i would need duplicates of each card and we had one sample of each

 

[rjk]

Nice little round up m8, appreciate the efforts.

Gotta say though I agree with some of the comments here, the benchies are a little misleading. I can't see the point of benching a 4870x2 and GTX295 at any res below 1900x1200, especially with no AA. The cards are simply not aimed at the low end of the market. Sorry if that offends anyone who has less than a 24" screen but tbh, wtf were you thinking buying a ultra high end card for a medium size screen for?

Those cards at least were made for High resolutions and AA. Run them on a 30" with at least 4xAA/AF and then you will see why the x2 and 295 cost so much. They need room to stretch their 'legs' as it were.

understood
however they do outperform all the other cards so you get the idea
i will do a 1900*1200 bench on the 295 and X2 on my next saturday when i have access to the large screen

 

[rjk]

you are missing the point

its a feature of the card

its like me saying that im goint to run the 4870x2 with the fan turned off

its there so why not use it

i would say physx adds around 15% anyway

way i see it is that it is info for buyers - why not account for all the features

 

[rjk]

exactly - but that is because your case is so amazing! eh Locky?

[for the record, Locky's tri sli never has to work that hard because he turns all the detail down so he can see enemies better

- a tip he got from his #1 hero Johnathan “Fatal1ty” Wendel]

 

[rjk]

layte -

you obviously know a lot about hardware, and your points and opinions are more than valid

however
this thread was not intended to become a slanging match - i wanted it to be something all users could use for reference
and when i get time, i will do a vantage run for each card with physx off - just to make it even

the way i see it - W3bbo reviews hardware for a website, his reviews are in-depth and concise
he has said already that he recognises that this thread shows newcomers what graphics cards can do whilst pointing out my reviewing downfalls which i have said that i will rectify
his comments were appreciated as i will be able to act on them

your comments have come across as needlessly hostile to at least two users - for no other reason than to prove your own opinion to be valid


there are threads every day looking for graphics card advice - i could understand it to be misleading if it was just vantage scores

but there ARE two game benchmarks from recent, popular games that give an indication of performance at a standardised resolution
i could have used a 30" dell screen to bench on - but not everyone has one of those
at least 1680*1050 is common.

my thinking was that people can relate to that easier.

yes it might not be as complex as some review sites - but i did this whilst i was at work, it meant that i couldn't devote that much time to it

some of your comments on here - especially about NDA leaks, could get you in trouble - some of the regular posters have brought this to your attention but you have chosen to ignore it

as stated in the OP - i will be testing new cards on the same rig to give everyone a comparison
and a revised vantage table will be up as soon as i get a chance


the mods on this forum tend to frown upon users who call others a troll

Rroff's comment was fine - but you have chosen to dig at him

you could have questioned his thoughts in a less aggressive way

if you dont agree to the way things have been done in this thread - then there are plenty of other threads for you to check out

 

[rjk]

thanks a lot w3bbo

i have taken on board everybodies comments and have the following planned to improve the result set in the OP

my first course of action would be to do the vantage run again with the nvidia cards not utilising physx

then i plan on getting some high res + AA results

hopefully that should broaden the spectrum

like i said - the testing was done whilst i was doing my job, so i had limited time - so if i did make any glaring mistakes, then feel free to pull me up on them

@ Greebo

all i can guess is that the gpus at vanilla/stock speeds wouldnt be as fast as their clocked counterparts

i will definatly look into it to make sure i havent missed anything

 

[rjk]

good idea guys- im not sure about how i would do that unless i made a price/performance chart then made an average out of all the benchmarks

maths isnt my strong point so i am MORE than open to suggestions

 

[rjk]

i will do my best - the cards i have tested were all sample cards

i cant get cards out of stock - so i have to make do with what i am given

will try and get some other cards for when i finish it off

 

[rjk]

New Cards

I have been using some new graphics cards
the 4890 1GB and the GTX 275

the cards used were:

reference speed 4890 1GB
XFX 4890 xXx edition
Palit GTX 275

both designed to take the 1680*1050 price/performance crown

the two cards are very closely matched and have been quite impressive

for both cards i have used the supplied driver disk as there were no others available when the cards were tested
there are drivers available now that boost performance for both cards

here are a list of benchmarks i have done with both cards



Synthetic Benchmarks

Game Benchmarks: Medium Resolution

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, AIn

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

Game Benchmarks: High Resolution

The settings for the FarCry2 benchmark tool
Playback (Demo Ranch) DX10, 1900*1200, 4X AA, Overall Quality - Ultra High, HDR + Bloom enabled, AIn

The settings for the crysis benchmark tool were taken from the OcUK forums' Crysis benchmark thread
Benchmark GPU - DX10, 1900*1200, 4X AA, Overall Quality - Very High

 

[rjk]

i know - cant be helped


- in other news

i have added results for some older cards as well as some more recent ones

there are some interesting results

check them out in the original post

cheers

rjk