EVGA GeForce GTX 275 1792MB Summary

Thus, EVGA’s product discussed in this review is neither better nor worse than any other GeForce GTX 275 with reference GPU and memory frequencies. What is its positioning then? It is a difficult question, actually. The manufacturer’s site recommends a price of $300 for it, but there is a EVGA GeForce GTX 275 FTW model priced at only $280. The latter has half the amount of memory but its default frequencies are increased from 633/1134 (2268) MHz to 713/1260 (2520) MHz. As we know now, higher clock rates are more important for the card’s performance than an increased amount of memory. Moreover, you can pay $50 more and buy a full-featured GeForce GTX 285 with 1024MB of memory and a 512-bit memory bus.

So, it is unclear who the EVGA GeForce GTX 275 1792MB is meant for if the same manufacturer offers a faster product for less money and a more advanced product for a slightly higher price. The purpose of this product is especially vague because the graphics memory requirements of modern games have reduced due to the popularity of multiplatform projects. 512 megabytes is quite enough for most situations whereas 896 or 1024 megabytes is sufficient for even the most demanding games. We can only suppose that this graphics card may be good for multi-GPU configurations or for CUDA applications.

Summing it up, the EVGA GeForce GTX 275 1792MB is a typical product from EVGA. You may be interested in it if you think that the standard GeForce GTX 275 has too little memory.

Highs:

• Successfully competes against ATI Radeon HD 4890;
• Barely yields to GeForce GTX 285;
• 1792 MB of local video memory onboard;
• Wide range of supported FSAA modes;
• Minimal effect of enabled FSAA on performance;
• PhysX acceleration support in the GPU;
• Hardware HD video decoding;
• S/PDIF sound over HDMI;
• Relatively low power consumption and heat dissipation;
• Low noise;
• Pretty good overclocking potential.

 Lows:

• No DirectX 10.1 and Shader Model 4.1 support;
• Incomplete VC-1 decoding support;
• No built-in sound core;
• High power consumption compared with Radeon HD 4890;
• Not very rich accessories bundle.