nVidia GT200 Series Review Thread

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Even ChrisRay, who obviously has the means to conduct a GTX 280 vs. GTX 260 SLI comparison didn't post GTX 260 SLI benchmarks...

http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=23084

...why?

Did he really think more people would be interested in GTX 260 3 way SLI verses GTX 280 SLI (two $1000+ systems) than GTX 260 SLI verses GTX 280 ($800 vs. $650)?

he says:

Unfortunately I was unable to test the GTX 260 SLI

ummm... two is less than three... if you have three cards, you can test two.

No disrespect intended to ChrisRay, but this just doesn't make any sense to me...
[/tinfoil hat off]

You've got to remember we aren't reviewers, we don't do this for a living. Any time we spend on this is time we're not spending with our family, friends, other hobbies- and doing a review like Chris does is work and time.

Chris put a LOT of time into that review.

As is said, no disrespect to ChrisRay. I know he spent a lot of time on the test (and he did a good job). It's just kind of odd (IMO) that no one with access to dual 260s seemed to think that SLI benchmarks for cards costing MSRP $400 that perform close to $650 cards would be something people might be interested in.

edit: by the same token though, you, ChrisRay, and Keys are compensated for your efforts.

...If you guys are having difficulty managing your time away from your family, other hobbies, drinking etc... Feel free to have your guys at NV shoot me a PM.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: happy medium
I just ordered 2 -8800gts (g92) cards for 320.00$ AR. In my opinion it's the best bang for your buck now.

Edit:just found a 8800gts for 146.99$ after 40$ rebate. Even better deal.
http://fxvideocards.com/ZOTAC-...ideo-Card-p-16280.html

Thats less then 300.00$ for 2 cards after rebate.

Yep, looks to be an excellent deal for those with an SLI board or already have a GTS and want more performance. I think some people want to overlook G92 options and pricing because its "year old performance" or something, but are perfectly willing to wait a few weeks and pay more for.....year old performance. In a week or two I'd expect the 9800GTX to fall to $200-220 (its already $240-250 AR) or so making it a very intriguing option against the upcoming RV770 solutions.

Now I am truly debating....step-up to the 280 in 2 months when the price will be lower, (most likely) or grab a 750i FTW edition and another 9800GTX KO.......the deciding factor may be the fact that I have one of the worst motherboards ever, and Id like to change it anyway.

 

[Ryl3x]

lol at you guys and graphics talk. There is more drama here than politcal boards discussing the war.

280 is the fastest single card out there and it comes with a price. The ones who cant afford it cry. The ones who can have it running in their rigs.

No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to buy anything. If you like the idea of a cheaper dual card solution then go for it. Simple.

I love my 280. Am i dumb for spending the money? Before you answer.....are you dumb for buying bottle water? Premium gas? $80 at the strip bar last night?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Ryl3x
lol at you guys and graphics talk. There is more drama here than politcal boards discussing the war.

280 is the fastest single card out there and it comes with a price. The ones who cant afford it cry. The ones who can have it running in their rigs.

No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to buy anything. If you like the idea of a cheaper dual card solution then go for it. Simple.

I love my 280. Am i dumb for spending the money? Before you answer.....are you dumb for buying bottle water? Premium gas? $80 at the strip bar last night?

That's not exactly a good viewpoint to have in life. :thumbsdown:

The argument has never been that there is something wrong with spending $650 on a graphics card. There's nothing wrong with it. The argument has been that the 9800 GX2 is cheaper yet provides similar performance (I wouldn't call it faster because that's not true in every situation, with AA/AF the GTX 280 often pulls ahead).

If the GTX 280 was the same price as the 9800 GX2 everyone would be happy. For me I paid only $429 for my 280 so it makes sense, because that's the price of the 9800 GX2. But $649? No way. Not with the performance the 280 offers. If a product is deserving of a $650 price, that is one thing. But the GTX 280 doesn't earn the price that nVidia is asking in most situations, that is the problem people have.

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: happy medium
I just ordered 2 -8800gts (g92) cards for 320.00$ AR. In my opinion it's the best bang for your buck now.

Edit:just found a 8800gts for 146.99$ after 40$ rebate. Even better deal.
http://fxvideocards.com/ZOTAC-...ideo-Card-p-16280.html

Thats less then 300.00$ for 2 cards after rebate.

Yep, looks to be an excellent deal for those with an SLI board or already have a GTS and want more performance. I think some people want to overlook G92 options and pricing because its "year old performance" or something, but are perfectly willing to wait a few weeks and pay more for.....year old performance. In a week or two I'd expect the 9800GTX to fall to $200-220 (its already $240-250 AR) or so making it a very intriguing option against the upcoming RV770 solutions.

