ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix

The breakneck pace of product development for graphics cards doesn't always generate bigger, faster, more powerful chips and cards. Sometimes a new product gets developed and introduced to the market that isn't a barn burner. Such is the case with this GTX260-based video card, the ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile product, or isn't worth the attention of Benchmark Reviews. Instead, it's a more focused design that is aimed at a tighter target market. As if the high end PC graphics card market isn't tight enough, ASUS has carved out a niche in their product line called Matrix, and adopted it into their Republic of Gamers.

The hallmarks of the Matrix range so far are enhanced cooling capacity, improved configurability, and unique visual designs. The 9800GT and 4870 cards that were released in 2008 have a new sibling, the ENGTX260 Matrix, and there is clearly a family resemblance. This isn't the first GTX260 video card that Benchmark Reviews has tested, but let's see what's different about this one.

About the company: ASUS

ASUS, a technology-oriented company blessed with one of the world's top R&D teams, is well known for high-quality and innovative technology. As a leading provider of 3C (computers, communications and consumer electronics) total solutions, ASUS offers a complete product portfolio to compete in the new millennium.

In 2007, one in three desktop PCs sold was powered by an ASUS motherboard; and the company's 2007 revenues reached US$6.9 billion.

ASUS products' top quality stems from product development. It's like learning Chinese Kung-Fu; one must begin with cultivating the "Chi" and inner strength. Besides innovating cutting-edge features, ASUS engineers also pay special attention to EMI (electromagnetic interference), thermal, acoustics and details that usually go unnoticed to achieve complete customer satisfaction. ASUS notebooks are the first TCO'99-certified notebooks worldwide.

The requirements for this honor include radiation emission control, energy (battery consumption), ecology (environment friendly) and ergonomics. To succeed in this ultra-competitive industry, great products need to be complimented by speed-to-market, cost and service. That's why all 8,000 over employees of ASUS strive for the "ASUS Way of Total Quality Management" to offer the best quality without compromising cost and time-to-market while providing maximum value to all customers through world-class services.

With unyielding commitment to innovation and quality, ASUS won 2,568 awards in 2007, meaning on average, the company received over 7 awards every day last year. BusinessWeek has ranked ASUS amongst its InfoTech 100 for the 10th straight year. ASUS has also achieved the number one title on the annual league table of Taiwan Top 10 Global Brands with a brand value of 11.96 billion US dollars.

ENGTX260 Matrix Features

The feature set of the ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix is primarily aimed at allowing the user to customize the settings and operation of the video card to best suit their needs. If you want to overclock it, that's easy. If you want it to run silent, yet still be protected from overheating, can do. If you want it to respond dynamically to whatever you throw at it, it can do that, too.

Super Hybrid Engine:

Multi-level GPU and Memory voltage adjustment for extreme power save and performance boost

Hybrid Cooler+:

Innovative Hybrid Cooler offering 2D silent cooling and 3D extreme cooling

iTracker:

Intelligent hardware monitoring and adjustment application with preset profiles for easy user selection

Auto Phase Switch:

Optimizing power supplied from Power Phase to provide maximum power efficiency

Advanced Dynamic GPU loading Detection:

More active protection against overheating by automatic fan speed adjustment via GPU loading when temperature increases

The features are pretty well spelled out on the inside flap of the retail package. Again, not a huge number of features are listed, but the emphasis is on the flexibility and control you gain with them.

ENGTX260 Matrix Specifications

These specifications should be nothing new for our readers, as the 55nM, 216 shader version of the NVIDIA GTX260 has been out for awhile and is represented in all the major video card maker product lines. Let's take a closer look at the ASUS version, with its Matrix features, to see what's new and different about this card.

Closer Look: ENGTX260 Matrix

The dual fans on the face of the ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix give away the game right away. This card is meant to run way above stock speeds and voltages. Although it isn't set that way when it comes out of the box, unlike the "TOP" models in the ASUS product line, it definitely looks like it has the extra cooling capacity to get there safely. We'll take a look at that later in the testing session, when we run the card in both stock and overclocked mode.

