ASUS GeForce GT 430 Video Card Review

With the release of their Fermi architecture, NVIDIA has battled forward from a back-seat position to AMD's ATI Radeon HD 5000 series DX11 compatible video cards to once again regain the lead in GPU performance. When NVIDIA released the GTX480 video card, they reclaimed the top performance position, but the GPU had a lot of shortcomings, including extremely high operating temperatures and huge amounts of power usage. With the release of the GTX 460, NVIDIA corrected those issues and really earned the top marks the GF104 received. Now NVIDIA is adding another release to their Fermi line with the low-end GF108 GPU. NVIDIA is marketing this GPU as a mainstream gaming and media center GPU with DX11 and 3D capabilities. In this article, Benchmark Reviews takes an in-depth look at the ASUS ENGT430/DI/1GD3(LP) video card.

The GF104 Fermi-based GeForce GTX 460 and the GF106 Fermi-based GeForce GTS 450 show the true power of NVIDIA's Fermi architecture to dominate the mid-range price segment. With the GF108 Fermi-based GeForce GT 430, NVIDIA slims down the Fermi GPU even further to make a DX11 3D compatible card for the entry-level market. The GT 430 replaces the GT 220 and has already been gracing mobile platforms. NVIDIA is now releasing the GT 430 through its AIB partners as a discrete GPU for the desktop platform. NVIDIA anticipates the GT 430 to be sold mostly through distribution to system integrators. In fact, NVIDIA didn't even release an engineering sample for testing with the GT 430, which is why Benchmark Reviews is bringing you the ASUS card results for the release of the GF108 platform.

Basically, the GF108 GPU is half of a GF106 GPU, on which the GTS 450 cards are built. The GF108 is built on a 40 nm process like the rest of the Fermi GPUs, but it scales back to 96 CUDA cores compared to 192 in the GF106. Many of the GT 430 cards being released, including the ASUS GT 430, are low profile cards made to be able to fit easily in any case type. This will allow media PC users an opportunity to get 3D graphics and DX11 material out of their HTPCs. While Intel's i3 and low-end i5 series brought CPU horsepower to the media PC arena, the Intel HD Graphics fell short and left something to be desired. Media PC users were left unable to play many mainstream video games that shouldn't require an expensive GPU addition to play. According to NVIDIA's research, over 50% of mainstream video games can't reach playable resolutions using Intel HD Graphics. The inexpensive GT 430 is supposed to remedy this concern at the relatively low cost of around $79. Later in this article we will see how much of an improvement the GT 430 provides over Intel HD Graphics.

ASUS ENGT430 GeForce GT 430 Video Card

According the Steam Hardware Survey, most PC gamers use the resolutions of 1280x1024 when playing games. NVIDIA reports that the most commonly used resolution other than that is 1024x768. These resolutions are much lower than the 1920x1200, 1920x1080, or even 1680x1050 at which most of Benchmark Reviews testing is done. Lower resolutions often have the effect of making middle and low end video cards a viable solution for playing newer and more graphics intensive video games. Additionally, when the game's post-processing effects are tuned down to low or medium levels, much less stress is placed on the GPU. While the most stunning graphics and effects might be missed, a gamer can then experience these games at playable frame rates with a much less expensive GPU. Since the GT 430 is being launched as a media GPU with the capability to play mainstream video games, most of the games in our test bench have been toned down a few notches.

As I mentioned earlier, the GF108 is, in essence, half of a GF106. The nearly 1.17 million transistors have but cut to 585 million. Four Streaming Multiprocessors have been cut to two for a total of 96 CUDA Cores with 16 Texture Units rather than 192 CUDA Cores and 32 Texture Units. The core clock speed for the GT 430 is 700MHz while its shaders operate at 1400MHz. The GT 430 keeps the 1GB of 128-bit memory, but it is uses the less expensive GDDR3 memory instead of the GDDR5 found on the rest of the Fermi family GPUs. The GDDR3 memory frame buffer has a clock speed of 900MHz.

While PC gaming is still strong and growing, a new force is beginning to shape the PC market. Televisions and Monitors boasting 120Hz refresh rates are now able to provide unparalleled graphics experiences in 3D. No longer the venue of blue and red paper glasses, the next generation of 3D provides realistic and immersive pictures, videos, movies, and now games. NVIDIA is determined to be at the forefront of the 3D explosion and every one of their Fermi-based video cards are capable of running 3D media. NVIDIA estimates that the market for PC users that utilize their computers for media purposes is nearly double the amount that use their PC for playing games. The GT 430 is focused as media PC users but NVIDIA wouldn't be content unless their newest Fermi could play games as well. For this reason, the GT 430 supports full spectrum graphics operations and the latest NVIDIA Technologies; CUDA, PhysX, and 3D Vision. It looks like the 3D vision capabilities of the GT 430, however, are limited to photos, videos, web-streaming, and Blu-ray 3D. For those that have been reading Benchmark Reviews articles about the other Fermi-based GPUs, even the powerhouse GTX480 struggles to push out high frames rates with the latest 3D video games. This makes a lot of sense when you consider the differences. Media such as Blu-Ray movies, videos, and pictures are already rendered when you look at them. This takes the strain of rendering off of the video card. In gaming, since the player controls many aspects of the environment, the video card must render each of the frames. In 3D gaming, the video card has to render everything twice.

With NVIDIA stating the purpose of the GF108 based GT430 video card as a media PC 3D ready video card with the capability to play mainstream video games, we will be putting the ASUS ENGT430 to the test playing some of these games. While our charts will show the ASUS ENGT430 next to some higher end GPU options, this is simply to give you a good idea of where the performance of the ENGT430 lies in a cost comparative manner. So far, both the GF106 and GF104 have surprised users in the amount of value and performance they have been able to provide. Hopefully, the GF108 is no different and our ENGT430 will be able to perform well above its price level. We will be specifically looking for frame rates above 30FPS, as this is generally considered to be where games become comfortably playable. Using a series of DX10 and DX11 gaming benchmarks, we should be able to gauge accurately the value of the ASUS ENGT430 as not only a mainstream gaming card, but also as a media GPU. Many integrated graphics solutions can easily handle most media playback, so if the ENGT430 gives us a good performance in our video game benchmarks, it will undoubtedly handle any of your media needs.

