We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
GeForce GTX 295 is based on two GPUs running at the same clock specs as GeForce GTX 260, but having more processing cores (240 against 216 or 192, depending on the version). Zotac’s model (ZT-295E3MA-FSP) runs with the default clocks set by NVIDIA. Let’s see what kind performance you can expect from this beast.
Before talking the technical details from GeForce GTX 295, let’s take a look at Zotac’s product. As you can see on Figures 1 and 2, it is based on NVIDIA’s reference design, which uses a black rubber cover. What is new on this design compared to the previous one used by GeForce GTX 280 and GTX 260 is the fan, which is now opened on both sides.
Figure 1: Zotac GeForce GTX 295, front view.
Figure 2: Zotac GeForce GTX 295, back view.
Figure 3: Fan.
In Figure 4, you can see the top from the reviewed card. It requires two auxiliary power cables, one with a 6-pin connector and one with an 8-pin connector.
Figure 4: Top view.
This video card comes with two DVI outputs and one HDMI output. You can have digital audio routed to this HDMI output if you connect the available SPDIF In connector to your motherboard SPDIF out connector, as described in our How to Use The SPDIF Connector Available on GeForce Video Cards tutorial.
Figure 5: Connectors.
The reviewed card from Zotac comes one HDMI cable, one power adapter to convert the 6-pin auxiliary power plug into two standard peripheral power plugs, one power adapter to convert the 8-pin auxiliary power plug into two standard peripheral power plugs, the SPDIF cable, two DVI-to-VGA adapters and three discs, one with drivers, one with 3DMark Vantage and one with the game Racedriver: Grid.
Figure 6: Accessories.
Now let’s discuss the technical details regarding Zotac GeForce GTX 295.
[nextpage title=”More Details”]
To make the comparison between GeForce GTX 295 and the other video cards we included in this review easier, we compiled the table below comparing the main specs from these cards. If you want to compare the specs of the reviewed video card to any other video card not included in the table below, just take a look at our NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table and on our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table.
| GPU | Core Clock | Shader Clock | Processors | Memory Clock | Memory Interface | Memory Transfer Rate | Memory | Price |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 576 MHz | 1,242 MHz | 240 | 1,000 MHz | 448-bit | 112 GB/s | 896 MB GDDR3 | USD 500 – USD 510 |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 648 MHz | 1,476 MHz | 240 | 1,242 MHz | 512-bit | 159 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 350 – 395 |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 602 MHz | 1,296 MHz | 240 | 1,107 MHz | 512-bit | 141.7 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 315 – 325 |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 cores) | 576 MHz | 1,242 MHz | 192 | 1,000 MHz | 448-bit | 112 GB/s | 896 MB GDDR3 | N/A |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 cores) | 576 MHz | 1,242 MHz | 216 | 1,000 MHz | 448-bit | 112 GB/s | 896 MB GDDR3 | USD 225 – 270 |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 600 MHz | 1,500 MHz | 128 | 1,000 MHz | 256-bit | 64 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | N/A |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 738 MHz | 1,836 MHz | 128 | 1,100 MHz | 256-bit | 70.4 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 150 – 200 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 675 MHz | 1,688 MHz | 128 | 1,100 MHz | 256-bit | 70.4 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 130 – 225 |
| GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB | 600 MHz | 1.5 GHz | 112 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 57.6 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 145 – 155 |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 750 MHz | 750 MHz | 800 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | USD 425 – 545 |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 750 MHz | 750 MHz | 800 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR5 | USD 185 – 245 |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 625 MHz | 625 MHz | 800 | 993 MHz | 256-bit | 63.5 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 235 |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 625 MHz | 625 MHz | 800 | 993 MHz | 256-bit | 63.5 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 145 – 190 |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 575 MHz | 575 MHz | 640 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 57.6 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 95 – 130 |
| Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 | 857 MHz | 857 MHz | 320 | 927 MHz | 256-bit | 59.3 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | N/A |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 776 MHz | 776 MHz | 320 | 1,125 MHz | 256-bit | 72 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR4 | USD 92 – 132 |
It is important to note that this table reflects the current prices for the listed video cards at Newegg.com, which are lower than the prices we published in other reviews, since prices tend to drop every day.
