No buzz about GTX 260?

[raddreamer3kx]

let be honest, these two cards are neck and neck, what it comes down to is customer service which the Nvidia cards have a clear advantage in. We can break it down but in the end the cards perform the same.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

One neat thing about the ATI series is their multi-gpu solution (let's consider this for "future-proofing") doesn't require an identical card to have it scaled. I wish i had the link still with 3dmark06 on 2x 4850 + 3750 (something close) in crossfire. I have SLI now 2x 7950s and i have pretty good luck with it, but i think ati's idea of crossfire is a better solution for consumers.

You can buy a good card now, upgrade it that in a year and just add more a lot more horsepower to your system. nvidia's solution will allow you to add more horsepower by adding in another card which in a year will hopefully be cheaper than its initial release, but your still not getting any new tech.

video cards haven't been drastically improving as they seem to have been from the past few years of improvements so perhaps ATIs offering isn't as helpful, but it definitely has the biggest potential for upgrading later on.

All in all i just wish the companies could agree upon some standards so we wouldn't have issues with trying to find the perfect motherboard for our setups .

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: taltamir
@RussianSensation - on what basis do you say that? Me and a bunch of other people have found irrefutable proof that it is CPU bottlenecked.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=31&threadid=2205375

Ok, what increases your framerates more: (1) getting an HD4870 or GTX280 or 4850 in CF and keeping E8400 @ 3.6ghz or (2) replacing your cpu with a 4.0ghz Quad core processor and keeping the 4850?

If the former is the answer, it is not cpu bottlenecked. People don't seem to understand the difference between CPU limited and CPU bottlenecked. A bottleneck means the part is the slowest/most limiting part in a gaming system. In other words, no matter what happens you cannot increase your performance unless you exchange that part.

CPU limitation just means with a faster cpu you can get higher frame rates -- that applies to almost every game in the world assuming your gpu is not the bottleneck.

Your question is utterly irrelevant and downright insulting.

read the thread... going from 720x480 to 1920x1200 resolution, a 6.67x increase in pixels, doubled MAX frame rate, increased average by only 25%, and the minimum stayed the same. Classic case of CPU limiting. The CPU and GPU usage were also given (100% CPU on both resolutions, 20% GPU on 720x480, 80-100% on 1920x1200). All were below 60fps as well, with min FPS dipping into as low as 23fps on one frame on 720x480. (and its not like I went and stared down the fountain, that really kills the FPS, it was a general walk through the citadel).
There are also tons of other examples, and people with quad cores using thread affinity to limit amount of cores used.
And there are game play experience and example of microstutter on a single card noticed (caused by the CPU limitation)

Every single test in any combination of anything showed it is CPU limited on an OC dualcore. So stop throwing condescending remarks, read the thread, and others like it, and educate yourself. Dual core is no longer enough for some games, thats just how things are.

 

[RussianSensation]

Look, I read the thread already. Switching from 4850 to GTX 280 almost doubles your average frames in Mass Effect.

1920x1200 4AA/16AF

4850 = 23.6fps
GTX 280 = 56.0fps

You can create a situation where 4850 will be cpu limited which you have done by not running the game in AA. If you don't understand what cpu bottleneck is, then please read up on what exactly that means. Please don't use "other people's opinions" as backup for your conclusions because that's doesn't make their opinions any more valid.

I can at least concede to the idea that you'd want a 4.0ghz Quad to max out a 4870CF setup. To say that a 3.6ghz C2D is "not sufficient" for games out now is just completely unfounded.

Click on any game in this list Go to CPU comparison and you'll see that beyond C2D, it is the clock speed which is the primary factor when comparing C2D processors, not # of cores.

 

[taltamir]

average is irrelevent, at 720x480 the gameplay was choppy, and had many dips into the 41ms per frame... that is 23 fps...