Manufacturer: ASUSTek Computer, Inc.
Product Name: ENGT430 GeForce GT 430 1GB
Model Number: ASUS ENGT430/DI/1GD3(LP)
Price As Tested:$79.99 at NewEgg

Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by ASUS.

ASUS ENGT430 GeForce GT 430 Features

What's new in Fermi?

With any new technology, consumers want to know what's new in the product. The goal of this article is to share in-depth information surrounding the Fermi architecture, as well as the new functionality unlocked in GF100. For clarity, the 'GF' letters used in the GF100 GPU name are not an abbreviation for 'GeForce'; they actually denote that this GPU is a Graphics solution based on the Fermi architecture. The next generation of NVIDIA GeForce-series desktop video cards will use the GF100 to promote the following new features:

• Third Generation Streaming Multiprocessor (SM)
  o 32 CUDA cores per SM, 4x over GT200
  o 8x the peak double precision floating point performance over GT200
  o Dual Warp Scheduler simultaneously schedules and dispatches instructions from two independent warps
  o 64 KB of RAM with a configurable partitioning of shared memory and L1 cache
• Second Generation Parallel Thread Execution ISA
  o Unified Address Space with Full C++ Support
  o Optimized for OpenCL and DirectCompute
  o Full IEEE 754-2008 32-bit and 64-bit precision
  o Full 32-bit integer path with 64-bit extensions
  o Memory access instructions to support transition to 64-bit addressing
  o Improved Performance through Predication
• Improved Memory Subsystem
  o NVIDIA Parallel DataCache hierarchy with Configurable L1 and Unified L2 Caches
  o First GPU with ECC memory support
  o Greatly improved atomic memory operation performance
• NVIDIA GigaThread Engine
  o 10x faster application context switching
  o Concurrent kernel execution
  o Out of Order thread block execution
  o Dual overlapped memory transfer engines

Tessellation in DirectX-11

Control hull shaders run DX11 pre-expansion routines, and operates explicitly in parallel across all points. Domain shaders run post-expansion operations on maps (u/v or x/y/z/w) and is also implicitly parallel. Fixed function tessellation is configured by Level of Detail (LOD) based on output from the control hull shader, and can also produce triangles and lines if requested. Tessellation is something that is new to NVIDIA GPUs, and was not part of GT200 because of geometry bandwidth bottlenecks from sequential rendering/execution semantics.

In regard to the GF100-series graphics processor, NVIDIA has added a new PolyMorph and Raster engines to handle world-space processing (PolyMorph) and screen-space processing (Raster). There are eight PolyMorph engines and two Raster engines on the GF104, which depend on an improved L2 cache to keep buffered geometric data produced by the pipeline on-die.

Four-Offset Gather4

The texture unit on previous processor architectures operated at the core clock of the GPU. On GF104, the texture units run at a higher clock, leading to improved texturing performance for the same number of units. GF104's texture units now add support for DirectX-11's BC6H and BC7 texture compression formats, reducing the memory footprint of HDR textures and render targets.

The texture units also support jittered sampling through DirectX-11's four-offset Gather4 feature, allowing four texels to be fetched from a 128×128 pixel grid with a single texture instruction. NVIDIA GF100 series GPUs implements DirectX-11 four-offset Gather4 in hardware, greatly accelerating shadow mapping, ambient occlusion, and post processing algorithms. With jittered sampling, games can implement smoother soft shadows or custom texture filters efficiently. The previous GT200 GPU did not offer coverage samples, while the GF100-series can deliver 32x CSAA.

GF108 Compute for Games and Media

As developers continue to search for novel ways to improve their graphics engines, the GPU will need to excel at a diverse and growing set of graphics algorithms. Since these algorithms are executed via general compute APIs, a robust compute architecture is fundamental to a GPU's graphical capabilities. In essence, one can think of compute as the new programmable shader. GF100's compute architecture is designed to address a wider range of algorithms and to facilitate more pervasive use of the GPU for solving parallel problems. Many algorithms, such as ray tracing, physics, and AI, cannot exploit shared memory-program memory locality is only revealed at runtime. GF106's cache architecture was designed with these problems in mind. With up to 48 KB of L1 cache per Streaming Multiprocessor (SM) and a global L2 cache, threads that access the same memory locations at runtime automatically run faster, irrespective of the choice of algorithm.

NVIDIA Codename NEXUS brings CPU and GPU code development together in Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 for a shared process timeline. NEXUS also introduces the first hardware-based shader debugger. NVIDIA GF100-series GPUs are the first to ever offer full C++ support, the programming language of choice among game developers. To ease the transition to GPU programming, NVIDIA developed Nexus, a Microsoft Visual Studio programming environment for the GPU. Together with new hardware features that provide better debugging support, developers will be able enjoy CPU-class application development on the GPU. The end results is C++ and Visual Studio integration that brings HPC users into the same platform of development. NVIDIA offers several paths to deliver compute functionality on the GF106 GPU, such as CUDA C++ for video games.

Image processing, simulation, and hybrid rendering are three primary functions of GPU compute for gaming. Using NVIDIA GF100-series GPUs, interactive ray tracing becomes possible for the first time on a standard PC. Ray tracing performance on the NVIDIA GF100 is roughly 4x faster than it was on the GT200 GPU, according to NVIDIA tests. AI/path finding is a compute intensive process well suited for GPUs. The NVIDIA GF100 can handle AI obstacles approximately 3x better than on the GT200. Benefits from this improvement are faster collision avoidance and shortest path searches for higher-performance path finding.

