WSGF Benchmarks

Post by **skipclarke** » 08 Jul 2009, 05:44

This is a thread to discuss or comment on the latest benchmarks I've run.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WSGF_Benchmarking

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_%28GTX_295_Vista_Update%29

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_%28GTX_275%29

9-Mar-10 Update:
Radeon 5870 Driver Comparison - Catalyst 9.11 vs. 10.3 Preview
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_-_Radeon_HD_5870_1GB_Driver_Comparison

24-Nov-09 Update:
Radeon 5870
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_%28Radeon_HD_5870_1GB%29

08-Aug-09 Update:
Added Batman: Arkham Asylum
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Batman_Benchmarking

28-Jul-09 Update:
Added GTX 275 1792MB in SLI
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_%28GTX_275_SLI%29

Post by **scavvenjahh** » 08 Jul 2009, 08:35

At long last, some serious hi-res benchmarks of those RAM-rich cards for us "display power users" 8)
Can't wait for the SLI benches. That's where these 2 GB cards should shine. I'm considering swapping for 2 GB 285s myself ;) Cheers for the detailed FC2 perf analysis, again SLI will hopefully draw a clearer line between 896 & 1782 GB 275s...

mkm · Post by **mkm** » 08 Jul 2009, 09:51

PLEASE use the last nVdia WHQL 186.18 driver to benk this card... with new th2go driver...
it's working great to vista and win7 at 5040*1050 pixel...

Leapo · Post by **Leapo** » 08 Jul 2009, 10:57

Seems like the 1792mb GTX 275 needs more shader power to make use of all that extra RAM.

I'm interested to see how well a 2GB GTX285 performs, since it has a larger number of stream processors.

Post by **skipclarke** » 08 Jul 2009, 13:36

I will try updating both the Matrox and the NV driver to see what happens. However, the custom resolution issue is still listed in the driver notes:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/10696

And, there is no way I can go back and retest everything. I've already sent back the 896MB card, and I simply don't the time to redo everything else. If they work, I will see if they make that much of a difference.

Post by **skipclarke** » 08 Jul 2009, 17:35

The 186.16 drivers do not work for me, even with the newer GXM. Had to roll back to the 182.50 drivers.

P-Storm · Post by **P-Storm** » 08 Jul 2009, 19:47

Ibrin, Could i ask you that you support the 1680x1050 resolution again, because that way the beginning widescreen gamers have something to look at. :wink:

Post by **skipclarke** » 08 Jul 2009, 22:36

Look at the data I posted. In reality, with a Core i7 920, you're CPU limited below 1920x1200. You should have basically the same performance in 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.

mattsimis · Post by **mattsimis** » 09 Jul 2009, 08:46

The 186.16 drivers do not work for me, even with the newer GXM. Had to roll back to the 182.50 drivers.

Nor me and most people. The 186.24 however do, I posted a thread about it. You will likely have to run at 55/56Hz to get it past the custom res test.

Great review btw, very interested in these 1792MB cards. I second the 2GB 285 test, that's a monster of a single GPU card.

The way the performance flattens at 5040x1050 on both the 295 and 275 1792MB suggests to me either the drivers are not optimised for this res or there is an internal resolution "safe zone" limit, like back on the 6 series which occured around 1920x1200, IRC performance plummeted over 1600x1200 no matter how much video memory you through at it and it was only rectified with new hardware.

Incidentially, which App did you use for the graphs, they have a very cool "paper" look?

Post by **skipclarke** » 09 Jul 2009, 15:15

Thanks. The app was Apple Keynote (their answer to PowerPoint).

Post by **skipclarke** » 29 Jul 2009, 03:08

Added the GTX 275 1792MB in SLI

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_%28GTX_275_SLI%29

Post by **skipclarke** » 09 Aug 2009, 19:11

Added benchmarks for Batman: Arkham Asylum

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Batman_Benchmarking

Post by **GeneralAdmission** » 24 Nov 2009, 18:43

Just a note. The Main page says the 5870 came from Matrox. The article says from ATI. If it's the former, I'm really curious.

Post by **skipclarke** » 24 Nov 2009, 19:41

Just a note. The Main page says the 5870 came from Matrox. The article says from ATI. If it's the former, I'm really curious.

Got that fixed and added the new link at the top and adjusted some of the verbiage in the thread to be more generic.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_%28Radeon_HD_5870_1GB%29

Post by **Mach1.9pants** » 12 Dec 2009, 19:52

Really interesting, the Vista vs Win7 review. Good news for early, multi-mon adopters!

Dave Baumann · Post by **Dave Baumann** » 13 Dec 2009, 23:42

With regards to Win 7 vs Vista, there is a little more to it than just the clean install. AFAIK MS made some changes to how Win 7 handles graphics memory and the allocations (with input from the GPU manufacturers); you tend to see benefits of it with Crossfire X and its presents as no surprise that you see benefits under memory challenged scenarios such as Eyefinity modes.

Post by **skipclarke** » 14 Dec 2009, 02:10

Glad to see that there are real improvements in Win7, and doubly glad to see that there are some that will benefit us early adopters.

Post by **skipclarke** » 10 Mar 2010, 06:37

I've just posted a mini benchmark article. It compares the performance in Catalyst 9.11 and the 10.3 preview for the HD 5870.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/WS_and_WTH_Benchmarking_-_Radeon_HD_5870_1GB_Driver_Comparison

Post by **Downtown1** » 10 Mar 2010, 09:03

Thanks for the 9.11 vs 10.3 heads-up, I will definitely update the drivers seeing as how it seems to give a fairly substantial FPS boost.

Widescreen Gaming Forum

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

WSGF Benchmarks

Re: WSGF Benchmarks

Re: WSGF Benchmarks

Re: WSGF Benchmarks

Re: WSGF Benchmarks

Re: WSGF Benchmarks

Who is online