NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295: Leading the Pack
by Derek Wilson on January 12, 2009 5:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Age of Conan Performance
We've added a bunch of new tests this time around, but we decided to keep a few games around. Age of Conan is one of these, and it's one of the games we've consistently tested that favors AMD hardware. As we can see not much has changed this time around either. The none of the NVIDIA hardware can keep up with the AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 in this test. As for NVIDIA versus NVIDIA, the GeForce GTX 295 splits the difference between the GTX 260 SLI and GTX 280 SLI setups.
With this game, at 2560x1600 and our quality settings (not even the highest possible), a multi-GPU solution is required for higher than 30fps gameplay. The nature of the game makes it playable at slightly lower framerates, but the safe bet is on lowering settings or getting more than one GPU. We don't expect that the GTX 285 will be able to keep up with the Radeon HD 4870 1GB either.
We're also still waiting for the DirectX 10 version of the game to come out, and we will transition to that version when we are able.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games.
SiliconDoc - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
Oh, on the 7th SPAM reposting, you deleted some of your idiocy, the last few lines of overtly excessive bs, as compared to the former bs plain lines you decided to keep.So, psycho $3v3n spamfanboy, you feel corrected now ? rofl
I asked about your feelings because that's what you post about. lol
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
Hxx - Friday, January 16, 2009 - link
Siliconduc,I said that a 4870x2 can be had for 400 after mir learn to read next time. Both companies have driver and crash issues with their cards, Nvidia is not an exception. That is especially if you run vista 64 bit so its unfair to judge ATI based on that. Second, Nvidia is known for overpricing their cards and the gtx295 is no exception. Third, the gtx 295 DOES NOT wipe the floor with 4870 x2, its slightly faster, like 5-10% in the majority of the games, not all of them. There isn't any game out there that will be playable on a gtx 295 but not on a 48700 x2, NONE, regardless of your display resolution. So why pay 100 extra? Especially since the life span of these videocards its so short that you would need a better card every year if you wanna keep maxing out ur games. So that's why i consider this card pointless. Because your paying extra for physics ( which is used by a handful of games) and is not noticeably faster than a 4870 x2. As for the power consumption, if you have the money to throw on either one, than you don't care about the difference in wattage.
SiliconDoc - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
After you claim one card is cheaper than another, then you claim if you have money to throw on either one you don't care about the power savings from NVidia.Clearly you are deranged.
Hxx - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
You will understand in time that not everything that is been released its actually worth the money , especially with computer hardware with a high depreciation factor.SiliconDoc - Saturday, January 17, 2009 - link
Now you're off on another argument, since you made a fool of yourself on the former one.Tell us how Corvette's are always a waste of money, too. I'm sure we're all waiting for your condsiderate opinion on the matter. Do tell us as well how adults in this forum, even I, do not understand such a concept, I'm sure some other idiot will believe you.
You done stuffing your own shoe in your mouth ?
I certainly don't believe you are as ignorant as the last statement you typed, nor that anyone here is as ignorant as you claim possible.
Adults in a tech not understanding that some modern items purchased may be overpriced, even beyond their percieved consumer value ?
Surely you jest, bs artist.