Latest News Posts

Social
Latest Forum Posts

EVGA GeForce GTS 250 Superclocked
Bookmark and Share

evga_gts_250_march08_article_logo.jpg
Print
by Rob Williams on March 3, 2009 in NVIDIA-Based GPU

The first mid-range offering of NVIDIA’s GeForce 200 series is here, in the form of the GTS 250. As a follow-up to the company’s 9800 GTX+, we already have a good idea of what to expect. But, various improvements aim to make things interesting, such as a redesigned PCB, smaller form-factor, single PCI-E connector, improved temperatures and refreshed pricing.

Call of Duty: World at War

While some popular game franchises are struggling to keep themselves healthy, Call of Duty doesn’t have much to worry about. This is Treyarch’s third go at a game in the series, and a first for one that’s featured on the PC. All worries leading up to this title were all for naught, though, as Treyarch delivered on all promises.

To help keep things fresh, CoD: World at War focuses on battles not exhaustively explored in previous WWII-inspired games. These include battles which take place in the Pacific region, Russia and Berlin, and variety is definitely something this game pulls off well, so it’s unlikely you’ll be off your toes until the end of the game.

For our testing, we use a level called “Relentless”, as it’s easily one of the most intensive levels in the game. It features tanks, a large forest environment and even a few explosions. This level depicts the Battle of Peleliu, where American soldiers advance to capture an airstrip from the Japanese. It’s a level that’s both exciting to play and one that can bring even high-end systems to their knees.

It’s not much of a surprise, but the GTS 250 ranked right alongside the 9800 GTX+. Oddly enough though, despite having less GDDR3 on hand, the 9800 GTX+ performed a bit better in each configuration. This isn’t necessarily fact though, as different runs may yield slightly different results.

Graphics Card
Best Playable
Avg. FPS
NVIDIA GTX 295 1792MB x 2
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
90.283 FPS
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB x 2
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
63.401 FPS
Zotac GTX 295 1792MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
52.461 FPS
Palit HD 4870 X2 2GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
37.825 FPS
EVGA GTX 285 1GB SSC Edition
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
45.866 FPS
Zotac GTX 285 1GB AMP!
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
43.711 FPS
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
41.510 FPS
Palit GTX 280 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
38.192 FPS
XFX GTX 260/216 896MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
32.723 FPS
EVGA GeForce GTS 250 1GB SC
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
35.165 FPS
ASUS GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
34.596 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
34.192 FPS
Diamond HD 4870 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
30.372 FPS
Sapphire HD 4830 512MB
1920×1200 – Max Detail, 0xAA
40.157 FPS
Sapphire HD 4670 512MB
1920×1200 – Max Detail, 0xAA
28.101 FPS

Although we saw ample performance in our above graphs, in order to remain fully playable at 2560×1600, we had to remove all traces of anti-aliasing. With that configuration, the game ran quite well, on both the GTS 250 and 9800 GTX+.


Advertisement