nVidia GT200 Series Review Thread

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: djcool976
I started my step-up for a GTX 280 but now I'm wondering if my PSU will do the trick. My current setup is in my signature. Think I'll be ok?

I've been fine so far with a HX520. Right now I'm running a Phenom 9500, 4GB DDR2, mobo, GTX 280 @ 713/2500. I'm just leaving my CPU at stock right now because I don't want to push it and I just need my motherboard for my E8400 setup. I'm pretty sure that I am fine.... I've played CoD4, F@H overnight, and for a while yesterday I ran F@H + Prime 95.

With an HX 620 you have nothing to worry about.

 

[djcool976]

I'm really looking forward to it. I thought about trying to swap out my X38 for an SLI board but there isn't any way I'll be able to buy a second card for a long long time. I didn't have good luck when I tried Crossfire before anyways so I'll just stick to my overpowered single card solutions.

 

[Dillybob]

It takes only about as much power as the 8800GTX, and is comparable to 2 9800GTX's (or 1 9800GX2), but it's 1GPU, has physics, and completely slams current cards. It's got PhysX (ported through CUDA), and, c'mon....the 8800GTX was close to the price of it when it came out. All the ATI fanboys need to stop complaining...I've had nothing but problems from ATI's cards...Nvidia is much more stable hardware-wise, and doesn't need to use experimental new memory or cram 800 stream-procs in there to do it (which ATI has done in an attempt to catch-up).

EDIT: Sorry, I had been reading an older page when I wrote this.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Dillybob
It takes only about as much power as the 8800GTX, and is comparable to 2 9800GTX's (or 1 9800GX2), but it's 1GPU, has physics, and completely slams current cards. It's got PhysX (ported through CUDA), and, c'mon....the 8800GTX was close to the price of it when it came out. All the ATI fanboys need to stop complaining...I've had nothing but problems from ATI's cards...Nvidia is much more stable hardware-wise, and doesn't need to use experimental new memory or cram 800 stream-procs in there to do it (which ATI has done in an attempt to catch-up).

EDIT: Sorry, I had been reading an older page when I wrote this.

I have owned both nVidia and ATI cards and I have not had any significant problem with either. The only problems I can remember is with my 8800GTS 640MB; The Vista drivers were very immature for several months in early 2007. The second most significant problem that I've had (although it is nothing big to complain about) is with the GTX 280 in fact... I had to use Rivatuner to force the card to stay at Perf 3D clocks all the time, because it does not go up to the right clocks during 3D. And the card is weird in terms of overclocking... core domain/shader domain seem to be linked more than in G80/G92. I can't get my core to 720MHz without increasing shader domain to 1512MHz.

I'm not going to get into the SP argument. nVidia's SPs and AMD's SPs are two different things, and they cannot be compared like that. AMD's SPs are less efficient per unit but much more efficient per die area. The number of units does not matter to anybody, the die size matters to the manufacturer. So in any important measure, RV770 is actually more efficient.

GDDR5 is not "experimental", it is a new memory standard. nVidia uses a 512-bit bus with GDDR3... AMD uses GDDR5 with 256-bit. They are both valid approaches. nVidia's approach increases the cost of the PCB significantly, AMD's approach increases the cost of the memory (by how much we do not know). For some reason nVidia seems to have fallen in love with GDDR3 memory. Not moving to GDDR4 made sense, because GDDR4 sucked... it increased latency and did not increase frequency by much. But GDDR5 is a serious step forward and IMO nVidia would have been better served by 256-bit + GDDR5 in GT200 than the current setup.

 

[Cookie Monster]

FW177.40
nvidia_gt200.dev_05e0.1 = "nvidia GT200-400"

Looks like we will be seeing "Ultra variant" real soon against the R700. Which means, prices drops on GTX280, and maybe the GTX260 hopefully.

So GTX290 ~$649?
GTX280 ~$499?
GTX260 ~$349?