Now I am truly debating....step-up to the 280 in 2 months when the price will be lower, (most likely) or grab a 750i FTW edition and another 9800GTX KO.......the deciding factor may be the fact that I have one of the worst motherboards ever, and Id like to change it anyway.

eVGA's MSRP never changes as far as I know. That's why step-up makes sense at release or if you overpaid for your current card, but not in other situations. For example the 9800 GX2 is still $599 if you want to step-up, but you can buy it for $450. In a few months, likely you will be able to buy a GTX 280 from Newegg for ~$500 but it will still be $649 on eVGA.

9800GTX SLI is going to beat the GTX 280 most everywhere, and at this point it would cost less. The only factor is the motherboard, which will be an added expense. That's the problem with SLI, it isn't an option unless you have nVidia motherboards, and they are usually more expensive / not as good as Intel's motherboards (at mainstream bracket at least, 790i is arguably the best mobo available but it's $300+). That 750i FTW board you are talking about is $200 IIRC. You can get a good P35 board that will be just as good or better at overclocking for <$100. For that much money you can get an X38 board.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: happy medium
I just ordered 2 -8800gts (g92) cards for 320.00$ AR. In my opinion it's the best bang for your buck now.

Edit:just found a 8800gts for 146.99$ after 40$ rebate. Even better deal.
http://fxvideocards.com/ZOTAC-...ideo-Card-p-16280.html

Thats less then 300.00$ for 2 cards after rebate.

Yep, looks to be an excellent deal for those with an SLI board or already have a GTS and want more performance. I think some people want to overlook G92 options and pricing because its "year old performance" or something, but are perfectly willing to wait a few weeks and pay more for.....year old performance. In a week or two I'd expect the 9800GTX to fall to $200-220 (its already $240-250 AR) or so making it a very intriguing option against the upcoming RV770 solutions.

Now I am truly debating....step-up to the 280 in 2 months when the price will be lower, (most likely) or grab a 750i FTW edition and another 9800GTX KO.......the deciding factor may be the fact that I have one of the worst motherboards ever, and Id like to change it anyway.

Price drops generally don't help with a Step-Up, as EVGA keeps their cards at MSRP. EVGA still lists a reference spec 9800GX2 for $599.99, when the exact same card can be found at Newegg for $449.99. If you want to step-up, my advice is to get yourself into the step-up queue ASAP, you can always decide not to when EVGA contacts you.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
That's not exactly a good viewpoint to have in life. :thumbsdown:

The argument has never been that there is something wrong with spending $650 on a graphics card. There's nothing wrong with it. The argument has been that the 9800 GX2 is cheaper yet provides similar performance (I wouldn't call it faster because that's not true in every situation, with AA/AF the GTX 280 often pulls ahead).

If the GTX 280 was the same price as the 9800 GX2 everyone would be happy. For me I paid only $429 for my 280 so it makes sense, because that's the price of the 9800 GX2. But $649? No way. Not with the performance the 280 offers. If a product is deserving of a $650 price, that is one thing. But the GTX 280 doesn't earn the price that nVidia is asking in most situations, that is the problem people have.

No, that's exactly the problem, people are assigning arbitrary values and dollar amounts to perceived levels of performance. I've already said this, but the 9800GX2 was $599 and at the time, 2x 8800GT or 2x 8800GTS cost much less and offered as good or better performance. The 9800GX2 wasn't good enough for [insert any reason for not wanting to pay $599 for top-end performance] only 2 1/2 months ago, but it suddenly is now? I wonder why? Oh right, because its $449 now.....the level of performance has not changed but the sticker shock has.

Honestly, look at what you're arguing. That's like saying you won't pay anywhere close to sticker on a 2009 model car...well guess what? You can get a 2008 model for significantly less and it goes just as fast, you just aren't getting the latest and greatest. It might not be worth it to *you* but that's neither here nor there. As I said when people were crying about G92 being "year old tech" when it brought an incredible level of performance to the mainstream months ago, there's just some people that won't pay for performance at any price and therefore, should be ignored.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: happy medium
I just ordered 2 -8800gts (g92) cards for 320.00$ AR. In my opinion it's the best bang for your buck now.

Edit:just found a 8800gts for 146.99$ after 40$ rebate. Even better deal.
http://fxvideocards.com/ZOTAC-...ideo-Card-p-16280.html

Thats less then 300.00$ for 2 cards after rebate.

Yep, looks to be an excellent deal for those with an SLI board or already have a GTS and want more performance. I think some people want to overlook G92 options and pricing because its "year old performance" or something, but are perfectly willing to wait a few weeks and pay more for.....year old performance. In a week or two I'd expect the 9800GTX to fall to $200-220 (its already $240-250 AR) or so making it a very intriguing option against the upcoming RV770 solutions.

Now I am truly debating....step-up to the 280 in 2 months when the price will be lower, (most likely) or grab a 750i FTW edition and another 9800GTX KO.......the deciding factor may be the fact that I have one of the worst motherboards ever, and Id like to change it anyway.