Some important observations regarding this table:
- All NVIDIA chips are DirectX 10 (Shader 4.0), while all AMD/ATI chips are DirectX 10.1 (Shader 4.1).
- The memory clocks listed are the real memory clock. Memory clocks are often advertised as double the figures presented, numbers known as “DDR clock.” Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 use GDDR5 chips, which transfer four data per clock cycle and thus the “DDR clock” for these video cards is fo
ur times the value presented on this table (i.e., 3.6 GHz). - GeForce GTX 295, GeForce 9800 GX2, Radeon HD 3870 X2, Radeon HD 4850 X2 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 have two GPU’s. The numbers on the table represent only one of the chips.
- All video cards included on our review were running at the chip manufacturer default clock configuration (i.e., no overclocking), except Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2. The official core clock for Radeon HD 3870 X2 is 825 MHz, while the official memory clock is 900 MHz. So this card was a little bit overclocked. We couldn’t reduce these clocks to their reference values and since we hadn’t any other Radeon HD 3870 X2 available we included this video card anyway.
- Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review. Prices marked as “N/A” (Not Available) means that this particular video card wasn’t found on this store for sale.
- We couldn’t find Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 for sale. This model will be more expensive than cards from other vendors based on the same GPU because it features water cooling. Just for you to have an idea, prices on the regular Radeon HD 3870 X2 are quoted between USD 285 and USD 450.
Before going to our tests let’s recap the main features from Zotac GeForce GTX 295.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
Zotac GeForce GTX 295 main features are:
- Graphics chip: GeForce GTX 295 (two GPUs running at 576 MHz each).
- Memory: Two groups of 896 MB GDDR3 memory (448-bit interface) running at 1 GHz (“2 GHz”), one for each GPU.
- Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
- Connectors: Two DVI and HDMI output.
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Cables and adapters that come with this board: HDMI cable.
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: Three.
- Games that come with this board: Racedriver: Grid.
- Programs that come with this board: 3DMark Vantage.
- Minimum Required Power Supply: 680 W.
- More information: https://www.zotac.com
Average price in the US: We couldn’t find this product from Zotac being sold on the day we published this review. GeForce GTX 295 from other manufacturers can be found on the USD 500 range.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz, 1,600 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 memory cache).
- Motherboard: EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI (P05 BIOS)
- Memories: Crucial Ballistix PC3-16000 2 GB kit (BL2KIT12864BE2009), running at 2,000 MHz with 9-9-9-28 timings.
- Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache).
- Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560×1600).
- Power supply: OCZ EliteXStream 1,000 W.
- CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
- Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
- Desktop video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
- Service Pack 1
Driver Versions
- nForce driver version: 15.17
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.5
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.6 + hotfix (8.501.1.0, 6/21/2008) (Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.520.0.0 (Radeon HD 4870 X2)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.10 (Radeon HD 4830)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.542.0.0 (Radeon HD 4850 X2)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.11 (FarCry 2, Fallout 3)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 175.16
- NVIDIA video driver version: 177.34 (GeForce GTX 260, GTX 280)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 177.79 (GeForce 9800 GT, 9800 GTX+)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 178.24 (FarCry 2, Fallout 3)
-
NVIDIA video driver version: 181.22 (GeForce GTX 285, GTX 295)
Used Software
- 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 + October 2007 Hotfix
- 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
- Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.6
- Crysis – Patch 1.2.1 + HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.3.0.0
- Half-Life 2: Episode Two – Patch June 9th 2008 + HardwareOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
- Unreal Tournament 3 – Patch 1.2 + HardwareOC UT3 Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
- FarCry 2
- Fallout 3 – Patch 1.0.0.1.5
Resolutions and Image Quality Settings
Since we were comparing very high-end video cards, we ran all our tests under three 16:10 widescreen high resolutions: 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. We always tried to run the programs and games in two scenarios for each resolution, one with low image quality settings and then maxing out the image quality settings. The exact configuration we used will be described together with the results of each individual test.
Error Margin
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark06 Professional”]
3DMark06 measures Shader 3.0 (i.e., DirectX 9.0c) performance. We run this software under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, first with no image quality enhancements enabled – results we call “low” on the charts and tables below –, then setting 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. See the results below.