 

[MarcVenice]

Cookiemonster, how do you know there are plenty of gtx280's to go around? You might be correct, but I doubt many ppl are jumping on these expensive cards, so no need for large stocks. On the other hand, they might have actually have this taped out for some time and just waited for AMD to catch up, with their 9800gtx selling just fine, and their 9800gx2 as well.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Because if they can supply cards to where i live (New Zealand), with most of the retailers having these cards in stock i can guarantee you its probably plentiful all around the world. But this card isnt a volume product, so it has "plentiful" stock in the sense that its aimed at ultra high end enthusiasts.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Dillybob
It takes only about as much power as the 8800GTX, and is comparable to 2 9800GTX's (or 1 9800GX2), but it's 1GPU, has physics, and completely slams current cards. It's got PhysX (ported through CUDA), and, c'mon....the 8800GTX was close to the price of it when it came out. All the ATI fanboys need to stop complaining...I've had nothing but problems from ATI's cards...Nvidia is much more stable hardware-wise, and doesn't need to use experimental new memory or cram 800 stream-procs in there to do it (which ATI has done in an attempt to catch-up).

EDIT: Sorry, I had been reading an older page when I wrote this.

I have owned both nVidia and ATI cards and I have not had any significant problem with either. The only problems I can remember is with my 8800GTS 640MB; The Vista drivers were very immature for several months in early 2007. The second most significant problem that I've had (although it is nothing big to complain about) is with the GTX 280 in fact... I had to use Rivatuner to force the card to stay at Perf 3D clocks all the time, because it does not go up to the right clocks during 3D. And the card is weird in terms of overclocking... core domain/shader domain seem to be linked more than in G80/G92. I can't get my core to 720MHz without increasing shader domain to 1512MHz.

I'm not going to get into the SP argument. nVidia's SPs and AMD's SPs are two different things, and they cannot be compared like that. AMD's SPs are less efficient per unit but much more efficient per die area. The number of units does not matter to anybody, the die size matters to the manufacturer. So in any important measure, RV770 is actually more efficient.

GDDR5 is not "experimental", it is a new memory standard. nVidia uses a 512-bit bus with GDDR3... AMD uses GDDR5 with 256-bit. They are both valid approaches. nVidia's approach increases the cost of the PCB significantly, AMD's approach increases the cost of the memory (by how much we do not know). For some reason nVidia seems to have fallen in love with GDDR3 memory. Not moving to GDDR4 made sense, because GDDR4 sucked... it increased latency and did not increase frequency by much. But GDDR5 is a serious step forward and IMO nVidia would have been better served by 256-bit + GDDR5 in GT200 than the current setup.

iirc jonnyguru made some comments about 8800gt problems with running the memory over 1000 for long periods of time right after release. I wonder if nvidia didn't have concerns about making the gddr5 mesh properly with the rest of the arch?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Dillybob
It takes only about as much power as the 8800GTX, and is comparable to 2 9800GTX's (or 1 9800GX2), but it's 1GPU, has physics, and completely slams current cards. It's got PhysX (ported through CUDA), and, c'mon....the 8800GTX was close to the price of it when it came out. All the ATI fanboys need to stop complaining...I've had nothing but problems from ATI's cards...Nvidia is much more stable hardware-wise, and doesn't need to use experimental new memory or cram 800 stream-procs in there to do it (which ATI has done in an attempt to catch-up).

EDIT: Sorry, I had been reading an older page when I wrote this.

I have owned both nVidia and ATI cards and I have not had any significant problem with either. The only problems I can remember is with my 8800GTS 640MB; The Vista drivers were very immature for several months in early 2007. The second most significant problem that I've had (although it is nothing big to complain about) is with the GTX 280 in fact... I had to use Rivatuner to force the card to stay at Perf 3D clocks all the time, because it does not go up to the right clocks during 3D. And the card is weird in terms of overclocking... core domain/shader domain seem to be linked more than in G80/G92. I can't get my core to 720MHz without increasing shader domain to 1512MHz.

I'm not going to get into the SP argument. nVidia's SPs and AMD's SPs are two different things, and they cannot be compared like that. AMD's SPs are less efficient per unit but much more efficient per die area. The number of units does not matter to anybody, the die size matters to the manufacturer. So in any important measure, RV770 is actually more efficient.