Yeah EVGA step-up really isn't all that great unless you buy close to MSRP. If you got your 9800GTX for $300+ when it just came out, a GTX 260 would be very tempting if you wanted to stay with single-GPU and not spend too much. If you were open to SLI you would certainly see a bigger gain in FPS for less going with another 9800GTX but then you inherit all the problems of SLI. And I hear you on the NV motherboard, I'm probably going to wash my hands of SLI/NV chipsets now that I've finally secured a single-GPU option faster than a G80 GTX.....

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Ryl3x
lol at you guys and graphics talk. There is more drama here than politcal boards discussing the war.

280 is the fastest single card out there and it comes with a price. The ones who cant afford it cry. The ones who can have it running in their rigs.

No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to buy anything. If you like the idea of a cheaper dual card solution then go for it. Simple.

I love my 280. Am i dumb for spending the money? Before you answer.....are you dumb for buying bottle water? Premium gas? $80 at the strip bar last night?

Believe me, some of us can afford more than one gt280... but I refuse to pay 50% more cash for 20% more performance. I don't care about having "the fastest", the technology moves forward so fast, my money would be better off spent elsewhere.

 

[5150Joker]

I don't get it, I just read a few reviews for the GTX 280 and the card is a monster! Why are people saying it sucks? It annihilates my 8800 GTX in most gaming benchmarks so it seems like a very good next generation release. Why compare CF'd cards to a single card? If the only reason is economics, that's not exactly an apt comparison because a lot of us don't care for CF/SLI and just want raw performance from a single card which the GTX 280 provides. I don't know if my shuttle can handle the GTX 280 but if it can, I plan to buy one.

 

[AzN]

I don't understand how Nvidia didn't up their texture address and filtering when they reworked their SP with GT200. The old G92 cores had 8 texture address/filter for every 16SP but GT200 has 8 texture address/filter for every 24SP. Those textures did a whole lot more for games than just higher SP clocks with G92 with modern games.

GT200 has the same 8 by 8 texturing ability just like G92 but only 10 clusters of 24 SP instead of 8 by 16SP which equals out to 80tmu. Texture fillrate was the biggest difference when comparing G92 vs G80 and why G92 was able to beat it in lower resolutions or get very close to high resolution with much lower memory bandwidth and less ROP. If they did 12 by 12 which would be the exact same number as G92 SP/texture ratio it would have 120 tmu instead of 80. GT200 is inferior far as texturing ability when you compare ratio to G92.

GeForce 9800 GTX 10.8 pixel fillrate 43.2 bilinear fillrate 21.6 FP16 fillrate 70.4 GB/s

GeForce GTX 260 16.1 pixel fillrate 41.5 bilinear fillrate 20.7 FP16 fillrate 111.9 GB/s

GeForce GTX 280 19.3 pixel fillrate 48.2 bilinear fillrate 24.1 FP16 fillrate 141.7 GB/s

Games don't need all that processing power as of yet. Most games off loads to textures and back to the memory for the most part straight from Nvidia by nRollo. So having more fillrate makes the biggest difference when you want the performance NOW long as you aren't shader limited. Sure 280gtx has more fillrate than 9800gtx but in reality it doesn't have that much more. 260gtx has even less than 9800gtx. This is where bandwidth comes into play with GT200 where it's not so limited compared to 9800gtx which you see the performance gains from most games. Just look at any of the reviews. You will see that 260gtx isn't that far off in performance compared to 9800gtx only when AA is applied in some uber high resolution does it seem like it's more faster because of bandwidth advantages. Nvidia made a future product like 2900xt tried to do. But it's still not happening.

Merged in to the main GT200 thread

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Extelleron
That's not exactly a good viewpoint to have in life. :thumbsdown:

The argument has never been that there is something wrong with spending $650 on a graphics card. There's nothing wrong with it. The argument has been that the 9800 GX2 is cheaper yet provides similar performance (I wouldn't call it faster because that's not true in every situation, with AA/AF the GTX 280 often pulls ahead).

If the GTX 280 was the same price as the 9800 GX2 everyone would be happy. For me I paid only $429 for my 280 so it makes sense, because that's the price of the 9800 GX2. But $649? No way. Not with the performance the 280 offers. If a product is deserving of a $650 price, that is one thing. But the GTX 280 doesn't earn the price that nVidia is asking in most situations, that is the problem people have.

No, that's exactly the problem, people are assigning arbitrary values and dollar amounts to perceived levels of performance. I've already said this, but the 9800GX2 was $599 and at the time, 2x 8800GT or 2x 8800GTS cost much less and offered as good or better performance. The 9800GX2 wasn't good enough for [insert any reason for not wanting to pay $599 for top-end performance] only 2 1/2 months ago, but it suddenly is now? I wonder why? Oh right, because its $449 now.....the level of performance has not changed but the sticker shock has.

Honestly, look at what you're arguing. That's like saying you won't pay anywhere close to sticker on a 2009 model car...well guess what? You can get a 2008 model for significantly less and it goes just as fast, you just aren't getting the latest and greatest. It might not be worth it to *you* but that's neither here nor there. As I said when people were crying about G92 being "year old tech" when it brought an incredible level of performance to the mainstream months ago, there's just some people that won't pay for performance at any price and therefore, should be ignored.