NVIDIA GigaThread Thread Scheduler

One of the most important technologies of the Fermi architecture is its two-level, distributed thread scheduler. At the chip level, a global work distribution engine schedules thread blocks to various SMs, while at the SM level, each warp scheduler distributes warps of 32 threads to its execution units. The first generation GigaThread engine introduced in G80 managed up to 12,288 threads in real-time. The Fermi architecture improves on this foundation by providing not only greater thread throughput, but dramatically faster context switching, concurrent kernel execution, and improved thread block scheduling.

Based on the Fermi architecture, NVIDIA's latest GPU is codenamed GF108 and is equipped on the GeForce GT 430. In this article, Benchmark Reviews explains the technical architecture behind NVIDIA's GF108 graphics processor and offers an insight into upcoming Fermi-based GeForce video cards. For those who are not familiar, NVIDIA's GF100 GPU was their first graphics processor to support DirectX-11 hardware features such as tessellation and DirectCompute, while also adding heavy particle and turbulence effects. The GF100 GPU is also the successor to the GT200 graphics processor, which launched in the GeForce GTX 280 video card back in June 2008. NVIDIA has since redefined their focus, allowing subsequent GF100, GF104, GF106, and now GF108 GPUs to prove their dedication towards next generation gaming effects such as raytracing, order-independent transparency, and fluid simulations.

While processor cores have grown from 128 (G80) and 240 (GT200), they reach 512 in the GF100 and earn the title of NVIDIA CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) cores. GF100 was not another incremental GPU step-up like we had going from G80 to GT200. GF100 featured 512 CUDA cores, while GF104 was capable of 336 cores and GF106 had 192. Effectively cutting the four SMUs on GF106 in half, NVIDIA's GF108 is good for 96 CUDA cores from just two SMUs. The key here is not only the name, but that the name now implies an emphasis on something more than just graphics. Each Fermi CUDA processor core has a fully pipelined integer arithmetic logic unit (ALU) and floating point unit (FPU). GF108 implements the IEEE 754-2008 floating-point standard, providing the fused multiply-add (FMA) instruction for both single and double precision arithmetic. FMA improves over a multiply-add (MAD) instruction by doing the multiplication and addition with a single final rounding step, with no loss of precision in the addition. FMA minimizes rendering errors in closely overlapping triangles.

GF108 implements 96 CUDA cores, organized as 2 SMs of 48 cores each. Each SM is a highly parallel multiprocessor supporting up to 32 warps at any given time (four Dispatch Units per SM deliver two dispatched instructions per warp for four total instructions per clock per SM). Each CUDA core is a unified processor core that executes vertex, pixel, geometry, and compute kernels. A unified L2 cache architecture (512KB on 1GB cards) services load, store, and texture operations. GF108 is designed to offer a total of 4 ROP units pixel blending, antialiasing, and atomic memory operations. The ROP units are organized in two groups of two. Each group is serviced by a 64-bit memory controller. The memory controller, L2 cache, and ROP group are closely coupled-scaling one unit automatically scales the others.

NVIDIA Fermi GF108 Block Diagram

Based on Fermi's third-generation Streaming Multiprocessor (SM) architecture, GF108 could be considered a divided GF106. NVIDIA GeForce GF100-series Fermi GPUs are based on a scalable array of Graphics Processing Clusters (GPCs), Streaming Multiprocessors (SMs), and memory controllers. NVIDIA's GF100 GPU implemented four GPCs, sixteen SMs, and six memory controllers. GF104 implements two GPCs, eight SMs, and four memory controllers. Conversely, GF108 houses one GPC, two SMs, and two memory controllers. Where each SM contained 32 CUDA cores in the GF100, NVIDIA configured GF104 with 48 cores per SM... which has been repeated for GF106 and the GF108. As expected, NVIDIA Fermi-series products are launching with different configurations of GPCs, SMs, and memory controllers to address different price points.

CPU commands are read by the GPU via the Host Interface. The GigaThread Engine fetches the specified data from system memory and copies them to the frame buffer. GF108 implements two 64-bit GDDR3memory controllers (128-bit total) to facilitate high bandwidth access to the frame buffer. The GigaThread Engine then creates and dispatches thread blocks to various SMs. Individual SMs in turn schedules warps (groups of 48 threads) to CUDA cores and other execution units. The GigaThread Engine also redistributes work to the SMs when work expansion occurs in the graphics pipeline, such as after the tessellation and rasterization stages.

GF108 Specifications

• 96 CUDA Cores
• 16 Texture Units
• 4 ROP Units
• 128-bit GDDR3
• DirectX-11 API Support

GeForce 400-Series Specifications

VGA Testing Methodology

The Microsoft DirectX-11 graphics API is native to the Microsoft Windows 7 Operating System, and will be the primary O/S for our test platform. DX11 is also available as a Microsoft Update for the Windows Vista O/S, so our test results apply to both versions of the Operating System. The majority of benchmark tests used in this article are comparative to DX11 performance, however some high-demand DX10 tests have also been included.

According to the Steam Hardware Survey published for the month ending September 2010, the most popular gaming resolution is 1680x1050 (22-24" widescreen LCD) with 1280x1024 (17-19" standard LCD monitors) close behind. However, because the ASUS ENGT430 GF108 GPU is considered a low end GPU meant for use in media PCs and for mainstream rather than high-end gaming, our benchmark performance tests concentrate on low demand resolutions: 1280x1024 (17-19" standard LCD) and 1024x768 (15-19" standard LCD monitors). These resolutions are more likely to be used as mainstream graphics solutions, and will be tested as such in this article.

In each benchmark test there is one 'cache run' that is conducted, followed by five recorded test runs. Results are collected at each setting with the highest and lowest results discarded. The remaining three results are averaged, and displayed in the performance charts on the following pages.

A combination of synthetic and video game benchmark tests have been used in this article to illustrate relative performance among graphics solutions. Our benchmark frame rate results are not intended to represent real-world graphics performance, as this experience would change based on supporting hardware and the perception of individuals playing the video game.