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17557 | 13.37% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 16729 | 8.02% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 4.99% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15623 | 0.88% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 15487 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 15472 | 0.10% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 15374 | 0.74% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 14904 | 3.91% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 14589 | 6.16% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 14215 | 8.95% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 13701 | 13.04% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 13355 | 15.96% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 12759 | 21.38% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 11842 | 30.78% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 11471 | 35.01% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 10898 | 42.11% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 10694 | 44.82% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17414 | 10.12% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 16294 | 3.04% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 15891 | 0.49% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 15813 | |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15547 | 1.71% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 2.09% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 15365 | 2.92% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 14215 | 11.24% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 13267 | 19.19% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 13017 | 21.48% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 12668 | 24.83% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 12206 | 29.55% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 11631 | 35.96% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 10691 | 47.91% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 10253 | 54.23% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 9787 | 61.57% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 9454 | 67.26% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15920 | 2.20% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 15577 | |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 14140 | 10.16% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 13490 | 15.47% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13015 | 19.68% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 12573 | 23.89% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 26.49% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 11766 | 32.39% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 10568 | 47.40% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 10159 | 53.33% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 9894 | 57.44% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9365 | 66.33% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 8743 | 78.17% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 8077 | 92.86% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 7679 | 102.85% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 7308 | 113.15% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 6823 | 128.30% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 5.64% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 16134 | 4.82% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 15392 | |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 14997 | 2.63% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 13942 | 10.40% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13900 | 10.73% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 13390 | 14.95% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 12157 | 26.61% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 11088 | 38.82% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 11063 | 39.13% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 10617 | 44.98% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9391 | 63.90% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 8981 | 71.38% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 8881 | 73.31% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 7943 | 93.78% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 7899 | 94.86% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 6915 | 122.59% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 15580 | |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 0.59% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15313 | 1.74% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 13809 | 12.82% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 13231 | 17.75% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 12213 | 27.57% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 12018 | 29.64% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 10991 | 41.75% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 10014 | 55.58% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 9904 | 57.31% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 9450 | 64.87% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 8144 | 91.31% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 7972 | 95.43% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 7811 | 99.46% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 7109 | 119.16% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 6826 | 128.24% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 6114 | 154.82% |
| 3D Mark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – High |
Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 13339 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 12479 | 6.89% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 8.32% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 10854 | 22.89% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 10499 | 27.05% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 9829 | 35.71% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 9575 | 39.31% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 8704 | 53.25% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 7707 | 73.08% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 7550 | 76.68% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 7285 | 83.10% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 6065 | 119.93% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 5896 | 126.24% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 5774 | 131.02% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 5213 | 155.88% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 5045 | 164.40% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 4319 | 208.84% |
[nextpage title=”3DMark Vantage Professional”]
3DMark Vantage is the latest addition to the 3DMark series, measuring Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supporting PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Notice that we didn’t upgrade the PhysX to the latest version, which would make the physics calculations for CPU Test 2 to be made by the GPU instead of the CPU on NVIDIA video cards (since we aren’t considering CPU or 3DMark scores this change wouldn’t produce any increase in our results anyway).