The average FPS is completely irrelevant. The 4850 @ 1920x1200 with 0AA/16AF (max IN GAME settings) was completely CPU bound with choppy gameplay, as well as at 720x480... if I had forced 4xAA i would have dropped from 23fps dips and 60fps average to 23.6fps average like you mentioned, going from choppy to completely unplayable... And this is hardly me "creating a situation". AA is NOT supported in the game, the only way is to force it in the driver. Forcing AA in driver for unsupported games gives ATROCIOUS performance. And occasionally even a blue screen of death.

But even the GTX 280 with the force 4xAA will have the same 23fps dips due to CPU with its 60fps average, causing the game to be choppy.

Actually it is the OPPOSITE of creating a scenario, YOU are creating a scenario by forcing AA in driver.
Here are some facts... I can lower the AA or other settings and increase my FPS and smoothness regardless of what video card I have.
I cannot lower ANYTHING to reduce the choppiness caused by the CPU. CPU related low FPS simply cannot be reduced in this situation. This is why it is so devastating. The game is choppy, period. Either I upgrade the CPU or play it choppy.
With a video card that is too weak I could just lower the graphics a bit and enjoy silk smooth gameplay.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Here are some facts... I can lower the AA or other settings and increase my FPS and smoothness regardless of what video card I have.

That actually proves the game is GPU limited if changing the graphics load changes the smoothness in a game.

I cannot lower ANYTHING to reduce the choppiness caused by the CPU. CPU related low FPS simply cannot be reduced in this situation. This is why it is so devastating. The game is choppy, period. Either I upgrade the CPU or play it choppy.

Well that doesn't agree with the statement above. Did you test the game with cpu at 2.4 - 2.8 - 3.2 and 3.6ghz to see if the game still dips to same 23fps? If that is the case, it could be an issue with the drivers/game engine/poor port. However, if at 2.4ghz all the way up to 3.6ghz you still get 23fps dips, you'd test the game with 4 cores and see the outcome. Has anyone with a similar setup validated this for you?

 

[taltamir]

That actually proves the game is GPU limited if changing the graphics load changes the smoothness in a game.

yes it does, except it was a hypothetical situation, not the mass effect situation. In that sentence I explain that in games that ARE GPU bound you can reduce AA or resolution or settings to increase FPS and get smooth rate. In games like Mass Effect that are CPU bound you are just screwed.

And YES!, I was verified by other people, several of them in fact, with various types of systems (duals, quads, different video cards, etc).

One person with a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz on that thread tested with 4 cores, and then used thread affinity to limit it to 3 and 2 cores, and verified my findings. Only at 4 cores at over 3ghz did the problem subside. only then did CPU usage fall from 100% use to 70-80% use on a 3.6ghz quad core, and 100% GPU usage instead. At 3 and 2 cores it was hammering all of them at 100% usage and having FPS issues.

 

[Bateluer]

Why would there be buzz about the 260?

The 4870 bests it in most benches for less money.

 

[taltamir]

its not less money anymore, it was less money. And the GTX260 wins in MINIMUM frame rates usually.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: taltamir
its not less money anymore, it was less money. And the GTX260 wins in MINIMUM frame rates usually.

The 4870 is still less money, even after the Nvidia's price cuts. A quick look at Newegg shows 4870s for 275 and 285, with 260s going for 299. Still more performance for less money. The performance of the 4870 will increase as ATI releases subsequent revisions of Catalyst, removing the minimum frame rate edge of the 260, if it even exists.

 

[MarcVenice]

The only thing Nvidia has going for them is their superb partners, but there is no such thing as evga's stepup program in Europe. I'd have to check about double lifetime warranty from XFX. Then again, I've owned a few nvidia cards, from asus, and none of them have broken down as of today. My 8800gts 320mb was purchased for 280 euro's a year ago. It's worth 75 euro's at most right now. Not sure if I need the double lifetime warranty... And with the HD4870 going for 205 euro's and the GTX260 going for a minimum of 240 euro's, the HD4870 still is the clear winner in Europe. It's not like the US is the only place people buy videocards...

