Quick Card Search:
navigation About Us Contact Us Compare Videocards Forum Links Search Cards Submit A Videocard Videocard Table Home Video Card Review Finder Video Card Superlatives Video Card Database Video Card News
Tabs   Tabs

GTX 280 vs 8800 GTX - 18 Months of Innovation

Nvidia's PhysX Driver & Overclocking

Nvidia’s PhysX Driver

You may have noticed that people have been talking about the effect that Nvidia’s PhysX driver has on the Vantage Physics Test. Some dude even got his Radeon HD 3870 to run the Nvidia PhysX layer in Vantage. Well I installed the PhysX driver and ran the Vantage Physics test. Before I installed the driver I earned 13.08 OP/sec and after I installed it I got 117.17 OP/sec! The GTX 280 churned out almost 9 times as many operations per second than my quad core CPU. That may seem like “cheating” but when you watch the test you can see the difference. After installing the driver, the GPU is used to render all the physics and because the GPU is so much more powerful more planes (the test shows planes emitting colored smoke flying around and crashing into objects and each other) are flying around the screen than before.

Now to find out how much better the GTX 280 is at rendering PhysX than my Quad Core Intel CPU in a real game! There are currently 3 maps in Unreal Tournament 3 that are designed to use the PhysX physics system. They come bundled together in a mod pack brought to you by Nvidia. Here are the results of my UT3 PhysX testing:

 

Unreal Tournament 3 PhysX graph

Heat Ray is the map with probably the fewest physics type things built into it. Hail stones pour from the sky, bounce around then “melt” (disappear) and there are several breakable pieces of the landscape that crumble very nicely. The GTX 280 allowed me to play the map with a FPS that was 86% faster than when I turned off the GTX’s physics computing.

CTF Lighthouse was the middle of the road map of the 3. There are many, many breakable walls, windows and floors that allow you to confuse your pursuers when you are carrying their flag. Most of the breakable walls have an exploding barrel next to them to facilitate the redecorating process. As the match progresses it seems like it becomes more difficult for my CPU to render the ever increasing amount of broken things. Using the GTX 280, I was unable to notice the same slowdown. As you can see, with the GTX 280 behind the PhysX “wheel” my frame rate was 3.7 times faster than my CPU.

The centerpiece of CTF Tornado is of course, the freaking tornado. It picks up large and small objects, damages or kills players that get too close and peels back the tin roofs of the Red and Blue bases. There are also many destructible walls and pipes in the maps as well that open additional routes between the bases. Letting the GTX 280 run the PhysX show gave me more than 4 times the frames than the CPU could muster. This is the ultimate PhysX map of the three in my opinion. I have even recorded some video of the tornado in action for you all!

 

Overclocking

I hate reviews that do not overclock their cards so now that I am in charge of this review I knew that I had to include my overclocking results.

 

Overclocking Pic

 

For those of you without an encyclopedic knowledge of reference card speeds, the stock speeds for the GTX 280 are 602/1,296/1,107. I was able to increase the core by 100MHz (16.6%), the shader clock by 162MHz (12.5%) and the memory by 162MHz (14.6%). For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that the card is clocked about 15% higher than it was. Will I get 15% more performance?

3DMark Vantage OC graph

 

Here we have all 8 GPU tests from 3DMark Vantage. Four of these tests did see an improvement of 15% or higher and the other four improved between 10 and 14 percent.

          
 
 
  •     Texture Fill 16.5%
  •          GPU Particles 16%
  •          POM 15.2%
  •          Color Fill 15.1%
  •          New Calico 13.7%
  •          Perlin Noise 12.4%
  •          GPU Cloth 10.9%
  •          Jane Nash 10.5%

The benchmark data is showing that there is indeed a benefit to be had from overclocking the GTX 280. Will we see the same result from a PC game? 

Crysis OC graph

 

Well I’ll be darned! The average FPS in Crysis has increased a full 20.4%! Crysis proved that I did indeed find the highest overclock possible on my particular card because if I clocked my card any higher I started getting artifacts. So class, what have we learned? If you have the stones to overclock a $649 video card you will be rewarded.

 

« Prev Page
« (3DMark06 & 3DMark Vantage)
Next Page »
(Temperature & Conclusion) »
17 Comments
Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:46:16 PM
YAY! *reading*
Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:21:55 PM
Steve
The Progenitor
Here is specific feedback I am looking for:

How do the graphs look? Do you like the colors I used and the green stone background?

Is anything unclear? Did you have to read any paragraphs twice?
Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:54:37 PM
I like the review, and especially the info links of the games and information (makes it convenient for people who are interested).

The graphs are great (looks 3d), coupled with the green background made it easier to see.

Nvidia really made a great product, but because of the price (and the expected price of the ATI cards), people just went on to bash Nvidia and dismissing the technology.
(This reminds me of people complaining of Nvidia rebranding 8800s into 9000s while people overlooks Ati's actions in renaming the 2900s into 3800s [a "new" generation])

It does seem that the article was written to justify your purchase of the GTX280 (well, I would do that if I got that card too =D ).
Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:58:07 PM
Duesco
Member
Alright, I read it.