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” value. The combination of 2560×1600 resolution with extreme settings didn’t produce reliable results according to the program, so we aren’t going to add them here. The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Performance | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 13992 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 11697 | 19.62% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 10420 | 34.28% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 9391 | 48.99% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 8050 | 73.81% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 7695 | 81.83% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 6990 | 100.17% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 6467 | 116.36% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 6193 | 125.93% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 5898 | 137.23% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 5651 | 147.60% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 4797 | 191.68% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 4499 | 211.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 4220 | 231.56% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 3805 | 267.73% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 3691 | 279.08% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 2977 | 370.00% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Performance | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 11317 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 9472 | 19.48% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 8292 | 36.48% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 7384 | 53.26% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 6355 | 78.08% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 6106 | 85.34% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 5379 | 110.39% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 5084 | 122.60% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 4880 | 131.91% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 4582 | 146.99% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 4336 | 161.00% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 3725 | 203.81% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3370 | 235.82% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 3301 | 242.84% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 2951 | 283.50% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 2891 | 291.46% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 2269 | 398.77% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 2560×1600 – Performance | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 6474 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 5542 | 16.82% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 4756 | 36.12% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 4259 | 52.01% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 4197 | 54.25% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 3549 | 82.42% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 2927 | 121.18% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 2910 | 122.47% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 2728 | 137.32% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 2640 | 145.23% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2382 | 171.79% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 2050 | 215.80% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 1837 | 252.42% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 1815 | 256.69% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 1638 | 295.24% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 1557 | 315.80% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 1244 | 420.42% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 11091 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 8405 | 31.96% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 8093 | 37.04% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 7253 | 52.92% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 6859 | 61.70% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 6005 | 84.70% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 5055 | 119.41% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 4858 | 128.30% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 4531 | 144.78% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 4360 | 154.38% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 3567 | 210.93% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 3445 | 221.94% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3201 | 246.49% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 2982 | 271.93% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 2741 | 304.63% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 2703 | 310.32% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 1855 | 497.90% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 8727 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 6916 | 26.19% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 6420 | 35.93% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 5745 | 51.91% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 5554 | 57.13% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 4732 | 84.43% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 3954 | 120.71% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 3576 | 144.04% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 3508 | 148.77% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 3490 | 150.06% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 2753 | 217.00% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2669 | 226.98% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 2399 | 263.78% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 2349 | 271.52% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 2136 | 308.57% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 2038 | 328.21% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 1439 | 506.46% |
[nextpage title=”Call of Duty 4″]
Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will hapen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was put on the maximum values on the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the game internal benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo for downloading here if you want to run your own benchmarks. The game was updated to version 1.6. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Call of Duty 4 – 1680×1050 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 149.9 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 136.3 | 9.98% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 134.6 | 11.37% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 125.8 | 19.16% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 120.0 | 24.92% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106.2 | 41.15% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 105.3 | 42.36% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 93.4 | 60.49% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 91.8 | 63.29% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 91.0 | 64.73% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 75.7 | 98.02% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 72.4 | 107.04% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 72.2 | 107.62% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 69.1 | 116.93% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 65.8 | 127.81% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 61.3 | 144.54% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 43.0 | 248.60% |
| Call of Duty 4 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 147.9 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 121.3 | 21.93% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120.6 | 22.64% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 111.5 | 32.65% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 105.7 | 39.92% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 94.5 | 56.51% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 91.7 | 61.29% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 80.7 | 83.27% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 77.1 | 91.83% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 76.4 | 93.59% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 61.3 | 141.27% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 59.5 | 148.57% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 59.1 | 150.25% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 57.7 | 156.33% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 52.6 | 181.18% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 50.8 | 191.14% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 35.4 | 317.80% |
| Call of Duty 4 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 117.2 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 86.7 | 35.18% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 83.8 | 39.86% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 78.9 | 48.54% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 70.5 | 66.24% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 64.8 | 80.86% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 64.8 | 80.86% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 55.3 | 111.93% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 53.5 | 119.07% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 48.1 | 143.66% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 40.6 | 188.67% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.7 | 195.21% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 38.3 | 206.01% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 36.7 | 219.35% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 33.4 | 250.90% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 33.3 | 251.95% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 22.4 | 423.21% |
[nextpage title=”Crysis”]