GDDR5 is not "experimental", it is a new memory standard. nVidia uses a 512-bit bus with GDDR3... AMD uses GDDR5 with 256-bit. They are both valid approaches. nVidia's approach increases the cost of the PCB significantly, AMD's approach increases the cost of the memory (by how much we do not know). For some reason nVidia seems to have fallen in love with GDDR3 memory. Not moving to GDDR4 made sense, because GDDR4 sucked... it increased latency and did not increase frequency by much. But GDDR5 is a serious step forward and IMO nVidia would have been better served by 256-bit + GDDR5 in GT200 than the current setup.

iirc jonnyguru made some comments about 8800gt problems with running the memory over 1000 for long periods of time right after release. I wonder if nvidia didn't have concerns about making the gddr5 mesh properly with the rest of the arch?

From what I see those fears were unfounded, because no one that I know of reported problems with the 8800GTs failing because of high memory clocks. eVGA's 8800GT SSC ran the memory @ 2000MHz and it did not have a problem at all. Certainly it cannot be a problem with G92, because the 9800GTX runs its memory @ 2.2GHz and can be overclocked significantly beyond that.

Of course I don't know what was going on when nVidia was in development of GT200, but I'm sure it was several years ago when they were making design decisions like this. Probably nVidia did not want to have to depend on GDDR5 availability as they would not have known for sure if GDDR5 would be mature/widely available by the summer of '08.

512-bit + GDDR3 is probably still a bit better performance wise than 256-bit + GDDR5, because I'm pretty sure GDDR3 is lower latency than GDDR5. Also I'm not sure how many 4.4GHz GDDR5 modules could be supplied by this time. AMD is the only one using GDDR5 right now and they are only using low-binned 3.6GHz modules.

 

[bryanW1995]

yes, they're lower binned but the 3 sites that showed oc'ing so far got it to 4400, 4360, and 4360 so far. courtesy of jpb:

http://img365.imageshack.us/im...8855/4000seriesdi4.png

 

[Cookie Monster]

GDDR5 is low latency where as GDDR4 was not i.e ignored by nVIDIA completely and somewhat by ATi. So in terms of latency wise, i suspect its similiar to the GDDR3 but the biggest concern for the GDDR5 chips is supply. GDDR5 being relatively new tech means it could possibly face those issues, especially if the demand is high.

 

[Blacklash]

My view on the GTX 260 vs the HD 4870.

The GTX 260s may be sweetened by their OCs. If they can get to 700 like many GTX 280s seem to be doing. We don't know what the max OC for the 4870 will be and it may have a smaller range. Both Hard and Legitreviews only got +30MHz on the core with their HD 3870s. By contrast Hard got a +94MHz core bump on the 260 they tested. That gave them +7FPS @ avg 1920x 2xAA|16xAF in AoC. They only got their GTX 280 to 675 and that's still 73MHz over stock. We will see as user results start to filter in.

Also for both the GTX 280 and 260-

Looks like PhysX is going to have a larger impact in the near future-

"We also spoke with Brian Burke (Senior PR Manager) and Roy Taylor (Vice President of Developer Relations) on the phone and they had a ton of things to say about PhysX and were obviously all for it. They were happy to announce that 14 to 16 new PhysX game titles would be available before Christmas and double that next summer."

Source:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/733/1/

Other nice things about getting a 260 (or any other nVidia card) would kick in if you buy one from XFX or Evga.

If you get it from XFX you may transfer your lifetime warranty to another person. If you resell your cards when you are bored with them or to feed another purchase this fact will build value to your buyer. Aka you get to ask for a higher price. Other cards have their warranties voided when they leave the orginal buyers hands.

Evga have Step-Up so if nVidia release some uber card within 90days of your purchase you may trade in your card and pay the difference.

Both companies officially support overclocking, so you don't void your warranty by doing it. Both companies offer lifetime warranties. Both companies support users replacing their HSF without voiding their warranty.

I suspect nVidia will drop the price.

 

[bryanW1995]

I hope that nvidia pr is reading this, b/c that entire post just about sums up their options.


The oc'ing on the core for that gtx 260 in particular is good, though 4870's 22% average memory oc should make up for it's weaker than puppy piss 4.44% core oc. Based upon my personal experience with my 3870, core oc's are about twice as effective at improving performance as memory oc's.