The 9800 GX2 looks more attractive now than it did 2.5 months ago because of its price, yes. At $449, the 9800 GX2 is appealing in terms of the amount of performance you are getting versus how much you are spending. At $599, the 9800 GX2's performance does not warrant the price.

It is the same with the GTX 280. If performance was increased, then it would be worth $649. But the performance as it is right now is not worth that much. It's not any worse than the 9800 GX2 was at launch and I never said that. Both the GTX 280 and the 9800 GX2 at launch are really overpriced for what they provide compared to what you can get for a lower cost. 8800GTX at $600 made sense because it was the fastest card that money could buy and the performance warranted such a pricetag. You couldn't go out and buy a $400 card that would equal the 8800GTX. But you can do that now.

The G92 is "year old tech" for the high end market, but that is not the market it targeted. 8800GTX never had a <$300 pricetag, the G92 cards do. I am happy to pay for performance and so are numerous other people on this forum. But I am not happy to pay a significant amount of money when the performance isn't there. At its MSRP, GTX 280 falls into that category. At $499 or lower, the GTX 280 is a great deal. If nVidia were to introduce a GTX 290 model that is 20% faster than the GTX 280 at $649.... then it would be worth paying for.

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't get it, I just read a few reviews for the GTX 280 and the card is a monster! Why are people saying it sucks? It annihilates my 8800 GTX in most gaming benchmarks so it seems like a very good next generation release. Why compare CF'd cards to a single card? If the only reason is economics, that's not exactly an apt comparison because a lot of us don't care for CF/SLI and just want raw performance from a single card which the GTX 280 provides. I don't know if my shuttle can handle the GTX 280 but if it can, I plan to buy one.

It is a great card, but people are disappointed largely because they expected more, and the 9800 GX2 also makes the launch look less impressive.

People expected more than what they got out of GT200 because it is coming (nearly) 2 years after G80.... usually we would have already seen a performance increase the size of GT200 late last year, a year after G80 launched. But now that it is 1 yr, 7 months after G80... GT200 doesn't feel as impressive as it otherwise would be. People were really expecting a card faster than the 9800 GX2 as well, and now that the GTX 280 is slower in most aspects, people are disappointed. At the same price I'd take a GTX 280 over a 9800 GX2 any day, but still the performance people got hyped up about just is not there.

When you consider previous nVidia launches.... this isn't as big of a jump as some others. For example NV40-> G70 was for the most part a bigger jump than this...the 7800GTX generally outperformed 6800 Ultra SLI, but the GTX 280 generally does not beat 8800GTX SLI. G71 -> G80 was definitely a lot more impressive than G80 -> GT200.

 

[Piuc2020]

While you are right the performance gains are still dissapointing, Crysis is still unplayable and the card SHOULD be faster than it is (or be cheaper like the awesome 9 series).

The 8800GTX totally annihilated a 7950GX2 Quad-SLI setup, a SINGLE 8800GTX, a single 280 has difficulty keeping up with a single 9800GX2, it's not really the leap people expected, if NV is not willing to provide the expected performance, then at least give a price to match the performance like they did with the 9-series.

ATI's 4870 might end up faster than the 9800GTX and at the rumored prices, well... I think NV will lose this generation, the 4870X2 will probably end up cheaper than the GTX 280 and who knows, it might even end up faster. The 280 is a brute-force solution, I like ATI's approach much better.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't get it, I just read a few reviews for the GTX 280 and the card is a monster! Why are people saying it sucks? It annihilates my 8800 GTX in most gaming benchmarks so it seems like a very good next generation release. Why compare CF'd cards to a single card? If the only reason is economics, that's not exactly an apt comparison because a lot of us don't care for CF/SLI and just want raw performance from a single card which the GTX 280 provides. I don't know if my shuttle can handle the GTX 280 but if it can, I plan to buy one.

I think one reason that everyone had their panties in a bunch on Monday was the price. Everyone ignored the first paragraph of most of the reviews, which said it was an amazing card, and went right to the benches of a 9800x2 keeping up with it at low rez and no AA.

Part of the problem were the rumors of the card coming out cheaper than $650 because of the soon-to-be ATI offerings, that are going to cost alot less. What some people arent realizing is that there are already 280s listed for $599 AMIR. I hope it is a sign of good things to come. If it launched @ $599 MSRP, it wouldnt have been such a big deal imo.

 

[Extelleron]

GT200 certainly takes a more aggressive stance with the ratio of SP:Tex as compared to G80, and the card would certainly perform better if the ratio had been kept the same. But remember the kind of ideas nVidia had when designing GT200:

-They want maximum performance in DX10 & future games. This will require more shading power than G80's ratio would provide. In these kinds of games, GT200 performs well and the increase in per clock performance compared to G80 is close to the increase in ALU performance per clock (87.5%).