Crysis is a very heavy DirectX 10 game. We updated this game to version 1.2.1 and used the HOC Crysis Benchmarking Utility to help us collecting data. Since we don’t think the default demo based on the island map stresses the video card the way we want, we used the HOC core demo available with the abovementioned utility. We ran this demo under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, first with image quality set to “low” and then with image quality set to “high.” Since all video cards achieved a number of frames per second below 10 at 2560×1600 with image details set to “high,” we are not including this test as the results aren’t reliable. We ran each test twice and discarded the first result, as usually the first run achieves a lower score compared to the subsequent runs since the game loses time loading files. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 134 | 20.72% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 125 | 12.61% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 125 | 12.61% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 124 | 11.71% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120 | 8.11% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 115 | 3.60% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 111 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 107 | 3.74% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 101 | 9.90% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 99 | 12.12% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 91 | 21.98% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 84 | 32.14% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 84 | 32.14% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 75 | 48.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 75 | 48.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 74 | 50.00% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 71 | 56.34% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 122 | 28.42% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 119 | 25.26% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 115 | 21.05% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 115 | 21.05% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 113 | 18.95% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 108 | 13.68% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 95 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 91 | 4.40% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 84 | 13.10% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 83 | 14.46% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 76 | 25.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 69 | 37.68% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 67 | 41.79% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 63 | 50.79% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 61 | 55.74% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 61 | 55.74% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 58 | 63.79% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 103 | 60.94% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 95 | 48.44% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 86 | 34.38% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 85 | 32.81% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 77 | 20.31% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 71 | 10.94% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 64 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 60 | 6.67% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 53 | 20.75% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 52 | 23.08% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 49 | 30.61% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 44 | 45.45% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 43 | 48.84% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 42 | 52.38% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 39 | 64.10% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 38 | 68.42% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 35 | 82.86% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 57 | 39.02% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 55 | 34.15% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 50 | 21.95% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 47 | 14.63% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 42 | 2.44% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 41 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 37 | 10.81% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 37 | 10.81% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 32 | 28.13% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 29 | 41.38% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 29 | 41.38% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 29 | 41.38% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 26 | 57.69% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 25 | 64.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 25 | 64.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 25 | 64.00% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 19 | 115.79% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 47 | 38.24% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 45 | 32.35% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 41 | 20.59% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 39 | 14.71% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 34 | 0.00% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 34 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 30 | 13.33% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 30 | 13.33% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 26 | 30.77% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 23 | 47.83% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 23 | 47.83% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 22 | 54.55% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 21 | 61.90% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 20 | 70.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 20 | 70.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 20 | 70.00% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 16 | 112.50% |
[nextpage title=”Half-Life 2: Episode Two”]
Half-Life 2 is a popular franchise and we benchmark the video cards using Episode Two with the aid of HOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two benchmarking utility using the “HOC Demo 1” provided by this program. We ran the game in three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, with quality set to maximum, x16 anisotropic filtering and 16xQCS anti-aliasing. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 158.0 | 6.76% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 6.08% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 157.0 | 6.08% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 152.0 | 2.70% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 148.0 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 144.0 | 2.78% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 137.9 | 7.32% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 126.1 | 17.37% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 125.4 | 18.02% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 125.0 | 18.40% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 121.0 | 22.31% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 116.2 | 27.37% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 101.0 | 46.53% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94.0 | 57.45% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 89.3 | 65.73% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 80.0 | 85.00% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 68.3 | 116.69% |
| Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 6.80% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 152.0 | 3.40% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 147.0 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 144.0 | 2.08% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 135.0 | 8.89% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 124.0 | 18.55% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 116.3 | 26.40% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 111.1 | 32.31% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 106.5 | 38.03% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 105.0 | 40.00% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 101.0 | 45.54% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 97.2 | 51.23% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 85.0 | 72.94% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 74.0 | 98.65% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 70.3 | 109.10% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 63.0 | 133.33% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 56.8 | 158.80% |
| Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 130.0 | 5.69% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 123.0 | |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 108.0 | 13.89% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 95.0 | 29.47% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 86.0 | 43.02% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 75.0 | 64.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 71.3 | 72.51% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 64.0 | 92.19% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 61.0 | 101.64% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 58.4 | 110.62% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 51.0 | 141.18% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 50.6 | 143.08% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.0 | 215.38% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 37.5 | 228.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 36.0 | 241.67% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 35.5 | 246.48% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 34.9 | 252.44% |
[nextpage title=”Far Cry 2″]
Far Cry 2 is based on an entirely new game engine called Dunia, which is DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10-compatible video card. We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to “high,” no anti-aliasing and running the demo “Ranch Small” three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.