As a computer enthusiast, I find it a little unlikely that a PC user with an X58 system and a Core i7 CPU would opt for a $79 GPU such as the ASUS ENGT430. For this reason, I am not using an X58 system to test the ASUS ENGT430. I also don't want to use an extremely low-end system, as that would put undue stress on the GPU from the lack of other components. For this review, I will be using an AMD Athlon-II AM3 based system because I feel that it represents a relatively realistic system for use with entry and mid-level GPUs and specifically for a media PC or for a mainstream gaming system.

DX11 Cost to Performance Ratio

For this article Benchmark Reviews has included cost per FPS for graphics performance results. Only the least expensive product price is calculated, and does not consider tax, freight, promotional offers, or rebates into the cost. All prices reflect product series components, and do not represent any specific manufacturer, model, or brand. These retail prices for each product were obtained from NewEgg.com on 10-October-2010:

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (ASUS ENGT430 MSRP - Not available on 10-October-2010)
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+)
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG)
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB

• Motherboard: Biostar TA890GXB-HD (890GX/SB850)
• Processor: AMD Athlon-II X4-645 3.1GHz (ADX645WFGMBOX)
• CPU Cooler: Scythe Mugen II
• System Memory:2x2GB Patriot Gamer Series DDR3 (1333MHz@7-7-7-21)
• Primary Drive: Filemate Solid GO 60GB SSD
• Power Supply Unit: OCZ Z-Series Gold 850W OCZZ850 Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850W
• Monitor: 23-Inch Widescreen LCD (up to 1920x1080@60Hz)

DirectX-10 Benchmark Applications

• 3DMark Vantage v1.02 (Performance Quality, 4x Multisample Anti-Aliasing, 4x Anisotropic Filtering, 1:2 Scale)
• Left 4 Dead 2 (DX10, High Quality, 4x Anti-Aliasing, 4x Anisotropic Filtering, Airfield Demo)
• Far Cry 2 v1.03 (DX10,High Performance, High Quality, 4x Anti-Aliasing, HDR + Bloom)
• Resident Evil 5 Benchmark (DX10, High Quality, 4x MSAA)
• Street Fighter IV Benchmark (High Quality, 4x AA, 4x AF, Parrallel Rendering)

DirectX-11 Benchmark Applications

• Aliens vs Predator (High Quality, 4x AA, 4x AF, SSAO, Tessellation, Advanced Shadows)
• BattleField: Bad Company 2 (High Quality, 4x Anti-Aliasing, 4x Anisotropic Filtering, Single-Player Intro Scene)
• Lost Planet 2 (High Quality, AAA, 4x AF, Benchmark Tool)
• Unigine Heaven Benchmark 2.2 (DX11, Normal Tessellation, 4x AF, 4x AA)

Video Card Test Products

• MSI GeForce 9800 GTX+ / GTS 250 (740 MHz GPU/1836 MHz Shader/1100 MHz vRAM - Forceware 260.63)
• MSI GeForce GTX 285 (670 MHz GPU/1550 MHz Shader/1330 MHz vRAM - Forceware 260.63)
• PowerColor Radeon HD 5770 1GBD5-PPVG2 (850 MHz GPU/1200 MHz vRAM - ATI Catalyst Driver 10.9)
• ASUS ENGT430 GeForce GT 430 1GB (700 MHz GPU/1400 MHz Shader/900 MHz vRAM - Forceware 260.77)

DX10: 3DMark Vantage

3DMark Vantage is a PC benchmark suite designed to test the DirectX10 graphics card performance. FutureMark 3DMark Vantage is the latest addition the 3DMark benchmark series built by FutureMark corporation. Although 3DMark Vantage requires NVIDIA PhysX to be installed for program operation, only the CPU/Physics test relies on this technology.

3DMark Vantage offers benchmark tests focusing on GPU, CPU, and Physics performance. Benchmark Reviews uses the two GPU-specific tests for grading video card performance: Jane Nash and New Calico. These tests isolate graphical performance, and remove processor dependence from the benchmark results.

3DMark Vantage GPU Test: Jane Nash

Of the two GPU tests 3DMark Vantage offers, the Jane Nash performance benchmark is slightly less demanding. In a short video scene the special agent escapes a secret lair by water, nearly losing her shirt in the process. Benchmark Reviews tests this DirectX-10 scene at 1280x1024 and 1024x768 resolutions, and uses Performance quality settings with 4x anti-aliasing and 4x anisotropic filtering. The 1:2 scale is utilized, and is the highest this test allows. These settings allow for the GPUs in the test to be stressed sufficiently, without putting too much pressure on the entry-level ENGT430.

Cost Analysis: Jane Nash (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $8.62 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $6.55 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $6.29 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $7.82 per FPS

3DMark Vantage GPU Test: New Calico

New Calico is the second GPU test in the 3DMark Vantage test suite. Of the two GPU tests, New Calico is the most demanding. In a short video scene featuring a galactic battleground, there is a massive display of busy objects across the screen. Benchmark Reviews tests this DirectX-10 scene at 1280x1024 and 1024x768 resolutions, and uses Performance quality settings with 4x anti-aliasing and 4x anisotropic filtering. The 1:2 scale is utilized, and is the highest this test allows. Using these settings will allow us to see if the ASUS ENGT430 has the power necessary to function as a mainstream gaming GPU.

Cost Analysis: New Calico (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $8.21 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $6.78 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $7.56 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $8.61 per FPS

Test Summary: The 3DMark Vantage tests thoroughly stress even the strongest GPUs, as can be witnessed by the less than stellar 33.24 FPS in the Jane Nash test achieved by our strongest GPU in the testbed, the GTX 285. So it really comes as no surpise that the entry level ASUS ENGT430 can't give us a very strong showing showing under these conditions. At just 9.16 FPS at 1280x1024 in the Jane Nash test and 9.61 FPS in the New Calico test, the ASUS ENGT430 is jumpy and certainly unplayable. But if you look closely, the $8.21 per FPS is actually under the price per FPS of the GTX 285 for the New Calico test. While the GTS 250 steals the show as far as pricer per FPS is concerned in New Calico, the lack of DX11 helps to push up the value of the GT 430, even if only slightly. Even so, the price ratio is still quite a bit lower on the ENGT430 than it is on the Radeon HD 5770.