 

[Dillybob]

I run a 1440 x 900 19-inch monitor....I have 2x2gb of ram (4-4-4-12, 2.2v patriot), a Q6600 (stock now, have gotten to 3.0ghz before easily), and an 8800GTX on an X38 board (maximus formula). I plan to swap the mobo for a 780i to keep my ram usable (and because I don't plan on 1600fsb or ddr3 until Nehalem).

Would the GTX 280 be overkill for me? What are you guy's thoughts on the matter?

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: Dillybob
I run a 1440 x 900 19-inch monitor....I have 2x2gb of ram (4-4-4-12, 2.2v patriot), a Q6600 (stock now, have gotten to 3.0ghz before easily), and an 8800GTX on an X38 board (maximus formula). I plan to swap the mobo for a 780i to keep my ram usable (and because I don't plan on 1600fsb or ddr3 until Nehalem).

Would the GTX 280 be overkill for me? What are you guy's thoughts on the matter?

What is your expectation going from X38 to 780i? What's the reason?

 

[lopri]

Dillybob: I would purchase a bigger monitor first before upgrading anything else.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Dillybob
I run a 1440 x 900 19-inch monitor....I have 2x2gb of ram (4-4-4-12, 2.2v patriot), a Q6600 (stock now, have gotten to 3.0ghz before easily), and an 8800GTX on an X38 board (maximus formula). I plan to swap the mobo for a 780i to keep my ram usable (and because I don't plan on 1600fsb or ddr3 until Nehalem).

Would the GTX 280 be overkill for me? What are you guy's thoughts on the matter?

I have a 14x9 monitor. I can basically max out with full AA/AF almost any game except that devil crysis on my 3870. Your 8800gtx should be more than sufficient until you get a better monitor. What games are you struggling with? Are you using 16x AA or some crazy settings?

ps: you definitely don't need an sli mobo, either.

 

[bdubyah]

i'm wondering about stepping up to a 260. i currently have a 9800GTX and i have 5 days left to step up. i paid $330 for my GTX, so its only like $70 plus shipping.

think its worth it?

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: bdubyah
i'm wondering about stepping up to a 260. i currently have a 9800GTX and i have 5 days left to step up. i paid $330 for my GTX, so its only like $70 plus shipping.

think its worth it?

Yes.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: bdubyah
i'm wondering about stepping up to a 260. i currently have a 9800GTX and i have 5 days left to step up. i paid $330 for my GTX, so its only like $70 plus shipping.

think its worth it?

Yes.

agreed

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: bdubyah
i'm wondering about stepping up to a 260. i currently have a 9800GTX and i have 5 days left to step up. i paid $330 for my GTX, so its only like $70 plus shipping.

think its worth it?

Yes.

agreed

definitely!!! that could be the only good way to get a gtx 260, but it's definitely worth $70 more than a 9800gtx. realistically, even if nvidia fixes their gt 200 prices to be competitive with amd, they'll still be ~ $140-$150 higher on gtx 260 than 9800gtx. This is one case where step up is your friend!

 

[Dillybob]

OH YEAH! Also, when the GTX 280 drops in price, you can step up to that....unlike me, who bit the bullet and got one yesterday. Folding@Home speed is much higher now, and games that got 60FPS before are getting close to 100 with most settings on high. Haven't messed with games that support PhysX. Using latest drivers, is PhysX available on the card yet?

 

[bdubyah]

actually i couldn't do that. you can only step up once according to eVGA. a card received through stepping up isn't eligible for the program.

 

[Dillybob]

Ah well. Didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know....

Go for the GTX260. Unless you run 24" monitor or higher, you won't see a huge amount of difference. I should probably have waited for a 260....ah well. I'll probably get a bigger monitor soon.

 

[justinburton]

Is anybody else depressed that they are stuck with an SLI motherboard and in order to upgrade to 2 of the newest nvidia cards, they need to dish out $1300? It is obvious that GTX 280 SLI is faster than the 4870 crossfie, but the ati cards come close in speed but cost half as much. Nvidia seemed to have put its greatest fans in an very awkward position. Am an going to have to sell my SLI motherboard? We will just have to wait to see if the GTX 280 drops to $500. PS: The waterblcok alone for the GTX 280 is $180, what a rip off.