Anand's GTS250 review

[phexac]

In most tests the GTS250 is right around, and sometimes ahead of, the GTX260 Core 216 card. So is 4850. What's up with that. GTX260 just gets pummeled by everything, when it should be a good deal ahead of 4850 and the GTS250, on par with the 4870, and ahead of it a lot of the times. Instead it looks like it can barely keep pace with the GTS250 and the 4850.

In all other reviews, that is not the case. GTX260 is way out ahead of the midrange cards, where is should be. What's wrong with anand's review?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: phexac
In most tests the GTS250 is right around, and sometimes ahead of, the GTX260 Core 216 card. So is 4850. What's up with that. GTX260 just gets pummeled by everything, when it should be a good deal ahead of 4850 and the GTS250, on par with the 4870, and ahead of it a lot of the times. Instead it looks like it can barely keep pace with the GTS250 and the 4850.

In all other reviews, that is not the case. GTX260 is way out ahead of the midrange cards, where is should be. What's wrong with anand's review?

Interesting - this is the 1st I've checked out the AT review.

In 4 of the 7 tests, the GTS250 1Gb & GTX260 are essentially tied, although in COD: W@W, the GTX260 surges ahead @ 1920 res.

In the other 3, the GTX260 wins by ~20%.

IN the TR review, the GTX260 always maintains a sizable lead over the GTS250, at least 20%.

 

[novasatori]

huh interesting

in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870



to be fair tho there aren't many benches

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting

in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870



to be fair tho there aren't many benches

It's not interesting at all. The TR review is using a factory OCed Evga FTW Edition in this review

It speed are 670/1404/2304MHz, instead of the stock 576/1242/2000MHz. Yet the 4870 they use is running stock speeds, go figure.

 

[Wreckage]

For some reason AT(I) reviews don't match up with most other sites.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
For some reason AT(I) reviews don't match up with most other sites.

For some reason, I feel a constant need to troll.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting

in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870



to be fair tho there aren't many benches

It's not interesting at all. The TR review is using a factory OCed Zotac GTX 260 AMP² Edition in all the reviews, including this one.

It speed are 649/1404/1053MHz, instead of the stock 576/1242/999MHz. Yet the 4870 they use is running stock speeds, go figure.

In TR's review, they are listing 2 different 260's - the one you mentioned, and a stock one. Strange.

Looking more carefully, it looks like the EVGA GTX260 may have been used for single-card comparison, and the EVGA + the Zotac AMP was used for the SLI comparison, so the additional clocks of the Zotac would not have been in effect.

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
For some reason AT(I) reviews don't match up with most other sites.

give it up... I really wish I wouldn't get banned for saying the things I should to you

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting

in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870



to be fair tho there aren't many benches

It's not interesting at all. The TR review is using a factory OCed Zotac GTX 260 AMP² Edition in all the reviews, including this one.

It speed are 649/1404/1053MHz, instead of the stock 576/1242/999MHz. Yet the 4870 they use is running stock speeds, go figure.

In TR's review, they are listing 2 different 260's - the one you mentioned, and a stock one. Strange.

Looking more carefully, it looks like the EVGA GTX260 may have been used for single-card comparison, and the EVGA + the Zotac AMP was used for the SLI comparison, so the additional clocks of the Zotac would not have been in effect.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16504/2

In our case, we decided to rely upon our review of the GeForce GTX 285 and 295, published way back on January 15, for most of our test data.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16229/5

The EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 card we tested runs faster than stock, as does the Asus GTX 285 and the Asus Radeon HD 4850.

Here's the model the link points at.

896-P3-1268-AR
EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 FTW - 670/1404/2304Mhz

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting

in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870



to be fair tho there aren't many benches

It's not interesting at all. The TR review is using a factory OCed Zotac GTX 260 AMP² Edition in all the reviews, including this one.

It speed are 649/1404/1053MHz, instead of the stock 576/1242/999MHz. Yet the 4870 they use is running stock speeds, go figure.

In TR's review, they are listing 2 different 260's - the one you mentioned, and a stock one. Strange.

Looking more carefully, it looks like the EVGA GTX260 may have been used for single-card comparison, and the EVGA + the Zotac AMP was used for the SLI comparison, so the additional clocks of the Zotac would not have been in effect.

Not sure myself what's going on, but they said they used a factory OC card for the GTX260, Zotac or EVGA you pick.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16504/2

In our case, we decided to rely upon our review of the GeForce GTX 285 and 295, published way back on January 15, for most of our test data.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16229/5

The EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 card we tested runs faster than stock, as does the Asus GTX 285 and the Asus Radeon HD 4850.

