Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: chizow
The results aren't any surprise or disappointment, this card brings about the same performance of the GX2 without any of the problems associated with SLI/multi-GPU. If that's the level of performance you wanted, there were about a dozen opportunities to achieve that with the myriad SLI/CF/X2 solutions since G80 all at a fraction of the price. GT200 clearly moves the bar again for single-GPU solutions and starts the cycle again.
If you're not in the market for a $500+ GPU than this card isn't for you. The G92 was more suited to your needs, but then you get complaints about paying for year old tech.... People need a reality check when it comes to high-end. Neither NV or ATI is going to give you top-end performance without fleecing you. Sure the RV770 may be equivalent (4850) or faster (4870) than G92 9800GTX, but its also going to cost more and its coming 3-6 months later and is certainly less earth-shattering than GTX 280. 20-30% faster than 9800GTX at $300-329 is great since you can CF for less and get GTX 280, but make sure you don't turn around and see those G92 GTS 512MB for $150 that would give you similar performance to a GTX 280 but cost as much as a 4870....and so on and so on......
Lastly, I think we're running into some serious CPU limitations in current games with these high-end parts. If you look at many of the benches in some of the older games, the results are very flat at even 16x12 or even 19x12 with the CF/SLi and now GT200 parts. In games like QW: ET and even COD4, both with AA, there's very little difference in the 16/19 resolutions. I don't think faster CPU is really the answer, I think devs need to really start taking advantage of more cores in the way they write their games.
I would consider the GTX 280 to be mildly preferrable to the 9800 GX2 if the two cards were the same price. The 9800 GX2 is a bit faster but the GTX 280 is better with AA/AF, uses less power, and doesn't rely on SLI. But the problem is the GTX 280 costs ~$200 more than the 9800 GX2. I can get a 9800 GX2 right now for $450:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143128
So I am paying $200 more for a card that is consistantly 10% slower (or more in some cases)? Anandtech's review showed that in a number of cases, the GTX 280 is slower than 8800GT SLI, which will cost around ~$300.
RV770 is going to be a lot more than you are thinking if you are going to compare it to G92 performance. Now that I'm seeing GTX 200 series performance, I am pretty certain that the HD 4870 will compete with the GTX 260 on average and in some games may compete with the GTX 280 in performance. The HD 4870 will be a good 2x faster than the HD 3870 on average, given the specs (2.5x SPs / 2x TMU / ~1.7x mem bandwidth / improved AA+AF performance). The HD 4870 only needs to be 85% faster than the HD 3870 to equal the 280 in Crysis @ 1920x1200. I think there is actually a chance the HD 4870 could beat the 280 in such a situation. Single-GPU RV770 may very well compete with single-GPU GT200 in a number of situations.
http://www.eetimes.com/rss/sho...SSfeed_eetimes_newsRSS
According to this, on average, the HD 4850 will offer ~75% the performance of the GTX 280 at around 30% the price. It has already been rumored that the HD 4870 will be ~30% faster than the 4850 model (20% higher core clock + 80% more memory bandwidth) and this would put the HD 4870 and GTX 280 roughly equal in performance.