Testing – Gaming
[ad#review1068-top]Though several games were available to me, I ended up going back to the three DX10 gaming benchmarks that I have been using for some time, Crysis, PT Boats: Knights of the Sea, and Call of Juarez. Each game requires a powerful video card for acceptable results at “high” settings and using AA, along with preferring a powerful system. Each one pushes the system in its own way and so far I haven’t found anything I like better.
Crysis: Though it has been out for two years now, I still find Crysis the best benchmark for gaming systems. I don’t know of any game that puts so much stress on the CPU and memory, and still is very VGA intensive. It will find those system instabilities not found by Prime95, Sandra Burn-in, and the Futuremark series, especially in memory. It is my favorite software for testing overclocks. I used the Crysis Benchmark Test by Boris Vergiza, settings were: CPU Benchmark, DX10, High, AA x 2, 1280 x 1024.
PT Boats: Knights of the Sea: PT Boats prefers a strong CPU and powerful video card. It has some tough camera angle changes that really affect the FPS scores. I used the standalone performance test, settings were High, AA x 2, 1280 x 1024.
Call of Juarez: Call of Juarez requires a strong system for any kind of decent frame rate. I used the standalone demo benchmark, settings were: High, AA x 2, 1280 x 1024.
[ad#review1068-bottom]
Using skived fins in the heatisink is a nice touch.
Nice to see someone still releasing a GTX 260. A lot of other manufacturers seem to have stopped making them.
Using skived fins in the heatisink is a nice touch.
Nice to see someone still releasing a GTX 260. A lot of other manufacturers seem to have stopped making them.
What about cooling. I heard it need separate exhaust ?
IT LOOKS GREAAAAAT BOB. TOP OF THE LINE. YOU GOT IT BOY. DAD
with the cooling shell so large i wonder why they didn't make it a 2U PCI card?
What about cooling. I heard it need separate exhaust ?
What do you mean? It is a 2-slot video card…
It looks to me like the video exhausts some of the heat back into the case.
IT LOOKS GREAAAAAT BOB. TOP OF THE LINE. YOU GOT IT BOY. DAD
with the cooling shell so large i wonder why they didn't make it a 2U PCI card?
What do you mean? It is a 2-slot video card…
It looks to me like the video exhausts some of the heat back into the case.
2U as in it takes up two slots. Not internally, but externally. All mobo's are spaced differently so the internals don't matter. But, slot spacing on the back of a case is always the same. SO i was wondering why the mounting bracket on the card wasn't a 2U since the cooling shield was so big?
i.e. https://thinkcomputers.org/reviews/asus_engt…
Good question and since technically it takes up 2-slots I wonder why Sparkle never used a traditional PCI bracket with exhaust holes.
2U as in it takes up two slots. Not internally, but externally. All mobo's are spaced differently so the internals don't matter. But, slot spacing on the back of a case is always the same. SO i was wondering why the mounting bracket on the card wasn't a 2U since the cooling shield was so big?
i.e. https://thinkcomputers.org/reviews/asus_engt…
Good question and since technically it takes up 2-slots I wonder why Sparkle never used a traditional PCI bracket with exhaust holes.
This is a pretty good graphics card for the price you're paying, plus i've always been a fan of nvidia =D. top notch
This is a pretty good graphics card for the price you're paying, plus i've always been a fan of nvidia =D. top notch
True dat buts its too bad the GT200 and GT200b stocks are quite low.
True dat buts its too bad the GT200 and GT200b stocks are quite low.
Why would you benchmark that card in only 1280×1024?
Do you think that an additional 896 megs of GDDR3 (on top of the 260GTX's original 896mb) is going to make any appearance at resolution that low? Why would you even bother doing a benchmarking review if you weren't going to test this thing on more than 3 benchmarking utilities and on such a low resolution? You aren't going to need a card with more than 512mb of GDDR3 at that resolution. (Are we in 1998?) I know! How about 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, because we all know in 2009 everyone uses CRT monitors only capable of 1280×1024 resolution! How long did it take you to run these tests? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Man, put a little effort into the next review. ThinkComputers… I don't see a lot of work or think going on here.
Why would you benchmark that card in only 1280×1024?
Do you think that an additional 896 megs of GDDR3 (on top of the 260GTX's original 896mb) is going to make any appearance at resolution that low? Why would you even bother doing a benchmarking review if you weren't going to test this thing on more than 3 benchmarking utilities and on such a low resolution? You aren't going to need a card with more than 512mb of GDDR3 at that resolution. (Are we in 1998?) I know! How about 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, because we all know in 2009 everyone uses CRT monitors only capable of 1280×1024 resolution! How long did it take you to run these tests? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Man, put a little effort into the next review. ThinkComputers… I don't see a lot of work or think going on here.
You are entitled to your opinion but whining like a little baby doesn't help.
You are entitled to your opinion but whining like a little baby doesn't help.
You are entitled to your opinion but whining like a little baby doesn't help.
IMO 1792MB of memory is bit much.
IMO 1792MB of memory is bit much.
good for higher resolutions
Yea, it's a pretty good card, and sad to see it go.
i agree, that testing on a larger resolution should have been included. Perhaps, you could have not been so harsh in your comments though.
good for higher resolutions
Yea, it's a pretty good card, and sad to see it go.
i agree, that testing on a larger resolution should have been included. Perhaps, you could have not been so harsh in your comments though.
IMO 1792MB of memory is bit much.
good for higher resolutions
Yea, it's a pretty good card, and sad to see it go.
i agree, that testing on a larger resolution should have been included. Perhaps, you could have not been so harsh in your comments though.