Good sleuthing... I assumed that the EVGA was stock-ish, because it didn't have all those crazy OMGWTFBBQ Edition! suffixes, but you know what they say about "assume"...

TR should have been more upfront about the "enhanced" nature of the GTX260's they used, at least to help casual skimmers like me.

Even with all that taken into consideration, AT's results, demonstrating nearly identical performance between the GTS250 and the GTX260 in 4/7 of the benchies, still seems odd to me.

 

[SSChevy2001]

@Flipped Gazelle

No problem, even I missed the fact that they used an even faster EVGA FTW GTX260. 670/2304 is a nice jump over a ref clocks 576/1998.

Well I can't help you with the numbers, but I trust AT. Personally I want to see min in the charts though.

 

[postmortemIA]

so, does the n-th iteration of turd polishing work?

 

[qliveur]

It must. Just ask George Lucas.

 

[Rusin]

Originally posted by: novasatori
huh interesting

in AT review 260=4850 or so and in the TR review 260=4870



to be fair tho there aren't many benches

What did you expect from Anandtech's review?

 

[nemesismk2]

I trust Anandtech reviews for an accurate GeForce GTS 250 review. I also trust Tech Report, Guru3D, AMD Zone, PC Perspective and PC Stats. I have used all of these over the last 8 years or so!

 

[garritynet]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
so, does the n-th iteration of turd polishing work?

When has the 8800/9800 ever been a turd?

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I also trust AMD Zone

Really?

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I also trust AMD Zone

Really?

Yeah I've emailed Chris from AMD Zone a few times, mostly asking questions and he has always replied with good advice.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: garritynet

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
so, does the n-th iteration of turd polishing work?

When has the 8800/9800 ever been a turd?

I don't agree with calling the 8800/9800 a turd as well because my XFX 8800 GT gave me great performance.

 

[phexac]

I just cannot trust AT on this one. EVERY other site shows GTX260 with a sizeable lead over GTS250 and 4850. Even AT's earlier reviews show GTX260 easily beating 4850, as it should, given the price. And that's the original GTX260 with 192 SPs. Core 216 should be even more powerful.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I also trust AMD Zone

Really?

^
Thinking the same thing.

I was at AMD Zone at early on. It's one of the worst 2 or 3 HW review sites I've ever encountered. Run by a belligerent AMD fan, who reportedly had been fired by Intel, and the bias shows big time.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I also trust AMD Zone

Really?

^
Thinking the same thing.

I was at AMD Zone at early on. It's one of the worst 2 or 3 HW review sites I've ever encountered. Run by a belligerent AMD fan, who reportedly had been fired by Intel, and the bias shows big time.

The funny thing is Rage3D (The ATI fan site) used to be one of the best for reviews. But that site has gone so far down hill. They have not updated the front page since last year and all the good people in the forums left.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I also trust AMD Zone

Really?

^
Thinking the same thing.

I was at AMD Zone at early on. It's one of the worst 2 or 3 HW review sites I've ever encountered. Run by a belligerent AMD fan, who reportedly had been fired by Intel, and the bias shows big time.

When I first accessed that site, I thought it was a joke, but no, they are all brain washed over there. It's like a cult, fanatics that adore AMD no matter what. Post there something good about Intel or any other company and they'll ban you and put a price on your head.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
so, does the n-th iteration of turd polishing work?

Mythbusters - Polishing Poop

Mythbusters results.

You can?t polish poop.

BUSTED

Adam and Jamie visited a zoo to obtain a variety of feces to try to polish. They tried to pick the most polishable candidates and baked them to remove the moisture. Adam tried to shine his poop with a buffing wheel, while Jamie reasoned that using a wax polish would result in a shine. Adam eventually sought the advice of an outside expert, who showed him that it was possible to apply a shine to dirt with a tedious technique. Applying this technique, Adam and Jamie were able to obtain very polished poop without using any foreign materials like polish.

If these guys can find a way to shine up an old turd, surely nVidia can do the same...

:laugh:

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I also trust AMD Zone

Really?

I check out their site from time to time to see their news links, they typically just collect news from other sites and link to it. Some times they do some reviews too, but I don't bother with that too much. The site itself is ok just to see the news, but whatever you do, stay away from the forums. I used to post there some time back, but I haven't in years now. There are some pretty blind fanboys in their forum.