-They want maximum performance in GPGPU applications, and this is a real focus of the card. In previous generations, by far the most important thing to nVidia was gaming performance. Gaming performance is still a priority, but it is not the only thing nVidia cares about. GPGPU uses the shading processors of the card heavily but relies very little on other parts like texture fillrate. Increased texture fillrate would do nothing for GPGPU apps like Folding@home.

In an ideal world, you could have kept the same ratio of ALU:Tex that was found in G80, 16:8, or 2:1. nVidia could have made each of GT200's 10 SPCs have 24 SPs + 12 TMUs, keeping the same ratio. But this would have driven die size up further, to over 600mm^2. This is not an option. So nVidia had to choose to either increase the ALU:Tex ratio or keep the same ratio but not add as many SPs. Maybe they would have gone with 192 instead of 240. This would have made GT200 a much weaker upgrade over G80 in ALU performance and would have seriously impacted GPGPU performance. With 192SP, it would have been impossible for GT200 to reach 1 TFLOP.

If you look at the GT200 die: http://techreport.com/r.x/gefo...0/die-shot-colored.jpg

There is plenty of space devoted to texture resources already. 8 TMUs seem to be around 2/3 the size of 24 SPs.

 

[AzN]

The ones that are shader dictated is where GT200 does well but gamers want instant gratification not future games to come which GT200 doesn't do so well.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
While you are right the performance gains are still dissapointing, Crysis is still unplayable and the card SHOULD be faster than it is (or be cheaper like the awesome 9 series).

The 8800GTX totally annihilated a 7950GX2 Quad-SLI setup, a SINGLE 8800GTX, a single 280 has difficulty keeping up with a single 9800GX2, it's not really the leap people expected, if NV is not willing to provide the expected performance, then at least give a price to match the performance like they did with the 9-series.

ATI's 4870 might end up faster than the 9800GTX and at the rumored prices, well... I think NV will lose this generation, the 4870X2 will probably end up cheaper than the GTX 280 and who knows, it might even end up faster. The 280 is a brute-force solution, I like ATI's approach much better.

1. The GTX 280 annihilates the GX2 at sufficiently high settings. But looses to it at low settings. Especially at the very high AA settings (16xAA/16xAF/2560x1600)
2. The 7950GX2 was a piece of crap, much less mature then the GX2. Quad SLI? that didn't exist until the 9800GX2.
If you bought 2x 7950x2 you had TRI-SLI... because a limitation in DX9 limits you to a max of 3 GPUs total in AFR. So you had one core sitting idle, and 3 cores trying to work together on a pretty bad implementation.
The 9800GX2 is much better in this regards, coming out similar to the 9800GTX.
3. With the GX2 you are still very driver dependent. In some games it gets atrocious performance at every level compared to the single core parts.
4. The GTX 280 has greatly improve MUL capacity (hence they called it 50% faster shaders), it is a little like hyperthreading. But it is not gonna show any benefit right away, it needs some work... But then again, don't judge by future performance...

The thing is... the GTX 280 is very hard to justify at 650$, I am not gonna buy it at that cost. But it is not as bad as some people make it out to be. It is still by far the fastest single chip on the market, and that says something.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: sourthings
Just so folks can have an informed decision who are debating getting a 280. Here are benches showing that a pair of crossfired 4850s outperform a gtx280 for high res gaming, as well as low res of course. Done by someone here on at. Link to his post at the top of the page:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

and here are more benches from another website again showing CFed 4850s outperforming the gtx280:

http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=crysis4xaaql2.jpg

Of important note here, look at the crysis benches, the first set is 1920x1200 dx9 high settings and 4xAA, the 4850s beat the gtx280. The second link is 1920x1200 _very_ high settings in _DX10_ with _4xAA_ the 4850s handily beating the gtx280 with an avg framerate of 23.

Suffice to say, I guess we can count on two 4870s crossfired and the single slot 4870x2 when it arrives really overtaking the gtx280. Just going on what we've heard about the difference between the 4850 and 4870, a fair guess might be 30-35fps at 1920x1200 dx10 very high 4xaa in crysis and 40-45 dx9 high settings 4xaa.

From what I've read in some other posts from folks who understand hardware, due to the size and heat output and bus width of the 280 we won't be seeing a 280gx2 type card and it will be left to SLI options only.

So, looks like ATI has likely done it. 4870x2 will be the fastest single slot card available and two 4870x2s in quad CF may very well beat out tri slied 280s. At the least, ATI is going to win the single slot best performing card this round.

:beer: good on them, and good for gamers all round, unless prices change they'll also be giving more performance for a cheaper price. gg.

I love how the folks lauding ATI or the 9800GX2 just love to ignore the fact you could SLI 2 cards for greater than GTX 280 performance for much less months ago. 2x 9600gt close, 2x 8800gt faster without a doubt, 2x 8800gts even faster, 9800gx2 about the same as gt and gts, 2x 9800gtx slightly faster and even offers tri-sli.

