Testbed and Methods

First, let me say a few words about the hardware that we used during this test session. All graphics cards were benchmarked in a closed system case with the following configuration:

• Mainboard:ASUS P6T Deluxe (Intel X58 Express), LGA 1366, BIOS 1504
• CPU: Intel Core i7-920, 2.67 GHz, 1.25 V, L2 4 x 256 KB, L3 8 MB (Bloomfield, C0)
• CPU cooler: Thermalright IFX-14 (2 Scythe Slip Stream 120 fans at 830 RPM)
• Thermal interface: Arctic Silver 5
• System memory: DDR3 PC3-12800 3 x 2GB OCZ Platinum Low-Voltage Triple Channel (Spec: 1600 MHz / 7-7-7-24 / 1.65 V)
• Disk subsystem: Western Digital VelociRaptor (300GB, SATA-II, 10000 RPM, 16MB cache, NCQ)
• HDD silencer and cooler: Scythe Quiet Drive for 3.5-inch HDD
• Optical drive: Samsung SH-S183L DVD-burner
• System case: Antec Twelve Hundred (default 120mm fans replaced with  four Scythe Slip Stream fans at 840RPM, a 120mm Scythe Gentle Typhoon at 840RPM at the bottom of the front panel, default 200-mm fan at 400RPM in the top panel)
• Control and monitoring panel: Zalman ZM-MFC2
• Power supply: Thermaltake Toughpower XT 850W (with a default 140 mm fan)
• Monitor: 24-inch BenQ FP241W

To minimize the platform influence on the performance of the tested graphics cards I overclocked our quad-core CPU to 4.01GHz at 1.36875V voltage:

The system memory worked at 1527MHz frequency with 7-7-7-14_1T timings and 1.64V voltage:

We tested the platforms stability with these settings during two consecutive runs of LinX (Linpack 32-bit) with 15 cycles in each, which is more than enough to confirm systems stability within our today’s test session.

Besides six graphics accelerators we have just talked about above, we have also added the results for the following cards:

• HIS Radeon HD 4850 512MB (625/1998 MHz GDDR3);
• AMD Radeon HD 4870 1024 MB (750/3600 MHz GDDR5);
• ZOTAC GeForce GTX 260 AMP2! Edition 896 MB (648/1404/2108 MHz GDDR3). 

Now let’s move on to the software components. The main part of our test session took place in Windows Vista Ultimate Edition x86 SP1 (plus all critical updates as of 04.16.2009). We started testing on 04.16.2009, so these are the driver versions we used, that were available at the time:

• Intel Chipset Drivers version 9.1.1.1004 Alpha
• DirectX End-User Runtimes dated March 2008
• Graphics card driver for AMD/ATI based solutions – Catalyst 9.4
• Graphics card driver for Nvidia based solutions - GeForce 185.68 (BETA, 04/08/2009)
• Physics acceleration driver - PhysX 9.09.0408 (WHQL, 04/09/2009)

The only exception was Radeon HD 4770. For some reason I couldn’t install the Catalyst 9.4 driver for it. I could do Catalyst 9.3 or 9.5 just fine, but not 9.4. Therefore, I decided to go with version 9.5, as the latest available at that point. Of course, it is incorrect to compare the performance of graphics cards tested with different driver versions, but on the other hand, there is no mention in the Catalyst 9.5 release notes about any performance differences compared with version 9.4 in the games and benchmarks that we will be using today. That is why we decided not to rerun the tests for Radeon HD 4870, HD 4890 and HD 4850 with the newer Catalyst 9.5.

Once the drivers had been installed, I made the following changes in their control panels: image quality set from “Quality” to “High Quality”; Adaptive Antialiasing set to “Quality”; vertical synchronization set to “Always Off”. There were no other changes. I turned on full-screen antialiasing and anisotropic filtering in the menu of each game. If the game didn’t provide such options, I enabled FSAA and AF from the GeForce and Catalyst control panels.