DX10: Left 4 Dead 2

The Source Engine that Valve uses to develop their games can be summarized as the epitome of a "mainstream gaming" engine. Valve's titles have generally been very popular so the Source Engine is a good benchmark to use to see performance across mainstream platforms. The Source Engine has been recently criticized as showing its age. The graphics are not insanely GPU intensive and most video cards won't have much trouble rendering the games based on the source engine. This makes the Source engine an especially good fit for testing the GT 430, meant to be an entry-level media GPU with mainstream gaming capabilities.

- Source combines leading-edge character animation, advanced AI, real-world physics, shader-based rendering, and a highly extensible development environment to produce some of the most popular computer and console games. These games deliver the most intense, visually-stunning gameplay experiences on modern hardware, while scaling smoothly on older systems, enabling developers to reach a diverse range of gamers.

At its core, Source is designed with a modular, component-based architecture that enables the seamless integration of new features and technologies. Since its 2004 debut to third-party developers, Source licensees have benefited from the very latest tools for level design, modeling and character animation, online play and communications, console development, and more-all available at no extra cost or additional licensing fees.

Cost Analysis: Left 4 Dead 2 (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $0.97 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $0.79 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $1.08 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $1.40 per FPS

Test Summary: Benchmarking the game Left 4 Dead 2 definitely shows that the ASUS ENGT430 is capable of playing mainstream video games. Based on the same engine as other Valve titles such as Counterstrike: Source, Left 4 Dead 2 is a good representation of very popular games. At the 1280x1024 the game is playable with the ENGT430 even with 4x AF and 4x AA and relatively high settings. If you looking to play games with low graphics intensity, such as games based on the Source engine, the ENGT430 is very capable. It even earns a lower price per FPS than both the Radeon HD 5770 and the GTX 285.

DX10: Street Fighter IV

Capcom's Street Fighter IV is part of the now-famous Street Fighter series that began in 1987. The 2D Street Fighter II was one of the most popular fighting games of the 1990s, and now gets a 3D face-lift to become Street Fighter 4. The Street Fighter 4 benchmark utility was released as a novel way to test your system's ability to run the game. It uses a few dressed-up fight scenes where combatants fight against each other using various martial arts disciplines. Feet, fists and magic fill the screen with a flurry of activity. Due to the rapid pace, varied lighting and the use of music this is one of the more enjoyable benchmarks.

Street Fighter IV uses a proprietary Capcom SF4 game engine, which is enhanced over previous versions of the game. In terms of 3D graphical demand, Street Fighter IV is considered very low-end for most desktop GPUs. While modern desktop computers with discrete graphics have no problem playing Street Fighter IV at its highest graphical settings, integrated and mobile GPUs have a difficult time producing playable frame rates with the lowest settings configured.

• Street Figher IV Benchmark (High Quality, 4x AA, 4x AF, Parallel Rendering)

Cost Analysis: Street Fighter IV (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $1.32 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $1.15 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $1.48 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $2.51 per FPS

Test Summary: At the still very popular gaming resolution of 1280X1024, the ASUS ENGT430 gives us absolutely playing frame rates, even with 4x AA and 4x AF enabled. Undoubtedly a higher resolution would bring the numbers down, but we are really interested in seeing if mainstream gaming is possible with the ENGT430. Just based on the difference in prices, we can't really compare the ENGT430 directly to the other video cards in the test bed, but the price per FPS can give us a good idea of whether or not the card is a viable solution for an entry-level gaming system. According to the Street Fighter IV test, it is. In fact, in the price per FPS ratio, the ENGT430 actually outperforms the Radeon HD 5770 here.

DX10: Far Cry 2

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 high settings for DirectX-10 tests, with the resolutions set to 1280x1024 and 1024x768. Performance settings were all set to 'High', Render Quality was set to 'High' overall quality, 4x anti-aliasing was applied, and HDR and Bloom were enabled.

Cost Analysis: Far Cry 2 (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP)= $2.46 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $1.88 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $2.66 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $3.68 per FPS

Test Summary: Far Cry 2 may use the same Dunia engine that Crysis uses, but the benchmark is generally less taxing than the Crysis benchmark. This makes Far Cry 2 a perfect game for benchmarking the ASUS ENGT430 because it will give us a good idea of how the GT430 performs under the fairly intense pressure of a game that can still be considered mainstream. The ASUS ENGT430 provides us with playable frame rates (above 30 FPS) during the Far Cry 2 benchmark, which is a good sign that the GPU can perform at the level that NVIDIA has stated it can. The price per FPS of the ENGT430 falls in line with the other GPUs tested, albeit higher than the GTS 250. It does come in just under the price per FPS posted by the Radeon HD 5770.

DX10: Resident Evil 5

Built upon an advanced version of Capcom's proprietary MT Framework game engine to deliver DirectX-10 graphic detail, Resident Evil 5 offers gamers non-stop action similar to Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet, and Dead Rising. The 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". Games using the MT Framework are originally developed on the PC and then ported to the other two console platforms.

On the PC version of Resident Evil 5, both DirectX 9 and DirectX-10 modes are available for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista Operating Systems. Microsoft Windows 7 will play Resident Evil with backwards compatible Direct3D APIs. Resident Evil 5 is branded with the NVIDIA The Way It's Meant to be Played (TWIMTBP) logo, and receives NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision functionality enhancements.

NVIDIA and Capcom offer the Resident Evil 5 benchmark demo for free download from their website, and Benchmark Reviews encourages visitors to compare their own results to ours. Because the Capcom MT Framework game engine is very well optimized and produces high frame rates, Benchmark Reviews uses the DirectX-10 version of the test at 1280x1024 resolution. High quality settings are configured, with 4x MSAA post processing effects for high demand on the GPU. Test scenes from Area #3 and Area #4 require the most graphics processing power, and the results are collected for the chart illustrated below.