Finding 2 cheap cards and slinging them together for faster performance than a single-card single-GPU solution isn't anything new, that's one of the main draws of CF/SLI. While its great that 2x4850 perform about the same or better than a GTX 280, that doesn't make the problems with multi-GPU go away and its certainly not that exciting when you compare it to say, a pair of 8800GTS 512MB that may very well outperform it for less money.

Judging from Steel Six's results, it looks like he's 1) running a significantly faster CPU than AT and 2) already running into CPU bottlenecking (look at Crysis 1680 and 1920 no AA). Honestly I don't think those 4850s are any faster than any of the other SLI/multi-GPU solutions that have been around for the last 7-8 months. I think most folks here can make an inforrmed decision though. If you have an NV board and a G92 class GPU you're probably better off just doubling up if you're ok with SLI. If you have an Intel/AMD board and want to upgrade and you're ok with CF, then you're probably better off with ATI.

As I've said before, when it comes to video cards, and for people like myself who simply want the -BEST- playable performance available, what combination, configuration, what have you that deliver that is unimportant. It's simply that it is the best.

We've all seen that yes the 280 can beat a gx2 in average fps at very high res with AA, we've also seen that it's at a completely unplayable framerate, regardless of which card, the 280 or gx2 is being benched.

At playable frames at high res, the gx2 is still the better performing single slot card.

As for the 4850s besting the gtx280 in the bench that matters these days, which is Crysis. Not only at 1920x1200, but also beating the gtx280 handily with 4xAA and beating the gtx280 at -VERY- high -DX10- settings at 1920x1200 with 4xAA. It seems obvious that is what they can do. So unless you SLI two 280s, two 4850s beat it.

That said, why this matters to me is because it makes it obvious that two 4870s crossfired will perform even -higher- than the gtx280 will. And moreso when the 4870x2 is released, that -single- slot card will also perform much better than the gtx280.

And if you buy a second 4870x2 and run it in crossfire with another one, it looks like that will be the fastest performing graphics card setup on the market available this release refresh.

May not matter to you, but oddly, it has always seemed to matter to most everyone. As for a long time now, it's been nvidia that has held that crown.

And this refresh they no longer will be offering the fastest available graphics performance. ATI will have that position.

I could care less crossfire or not, or a single card with 2 gpus on it. It's no different than nvidias 9800gx2 being the best card available and still atm, the 9800gx2 is the best single slot card available.

Well now ATi is going to have that position again when the 4870x2 hits.

It's really quite impressive, considering how long they have been in a lackluster position performance wise.

I haven't owned ATI since 9800pro, but I'll be getting two 4870x2s in August.

Because it will be the best, and what's more, it will be cheaper than getting less from nv.

:beer:

 

[golem]

4 Gpus don't scale as well as 2 gpus. So 2 4870x2 in crossfire might not necessarily be as fast as 2 gtx280 in sli.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The 9800 GX2 looks more attractive now than it did 2.5 months ago because of its price, yes. At $449, the 9800 GX2 is appealing in terms of the amount of performance you are getting versus how much you are spending. At $599, the 9800 GX2's performance does not warrant the price.

It is the same with the GTX 280. If performance was increased, then it would be worth $649. But the performance as it is right now is not worth that much. It's not any worse than the 9800 GX2 was at launch and I never said that. Both the GTX 280 and the 9800 GX2 at launch are really overpriced for what they provide compared to what you can get for a lower cost. 8800GTX at $600 made sense because it was the fastest card that money could buy and the performance warranted such a pricetag. You couldn't go out and buy a $400 card that would equal the 8800GTX. But you can do that now.

The G92 is "year old tech" for the high end market, but that is not the market it targeted. 8800GTX never had a <$300 pricetag, the G92 cards do. I am happy to pay for performance and so are numerous other people on this forum. But I am not happy to pay a significant amount of money when the performance isn't there. At its MSRP, GTX 280 falls into that category. At $499 or lower, the GTX 280 is a great deal. If nVidia were to introduce a GTX 290 model that is 20% faster than the GTX 280 at $649.... then it would be worth paying for.

Once again, you're falling into the trap of assigning values to perceived worth. Its either worth it to you or its not to you but that has no bearing on its actual value. Just look at the examples you priced and I can guarantee you there was at least 1 cheaper option that cost less and offered equal or better performance. You say the 9800GX2 wasn't worth $599 but it offered similar gains over G80 compared to G80 over its competition.

Even now the 9800GX2 which you suddenly feel is a fantastic deal at $449 is surpassed in performance by 2 x G92 8800GTS for $150-160 each and 2 x 9800GTX for $240-250 each. 9800GX2 was worth the premium to some because it offered SLI performance in a single-slot which eclipsed all other previous single-slot solutions. And now GTX 280 starts the cycle again by offering similar performance in a single-GPU single-slot card.

