XFX GTX 280 XXX Edition New king on the killing fields! Model: GX-280N-ZDD9

Author: Jani 'Japala' Pönkkö Published: 01.07.2008 Manufacturer: XFXForce Product Group: Graphics cards In English Suomeksi

Benchmarks

Components and pieces of software used:

Hardware:

• Processors: Intel Core 2 Q9450 Quad-Core 2.66 GHz @ 3.36 GHz
• Motherboard: ASUS P5E64 WS Professional
• Memory: 2x Corsair DDR3 CM3X1024-1600C7DHX
  2x Crucial DDR3 BL25664BX1608.16SF
• Video: Currently being tested...
• Sound: Onboard HD Audio
• Storage: Seagate 7200.11 750 GB
  Maxtor DiamondMax 10 200 GB
  Maxtor DiamondMax 10 300 GB
• Power Supply: Zalman ZM1000-HP
• Chassis: Antec P182 Mid-Tower
• Cooling: Noctua NH-U12

Software:

• Operating system: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-Bit SP1
• Drivers: Forceware 175.19
  Forceware 177.41 for GTX280
  PhysX 8.06.12

Being a top of the range card, there really appears to be no reason to run the tests at low resolutions. Already in the earlier G92-reviews we've seen that even the single GPU cards reach playable frame rates at the 1920x1200 resolution. With that said, though, the 3DMark06 and Vantage were ran using the standard settings and 1280x1024 resolution to provide compareable results.

3DMark06

Even though the 3DMark06 is already getting out dated, it's still a very common test and we still decided to run it to make it easier to compare the GTX 280 to older cards. The 06 is very CPU-limited and the difference between the single cards and the GTX 280 remains very small.

3DMark Vantage

With the recent launch of the 3DMark Vantage Futuremark entered the DirectX10 era. The new test requires Vista and DirectX10 capable graphic card and also better represents current generation of games. There are different presets in Vantage: Entry, Performance, High and Extreme, we ran the test using the Performance setting as it's also the one you'll find on the demo version of the program.

Physics handled by the GPU

First set of results are for the GTX 280 with the Physics Processing Unit enabled. This is the part that caused bit of a stirr as the physics were calculated on the much more capable GPU and not with the slower CPU.

Physics handled by the CPU

Second set of results is from the GTX 280 with the PPU turned off. The calculations are handled by the CPU. One can clearly see the difference that the physics calculations on the GPU makes. 162.24 steps per second on the GPU and only 18.74 when handled by the CPU. This translates to 2000 Performance Points and that is a huge difference.

9800GX2

Third set of results are for the Gainward 9800GX2. The cards are neck to neck if the GPU is doing only graphics work.

Call of Duty 4

CoD4 1920x1200 max 4X DoF

CoD4 1920x1200 max 4X DoF

Call of Duty 4 is one of the few recent games that's still DirectX9 only. Despite this it still manages to look realistic and also fits well to testing purposes. The 8800GT is very close to the 8800GTS in performance, but the 9800GX2 and XFX GTX 280 are really in a league of their own.

Results were gathered with the help from Fraps. If run only once, the results leave a lot to be desired and even when combining multiple results, the outcome isn't that accurate. There are so many things affecting the measurement during the gaming that many prefer timedemos and inbuilt benchmarks. Luckily for us, Call of Duty 4 does offer this possibility.

CoD4 1920x1200 max 4X DoF

CoD4 1920x1200 max 4X DoF

15 minutes of game play recorded on the Crossfire map with 16 players. The order of the cards is the same, only the performance differences are bit lower.

Pages:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7