The Matrix is definitely a dual-slot device, as the following image shows. The full width adapter plate at the rear is slotted to allow some of the heat to escape from the case. Because of the open design of the fan shroud, not a lot of airflow is going to get pushed out here from the fans on the video card. If you have a case with positive pressure, like the SilverStone Fortress FT01B, there's a better chance that some air will get pushed through the fins on the rear of the card and out the back. Alternatively, if your case has significant negative pressure, air will be pulled in through the slots, and pass through those same fins, which are connected to one of four heatpipes passing over the GPU.

The cooling system is fairly complex, in design, execution, and operation. There are four separate heatpipes funneling heat to three different fin assemblies. There are two fans, which are controlled independently, forcing air through the two circular fin sets. The third fin set is cooled passively, and/or hopefully by the action of air making its way through the case, by way of case fans. Here's an interior shot of the full set of cooling components.

The circular format heatsinks are more complex to build, but they have the advantage of maximizing the useful output of the fan. In this instance, two fans are used, of slightly differing sizes. One has a maximum current draw of 0.34 amps; the smaller, 0.30. The larger one sits over the GPU and memory chips, the smaller one over the power regulation components. The power MOSFETs are not fitted with their own heatsinks, as there is enough airflow from the fan to keep all the power components cool enough. This can be confirmed with the iTracker software, as the temperature of the power area is independently monitored and displayed. More on that later...

The power section provides 4-phase power to the GPU and 2-phase power to the GDDR3 memory. It's becoming more common place to modulate multiple power phases to achieve better voltage regulation, improve efficiency, and reduce heat. The ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix offers the same capability as some high-end motherboards in this regard, and given the power density in video cards these days, it's a welcome feature.

The design of the PCB makes good use of the back side of the board. There are hundreds of small, surface mount resistors and capacitors located there, along with a couple small MOSFETs and logic chips. It's the perfect place for all those low profile components. I have to remark on the extremely high level of build quality I saw on the PCB. I always get out my 10X loupe to inspect the minute details, and what I see doesn't always impress me. The precision shown in component placement and consistency of the solder joints on this board is truly world class.

ENGTX260 Matrix Detailed Features

Since cooling performance is such an important part of the Matrix product line, it makes sense that ASUS wouldn't skimp on the fans. One look at the complex 3-D contour on the fan blades shows that they have optimized the performance for this application. Straight finned heatsinks only need one dimensional air flow; the circular finned heat exchangers employed here need a mix of airflow; some straight through, and some outward, in a radial direction. Some of the cheaper coolers with this type of fin arrangement use a simple paddle-wheel type of impeller, which is noisier and less efficient. I ran both of these fans at 100% for a good deal of the test period and they were admirably quiet.

Power requirements are met from two auxiliary PCI-E connectors, of the 6 pin variety. This is a common feature of most of the NVIDIA 200 series cards. The 10.5" length of the card necessitates putting them along the upper edge, which is generally convenient for access, but not as slick for us OCD cable management types. Next to the power connectors is the S/PDIF connector for your HDMI interface needs. Mounted to the board, along the edge is a steel stiffening rail, a premium touch not always seen or appreciated in this ultra competitive, cost-cutting market.

Memory is handled by fourteen Samsung 2M x 32Bit x 8 Banks Graphic DDR3 Synchronous DRAM, in 136 Ball FBGA packaging, for a total of 896 MB. The K4J52324QH-HJ1A modules are rated for 1.0 GHz operation, but higher binned parts are available for 1.2GHz and 1.3GHz clock speeds, with a small bump in voltage.

The stock clock rates are right at the maximum rated speed for this chip, but we'll see if there's any more performance to be had later, during the testing portion of the review.

Many hardware products come with utility software bundled along with them. For most of recorded PC history, this software wasn't worth the price of the storage media it was burned on. That's starting to change; for the past year or so there have been several products that shipped with usable monitoring and control, and other utilities. ASUS continues the trend here, with two utilities that I used during the review. The one I used the most is iTracker, that monitoring and control part, I just mentioned. Normally, I would just load up RivaTuner and go, but iTracker provided all the functionality I needed, was straightforward to use, and didn't have any strange behavior during operation. I know, those sound like pretty minimal requirements, but until recently, most software supplied by PC hardware vendors didn't meet them.

This is where the true nature of the ASUS Matrix products comes to light. They're built for tweaking. ASUS clearly expects every Matrix customer to take advantage of the flexibility and performance reserves they've built into these products and maximize their performance on an individual basis. Just like the gunnery sergeant said, "There are many rifles, but this one is mine."

