Login Register. Sound familiar? There is, however, a very slight difference, which is that Nvidia is also introducing a 1GB edition of the card as standard, and increasing the stock memory clock from 1GHz 2GHz effective to 1. Both of these factors will allow GTS cards to fit into more cases, while also maintaining compatibility with older PSUs. Desai said that the company had had "requests from our customers and our partners to try to clean up the branding, especially as we move her into the New Year, to clean up confusion that this is causing for some of the end users.
We're yet to get hold of a sample - we'll talk about that a bit more later - but we'll get a review online as soon as we can get one. First and foremost, of course, is the fact that video card drivers have changed one or two entire sub-point-release revisions since our last article.
Never mind the fact that the data you will see on the following pages will look, on the whole, entirely comparable across driver revisions. That is a sham, a mirage, and our other results are entirely useless even as a point of reference. This fact is inescapable, and we must be made to suffer for it. Do not be swayed by the reasonable-sounding voice in your ear that points out both games were playable at this resolution on this class of hardware.
Do not be taken in by the argument that using a very high resolution serves to draw out the differences between MB and 1GB graphics cards, and answer not the siren song of the future-proofing appeal. You may wish to close this tab in your browser now. As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and the results were averaged.
Their quality, service, and support are easily superior to no-name DIMMs. Unless otherwise specified, image quality settings for the graphics cards were left at the control panel defaults. Vertical refresh sync vsync was disabled for all tests.
The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them. The theoretical numbers in the table give the GeForce GTS a clear advantage in texture filtering rates and memory bandwidth, while the Radeon HD has an equally sizeable lead in peak shader arithmetic capacity.
The 1GB nearly matches the GTS in the color fill test, which tends to be bound primarily by memory bandwidth, and the comes out on top in the texture fill rate test. Meanwhile, the GeForce GTS leads the in half of the shader processing tests, and our expectations are almost fully confounded. In this GPU generation, the theoretical peak capacities of the GPUs take a back seat to the realities of architectural efficiency.
Although the G92 has more texture filtering potential and memory bandwidth on paper, the HD is stronger in practice. Our two main contenders are very closely matched here. Neither new card, in a single-GPU config, is really fast enough to be playable at this res, but the additional video RAM clearly brings an improvement, and these results suggest good things for multi-GPU configs with 1GB. The frame-by-frame info for each card was taken from a single, hopefully representative play-testing session.
Both cards were fast enough to make play-testing, even at this high resolution and quality level, quite feasible.
With that said, the low frame rate numbers in the twenties are a bit iffy, as is the feel of the game on these cards at this crazy-insane display resolution. Dead Space also resisted our attempts at enabling those features via the video card control panel. As a result, we simply tested Dead Space at a high resolution with all of its internal quality options enabled. We tested at a spot in Chapter 4 of the game where Isaac takes on a particularly big and nasty, er, bad guy thingy.
This fight is set in a large, open room and should tax the GPUs more than most spots in the game. Call it a hunch. Chalk up a win for the GTS , I suppose, though. Regardless, Warhead looks great on a fast video card, with the best explosions in any game yet. Neither card appears to benefit substantially from having 1GB of memory compared to its MB sibling.
We measured total system power consumption at the wall socket using an Extech power analyzer model The monitor was plugged into a separate outlet, so its power draw was not part of our measurement. The cards were plugged into a motherboard on an open test bench. The idle measurements were taken at the Windows Vista desktop with the Aero theme enabled. We measured noise levels on our test system, sitting on an open test bench, using an Extech model digital sound level meter. We used the OSHA-standard weighting and speed for these measurements.
These results should give a reasonably good picture of comparative fan noise, though. The new GeForce would look even better, relatively speaking, were it not up against some very quiet but essentially broken Asus custom coolers on the Radeon HD MB.
Meanwhile, the strangely high noise levels for the Gigabyte Radeon HD 1GB card, which match at idle and under load, are not a fluke. Although Gigabyte chose a nice, powerful Zalman cooler for this card, they did not see fit to endow this cooler with intelligent fan speed control.
Or even kind-of-dumb fan speed control. When I asked Gigabyte why, the answer was: because this is an overclocked card. A real, puzzling shame.
I used GPU-Z to log temperatures during our load testing. In the case of multi-GPU setups, I recorded temperatures on the primary card. Meanwhile, the GTS is easily quieter, but still keeps its temperatures well in check. I will say a few words, but perhaps not the words that they might wish. Both efforts show some promise, but I expect that if they are to succeed, they must succeed together by running the same programs via a common programming interface.
I suspect PhysX might offer Nvidia something of an incremental visual or performance advantage in certain upcoming games, just as DirectX As for GeForce 3D Vision, the GeForce GTS is purportedly compatible with it, but based on my experience , I would strongly recommend getting a much more powerful graphics card or two for use with this stereoscopic display scheme.
The cold reality here is that, for most intents and purposes, current GeForces and Radeons are more or less functionally equivalent, with very similar image quality and capability, in spite of their sheer complexity and rich feature sets. All of which leads us to the inevitable price and performance comparison, and here, the GeForce GTS offers a reasonably compelling proposition.
At the eleventh hour before publication of this review, AMD informed us of its intention to drop prices on several Radeon HD series graphics cards that compete in this general price range, mostly through a series of mail-in rebates. For its part, Nvidia has indicated to us its resolve to be the price-performance leader in this portion of the market, so it may make an additional price move if necessary to defend its turf.
That is, after all, the only major difference between the Radeon HD and There are GPU bargains ahead. Seriously, about the drivers? So freaking what. So why bother doing a full review and taking that much time? I wanna print them on fancy parchment, frame them in mahogany, and hang it on my office wall next to my PhD. Good for most stuff, although it kinda struggles in newer games….. I think it is perfectly reasonable to use slightly old data for non-competing segments.
It seemed like a shovelware update to the original. Passmark GTS Intel HD Graphics P AMD FireStream Radeon HD GeForce GTX.
GeForce Ultra. FireStream User rating Here you can see the user rating of the graphics card, as well as rate it yourself. Questions and comments Here you can ask a question about GeForce GTS , agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Report an error Highlighted fragment with error:. Indicate exactly what the error is, if it is not obvious:. Submit Cancel.
0コメント