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The only thing Nvidia has going for them is their superb partners, but there is no such thing as evga's stepup program in Europe. I'd have to check about double lifetime warranty from XFX. Then again, I've owned a few nvidia cards, from asus, and none of them have broken down as of today. My 8800gts 320mb was purchased for 280 euro's a year ago. It's worth 75 euro's at most right now. Not sure if I need the double lifetime warranty... And with the HD4870 going for 205 euro's and the GTX260 going for a minimum of 240 euro's, the HD4870 still is the clear winner in Europe. It's not like the US is the only place people buy videocards...

The GTX260 is a similarly bad deal here in Aus, $50 odd dollars the difference at my retailer of choice here

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: taltamir
its not less money anymore, it was less money. And the GTX260 wins in MINIMUM frame rates usually.

The 4870 is still less money, even after the Nvidia's price cuts. A quick look at Newegg shows 4870s for 275 and 285, with 260s going for 299. Still more performance for less money. The performance of the 4870 will increase as ATI releases subsequent revisions of Catalyst, removing the minimum frame rate edge of the 260, if it even exists.

It doesn't. In the article linked above at DriverHeaven, the 4870 and 260 trade wins back and forth, often swapping wins between resolutions and across different games. There's no clear-cut "winner", and even one comes on top, the other is very close behind. Other review sites show the same thing-- PC Perspective, Arstechnica, Hardwarecanucks... tho the last 2 don't specifically list the 260, they list the 280 and you can even see how the 4870 hangs with the 280, in MIN fps, for the most part (with exceptions such as Crysis w/ AA where the 4870 gets slammed).

The 4870 and 260 perform similarly, even in MIN framerates. Whether future drivers create separation or not, who's to know. But, for right now, unless they're priced identically, the cheaper one is the better buy. Unless you're like me and have an old P160 case that won't fit a 10.5" card without removing a needed hard drive cage. So it will be the 4870 for me even though I really wanted a 4870X2.

 

[hooflung]

The 260 will be an ideal solution when it is 249 before mail in rebates. 2 260's in SLI just aren't that spectacular especially when you could do crossfire on 2 4870's and have much better value.

However, if people start releasing CUDA encoders for media authoring then that is a place where the 260 will shine.

 

[ochadd]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Why would there be buzz about the 260?

The 4870 bests it in most benches for less money.

I'm not a fanboy for either company but the 4870 vs 260 is not all about the benches. Heat, noise, warranty, and the ability to deal with US companies ( if you are in the US).

Over the weekend I went back replayed Crysis, both HL 2 episodes, and part of Oblivion. This 260 has been perfect with a steady idle of 44c, loads 62c +/- a couple, and my system is still silent.

Seeing the heat stats for these 4000 series cards is downright scary. Mid 90s if you want to keep it quite or replacing the heatsink which voids most warranties. As times goes on I think people are going to be seeing some high failure rate on these reference cards.

I hope I'm wrong and more people can enter the PC gaming arena with 4850s playing things with all the goodies turned on. I've recommended them to several people since they have been released but give them fair warning at the same time.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: chizow
It is a very good deal and a very good card for sure. I think the problem was that it launched with the GTX 280 but wasn't available for another 8-9 days. Although some sites reviewed it, many did not and didn't bother to do follow-ups or dedicated reviews when it hard launched a week later. It does seem well covered in the 4870 reviews though.

But ya after the price drops to $299 this basically made the 9800GTX+ pointless at $229, which may be why we haven't seen any 9800GTX+ available yet. It still makes sense for NV to sell 55nm G92 chips, but they might just quietly transition it into the existing 9800GTX line.

9800+'s will be under $199.99.

EVGA has the 9800+ listed at $199.99.

Yep, that wasn't known when I made my comment though.