There are four default profiles loaded into iTracker, and three user-defined profiles can be created and saved.

• Optimized Mode:2D power savings and 3D performance boost
• Gaming Mode:Extreme 3D performance for enthusiastic gamers
• Default Mode:Back to original setting with one simple click
• Power Saving Mode: Reducing unnecessary power consumption
• User Defined Mode:Manually adjust: Up to 3 settings can be created and saved.Timely adjustments that include GPU/shader/memory clock, GPU/memory voltage, and fan speeds to suit different individual requirements

Shown above are the settings I used to test the overclocking performance of the ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix. They're not extreme settings (8-10%); in fact they match the factory overclock of another GTX260 board we've reviewed here at Benchmark Reviews. I thought it would be interesting to see if any differences would pop up.

Video Card Testing Methodology

At the start of all tests, the previous display adapter driver is uninstalled and trace components are removed using Driver Cleaner Pro.We then restart the computer system to establish our display settings and define the monitor. Once the hardware is prepared, we begin our testing. The synthetic benchmark tests in 3DMark06 will utilize shader models 2.0 and 3.0. In our higher-end VGA products we conduct tests at the following resolutions: 1280x1024 (19" Standard LCD), 1680x1050 (22-24" Widescreen LCD), and 1920x1200 (24-28" Widescreen LCD). In some tests we utilized widescreen monitor resolutions, since more users are beginning to feature these products for their own computing.

Each benchmark test program begins after a system restart, and the very first result for every test will be ignored since it often only caches the test. This process proved extremely important in the World in Conflict and Supreme Commander benchmarks, as the first run served to cache maps allowing subsequent tests to perform much better than the first. Each test is completed five times, with the average results displayed in our article.

Our site polls and statistics indicate that the over 90% of our visitors use their PC for playing video games, and practically every one of you are using a screen resolutions mentioned above. Since all of the benchmarks we use for testing represent different game engine technology and graphic rendering processes, I feel that this battery of tests will provide a diverse range of results for you to gauge performance on your own computer system. Since most gamers and enthusiasts are still using Windows XP, DirectX 9 will be used for all tests until demand and software support improve for Windows Vista or Windows 7 gains widespread acceptance.

Test System

• Motherboard: ASUS M4A79T Deluxe (0902 BIOS)
• System Memory: 2X 2GB OCZ Reaper HPC DDR3 1600MHz (7-7-7-24)
• Processor: AMD Phenom II 720 Black Edition (Overclocked to 3.8 GHz)
• CPU Cooler: CoolerMaster Hyper Z600
• Video: ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix 896MB GDDR3 PCI-E 2.0
• Drive 1: OCZ Vertex Series SSD, 30GB
• Drive 2: Seagate ST3750330AS 750GB 7200RPM SATAII
• Optical Drive: Sony NEC Optiarc AD-7190A-OB 20X IDE DVD Burner
• Enclosure: CM STORM Scout Gaming Case
• PSU: Corsair CMPSU-750TX ATX12V V2.2 750Watt
• Monitor: SOYO 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor (DYLM24E6) 1920X1200
• Operating System: Windows XP SP3

Benchmark Applications

• 3DMark06 v1.1.0 (8x Anti Aliasing & 16x Anisotropic Filtering)
• Crysis v1.21 Benchmark (High Settings, 0x and 4x Anti-Aliasing)
• Devil May Cry 4 Benchmark Demo (Ultra Quality, 8x MSAA)
• Far Cry 2 v1.02 (Very High Performance, Ultra-High Quality, 8x AA)
• World in Conflict v1.0.0.9 Performance Test (Very High Setting: 4x AA/4x AF)

Video Card Test Products

• MSI Radeon HD4830 (R4830 T2D512 - Catalyst 9.4)
• ASUS Radeon HD4850 (EAH4850 TOP - Catalyst 9.4)
• ASUS GeForce GTX 260 (ENGTX260 MATRIX - Forceware v181.22)
• ASUS Radeon HD 4890 (EAH4890 TOP - Catalyst 9.4)
• ASUS GeForce GTX 285 (ENGTX285 TOP - Forceware v181.22)

Support Equipment

• P3 International Kill-A-Watt EZ (model P4460)

3DMark06 Benchmark Results

3DMark is a computer benchmark by Futuremark (formerly named Mad Onion) to determine the DirectX 9 performance of 3D game performance with graphics cards. 3DMark06 uses advanced real-time 3D game workloads to measure PC performance using a suite of DirectX 9 3D graphics tests, CPU tests, and 3D feature tests.

