ASUS EN8800GS TOP: price vs. speed
Overclocking and efficiency of the cooling system
ASUS EN8800GS TOP originally runs at increased frequencies and quite well. Perhaps that is why it did not demonstrate absolute stability after overclocking. However, if we ignore the hangs once per hour at a certain point in a game, then ASUS EN8800GS TOP overcame the frequencies 702/1836 MHz for the GPU and 2100 MHz for the video memory. Note that the video memory frequency as per the specifications of the chips equals 1800 MHz, which is really good indeed!
We checked the efficiency of the cooling system with the proprietary utility ASUS Smart Doctor and the game Oblivion set to the most demanding settings. The traditionally used Riva Tuner proved unable to read temperature from the temperature sensor integrated into the video card, so we had to give it up. We got the following results: starting with 45 C in the 2D mode, the card warmed up to 55 C since the game start, and the fan did not make more noise. So the cooling system has proved to be really fantastic despite the lack of the modern attributes like heat pipes and and copper base. Note that the cooling system has proved to be very quiet and does not stand out with anything against the running computer.
Benchmarking and conclusions
We ran the tests of the video card using the well familiar test bench:
|
Test configuration
|
|
CPU
|
Intel Core 2 Duo X6800 2.93 GHz
|
|
Motherboard
|
MSI 975X Platinum PowerUp Edition
|
|
RAM
|
Corsair XMS Xpert DDRII-800 4x 512 MB
|
|
Operating system
|
Windows XP+SP2+DirectX 9.0c / Windows Vista for DX10 tests
|
|
Power supply unit
|
750 W
|
We'll be comparing ASUS EN8800GS TOP versus the "regular"GeForce 8800GS, more expensive GeForce 8800GT, and the competitor solution by AMD – Radeon HD3850. For ASUS EN8800GS TOP and GeForce 8800GS we used the driver ForceWare 169.32 for both the operating systems, for GeForce 8800GT – ForceWare 169.21 for Windows XP, and ForceWare 169.32 - for Windows Vista, and for Radeon HD3850 we used Catalyst 8.2 for both the operating systems. We start getting familiarized with the test results not from the traditional 3DMark tests, but with the description of the problem that struck the GeForce 8800GS. We started tests in the traditional mode with the 4X FSAA and 16X AF mode, but all of a sudden Crysis started running extremely slow at 1600x1200, and that happened under Windows XP, not under Vista, as before. We suspected it was the lack of video memory to blame for, which we immediately checked with Riva Tuner. The good thing is that in Windows XP it allows measuring the amount of video memory involved.
Our assumptions have come true: at 1600x1200 and 4X FSAA, the game demanded 490 MB of video memory which is 106 MB greater than the video card's own capacity. Simply put, 106 MB of RAM started using for the game, and this memory is much slower than the fast video memory. The result is evident – the speed was sometimes below 1 FPS. That done, we measured the video memory usage at 1280x1024 and 1024x768.
At 1280x1024 and 4X FSAA, the game consumed 471 MB of video memory.
And at 1024x768 (again, with the same 4X FSAA) – 389 MB, which is also greater than the video card's own memory capacity.
In view of the issues that rose, we decided to go on testing without antialiasing. However, we decided first to check if the video memory capacity is sufficient.
At 1024x768 without antialiasing, the game fitted within the limit and used up 306 MB.
At 1280x1024 – 340 MB.
At 1600x1200 – 390 MB, which is a bit more than the video card's own video memory. Since the 7 MB excess makes about 2% of the overall capacity of used video memory, that is quite acceptable. On the other hand, there is nothing good about that. We have to ascertain that 384 MB for such a powerful video card which can be used with antialiasing at "hard" games is desperately little. In fact, it is quite possible to reduce the image quality in the game, which will reduce load upon the video memory, but with the acceptable price the new product will certainly find its buyer. We start getting familiarized with the test results produced with 3DMark.
At 3DMark suite, we get quite a predictable pattern: GeForce 800GS proved to be the weakest, with GeForce 8800GT the strongest. So, we have checked ASUS' statement that EN8800GS TOP scores over 10 000 marks at 3DMark 06. That is indeed true, with the "regular" GeForce 8800GS ranked lower. Now we move on to tests in real games, which we ran without FSAA and 16X AF.
At Call of Duty 4, ASUS EN8800GS TOP ranked second after GeForce 8800GT. That is indeed not bad at all, especially if we look at the results of the "regular" GeForce 8800GS which took the last place in the last two cases.
The game Call of Juarez proved to be really dependent on the number of streaming processors, as a result GeForce 8800GT left the rivals well behind. In fact, ASUS EN8800GS TOP proved to be the spice of the show, and it ranked the second.
Call of Juarez under Windows Vista in the DX10 mode proved to be more demanding for the video memory capacity, so the video cards ASUS EN8800GS TOP and GeForce 8800GS were short of video memory at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. The result is evident – a more than three-fold loss to GeForce 8800GT at 1280x1280 and almost 3-fold at 1600x1200.
At Crysis, we acknowledge the victory of GeForce 8800GT, however ASUS EN8800GS again takes the second place surpassing the "regular" GeForce 8800GS and leaving Radeon HD3850 well behind.
At Crysis under Windows Vista in the DX10 mode, the alignment of forces is about the same. However, we should note that at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 we sometimes came across issues with the lack of video memory for GeForce 8800GS video cards. How was that displayed? As good as luck: sometimes works, sometimes don't. Evidently, the 384 MB of video memory may prove insufficient for modern games.
The game Need for Speed Carbon is not demanding to the resources of the video card according to modern standards, so the alignment of forces has changed in it. In particular, ASUS EN8800GS TOP demonstrated very good results and took the second place.
At Need for Speed Pro Street Racing, the difference between the video cards is evident only at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, and at 1024x768 the video card GeForce 8800GS managed to bypass its "colleague" by almost 1 FPS! If we disregard that, the ASUS video card took the second place.
At Oblivion, ASUS EN8000GS TOP again took the second place leaving well behind the low-frequency "colleague" GeForce 8800GS. We formerly saw the strong dependence of the game Oblivion on the frequency of the shader unit of NVIDIA's video cards, which again has been confirmed.
At Prey, the alignment of forces does not change - ASUS EN8800GS TOP ranked second after GeForce 8800GT.
Final Words
The results of tests for ASUS EN8800GS TOP have proved predictable and unexpected simultaneously. Anticipated is that the new product will prove a bit slower than GeForce 8800GT and is quite capable of competing against it on par. The unexpected part is the lack of video memory, which has seriously amended our assessments of the new product. The seemingly fast enough graphic processor G92 which is not much slower than its advances "relatives" has proved to be a hostage of the small video memory capacity and was unable to reveal all its capability at demanding games like Crysis. It is a pity, but the decisive factor is the price since at less demanding games the new product performs well indeed. However, that equally applies to all the video cards GeForce 8800GS with 384 MB of video memory, and talking about ASUS EN8800GS TOP we note that is evident advantages are quiet and efficient operation, as well as factory overclocking which has definitely made good to the new product. In conclusion, we note that the problem with lack of video memory is solved through installation of memory chips having greater capacity, so it's quite possible that we may soon see GeForce 8800GS with 768 MB of video memory onboard.
Pros of ASUS EN8800GS TOP:
- quiet and efficient cooling system;
- factory-set overclocking;
- useful utilities in the package bundle.
Cons:
- insufficient video memory capacity.
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
