logo_print logo_print_pub
Graphics Card Reviews: 2007 - 2011 >
Régis Jehl
Test date: June 9, 2009
The card at a glance

For our tests, NVIDIA sent us an eVGA card. It uses NVIDIA's original stock design - same size, same double-decker cooler and same clocks, different sticker.

The rear connectivity is fairly standard, with two DVI outs and one proprietary video connector. It can be used for connecting a YUV adaptor. The bundle is limited to an installation guide, a driver CD, a DVI-to-VGA adaptor and two Molex-to-PCI-E 6-pin adaptors.

Of course, the card is compatible with NVIDIA's stereoscopic 3D, 3D Vision and, like all NVIDIA cards, it enables GPU computing - using the graphics processor to speed up certain processing tasks. Video and audio encoding and photo work with Photoshop (minimum CS4) come to mind.


Released three months after the GTX 275 has similar specs to the GeForce GTX 285. What's the extent of the difference between the two cards, and how does the 275 stand up to the new Radeon HD 5000s?

Size, noise and heat generation

The card is fairly big - 26.7 cm (10.5") long and with a double-decker cooler. Fan performance is mixed. It wasn't too noisy in intensive 3D use - barely 54.5 dB(A) by our readings -, but was very audible at idle, at 43.6 dB(A). In 2D use, we measured a very good 43°C, which made us wonder why the fan stayed at 40% of its maximum speed. There seems to be plenty of margin for slowing it down to cut down on noise. Temperature during 3D use was fairly high, at 92°C.

Energy consumption

While not the best performer in this department, the GeForce GTX 275 is fairly economical. At idle, we measured a power draw of 98 W, which puts the card in the top category. It also performed well during intense 3D activity, at 360 W. Remember that these numbers are for the entire computer and not just the graphics card. The card uses two 6-pin PCI-E connectors.

Gaming performance

With the current crop of games, the GTX 275 does fine at mid-resolution (1680 x 1050), but can also handle high-res (1920 x 1200) displays. Generally speaking, it performed below the level of the Radeon HD 4890, and was quite a way down on the HD 5850.

First bench up was ArmA 2 at 680 x 1050 without filters. The 275 scored an average framerate of 38 fps, while the 4890 delivered an average 50 fps. Slowdowns were much less frequent with the ATI model, and you're better lowering the settings on the NVIDIA GTX. Moving on, with Fallout 3 at 1920 x 1200 with texture filters activated, we clocked an average 57 fps for the GeForce and 64 fps for the Radeon.


vAveragte performance.
Click on the image to see all our readings

and compare this model with other cards.

But the tables were turned in some cases - for example, with Far Cry 2, where the NVIDIA scored an average of 39 fps at 1920 x 1200 with filters enabled compared to 32 fps for the ATI. One last bench, to compare it to the Radeon HD 5850: BattleForge, at 1680 x 1050 with filters. The average was 26 fps for the 275 and 37 fps for the 5850. The two cards just aren't in the same league.
Pluses

-

Good performance on mid-definition displays

-

Runs significantly less hot

-

Reduced noise in 3D

-

3D Vision compatibility

Minuses

-

Power consumption in 3D

-

Could be quieter in 2D

This is the minimum card if you want to use 3D Vision. Its performance makes it suitable for mid-resolution displays, but there are now midrange models with significantly better performance available.

Our RSS News Feeds : 

Back to top