3DMark06 tests include all new HDR/SM3.0 graphics tests, SM2.0 graphics tests, AI and physics driven single and multiple cores or processor CPU tests and a collection of comprehensive feature tests to reliably measure next generation gaming performance today. Some enthusiasts may note that Benchmark Reviews does not include CPU-bound tests in our benchmark battery, and that only graphic-bound tests are included.

Here at Benchmark Reviews, we believe that synthetic benchmark tools are just as valuable as video games, but only so long as you're comparing apples to apples. Since the same test is applied in the same controlled method with each test run, I believe 3DMark is a very reliable tool for comparing graphic cards against one-another.

1680x1050 is rapidly becoming the new 1280x1024. More and more widescreen are being sold with new systems or as upgrades to existing ones. Even in tough economic times, the tide cannot be turned back; screen resolution and size will continue to creep up. Using this resolution as a starting point, the maximum settings were applied to 3dMark06 which for these tests include 8x Anti-Aliasing and 16x Anisotropic Filtering.

The four test scenarios in 3DMark06 provide a varied set of challenges for the video cards and their subsystems. I am sometimes a little puzzled by the results of the Shader Model 2.0 results, as they always seem to throw a wrench in the works. In this case, the GT2 results are almost perfectly scaled, according to the theoretical processing power and price of the cards in the test. GT1 however throws a wicked curveball at the GTX260 and the HD4890. In many cases, the best advice for selecting a video card is to buy it based on its performance with the applications you will be using. Good thing the SM2.0 benchmarks aren't one of those applications.

The SM3.0 benchmarks provide a more consistent set of results, even if they do favor the Radeon processors. Based on these results, it doesn't pay to spend the extra money for the GTX260 over the HD4850, and the HD4890 is the king of the hill, edging out the GTX285 by a small margin. They two high-end cards both loom tall over the rest of the pack, however, by providing a significant performance gain.

Crysis Benchmark Results

Crysis uses a new graphics engine: the CryENGINE2, which is the successor to Far Cry's CryENGINE. CryENGINE2 is among the first engines to use the Direct3D 10 (DirectX10) framework of Windows Vista, but can also run using DirectX9, both on Vista and Windows XP.

Roy Taylor, Vice President of Content Relations at NVIDIA, has spoken on the subject of the engine's complexity, stating that Crysis has over a million lines of code, 1GB of texture data, and 85,000 shaders. To get the most out of modern multicore processor architectures, CPU intensive subsystems of CryENGINE 2 such as physics, networking and sound, have been re-written to support multi-threading.

Crysis offers an in-game benchmark tool, which is similar to World in Conflict. This short test does place some high amounts of stress on a graphics card, since there are so many landscape features rendered. For benchmarking purposes, Crysis can mean trouble as it places a high demand on both GPU and CPU resources. Benchmark Reviews uses the Crysis Benchmark Tool by Mad Boris to test frame rates in batches, which allows the results of many tests to be averaged.

Low-resolution testing allows the graphics processor to plateau its maximum output performance, which thereby shifts demand onto the other system components. At the lower resolutions Crysis will reflect the GPU's top-end speed in the composite score, indicating full-throttle performance with little load. This makes for a less GPU-dependant test environment, but it is sometimes helpful in creating a baseline for measuring maximum output performance. At the 1280x1024 resolution used by some newer 17" and most 19" monitors, all of the video cards tested performed at very respectable levels. At the widescreen resolutions of 1680x1050 and 1900x1200, the performance differences start appearing between the video cards under test.

Crysis used to be the toughest game in town, but the latest generation of video cards are finally starting to get a handle on it. Certainly with no anti-aliasing dialed in, any of the tested cards provide a usable solution. Keep in mind; none of these cards were overclocked, meaning I didn't push them any faster than their out-of-the-box settings. Several of them were factory overclocked, but I'm sure there are still a few MHz left on the table, even for them.

