Originally posted by: modoheo
We'll see what effect updated drivers have over the next few months, but is anyone besides me extremely disappointed that the GTX280 can barely keep up with a 9800GX2? I was expecting a MUCH greater leap forward in terms of real world gaming performance.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: modoheo
We'll see what effect updated drivers have over the next few months, but is anyone besides me extremely disappointed that the GTX280 can barely keep up with a 9800GX2? I was expecting a MUCH greater leap forward in terms of real world gaming performance.
No, it is two GPU's vs one. It is right where I expected it to be.
Originally posted by: BFG10K
ExtremeTech's power consumption shows it's less than a 8800 Ultra. Clearly the consumption issue has been overblown.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Disappointing, as expected (if it was expected, how can it be disappointing? )
On average it seems to be around 50% faster than a 9800GTX, not counting on the ultra high resolutions where it runs out of memory
When will 4870 reviews show up? Im really curious now, even if its just around 10-20% faster than a 9800GTX, for the price it will completely DESTROY the GTX 280
HD 4870 is (according to AMD slides) 30-50% faster than the 9800GTX. It'll probably be a bit less than that (maybe 20-40%) in real world testing.
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Reading beyond3d article , the gpu design team focused more on making a CUDA monster instead of monster for gaming. Leaves me to wonder what have nvidia have doing since the release of G80. Because all we are seeing from both ATI and Nvidia is incremental update in gaming aspect.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/51/8
"Because GT200 doesn't implement a brand new architecture or change possible image quality compared to G80 or G92, we've been able to skip discussion of large parts of the chip simply because they're unchanged. There's nothing new to talk about in terms of maximum per-pixel IQ, because the crucial components of the chip that make that all happen have no improvements or changes to speak of. It's purely a question of performance and how that's derived."
Originally posted by: Narse
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Disappointing, as expected (if it was expected, how can it be disappointing? )
On average it seems to be around 50% faster than a 9800GTX, not counting on the ultra high resolutions where it runs out of memory
When will 4870 reviews show up? Im really curious now, even if its just around 10-20% faster than a 9800GTX, for the price it will completely DESTROY the GTX 280
HD 4870 is (according to AMD slides) 30-50% faster than the 9800GTX. It'll probably be a bit less than that (maybe 20-40%) in real world testing.
If thats the case I will be getting my first AMD card in a very very long time. I am sick of nVidia prices.
Originally posted by: modoheo
We'll see what effect updated drivers have over the next few months, but is anyone besides me extremely disappointed that the GTX280 can barely keep up with a 9800GX2? I was expecting a MUCH greater leap forward in terms of real world gaming performance.
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Picking up from where we left off so that we can focus on the reviews coming out in the next 24 hours. Reviews will be added to the list as we get them.
Reviews:
AnandTech (It's our site, read it )
The Inquirer (Take with very large helping of salt)
VR-Zone (Preview?)
Hardware-Infos
Hardware-Aktuell
Benchmark Reviews (registration required)
IT.com
Publish IT
ExtremeTech
Guru3D
Tech Report
ComputerBase
Hot Hardware
Hexus
Tom's Hardware
Beyond3D (Tech only, no benchmarks)
Originally posted by: biostud
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: modoheo
We'll see what effect updated drivers have over the next few months, but is anyone besides me extremely disappointed that the GTX280 can barely keep up with a 9800GX2? I was expecting a MUCH greater leap forward in terms of real world gaming performance.
No, it is two GPU's vs one. It is right where I expected it to be.
So ATM what you the extra $$$ for are to be relieved of the problems of SLI.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Reading beyond3d article , the gpu design team focused more on making a CUDA monster instead of monster for gaming. Leaves me to wonder what have nvidia have doing since the release of G80. Because all we are seeing from both ATI and Nvidia is incremental update in gaming aspect.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/51/8
"Because GT200 doesn't implement a brand new architecture or change possible image quality compared to G80 or G92, we've been able to skip discussion of large parts of the chip simply because they're unchanged. There's nothing new to talk about in terms of maximum per-pixel IQ, because the crucial components of the chip that make that all happen have no improvements or changes to speak of. It's purely a question of performance and how that's derived."
As the R&D budgets for new GPUs continues to increase, nVidia and AMD are going to have to offset those increased costs by selling cards for more purposes than gaming. This is especially true since now GPUs like GT200 and RV770 have so much processing power. And GPGPU will become even more important in the face of Intel's Larrabee, which is going to be more general purpose and more suited toward such applications than current GPUs from nVidia and AMD.