Cost Analysis: Resident Evil 5 (Area 4)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $2.37 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $2.07 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $1.79 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $2.26 per FPS

Test Summary: The Resident Evil 5 benchmark, though also a CAPCOM title, appears to be a little tougher on the GPU than the Street Fighter IV benchmark. Areas #3 and #4 are the most graphically demanding in this benchmark, so we have charted those two scenes. In area #3, the ENGT430 comes very close to the goal of 30FPS, but it doesn't quite make it. The other three areas, including area #4 as you can see, were above the playable frame rates, even if only slightly. If we turned the resolution down to 1024x768, we would see absolutely playable frame rates. Also, disabling or tuning down some of the features, such as Anti-Aliasing, would most likely give us frame rates well above the 30 FPS mark. Even so, the price per FPS of the GT 430 falls somewhat in line with the other products tested, though the Radeon HD 5770 steals the show. We can see that, if you wanted, the GT 430 could be a viable solution for playing this CAPCOM title, provided you lower the settings a little.

DX11: Aliens vs Predator

Aliens vs. Predator is a science fiction first-person shooter video game, developed by Rebellion, and published by Sega for Microsoft Windows, Sony PlayStation 3, and Microsoft Xbox 360. Aliens vs. Predator utilizes Rebellion's proprietary Asura game engine, which had previously found its way into Call of Duty: World at War and Rogue Warrior. The self-contained benchmark tool is used for our DirectX-11 tests, which push the Asura game engine to its limit.

In our benchmark tests, Aliens vs. Predator was configured to use the medium quality settings with 4x AA and 4x AF. DirectX-11 features such as Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) and tessellation have also been included.

Cost Analysis: Aliens vs Predator (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $6.69 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $6.20 per FPS

Test Summary: In our first DX11 title, the ASUS ENGT430 doesn't perform too terribly as far as price is concerned. There is no chance you would be using the ENGT430, even at medium settings, to play this game. You would need to lower the settings substantially to get playable frame rates. And at that point, it's hard to decide if it's worth it or not. The ENGT430 doesn't hold as much value in price per FPS as the Radeon HD 5770 either. So far, the DX11 gaming capabilities, while possible, don't seem to be too promising for the ASUS ENGT430.

DX11: Battlefield Bad Company 2

The Battlefield franchise has been known to demand a lot from PC graphics hardware. DICE (Digital Illusions CE) has incorporated their Frostbite-1.5 game engine with Destruction-2.0 feature set with Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 features destructible environments using Frostbit Destruction-2.0, and adds gravitational bullet drop effects for projectiles shot from weapons at a long distance. The Frostbite-1.5 game engine used on Battlefield: Bad Company 2 consists of DirectX-10 primary graphics, with improved performance and softened dynamic shadows added for DirectX-11 users.

At the time Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was published, DICE was also working on the Frostbite-2.0 game engine. This upcoming engine will include native support for DirectX-10.1 and DirectX-11, as well as parallelized processing support for 2-8 parallel threads. This will improve performance for users with an Intel Core-i7 processor. Unfortunately, the Extreme Edition Intel Core i7-980X six-core CPU with twelve threads will not see full utilization.

In our benchmark tests of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, the first three minutes of action in the single-player raft night scene are captured with FRAPS. Relative to the online multiplayer action, these frame rate results are nearly identical to daytime maps with the same video settings.

Cost Analysis: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $3.49 per FPS
• $115 GeForce GTS 250 512MB (9800GTX+) = $2.52 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG2) = $3.43 per FPS
• $260 GeForce GTX 285 1GB = $3.60 per FPS

Test Summary: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 set to 4x AA and high settings isn't quite playable at 1280x1024 by the ASUS ENGT430. That being said, the price per FPS isn't far behind the Radeon HD 5770. With the settings a little bit lower, the frame rates could increase enough to be playable, as is noticed when the game is played at the resolution of 1024x768. The Frostbite-1.5 engine isn't as instensive as some of the other games that we have benchmarked for this article, but it isn't the easiest either. As a good identifier of the performance that the ENGT430 is capable of in mainstream gaming, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 suits its purpose quite well.

DX11: Lost Planet 2

A decade has passed since the first game, and the face of E.D.N. III has changed dramatically. Terra forming efforts have been successful and the ice has begun to melt, giving way to lush tropical jungles and harsh unforgiving deserts. Players will enter this new environment and follow the exploits of their own customized snow pirate on their quest to seize control of the changing planet.

Test A
The primary purpose of Test A is to give an indication of typical game play performance of the PC running Lost Planet 2. (i.e. if you can run Mode A smoothly, the game will be playable at a similar condition). In this test, the character's motion is randomized to give a slightly different outcome each time.

Test B
The primary purpose of Test B is to push the PC to its limits and to evaluate the maximum performance of the PC. It utilizes many functions of Direct X11 resulting in a very performance-orientated, very demanding benchmark mode. (Information obtained from the Lost Planet 2 website)

With the our previous CAPCOM game testing results showing that the ENGT430 can play CAPCOM games, we would be remiss to leave out the Lost Planet 2 Benchmark. The first of CAPCOM's benchmarks to utilize DX11, Lost Planet 2 can stress a GPU greatly, especially with its Test B. In this article, we used Test A in order to give us a good idea of how playable Lost Planet 2 is using high settings and 4x MSAA as well as low DX11 settings.

Cost Analysis: Lost Planet 2 (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $5.06 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG) = $5.65 per FPS

Test Summary: In the same fashion as the Alien vs. Predator benchmark, you won't be playing Lost Planet 2 with the ASUS ENGT430 on high settings. You'll have to lower them substantially to get worthwhile frame rates. The interesting thing about the ENGT430's performance in the Lost Planet 2 benchmark is that its price per FPS is actually lower than the Radeon HD 5770. When looking at the recent GF106 and GF104 video cards, we noticed that their price per FPS ratios were all very good. This is what I expected to see with the ENGT430. I didn't have any misconceptions that it would be able to play most games at high settings, but I thought the price / performance ratio would be higher. Lost Planet 2 helps me regain a little confidence in the performance of the ENGT430, though only slightly.