Once a decent amount of anti-aliasing is factored in, the high end cards start to show what they're made of. At 1680x1050 you start to see some degradation in game play with the HD4830 and HD4850, at 1900x1200, it becomes a major issue. The GTX260 hangs in there at both resolutions, offering a major step up from the mid-range offerings from ATI. The big dogs, the HD4890 and GTX285 still earn their pay, offering faultless performance all the way up to 1900x1200.

Devil May Cry 4 Benchmark

Devil May Cry 4 was released for the PC platform in early 2007 as the fourth installment to the Devil May Cry video game series. DMC4 is a direct port from the PC platform to console versions, which operate at the native 720P game resolution with no other platform restrictions. Devil May Cry 4 uses the refined MT Framework game engine, which has been used for many popular Capcom game titles over the past several years.

MT Framework is an exclusive seventh generation game engine built to be used with games developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and PC ports. MT stands for "Multi-Thread", "Meta Tools" and "Multi-Target". Originally meant to be an outside engine, but none matched their specific requirements in performance and flexibility. Games using the MT Framework are originally developed on the PC and then ported to the other two console platforms.

On the PC version a special bonus called Turbo Mode is featured, giving the game a slightly faster speed, and a new difficulty called Legendary Dark Knight Mode is implemented. The PC version also has both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 mode for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista Operating Systems.

It's always nice to be able to compare the results we receive here at Benchmark Reviews with the results you test for on your own computer system. Usually this isn't possible, since settings and configurations make it nearly difficult to match one system to the next; plus you have to own the game or benchmark tool we used.

Devil May Cry 4 fixes this, and offers a free benchmark tool available for download. Because the DMC4 MT Framework game engine is rather low-demand for today's cutting edge multi-GPU video cards, Benchmark Reviews uses the 1920x1200 resolution to test with 8x AA (highest AA setting available to Radeon HD video cards) and 16x AF. The benchmark runs through four test scenes, but scene #2 and #4 are the ones that usually offer a challenge.

Devil May Cry 4 is not as demanding a benchmark as it used to be. Only scene #2 and #4 are worth looking at from the standpoint of trying to separate the fastest video cards from the slower ones. Still, it represents a typical environment for many games that our readers still play on a regular basis, so it's good to see what works with it and what doesn't. Any of the tested cards will do a credible job in this application, and the performance scales in a pretty linear fashion. You get what you pay for in this game. This is one time where you can generally use the maximum available anti-aliasing, so NVIDIA users should feel free to crank it up to 16X.

Far Cry 2 Benchmark Results

Ubisoft has developed Far Cry 2 as a sequel to the original, but with a very different approach to game play and story line. Far Cry 2 features a vast world built on Ubisoft's new game engine called Dunia, meaning "world", "earth" or "living" in Farci. The setting in Far Cry 2 takes place on a fictional Central African landscape, set to a modern day timeline.

The Dunia engine was built specifically for Far Cry 2, by Ubisoft Montreal development team. It delivers realistic semi-destructible environments, special effects such as dynamic fire propagation and storms, real-time night-and-day sun light and moon light cycles, dynamic music system, and non-scripted enemy A.I actions.

The Dunia game engine takes advantage of multi-core processors as well as multiple processors and supports DirectX 9 as well as DirectX 10. Only 2 or 3 percent of the original CryEngine code is re-used, according to Michiel Verheijdt, Senior Product Manager for Ubisoft Netherlands. Additionally, the engine is less hardware-demanding than CryEngine 2, the engine used in Crysis.

However, it should be noted that Crysis delivers greater character and object texture detail, as well as more destructible elements within the environment. For example; trees breaking into many smaller pieces and buildings breaking down to their component panels. Far Cry 2 also supports the amBX technology from Philips. With the proper hardware, this adds effects like vibrations, ambient colored lights, and fans that generate wind effects.

There is a benchmark tool in the PC version of Far Cry 2, which offers an excellent array of settings for performance testing. Benchmark Reviews used the maximum settings allowed for our tests, with the resolution set to 1920x1200. The performance settings were all set to 'Very High', DirectX 9 Render Quality was set to 'Ultra High' overall quality, 8x anti-aliasing was applied, and HDR and Bloom were enabled.