Couple of points:

I don't like the charts. I mean, the 3D bars and background, that's all very nice, but I prefer the simple, white-backed flat 2D bars that I can glance at and not get distracted by colors and such.

The review was easy to understand, although I did notice you went on a tiny bit about the games in the test. Most people already know this information, and they're here for the cards, probably because they want to play these games in the first place.

There are some grammatical things that could be done to smooth out the review, but otherwise it was worded well and ran generally smoothly. I'm impressed.

(I would say you could give me the reviews to proofread, as I'm a writer, but that would seem pretentious, I think?)
Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:40:52 PM
The graphs were fine. I'm colorblind, so disregarding aesthetics, I liked the bright colors. The paragraphs were clear and informal.

I've read several review sites and the are all fairly scientific. Of them all, [H]ardOCP is the best because I feel like I will get the same results.

And that is where your strong point lies. You did this review in your living room - not in a sterile lab. You have the feel of a normal guy comparing his old system against his new upgrade and sharing his experiences and results. There's something trustworthy about that - I feel like I could do the same thing and have the same success, even if my numbers end up being slightly different (horrors!). If I want hard stats I'll go to Tom's or Anand (or the comparison page), but what I want to read is how it works for another guy like me. That's exactly what you did. You may want to include even a few more subjective statements about what you liked and didn't like, how the game looked, etc. to emphasize the 'real' nature of your review.

You've got something here. I'd look forward to more!
Friday, July 04, 2008 1:58:38 AM
They are simple and easy to understand, but as WhistleHeat says, I don't think they have undergo all the quality control steps and results. For this type of information you are presenting you would have to standarize a system and keep using it for all your future tests, so that the results hold some value and work as an indicator, but not be conclusive. For that, a higher level of testing and the six sense of a gamer apresiation must be in the equation.
But I think the site its getting better, also the graphs appear to be giving the finger to the reader... or its just me?
Friday, July 04, 2008 2:17:24 AM
@evil...

Did i forget to brush my teeth? oh no did i show up in court without my pants on again?

relax, its good!

I think you should cram a little more into your conclusion, touch on all the data you've collected so far (all be it, you need more cards, but thats $$$), answer the question who should buy it and who shouldn't. Get in any outstanding frustrations as well as any oustanding positives! Longer conclusion would be better.
Friday, July 04, 2008 2:22:33 AM
I agree with MrWizard. More conclusion, that's what I meant by "subjective statements," although, you could also sprinkle a few of those throughout.
Friday, July 04, 2008 3:10:06 AM
OMG YOUR LIKE THE ONLY ONE TO ADD A SECTION FOR OVERCLOCKING :):):):)!!!!!!!
Ya I'm obviously excited about that part, becuase I overclock EVERYTHING, thats a great review, to bad you can't do 2 or 3 way SLI, but I totally understand, GTX280 = 2nd morgage, lol. Awseom man, just awsome.
Friday, July 04, 2008 4:15:46 AM
wyz135
Senior Member
Here's my suggestion: Why not have a part in this site, which have all the reviews made by you, or maybe us (I made a Radeon HD3850 review and I know it's awful).
Friday, July 04, 2008 4:36:57 AM
yeah I'm thinkin in the new gpu review you should have a section for user reviews. I (like, i suspect, a large portion of this site) wouldn't mind running my own review site. Having gpureview as a place where I can post my stuff to see what you guys think before going seriously public would be awsome.

Bring on the user review section!
Friday, July 04, 2008 12:01:10 PM
Mike
GPUReview Founder
Hmm, user review section...interesting.
Friday, July 04, 2008 3:33:55 PM
aliquidparadigm
Senior Member
You put up a user review section, I can provide at least... (looking through records) 3 reviews. 4 if I can possibly get one of my 3870s' fans to cooperate. And, assuming I'm not being lazy, I can actually write quality reviews.
Friday, July 04, 2008 4:47:02 PM
You could add two sections to the Review Finder tab: Official GPUReviews and User reviews. That way you could turn that into a nice central review part of the site.
Saturday, July 05, 2008 1:09:48 AM
Yeah, or you can Outsource reviews, like Nvidia and AMD with their GPU's if you don't have thet much time or resourses. Of course the supllier have to get something, maybe an advertizing in your site.
Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:32:37 AM
Radiator
Senior Member
158 degrees Celsius under load O_O ? Or Farenheit ?
But anyways , nice review .
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:53:22 AM
yay! Mike, did you write this review? I'm happy to see it! I was really wondering about this sort of sciency 'living room' test, as I've never gotten the performance people seem to get in a lab setting.
Add Comment
Name:

Comments:
This is a moderated comment list. All posts are subject to my personal approval. Please limit your comments to the subject of the article. Don't (for example) start asking questions about your video card here, you'll get a much better response in the forums.

Anonymous posts are allowed, but I encourage you to sign up for the forums and post comments under your name.
none   none