Test notes
So look, we've done the typical review site thing and compared this range of graphics cards using a test rig based on a very high end processor, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650. Why would we do such a thing? Well, hear me out.
First, we wanted to be sure that we were pushing the graphics cards as hard as possible, so they would live up to their potential. Using a top-end CPU ensures that the processor doesn't become the performance constraint. Second, in reality, the gap between our QX9650 and the actual processors you may find in many enthusiast systems isn't as great as you might think. We've easily taken a $120 Core 2 Duo E7200 to over 3GHz on a basic air cooler. Yes, we're using a quad-core CPU, but having more than two cores doesn't tend to make much difference in gaming performance just yet. Third, our two GPU test rigs are outfitted with identical QX9650 processors, and honestly, without matching processors, our testing time would have been quite a bit longer.
One area where having a high-end CPU could skew our results is video playback testing, where we look at CPU utilization while playing a Blu-ray disc. For those tests, we swapped in just about the slowest Core 2 processor we could find, a Core 2 Duo E4300 clocked at 1.8GHz.
Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and the results were averaged.
Our test systems were configured like so:
| Processor | Core 2 Extreme QX9650 3.0GHz |
| System bus | 1333MHz (333MHz quad-pumped) |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 |
| BIOS revision | F9a |
| North bridge | X38 MCH |
| South bridge | ICH9R |
| Chipset drivers | INF update 8.3.1.1009 Matrix Storage Manager 7.8 |
| Memory size | 2GB (4 DIMMs) |
| Memory type | Corsair
TWIN2X40966400C4DHX DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz |
| CAS latency (CL) | 4 |
| RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) | 4 |
| RAS precharge (tRP) | 4 |
| Cycle time (tRAS) | 12 |
| Command rate | 2T |
| Audio | Integrated ICH9R/ALC889A with RealTek 6.0.1.5618 drivers |
| Graphics | |
|
Radeon HD
4670 512MB GDDR3 PCIe with Catalyst 8.53-080805a-067874E-ATI drivers |
|
|
Diamond Radeon HD
3850 512MB PCIe with Catalyst 8.8 drivers |
|
| Asus Radeon HD 4850 512MB PCIe with Catalyst 8.8 drivers |
|
|
Zotac GeForce 9500 GT ZONE 512MB GDDR3 PCIe with ForceWare 177.92 drivers |
|
|
EVGA
GeForce 9600 GSO 384MB PCIe with ForceWare 177.92 drivers |
|
|
BFG
GeForce 9600 GT OCX 512MB PCIe with ForceWare 177.92 drivers |
|
|
Palit GeForce
9800 GT 1GB PCIe with ForceWare 177.92 drivers |
|
|
GeForce
9800 GTX+ 512MB PCIe with ForceWare 177.92 drivers |
|
| Hard drive | WD Caviar SE16 320GB SATA |
| OS | Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition |
| OS updates | Service Pack 1, DirectX March 2008 update |
Thanks to Corsair for providing us with memory for our testing. Their quality, service, and support are easily superior to no-name DIMMs.
Our test systems were powered by PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W power supply units. The Silencer 750W was a runaway Editor's Choice winner in our epic 11-way power supply roundup, so it seemed like a fitting choice for our test rigs.
Unless otherwise specified, image quality settings for the graphics cards were left at the control panel defaults. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.
We used the following versions of our test applications:
- Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 1.7
- Crysis Warhead
- Half-Life 2 Episode Two
- Enemy Territory: Quake Wars 1.5
- 3DMark Vantage 1.0.1
- FRAPS 2.9.4
- PowerDVD 8.0.1830.50
The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.