Although the Dunia engine in Far Cry 2 is slightly less demanding than CryEngine 2 engine in Crysis, the strain appears to be extremely close. In Crysis we didn't dare to test AA above 4x, whereas we used 8x AA and 'Ultra High' settings in Far Cry 2. The end effect was a separation between what is capable of maximum settings, and what is not.

Using the short 'Ranch Small' time demo (which yields the lowest FPS of the three tests available), only a few products are capable of producing playable frame rates with the settings all turned up. Far Cry 2 shows a huge gap opening up between the HD4850 and the GTX260, at both resolutions. I can tell you, it was no fun playing Far Cry 2 at 10-12 frames per second, using the default benchmark settings. The GTX260 occupies the middle ground, however, when you start to look at what the HD4890 and the GTX285 can do. I can say that overclocking the GTX260 put it back into the running, however. We'll look at that a little bit later, in our Final Thoughts.

Our last benchmark of the series is coming next, which puts our collection of video cards against some very demanding graphics with World in Conflict.

World in Conflict Benchmark Results

The latest version of Massive's proprietary Masstech engine utilizes DX10 technology and features advanced lighting and physics effects, and allows for a full 360 degree range of camera control. Massive's MassTech engine scales down to accommodate a wide range of PC specifications, if you've played a modern PC game within the last two years, you'll be able to play World in Conflict.

World in Conflict's FPS-like control scheme and 360-degree camera make its action-strategy game play accessible to strategy fans and fans of other genres... if you love strategy, you'll love World in Conflict. If you've never played strategy, World in Conflict is the strategy game to try.

Based on the test results charted below it's clear that WiC doesn't place a limit on the maximum frame rate (to prevent a waste of power) which is good for full-spectrum benchmarks like ours, but bad for electricity bills. The average frame rate is shown for each resolution in the chart below. World in Conflict just begins to place demands on the graphics processor at the 1920x1280 resolution, so we'll jump ahead for our concensus.

The GTX260, with its 216 shader processors shows its muscle in the World In Conflict benchmark. Only the GTX 285 beats it. It's at rough parity with the ATI HD4890 at 1680x1050 resolution, but runs past it at 1920x1200.

ENGTX260 Matrix Temperature

Benchmark Reviews has a very popular guide written on Overclocking the NVIDIA GeForce Video Card, which gives detailed instruction on how to tweak a GeForce graphics card for better performance. Of course, not every video card has the head room. Some products run so hot that they can't suffer any higher temperatures than they already do. This is why we measure the operating temperature of the video card products we test.

To begin my testing, I use GPU-Z to measure the temperature at idle as reported by the GPU. Next I use FurMark 1.6.0 to generate maximum thermal load and record GPU temperatures at high-power 3D mode. The ambient room temperature remained stable at 24C throughout testing. The ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix video card recorded 42C in idle 2D mode, and increased to 74C after 20 minutes of stability testing in full 3D mode at 1920x1200 resolution.

FurMark is an OpenGL benchmark that heavily stresses and overheats the graphics card with fur rendering. The benchmark offers several options allowing the user to tweak the rendering: fullscreen / windowed mode, MSAA selection, window size, duration. The benchmark also includes a GPU Burner mode (stability test). FurMark requires an OpenGL 2.0 compliant graphics card with lot of GPU power! As an oZone3D.net partner, Benchmark Reviews offers a free download of FurMark to our visitors.

FurMark does do two things extremely well: drive the thermal output of any graphics processor higher than any other application or video game, and it does so with consistency every time. While Furmark is not a true benchmark tool for comparing different video cards, it still works well to compare one product against itself using different drivers or clock speeds, or testing the stability of a GPU, as it raises the temperatures higher than any program. But in the end, it's a rather limited tool.

I admit that 74°C is not the lowest temperature I saw during these test, but it's a good result, coming in just slightly below the Palit GTX260 Sonic 216SP card, which also has a beefed up cooler with dual fans. It's also not the highest, as the 4890 and GTX285 products hovered in the mid 80s while running Furmark in stability testing mode. I know all of you can do the math, but for those of us in the U.S., it still amazes me that these chips can run at 185°F and above for extended periods. The human body is physiologically incapable of holding on to any object that's hotter than 140°F, so yes, these chips are literally too hot to touch.