It seems that nVidia took a page out of ATI's book with GT200, and they prioritized the shader core over the rest of the chip. GT200 has 87.5% more stream processors than G80 while it has only 25% more texture units and 33% more ROPs. The ratio of SP : Tex has increased from 2:1 in G80 to 3:1 in GT200. If we had more texture power in GT200, we would likely see more performance.
The other reason GT200 isn't such a monster is clocks.... the shader clock on the GTX 280 is lower than on the original 8800GTX, and the core/shader are much lower than on the 8800 Ultra and 9800GTX.
To be honest I'm wondering why GT200 has so many transistors..... no where in the chip do we see 2x G80, yet we see over 2x G80 in the number of transistors. Where are all these transistors going?
And about increases in gaming performance, AMD will certainly be providing that with R700.
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.
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Reading beyond3d article , the gpu design team focused more on making a CUDA monster instead of monster for gaming. Leaves me to wonder what have nvidia have doing since the release of G80. Because all we are seeing from both ATI and Nvidia is incremental update in gaming aspect.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/51/8
"Because GT200 doesn't implement a brand new architecture or change possible image quality compared to G80 or G92, we've been able to skip discussion of large parts of the chip simply because they're unchanged. There's nothing new to talk about in terms of maximum per-pixel IQ, because the crucial components of the chip that make that all happen have no improvements or changes to speak of. It's purely a question of performance and how that's derived."
As the R&D budgets for new GPUs continues to increase, nVidia and AMD are going to have to offset those increased costs by selling cards for more purposes than gaming. This is especially true since now GPUs like GT200 and RV770 have so much processing power. And GPGPU will become even more important in the face of Intel's Larrabee, which is going to be more general purpose and more suited toward such applications than current GPUs from nVidia and AMD.
It seems that nVidia took a page out of ATI's book with GT200, and they prioritized the shader core over the rest of the chip. GT200 has 87.5% more stream processors than G80 while it has only 25% more texture units and 33% more ROPs. The ratio of SP : Tex has increased from 2:1 in G80 to 3:1 in GT200. If we had more texture power in GT200, we would likely see more performance.
The other reason GT200 isn't such a monster is clocks.... the shader clock on the GTX 280 is lower than on the original 8800GTX, and the core/shader are much lower than on the 8800 Ultra and 9800GTX.
To be honest I'm wondering why GT200 has so many transistors..... no where in the chip do we see 2x G80, yet we see over 2x G80 in the number of transistors. Where are all these transistors going?
And about increases in gaming performance, AMD will certainly be providing that with R700.
Good insight here.
Fillrate is king and GT200 isn't so much better than G92 where it was starved for bandwidth. Although ROP helps you in high resolutions and AA it doesn't help you when there are multiple textures.
Same reason why 9600gt performs relatively close to 8800gt because it was more balanced than a full G92 with massive fillrate but not enough bandwidth.
Then get it? Like I said, that level of performance was always available if you were willing to go SLI/CF. Hell you could snag a Don't Mess with the ZOTAC for $150 and pair it up with your GTS and get *FASTER* than 9800GX2 performance for much less.....if you didn't have an SLI board, no problem you could throw one in too for less than a GX2. But of course no one talks about the myriad problems with multi-GPU solutions when talking about them as a viable high-end option. If I wanted multi-GPU I would've done it months ago, but there's so many problems that make it undesirable.Originally posted by: Extelleron
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
In 1920+ resolutions there's enough difference to make the upgrade worthwhile for me. Even if its 10% slower than SLI/GX2, its easily the difference between playable at max details and/or AA with a GTX 280 vs. borderline non-playable or sacrificing details/quality and definitely no AA on an 8800 GTX. And without any of the problems associated with SLI/multi-GPU.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.
Originally posted by: JPB
Honestly though, if this is the kind of performance from the GTX280, then how does Nvidia think its going to compete with the 4870X2 ? Maybe even the 4870 ?
I was expecting more from this card than this. But in my opinion, this card is nothing more than a joke.
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Disappointing, as expected (if it was expected, how can it be disappointing? )
On average it seems to be around 50% faster than a 9800GTX, not counting on the ultra high resolutions where it runs out of memory
When will 4870 reviews show up? Im really curious now, even if its just around 10-20% faster than a 9800GTX, for the price it will completely DESTROY the GTX 280
HD 4870 is (according to AMD slides) 30-50% faster than the 9800GTX. It'll probably be a bit less than that (maybe 20-40%) in real world testing.
Yeah ID guess so, even then, at HALF the price of the GTX 280, its a steal
And I checked HardOcp just for kicks, and the GTX received an editors choice award :laugh: They really are a joke