DX11: Unigine Heaven 2.2

The Unigine "Heaven 2.1" benchmark is a free publicly available tool that grants the power to unleash the graphics capabilities in DirectX-11 for Windows 7 or updated Vista Operating Systems. It reveals the enchanting magic of floating islands with a tiny village hidden in the cloudy skies. With the interactive mode, emerging experience of exploring the intricate world is within reach. Through its advanced renderer, Unigine is one of the first to set precedence in showcasing the art assets with tessellation, bringing compelling visual finesse, utilizing the technology to the full extend and exhibiting the possibilities of enriching 3D gaming.

The distinguishing feature in the Unigine Heaven benchmark is a hardware tessellation that is a scalable technology aimed for automatic subdivision of polygons into smaller and finer pieces, so that developers can gain a more detailed look of their games almost free of charge in terms of performance. Thanks to this procedure, the elaboration of the rendered image finally approaches the boundary of veridical visual perception: the virtual reality transcends conjured by your hand. The "Heaven" benchmark excels at providing the following key features:

• Native support of OpenGL, DirectX 9, DirectX-10 and DirectX-11
• Comprehensive use of tessellation technology
• Advanced SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion)
• Volumetric cumulonimbus clouds generated by a physically accurate algorithm
• Dynamic simulation of changing environment with high physical fidelity
• Interactive experience with fly/walk-through modes
• ATI Eyefinity support

We also tested the ASUS ENGT430 and the other video cards in our testbed using the Unigine Heaven 2.2 DX10 Benchmark, to see how the GT 430 fared against all of the video cards. Remember that the Unigine Heaven Benchmark is best represented using DX11, so the DX10 benchmarks are just a relative analysis.

Cost Analysis: Unigine Heaven DX11 (1280x1024)

• $79 GeForce GT 430 1GB (MSRP) = $5.67 per FPS
• $165 Radeon HD 5770 1GB (PowerColor 1GBD5-PPVG) = $7.67 per FPS

Test Summary: In the Unigine Heaven DX11 tests, the ENGT430 slaughters the price per FPS of the Radeon HD 5770. That being said, even at only moderately high settings, the game isn't playable. When NVIDIA said that the GT 430 would be able to play mainstream games, I suppose that didn't take into account any DX11 games. I'm not sure here if even lowering the settings all down to the lowest level would make the Unigine Heaven Benchmark give up more than 30FPS. While the price per FPS is surprising, the overall performance here really isn't.

ASUS ENGT430 Final Thoughts

The release of the GF108 Fermi continues the trend that NVIDIA has set of basically cutting in half the previously released GPU. Starting with the GF100, NVIDIA released their most powerful, if extremely hot and power hungry, GPU. After that, NVIDIA began to gain ground back with the release of the GF104 and GF106. These GPUs brought confidence back to the NVIDIA product line and we began to see what we always expected, high price / performance ratios and solid graphics cards.

The GF108 represents the low end of the GF100 Fermi series and I wasn't anticipating a whole out of the GT 430. The GF108 had previously been released for use in laptop platforms and NVIDIA doesn't expect the desktop release to sell many video cards outside of pre-built systems. Still, the pre-built systems market is very large. For every high-end gamer or PC enthusiast, there are quite a few people who simply go down to a retail store and buy a PC off the shelf.

While this might sound like an insane idea to an enthusiast, it happens all the time. In these cases, the specifications of a GPU go relatively unnoticed and the overall price of the complete system and its features are usually what matter most. With features like DX11 compatibility, mainstream gamers will like what they see. The NVIDIA 3D options give the ASUS ENGT430 and other GT 430 GPUs an excellent advantage as well. 3D isn't going away, and with the rapid growth in the Media and Home Theatre PC market, 3D compatibility will soon be a must.

The most appealing aspect of the ASUS ENGT430 is of its uses in a media PC or Home Theater PC. The test results of our gaming benchmarks have shown that the ASUS ENGT430 has the possibility of playing mainstream video games, but you may have to tune down the settings quite bit in some games in order to get playable frame rates. Still, I have an HTPC that I use for pretty much everything except gaming. I use Windows Media Center for Windows 7 and have my TV and all of my media running through that system. Right now, the system is using the integrated Intel GMA4500 graphics. With many HTPCs and Media PCs using mini-ITX motherboards, the options have been limited as far as GPUs are concerned.

Recently, I have been considering upgrading my television to a 120Hz 3D capable TV in order to get and watch 3D Blu-Ray movies and other 3D media. 3D is so intriguing and so much better now than it was with blue and red goggles that just can't help myself. In looking at the upgrade, however, I had all but decided to ditch the HTPC. Switching back and forth from the Blu-Ray player to the cable to the HTPC, simply as it sounds, seems like too much of a hassle. I enjoy using a single setting to enjoy all of my media, so it seemed like the HTPC was on the outs. The ASUS ENGT430 changes all that. With it, I will be able to watch 3D movies, 3D broadcast content, 3D streaming content, and even make my own 3D pictures and videos. Additionally, I'll be able to sit on my couch and play games on a 50-inch screen; at relatively low settings of course.

When everything went digital, I gradually stopped looking at my personal media. The SD card in my digital camera holds virtually unlimited amounts of pictures, so I never take them to get developed. My video camera has a large hard drive in it, so I never make DVDs to sit and watch and for some reason, it's too hard to hook up all those cables just to watch home movies. The HTPC changed all that. Now I download my pictures and movies to my computer and the pictures show as a slideshow on my TV whenever I'm not watching something else. Instead of messing with all the hardware, I just select my home movies with my remote control. TV, radio, Netflix, Hulu, I access them all from one place with one remote. Now, with the ASUS ENGT430, I won't have to give all that up to enjoy 3D movies, pictures, broadcasts, or streams.