Pretty interesting price point, but with every week its delayed the 4850 continues to drop in price as well. The big advantage the 9800GTX+ will be with overclocking and cooling for sure.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: amenx
Another recent review comparing the new cards:

http://www.vr-zone.com/article...2C_GTX_280/5935-1.html

Ya, that review uses a 4GHz C2Q though. From what I've seen GT200 needs more CPU cycles to really stretch its legs, once more reviewers start getting away from CPU bottlenecked testbeds I think we'll see this more clearly.

There's been plenty of valid reasons given for people to favor the GTX 260 over the 4870. Always good to hear both sides of it, especially from people who made the switch. I think it'll take the 1GB 4870 with improved cooling to even things out with the GTX 260, but it'll probably cost more than the GTX 260 as well.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The only thing Nvidia has going for them is their superb partners, but there is no such thing as evga's stepup program in Europe. I'd have to check about double lifetime warranty from XFX. Then again, I've owned a few nvidia cards, from asus, and none of them have broken down as of today. My 8800gts 320mb was purchased for 280 euro's a year ago. It's worth 75 euro's at most right now. Not sure if I need the double lifetime warranty... And with the HD4870 going for 205 euro's and the GTX260 going for a minimum of 240 euro's, the HD4870 still is the clear winner in Europe. It's not like the US is the only place people buy videocards...

Really? I was under the impression that there was. I think you ship the cards to Germany...

 

[praesto]

Evga does indeed offer step-up. And yes, to my understanding you (simply) send your gfx to their HQ in Germany. Lovely stuff for us europeans, at last

 

[airhendrix13]

nVidia's GTX 260 has more OCing potential from what I hear. Considering you can OC it to near GTX 280 performance, it has my vote. Plus it runs cooler, quieter, and draws less power. You also have the better 3rd party support. I say if you OC the 260 gets my vote, if not, then the 4870 certainly dominates.

 

[videopho]

The GTX-260 can be had for $225 (AR) at the Egg.
And this is a Super-Clock version too.
I was going to switch back to the ATI camp until I saw the $225 at the HD forum.
I bit one early this morning and remain to be an Nvidiot for another 6 months or less.
I expect ATI to counter-attack with a new price drop on the 4870 or we shall see.

EDIT: Drooling...A pair of this can be had for ~ $450 in an SLI config...

 

[ochadd]

Originally posted by: videopho

EDIT: Drooling...A pair of this can be had for ~ $450 in an SLI config...

What game outside of Crysis needs 260 sli though? I'd take it for bragging rights but from what I've seen the 260 eats everything on a 27" or lower monitor.

BTW anyone else tired of making exceptions for Crysis? With so many other engines take efficiency into account I'm not sure what Crytec was smoking.

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: ochadd

Originally posted by: videopho

EDIT: Drooling...A pair of this can be had for ~ $450 in an SLI config...

What game outside of Crysis needs 260 sli though? I'd take it for bragging rights but from what I've seen the 260 eats everything on a 27" or lower monitor.

BTW anyone else tired of making exceptions for Crysis? With so many other engines take efficiency into account I'm not sure what Crytec was smoking.

FSx...
Even that it eats any configuration (tripple, quad etc.) alive.

 

[ochadd]

Originally posted by: videopho

Originally posted by: ochadd

Originally posted by: videopho

EDIT: Drooling...A pair of this can be had for ~ $450 in an SLI config...

What game outside of Crysis needs 260 sli though? I'd take it for bragging rights but from what I've seen the 260 eats everything on a 27" or lower monitor.

BTW anyone else tired of making exceptions for Crysis? With so many other engines take efficiency into account I'm not sure what Crytec was smoking.

FSx...
Even that it eats any configuration (tripple, quad etc.) alive.

What is FSx?

Edit: Flight Simulator eh? Looks to me that it's poorly optimized drivers or a poorly optimized game and not the card from some brief reading. The 3870 beating a 260 accoring to Toms? It's 2.5x that card. Throwing multi card setups when a software update is obvious is a waste.

 

[ginfest]

MS Flight Simulator "ten"