| EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Titanium Video Card |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Video Cards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Written by Olin Coles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 25 January 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page 7 of 17
DX10: Crysis WarheadCrysis Warhead is an expansion pack based on the original Crysis video game. Crysis Warhead is based in the future, where an ancient alien spacecraft has been discovered beneath the Earth on an island east of the Philippines. Crysis Warhead uses a refined version of the CryENGINE2 graphics engine. Like Crysis, Warhead uses the Microsoft Direct3D 10 (DirectX-10) API for graphics rendering. Benchmark Reviews uses the HOC Crysis Warhead benchmark tool to test and measure graphic performance using the Airfield 1 demo scene. This short test places a high amount of stress on a graphics card because of detailed terrain and textures, but also for the test settings used. Using the DirectX-10 test with Very High Quality settings, the Airfield 1 demo scene receives 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering to create maximum graphic load and separate the products according to their performance. Using the highest quality DirectX-10 settings with 4x AA and 16x AF, only the most powerful graphics cards are expected to perform well in our Crysis Warhead benchmark tests. DirectX-11 extensions are not supported in Crysis: Warhead, and SSAO is not an available option.
Crysis Warhead Moderate Quality Settings
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
Been holding out on my Sandy Bridge Mini-ITX system until this card shows up, and I'm set on using the Sugo SG05-450. If this card will fit and can be powered by the 450W Strider then it's going in, otherwise I'm going GTX 460 instead.
There are also manufacturers with custom build coolers and pcb`s that put the PCI-E connectors on the side.
I know Asus, MSI and Gigabyte do. They should fit in these cases.
All reference cards have the PCI-E connectors facing rearwards
As for the power caracteristics Nvidia advises a 500watt minimum.
But the high quality 450watt 80plus bronse powersupply fitted in these cases should be easy enough for these cards.
I would not worry about it. Good luck with your build
Good luck with your build!
As far as the rest of the kit goes, here's the full proposed spec:
Core i5 2400
Gigabyte H67N-USB3 Mini-ITX board
2x4GB DDR3 RAM (more than likely a 1.5V kit)
GTX 560
OCZ Vertex 2E 120GB SSD
WD Scorpio Black 500GB HDD
Slimline Blu-Ray/DVD-RW
Antec Kuhler H20 630 OR Prolimatech Samuel 17 with AP121 Air Penetrator
NO overclocking at all (H67 chipset obviously), undervolting where/if possible.
The PSU that's in the SG05-450 is Silverstone' Strider ST45SF 450W
Just have to wait for card and motherboard availability now. Hopefully the Kuhler won't be long either so I can get some benches on that. Antec's promo video wasn't too impressive (4.2GHz 980X averaging 83 degrees at 100% load is NOT cool), but it's not like Sandy Bridge is all that toasty.
Sorry for the wrong information
There was a Sugo SG05 build that crammed in a GTX 280 a few years back. Although Silverstone state that the SG05 can take 9" cards, there's a bit of extra space (half inch I think) between the chassis and the front panel if you dremel out a hole and he put his PCI-E cables in that space.
I may do that if push comes to shove, but I'll hang on for a bit to see if Palit/Gainward do a shorter version like they did with the GTX 460, or wait for more GTX 560s to hit the shelves and see who puts the connectors on the top/side.
As an aside, I don't like the front of the SG06 - I love the aluminium face and having the fan inlets on the side, but bending back in for the optical drive just gives is a stupid bump IMO - what was wrong with a perfectly flat front? Just scootch the optical drive forward a bit and you're done.
Depending on how crazy I feel, I may get the SG05 front panel duplicated in brushed aluminium lol
In this review I found GTX560 winning the race in most of the benchmarks against HD 6950 but on other reviewing sites i find HD 6950 to be equally comparable with GTX560. I dont know the reason why ...
and secondly in this review HD6950 used was of 2GB version while there is a cheaper 1 GB version also available in the market.
Resolutions used in the tests were favorable to 1GB framebuffer. 2 GB is goin to benefit if u are playing at higher resolutions or at tripple monitor setup ... so my point is when talkin abt pricing why didnt the cheaper version mentione ...