Unfortunately we had already returned to the manufacturer several of the video cards included in the previous comparisons and that is why you are seeing less video cards being included on this bechmarking.
| FarCry 2 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 85 .2 |
|
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 84.4 | 1.00% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 80.7 | 5.61% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 71.7 | 18.78% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 68.4 | 24.65% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 66.9 | 27.46% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 63.1 | 34.95% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 54.3 | 56.87% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 53.6 | 59.06% |
| FarCry 2 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 85.5 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 80.3 | 6.44% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 76.3 | 12.06% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 68.8 | 24.27% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 62.8 | 36.16% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 61.9 | 38.12% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 61.0 | 40.25% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 53.6 | 59.50% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 51.1 | 67.44% |
| FarCry 2 – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 75.9 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 63.0 | 20.60% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 57.2 | 32.68% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 52.0 | 45.89% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 45.9 | 65.40% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 43.3 | 75.21% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 40.4 | 87.97% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 38.1 | 99.16% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 34.4 | 120.57% |
[nextpage title=”Fallout 3″]
Fallout 3 is based on the same engine used by The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and it is a DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) game. We configured the game with “ultra” image quality settings, 4x anti-aliasing and 15x anisotropic filtering. To measure performance, we used the FRAPS running an outdoor scene at God mode, running through enemy fire, triggering post processing effects, and ending with a big explosion in front of Dupont Circle.
Unfortunately we had already returned to the manufacturer several of the video cards included in the previous comparisons and that is why you are seeing less video cards being included on this bechmarking.
| Fallout 3 – 1680×1050 – Ultra | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 76.4 | 2.17% |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 76.3 | 2.10% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 76.2 | 1.93% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 74.8 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 74.1 | 0.89% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 73.6 | 1.58% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 73.5 | 1.69% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 69.5 | 7.51% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 61.1 | 22.32% |
| Fallout 3 – 1920×1200 – Ultra | Score | Difference |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 77.0 | 2.30% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 76.1 | 1.10% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 75.6 | 0.46% |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 75.3 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 73.3 | 2.69% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 72.4 | 3.98% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 71.7 | 4.95% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 64.6 | 16.61% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 53.0 | 42.02% |
| Fallout 3 – 2560×1600 – Ultra | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 295 | 75.8 | |
| EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW | 73.2 | 3.53% |
| GeForce GTX 285 | 71.4 | 6.05% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 68.1 | 11.23% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 61.6 | 23.03% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 61.1 | 23.98% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 60.9 | 24.49% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 47.4 | 59.88% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 35.6 | 112.72% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
On the previous pages you can see detailed comparisons between GeForce GTX 295 and other video cards.
The main problem with GeForce GTX 295 at this moment is its price, around USD 500 in the US. The most expensive video card based on an AMD/ATI chip, Radeon HD 4870 X2, can be found between USD 425 and USD 545.
In our tests GeForce GTX 295 outperformed Radeon HD 4870 X2 in some scenarios. On 3DMark Vantage it was between 17% and 19% faster with no image quality enhancements enabled, but when we cranked them up performance difference increased to between 26% and 32%. On Call of Duty 4, GTX 295 was between 11% and 40% faster than HD 4870 X2.
On Crysis, however, GeForce GTX 295 achieved a performance lower than GeForce GTX 285, most probably because Crysis couldn’t recognize the two GPUs, even though we manually enabled SLI mode.
On Half-Life 2: Episode Two Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 6% and 7% faster. And on 3DMark06, which simulates older DirectX 9.0c games, Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 10% and 13% faster at 1680×1050 and 1920×1200 with no image quality enhancements enabled, with both cards achieving the same performance on other configurations.
Unfortunately we have already shipped back the Radeon HD 4870 X2 to the manufacturer, so w
e couldn’t run Far Cry 2 or Fallout 3 with this card.
Compared to GeForce GTX 285, GTX 295 is a lot faster: around 50% faster on 3DMark Vantage, between 20% and 50% on Call of Duty 4 and up to 33% faster on FarCry 2. On Crysis GTX 285 was between 12% and 22% faster (probably because the game didn’t recognize the two GPUs from GTX 295, as mentioned before), and on Half-Life 2: Episode Two at 1680×1050 both achieved the same performance, but at 2560×1600 GTX 295 was 43% faster. On Fallout 3 they both achieved the same performance level, but at 2560×1600 GTX 295 was 6% faster.
GeForce GTX 295 is surely the fastest video card based on an NVIDIA solution (if your game can improve its performance under SLI mode), but at USD 500 we simply can’t recommend it for the average user: only rich high-end users can afford it. GeForce GTX 285, even though presenting a lower performance, comes with a far more accessible price, and we can buy one today for USD 350 and thus presenting a better cost/benefit ratio for users that want an NVIDIA-based high-end video card.