VGA Power Consumption

Life is not as affordable as it used to be, and items such as gasoline, natural gas, and electricity all top the list of resources which have exploded in price over the past few years. Add to this the limit of non-renewable resources compared to current demands, and you can see that the prices are only going to get worse. Planet Earth is needs our help, and needs it badly. With forests becoming barren of vegetation and snow capped poles quickly turning brown, the technology industry has a new attitude towards suddenly becoming "green". I'll spare you the powerful marketing hype that I get from various manufacturers every day, and get right to the point: your computer hasn't been doing much to help save energy... at least up until now.

To measure isolated video card power consumption, Benchmark Reviews uses the Kill-A-Watt EZ (model P4460) power meter made by P3 International. A baseline test is taken without a video card installed inside our computer system, which is allowed to boot into Windows and rest idle at the login screen before power consumption is recorded. Once the baseline reading has been taken, the graphics card is installed and the system is again booted into Windows and left idle at the login screen. Our final loaded power consumption reading is taken with the video card running a stress test using FurMark. Below is a chart with the isolated video card power consumption (not system total) displayed in Watts for each specified test product:

The ASUS ENGTX260 pulled 60 (180-120) watts at idle and 240 (360-120) watts when running full out, using the test method outlined above. These numbers are with the overclocked GPU and memory, as that's the way most people are going to run this card. I can't see paying for this level of capability and flexibility, and then not using it. The power draw measured in this test is comparable to the Palit GTX 260 Sonic 216SP, which is the closest competitor in the chart above.

I cross-checked the results with the power consumption breakdown displayed in the iTracker software, and they were quite a bit lower. I know that during the Furmark stability test, one core of the CPU is running at 100%, so that skews the results obtained in the standard testing. Still, I'm not happy with the disparity in the results. iTracker reported the power consumption as follows:

This is just one more example of the value provided by the ASUS software. For the general user, I don't know how much attention they might pay to power consumption on an ongoing basis once their system is set up, but for the reviewer, it's a very useful tool

GTX260 Final Thoughts

One of the enduring differentiators between NVIDIA and ATI GPU products is the quality and quantity of drivers that are available to support the latest hardware. You might think that quality is the only relevant consideration, but that ignores the fourth dimension of product development: Time. It's impossible to produce a driver package that is all things, to all people, all at once. It takes time to get everything right, and to incorporate all the desired features and enhancements that the customer wants.

At the risk of offending all the software engineers reading this.... there are two major methodologies for S/W development; waterfall and spiral. At the end of the waterfall process, everything that was planned to go in the S/W is in there, the software is released, and the project is finished. Just like a real waterfall, once you start, you don't stop until you reach the end. There are no intermediate steps; you get into the barrel at the beginning and you get out of the barrel (one way or another) at the end.

In spiral development, you zero in on the goal in a continuous spiral path. Every 360 degrees or so (one iteration of the design cycle), you release a partially complete, functional version of the desired final product. Every time you complete one loop, you either enhance existing features, or you add new ones. For a number of reasons, spiral development is the norm in driver software for video cards. Life as a computer enthusiast would certainly be simpler if the manufacturers all followed the waterfall development process, but we would still probably be waiting for the 8800GT drivers if they did. We have to live with a far greater amount of diversity and some instability in the video card market than we would prefer, just so we can get the ultimate payoff, like the 14% increase in frames per second that the latest NVIDIA driver (v185.85) delivers for Far Cry 2 players. Next month, Cryis might get the bump, after that WOW and L4D, and so it goes.

To get back to the beginning of this section, where I mentioned Quality and Quantity, now you can see why it's pretty much impossible to have one without the other. This is where NVIDIA distinguishes itself, they consistently provide more rapid, and consequently, more optimized driver updates for their products. Sometimes this is maddening; some of us don't feel like checking every week to see if a new driver's been released, but if you're willing to put in the effort, you will generally be rewarded with a more highly optimized video system.

During this review, I used six different driver packages, four NVIDIA, and two ATI (see what I mean...). I'm only reporting the results from three; the standard results all use a common ATI or NVIDIA driver, chosen for compatibility with recent articles published here on Benchmark Reviews. The overclocked results below utilized the best driver available, just because I wanted to show what was possible, as of today.

ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix Conclusion

The presentation of the ENGTX260 Matrix was well above average, not surprising for an item in one of their premium product lines. The retail box design is fairly subtle, no strange looking humanoids, just some medieval metalwork set off against a matte black background. The front panel swings open to reveal a double-wide inner panel that showcases some of the significant features, including the supplied software, iTracker and GamerOSD. The inner packaging is a series of black, folded cardboard modules, the largest one with a polyethylene insert, a static dissipative bag and the card itself. The smaller ones hold the manuals, CDs, adapters and cables.

The appearance of the product itself is a mix of function and styling. Unlike the boxy versions of the GTX260 cards that first appeared, the ASUS ENGTX260 only covers up what needs to be covered in order to make the cooling system function. There are some definite downsides to this approach, mainly the recycling of heat generated by the GPU into the case. However, if you've got a case that has enough airflow in the right direction and locations, you may not be affected. The glossy black fan shroud and dark PCB set off the silver of the heat sink fins nicely, and there is no denying the pleasing aesthetics of the circular style of HSF. The fine and regular spacing of the fins, as they approach the center of the assembly echoes bespoke manufacturing at its best.

The build quality of the product is well above average, especially the assembly of the PCB with its hundreds of components, all precisely positioned and soldered. You do see some variability in this from different suppliers; it's not a given. In addition all the components and materials are first rate.

What more can be said about the performance of a GTX260-216? The ASUS performs like a reference design when first plugged in. After that, fire up the supplied iTracker software and overclock it to your heart's content. Feel free to max out both the fans; they're quiet enough to run at full speed, unlike some of the radial blowers found on the boxy units. When you're done gaming, two-three clicks later, you can throttle it back down to power-save mode and sleep easy knowing that you aren't wasting excess energy, heating up the planet with unused clock cycles.

The ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix is not currently listed for sale in the US... yet. The only place it shows up is on the ASUS Global sight right now, so it's difficult to measure value for this product. There is a wide price range for GTX260-based video cards; Newegg lists them from $169.99 to $264.99, all of them 896MB versions with 216 shader cores. Of course the highest price models are factory overclocked on the order of 675MHz-GPU Core and 2300MHz-RAM. For the end-user's sake, let's hope these vendor supply the higher spec memory chips on those cards.

The ASUS ENGTX260 Matrix occupies the middle ground of enthusiast video cards. It's not going to be the cheapest, and it's not going to be the fastest. There are GTX260 cards out there with 1.8GB of memory, and if you want to get massive about overclocking the GPU, an extreme cooler or liquid cooling is a must. But unless you really feel the need to roll your own, there are more cost effective ways of getting higher performance. Benchmark Reviews is filled with reviews of newer, faster variants of the NVIDIA 200 series, and the latest from ATI if that's your preference. For a price point (TBD) though, the GTX260 acquits itself quite well, and this card from ASUS is certainly a well built example of the breed.

Certain applications, such as FOH, thrive on this platform, so it may be the absolute best choice for some. It earns a recommendation, primarily because it hits the mark it aims at, which is a fairly narrow segment of a fairly narrow market. If you are in that sliver of the pie, it's worth taking a look.

Pros:

+ Cooling Capacity
+ iTracker S/W is easy to use, works well, adds value
+ Driver performance
+ Build quality is A++
+ Premium looks
+ Lots of overclocking headroom in design

Cons:

- All the heat from the GPU stays in the case
- It could have been a GTX275
- Value is TBD with pricing

Ratings:

• Presentation: 8.50
• Appearance: 8.75
• Construction: 9.50
• Functionality: 8.50
• Value: 8.25

Final Score: 8.7 out of 10.

Recommended: Benchmark Reviews Seal of Approval.

Questions? Comments? Benchmark Reviews really wants your feedback. We invite you to leave your remarks in our Discussion Forum.

Related Articles:

• NETGEAR ProSafe GS110T Gigabit SmartSwitch
• Roccat Kova[+] Optical USB Gaming Mouse
• 6GB Kingston HyperX 2000MHz DDR3 Memory Kit
• Mythbusters DVD: Treats for Techies
• Sentey Arvina GS-6400R Computer Case
• ASUS M4A785TD-M EVO mATX AM3 Motherboard
• OCZ Blade ST 2000MHz Low Voltage DDR3 Memory
• Fractal Design Adjust 108 Fan Controller
• NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision Gaming Kit
• Honeywell SecuraDrive 80GB USB 1.8-Inch Pocket Drive