So, here is my advice, take it or leave it. If you have an HTPC or a Media PC or if you are considering getting one, I highly recommend the ASUS ENGT430 video card. If you are getting it as a pre-built system, pay attention, and make sure it has a GF108 GPU in it. Whether or not you planning on making the move to 3D capable hardware right now, you will be one step ahead with the ASUS ENGT430. YouTube is already streaming 3D content and many sporting events are broadcast in 3D. And don't forget, you can play games with the ASUS ENGT430, if you tune down the settings enough.

If you don't have and don't want an HTPC, then don't get the ASUS ENGT430. For not much more, you can get a video card that will play games with high settings. Even if you don't play games or use other graphics intensive software, the ASUS ENGT430 isn't going to do you much good for everyday PC concerns. An integrated Radeon HD4290 or Intel HD Graphics will do wonderfully for your homework, email, facebook, etc. Why spend the extra $79.

For the HTPC users or desirers, stay tuned to Benchmark Reviews. In the near future I will be detailing the power consumption, temperatures, and other detailed features of the ASUS ENGT430.

ASUS ENGT430 GeForce GT 430 Conclusion

IMPORTANT: Although the rating and final score mentioned in this conclusion are made to be as objective as possible, please be advised that every author perceives these factors differently at various points in time. While we each do our best to ensure that all aspects of the product are considered, there are often times unforeseen market conditions and manufacturer changes which occur after publication that could render our rating obsolete. Please do not base any purchase solely on our conclusion, as it represents our product rating specifically for the product tested which may differ from future versions. Benchmark Reviews begins our conclusion with a short summary for each of the areas that we rate.

Most mainstream gamers are using the resolutions of 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. Most ASUS ENGT430 users will not be. Not for games anyway. The ASUS ENGT430 best performs at the low intensity resolution of 1024x768 when it comes to games. Higher resolutions are possible, but at the expense of good quality and higher settings. As far as mainstream gaming performance, the ASUS ENGT430 performed almost exactly where NVIDIA said it would. It will play the games at low resolution and with some features enabled. Our gaming benchmarks prove, however, that the ASUS ENGT430 could perform very well as a media GPU. The ASUS ENGT430 will have no problems streaming high quality movies, pictures, and videos and it also enables 3D media viewing. The ASUS ENGT430, being a GF100 series product, also supports DirectX 11, although not very well when it comes to video games. Other DX11 content will be easily playable, however.

ASUS sticks pretty closely to the reference design with their version of the GT430. The heatsink on the ENGT430 is slightly smaller and has the now familiar ASUS flare to it. The low profile ASUS ENGT430 looks like it would be right at home in a media PC. With the low temperatures and power consumption of its predecessors, the small heatsink and fan combo won't be an issue for keeping the ENGT430 cool and it besides heat, it looks pretty cool too.

That brings us to the actual construction of the ASUS ENGT430. In this regard, the ENGT430 again matches pretty closely the reference design. There are three I/O ports on the back, VGA, DVI, and HDMI. There isn't a power connector, and one isn't necessary. As I mentioned before, the relatively small cooling devices are plenty for the needs of the card. The ASUS ENGT430 looks like it keeps up the ASUS standard, there are no noticeable defects or misaligned capacitors. Overall, the ENGT430 is well-constructed and suited for the purposes of a GT 430 series card.

As far as media streaming, DX11 compatibility, and pre-rendered 3D media is concerned, the ASUS ENGT430 packs a lot of punch. It brings 3D to the entry level user and allows for mainstream gaming as well. In the gaming arena, the ASUS ENGT430 didn't surprise us like the GTX 460 and GTS 450 cards did. The ENGT430 performed right where it was supposed to, and not really higher than that. Seeing that the ASUS ENGT430 does exactly what it is supposed to, we have to judge it accordingly. It should receive good marks. I can't, however, give the ENGT430 the highest marks in functionality because I would have liked to see it do better in gaming.

The ASUS ASUS ENGT430/DI/1GD3(LP) is sold for $79.99 at NewEgg, representing an entry-level price for this video card. Compared to integrated graphics solutions, it will provide a significant increase in performance. The ENGT430 fits right into its price point and appeals greatly to PC users that view a lot of media from their computers and want to expand into 3D and DX11 media. The ASUS ENGT430 doesn't hold much value for a PC gamer or a graphics artist, but at the same time, that's not the market targeted by the GF108. The true value of the ASUS ENGT430 is in the ability not just to supply DX11 compliance, because that can be found in a lot of places now, but to truly revolutionize the media PC segment by implementing the 3D experience.

I said it before, and I'll end it with here. To put it bluntly, if you want to experience 3D media on your PC and don't care too much about games, the ASUS ENGT430 will be great for you. If you want to play games, get a better video card.

Pros:

+ DirectX-11 Compatible
+ 3D Vision / 3D Media Capable
+ Can Play Mainstream Games
+ Low Profile Video Card
+ Great Media Center GPU
+ Full-size HDMI 1.3 Output

Cons:

- Games have to be "dialed-down" to playable settings

Ratings:

• Performance: 8.25
• Appearance: 9.50
• Construction: 9.00
• Functionality: 8.50
• Value: 9.00

Final Score: 8.85 out of 10.

Quality Recognition: Benchmark Reviews Silver Tachometer Award.

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

Related Articles:

• NZXT LEXA-S Gaming Case LEXS-001BK
• Lian Li PC-V1020R Full Tower Computer Case
• Eagle Arion ET-AR504LR-BK 2.1 Soundstage Speakers
• Cooler Master ARC Macbook and iPad Stand
• ASUS VW266H Widescreen LCD Monitor
• Microsoft Arc Touch Mouse RVF-00001
• Mad Catz Call of Duty: Black Ops Stealth Mouse
• Sentey Arvina GS-6400R Computer Case
• OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G SSD
• ASUS ENGTX560 Ti DCII TOP Video Card