The graphics cards were tested in two resolutions: 1280x960 and widescreen 1920x1200. Just like before, we decided to go with a not very common first resolution instead of the popular 1280x1024, because GeForce GTX 260 doesn’t work in 1280x1024 (we have already discussed this issue in our article called “Evolution of Nvidia GeForce Driver: GeForce GTX 260 (216SP) under Investigation” and the problem hasn’t been solved since then). The tests were performed in two image quality modes: “High Quality” without any image quality enhancements and “HQ+ AF16x+AA4/8x” with enabled 16x anisotropic filtering and 4x full screen anti-aliasing (or 8x FSAA if the average framerate was high enough for comfortable gaming experience).

We have modified the list of games for our today’s test session. We no longer have Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare that has finally been replaced with Call of Duty 5: World at War (patch version 1.3 allows recording demos). Besides, we also added such gaming titles as Stormrise, Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. and The Chronicles Of Riddick: Assault On Dark Athena; and World in Conflict is being used with the new patch version 1.0.1.0, which provides a better benchmark. So, the complete list of test applications includes the two popular synthetic benchmarks and 15 games of various genres:

• 3DMark 2006 (Direct3D 9/10) – build 1.1.0, default settings (1920x1200, 16x AF and 8x AA);
• 3DMark Vantage (Direct3D 10) – v1.0.1, Performance and Extreme profiles (basic tests only);
• World in Conflict (Direct3D 10) – version 1.0.1.0 (b34), “Very High” graphics quality profile, UI texture quality = Compressed; Water reflection size = 512;
• Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (OpenGL 2.0) – version 1.5, highest graphics quality settings, d5 demo on the Salvage level, Finland;
• Unreal Tournament 3 (Direct3D 9) – version 2.0, highest graphics quality settings (level 5), Motion Blur and Hardware Physics enabled, a flyby of the “DM-ShangriLa” map (two consecutive cycles) using HardwareOC UT3 Bench v1.5.0.0;
• Devil May Cry 4 (Direct3D 10) – game version 1.0, “Super High” quality settings, the final result is the average frame rate in two subsequent runs of the second scene of the benchmark;
• S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky (Direct3D 10.1) – game version 1.5.08, Improved Full DX10 Lighting profile plus 16x anisotropic filtering and other maximum graphics quality settings, my own s04 demo record (a triple run of the test) on the first gaming level;
• Crysis WARHEAD (Direct3D 10) – game version 1.1.1.690, “Very High” settings profile, the card is tested twice on the “Core” level from HardwareOC Crysis Bench version 1.2.0.0;
• Far Cry 2 (Direct3D 10) – version 1.02, Ultra High settings profile, a double run of the Ranch Small test from Far Cry 2 Benchmark Tool (v1.0.0.1);
• X3: Terran Conflict (Direct3D 10) – version 1.2.0.0, maximum quality of textures and shadows, fog enabled, the More Dynamic Light Sources and Ship Color Variations parameters are turned on, the final result is the average frame rate of the four demos run once;
• Left 4 Dead (Direct3D 9) – version 1.0.0.5, maximum quality, d3 demo (two runs) on Level 3 called “No Mercy”, first scene called “The Seven”;
• Lost Planet: Colonies (Direct3D 10) – version 1.0, Maximum Quality settings, DX10 HDR Rendering, integrated benchmark including two scenes;
• Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason (Direct3D 10.1) – version 1.0.1, shader model 4.0, high image quality settings, “Caustic” disabled, tested in own “d3” demo at “11. Fear” level.
• Call of Duty 5: World at War (Direct3D 9) – version 1.3.1080, graphics and textures are set at “Extra” level, d2 demo on “Dome” level.
• Stormrise (Direct3D 10.1) – version 1.0.0.0, maximum effects and shadows quality, Ambient Occlusion disabled, two runs of the “$mn_sp05” mission demo scene.
• Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. (Direct3D 10.1) – version 1.01, maximum graphics quality settings, HDR and DOF enabled, two runs of the built-in benchmark.
• The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault On Dark Athena (Direct3D 10) – version 1.01, Color mode = 16 bit float, Ambient Occlusion = Off, d3 demo on “Hangar Bay” level.

Here I’d like to add that if the game allowed recording the minimal fps readings, they were also added to the charts. We didn’t use FRAPS utility during our tests because it produced high measuring error.