Specs and synthetics
Before we get to play any games, we should stop and look at the specs of the various cards we're testing. Incidentally, the numbers in the table below are derived from the observed clock speeds of the cards we're testing, not the manufacturer's reference clocks or stated specifications.
|GeForce 9500 GT||4.4||8.8||4.4||25.6||90||134|
|GeForce 9600 GT||11.6||23.2||11.6||62.2||237||355|
|GeForce 9800 GT||9.6||33.6||16.8||57.6||339||508|
|GeForce 9800 GTX+||11.8||47.2||23.6||70.4||470||705|
|GeForce GTS 250||12.3||49.3||24.6||71.9||484||726|
|GeForce 9800 GX2||19.2||76.8||38.4||128.0||768||1152|
|GeForce GTX 260 (192 SPs)||16.1||36.9||18.4||111.9||477||715|
|GeForce GTX 260 (216 SPs)||17.5||45.1||22.5||117.9||583||875|
|GeForce GTX 280||19.3||48.2||24.1||141.7||622||933|
|GeForce GTX 285||21.4||53.6||26.8||166.4||744||1116|
|GeForce GTX 295||32.3||92.2||46.1||223.9||1192||1788|
|Radeon HD 4650||4.8||19.2||9.6||16.0||384||-|
|Radeon HD 4670||6.0||24.0||12.0||32.0||480||-|
|Radeon HD 4830||9.2||18.4||9.2||57.6||736||-|
|Radeon HD 4850||10.9||27.2||13.6||67.2||1088||-|
|Radeon HD 4850 1GB||11.2||28.0||14.0||63.6||1120||-|
|Radeon HD 4870||12.0||30.0||15.0||115.2||1200||-|
|Radeon HD 4850 X2||20.0||50.0||25.0||127.1||2000||-|
|Radeon HD 4870 X2||24.0||60.0||30.0||230.4||2400||-|
The theoretical numbers in the table give the GeForce GTS 250 a clear advantage in texture filtering rates and memory bandwidth, while the Radeon HD 4850 has an equally sizeable lead in peak shader arithmetic capacity. But look what happens when we run these cards through 3DMark's synthetic tests.
The 4850 1GB nearly matches the GTS 250 in the color fill test, which tends to be bound primarily by memory bandwidth, and the 4850 comes out on top in the texture fill rate test.
Meanwhile, the GeForce GTS 250 leads the 4850 in half of the shader processing tests, and our expectations are almost fully confounded. In this GPU generation, the theoretical peak capacities of the GPUs take a back seat to the realities of architectural efficiency. Although the G92 has more texture filtering potential and memory bandwidth on paper, the HD 4850 is stronger in practice. And although the 4850's RV770 GPU has more parallel processing power than the G92, the GeForce tends to use its arithmetic capacity more effectively in many cases.
|Gigabyte SA-SBCAP3350 puts formidable power on a single board||12|
|Alphacool Eisblock HDX-2 and HDX-3 help M.2 SSDs beat the heat||11|
|Corsair Lighting Pro Expansion Kit lets builders turn up the lights||10|
|Adata D16750 power bank is tougher than the average juice pack||16|
|Deals of the week: fast memory, an AM4 motherboard, and more||18|
|Corsair RMx White Series PSUs take a walk on the snowy side||24|
|Intel crams 100 GFLOPS of neural-net inferencing onto a USB stick||41|
|Toshiba's XG5 1TB NVMe SSD reviewed||9|
|Microsoft and Johnson Controls put Cortana in a thermostat||26|