Comparing to G80 would seem natural, but that only speaks to G80's relative dominance over other solutions at the time and in GT280's case, how good G92 was. So of course the performance delta is not going to be as big as with G80 but that doesn't mean its not a huge leap forward in performance. Which leads us back to 9800GX2 which doubled G80's performance but wasn't worth $599, but is somehow worth $449 2 1/2 months later. I think its better to just say "I'm willing to spend $400, anything more than that isn't worth it to me no matter how fast it is".

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: taltamir
4. The GTX 280 has greatly improve MUL capacity (hence they called it 50% faster shaders), it is a little like hyperthreading. But it is not gonna show any benefit right away, it needs some work... But then again, don't judge by future performance...

I think what nVidia meant was that each TPC (Texture Processor Cluster) would have 50% more shader power because each one literally has 50% more SP's (streaming processors). (24 vs. 16 on the G80/G92 architecture). The GTX has 10 TPC's while the G80 only had 8, but each TPC also has 50% more SP's on the GTX280.

I think that people saying that each SP would be 50% more powerful were actually misquoting nVidia, since the SP architecture hasn't changed that much. It really seems that the GPU has 50% more powerful TPC's and the people who reported it were confused as to the difference.

 

[taltamir]

I doubt the AMD cards are gonna be that much cheaper, price is already soaring. They have an advantage, they press it... the end result could be a 600$ 4870.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: golem
4 Gpus don't scale as well as 2 gpus. So 2 4870x2 in crossfire might not necessarily be as fast as 2 gtx280 in sli.

OTOH, it might be as fast or faster than gtx280 sli... we won't know until the actual product is released. I've always been opposed to multi-gpu products due to all the negative issues inherent in that setup (and which, BTW, almost no one on these forums cared to discuss until recently ... :roll, but if Ati is so heavily invested in multi-gpu products for the high end market, it's possible that the 4870x2 will incorporate some new features to combat the issues of micro-stutter, AFR lag, bad scaling, etc.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The 9800 GX2 looks more attractive now than it did 2.5 months ago because of its price, yes. At $449, the 9800 GX2 is appealing in terms of the amount of performance you are getting versus how much you are spending. At $599, the 9800 GX2's performance does not warrant the price.

It is the same with the GTX 280. If performance was increased, then it would be worth $649. But the performance as it is right now is not worth that much. It's not any worse than the 9800 GX2 was at launch and I never said that. Both the GTX 280 and the 9800 GX2 at launch are really overpriced for what they provide compared to what you can get for a lower cost. 8800GTX at $600 made sense because it was the fastest card that money could buy and the performance warranted such a pricetag. You couldn't go out and buy a $400 card that would equal the 8800GTX. But you can do that now.

The G92 is "year old tech" for the high end market, but that is not the market it targeted. 8800GTX never had a <$300 pricetag, the G92 cards do. I am happy to pay for performance and so are numerous other people on this forum. But I am not happy to pay a significant amount of money when the performance isn't there. At its MSRP, GTX 280 falls into that category. At $499 or lower, the GTX 280 is a great deal. If nVidia were to introduce a GTX 290 model that is 20% faster than the GTX 280 at $649.... then it would be worth paying for.

Once again, you're falling into the trap of assigning values to perceived worth. Its either worth it to you or its not to you but that has no bearing on its actual value. Just look at the examples you priced and I can guarantee you there was at least 1 cheaper option that cost less and offered equal or better performance. You say the 9800GX2 wasn't worth $599 but it offered similar gains over G80 compared to G80 over its competition.

Even now the 9800GX2 which you suddenly feel is a fantastic deal at $449 is surpassed in performance by 2 x G92 8800GTS for $150-160 each and 2 x 9800GTX for $240-250 each. 9800GX2 was worth the premium to some because it offered SLI performance in a single-slot which eclipsed all other previous single-slot solutions. And now GTX 280 starts the cycle again by offering similar performance in a single-GPU single-slot card.

Comparing to G80 would seem natural, but that only speaks to G80's relative dominance over other solutions at the time and in GT280's case, how good G92 was. So of course the performance delta is not going to be as big as with G80 but that doesn't mean its not a huge leap forward in performance. Which leads us back to 9800GX2 which doubled G80's performance but wasn't worth $599, but is somehow worth $449 2 1/2 months later. I think its better to just say "I'm willing to spend $400, anything more than that isn't worth it to me no matter how fast it is".

Correct... And lets not forget putting the humble 130$ 8800GT in SLI. How well does it perform compared to cards that cost more then 260$? (answer, very well)

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: sourthings

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: sourthings
Just so folks can have an informed decision who are debating getting a 280. Here are benches showing that a pair of crossfired 4850s outperform a gtx280 for high res gaming, as well as low res of course. Done by someone here on at. Link to his post at the top of the page:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

and here are more benches from another website again showing CFed 4850s outperforming the gtx280:

http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=crysis4xaaql2.jpg

Of important note here, look at the crysis benches, the first set is 1920x1200 dx9 high settings and 4xAA, the 4850s beat the gtx280. The second link is 1920x1200 _very_ high settings in _DX10_ with _4xAA_ the 4850s handily beating the gtx280 with an avg framerate of 23.

Suffice to say, I guess we can count on two 4870s crossfired and the single slot 4870x2 when it arrives really overtaking the gtx280. Just going on what we've heard about the difference between the 4850 and 4870, a fair guess might be 30-35fps at 1920x1200 dx10 very high 4xaa in crysis and 40-45 dx9 high settings 4xaa.

From what I've read in some other posts from folks who understand hardware, due to the size and heat output and bus width of the 280 we won't be seeing a 280gx2 type card and it will be left to SLI options only.

So, looks like ATI has likely done it. 4870x2 will be the fastest single slot card available and two 4870x2s in quad CF may very well beat out tri slied 280s. At the least, ATI is going to win the single slot best performing card this round.

:beer: good on them, and good for gamers all round, unless prices change they'll also be giving more performance for a cheaper price. gg.

I love how the folks lauding ATI or the 9800GX2 just love to ignore the fact you could SLI 2 cards for greater than GTX 280 performance for much less months ago. 2x 9600gt close, 2x 8800gt faster without a doubt, 2x 8800gts even faster, 9800gx2 about the same as gt and gts, 2x 9800gtx slightly faster and even offers tri-sli.

Finding 2 cheap cards and slinging them together for faster performance than a single-card single-GPU solution isn't anything new, that's one of the main draws of CF/SLI. While its great that 2x4850 perform about the same or better than a GTX 280, that doesn't make the problems with multi-GPU go away and its certainly not that exciting when you compare it to say, a pair of 8800GTS 512MB that may very well outperform it for less money.

Judging from Steel Six's results, it looks like he's 1) running a significantly faster CPU than AT and 2) already running into CPU bottlenecking (look at Crysis 1680 and 1920 no AA). Honestly I don't think those 4850s are any faster than any of the other SLI/multi-GPU solutions that have been around for the last 7-8 months. I think most folks here can make an inforrmed decision though. If you have an NV board and a G92 class GPU you're probably better off just doubling up if you're ok with SLI. If you have an Intel/AMD board and want to upgrade and you're ok with CF, then you're probably better off with ATI.

As I've said before, when it comes to video cards, and for people like myself who simply want the -BEST- playable performance available, what combination, configuration, what have you that deliver that is unimportant. It's simply that it is the best.

We've all seen that yes the 280 can beat a gx2 in average fps at very high res with AA, we've also seen that it's at a completely unplayable framerate, regardless of which card, the 280 or gx2 is being benched.

At playable frames at high res, the gx2 is still the better performing single slot card.

As for the 4850s besting the gtx280 in the bench that matters these days, which is Crysis. Not only at 1920x1200, but also beating the gtx280 handily with 4xAA and beating the gtx280 at -VERY- high -DX10- settings at 1920x1200 with 4xAA. It seems obvious that is what they can do. So unless you SLI two 280s, two 4850s beat it.

That said, why this matters to me is because it makes it obvious that two 4870s crossfired will perform even -higher- than the gtx280 will. And moreso when the 4870x2 is released, that -single- slot card will also perform much better than the gtx280.

And if you buy a second 4870x2 and run it in crossfire with another one, it looks like that will be the fastest performing graphics card setup on the market available this release refresh.

May not matter to you, but oddly, it has always seemed to matter to most everyone. As for a long time now, it's been nvidia that has held that crown.

And this refresh they no longer will be offering the fastest available graphics performance. ATI will have that position.

I could care less crossfire or not, or a single card with 2 gpus on it. It's no different than nvidias 9800gx2 being the best card available and still atm, the 9800gx2 is the best single slot card available.

Well now ATi is going to have that position again when the 4870x2 hits.

It's really quite impressive, considering how long they have been in a lackluster position performance wise.

I haven't owned ATI since 9800pro, but I'll be getting two 4870x2s in August.

Because it will be the best, and what's more, it will be cheaper than getting less from nv.

:beer:

All that and you once again, ignored water under the bridge. The 4850 in CF would need to convincingly beat 2 x 8800GT/S in SLI before any of the rest of what you wrote mattered. From what I'm seeing from people who actually own the card and aren't under NDA or guise of breaking NDA (not Inq or German sites etc.) it may be challenged even in that task. 4870 should do it but then you lose much of the cost-benefits and will still end up paying "more for year old tech". As for the rest about owning the best at any price...I find that hard to believe as you'd already have some kind of NV GPU in your rig and wouldn't need to commit another $1000+ months in advance for an ATI solution.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: kreacher
For $400 it would be a pretty good card but certainly not for $650. Unless SLI scaling goes over 90% I don't consider it a viable option (plus it limits your motherboard choices).

I would get it for $400 too, Its a good card that actually gives playable frame rate with 8xAA in high res on new games. If you checked computerbase.de benchmarking.

I'm not even in the market for a video card and I'd get it for $400. This card at $499 is a viable alternative for high end power users; at $650, it's WAY overpriced.