nVidia GT200 Series Thread

[Kuzi]

GTX280 Game tests:

50fps in Crysis with 2048x1536 @ 4AA / 16AF

 

[EKTELESTES]

hmmmm.....

 

[Dkcode]

As you can see, there is large discrepancy between PC gamers Crysis benchmarks and Techpowerup's. PC Gamers scores are very disappointing and not what i would have hoped for from a card that is seriously pumped up like the GTX 280.

On the other hand Techpowerup's scores are what i was hoping for from this card. But you have to question the results of the slower cards. They seem a little on the high side.

Lets hope the PC gamer results are bogus.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Looks solid but not close to deserving a 649$ price point... Specially if the 4870 really delivers

 

[Kuzi]

The Techpowerup test was done on XP SP2 with DX9. So probably on Vista DX10 with High Quality it would lose a few frames, not sure how much though.

With this kind of performance NV should not charge more than 500-$550 for the GTX280.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Dkcode
As you can see, there is large discrepancy between PC gamers Crysis benchmarks and Techpowerup's. PC Gamers scores are very disappointing and not what i would have hoped for from a card that is seriously pumped up like the GTX 280.

On the other hand Techpowerup's scores are what i was hoping for from this card. But you have to question the results of the slower cards. They seem a little on the high side.

Lets hope the PC gamer results are bogus.

PC Gamer results are not bogus, they are a reputable place. The only thing questionable is the driver. But PC Gamer results seem to mirror what I see from Techpowerup's review anyway. In fact I think PC Gamer was more kind to the GTX 280.

In Techpowerup's review, the GTX 280 is 64% faster than the 8800GTX in Crysis at 2048x1536 4xAA/16xAF. And it's 3 FPS faster than a 9800GX2. I don't consider that impressive at all, given the specs of this card and the hype. It does not get 50 FPS, that is a pre-overclocked version. And this is DX9 in XP, not exactly a good test.

In STALKER the GTX 280 is 30% faster than the 8800GTX and the 9800GX2 beats the GTX 280 by 16%.

In UT3, the GTX 280 is 55% faster than the 8800GTX and the 9800GX2 beats the GTX 280 by 8%.

In Company of Heroes, the GTX 280 is 67% faster than the 8800GTX and the 9800GX2 beats the GTX 280 by 4%.

In Call of Duty 4, the GTX 280 is 44% faster than the 8800GTX and the 9800GX2 beats the GTX 280 by 20%.

In Quake Wars, the GTX 280 is 56% faster than the 8800GTX and the 9800GX2 beats the GTX 280 by 1%.

In F.E.A.R., the GTX 280 is 67% faster than the 8800GTX and the GTX 280 beats the 9800GX2 by 3%.

Anyway, there are more results but they are mostly older games (except Supreme Commander, where the 9800GX2 beats the GTX 280 by 28%).

The bottom line is, with DX9 in Windows XP at least, the GTX 280 is on average 45-65% faster than the 8800GTX, and it is generally a bit slower than the 9800GX2.

My opinion on the GTX 280: Performance wise it is not what I expected, at least under DX9. If it is priced at $499, then I could see buying it. $649? No way. $649 for this card is a rip off, it simply isn't as much an increase over the 8800GTX as it should be. If you are in Windows XP and already have a 9800GX2, there isn't any reason to upgrade. Windows Vista might be different because of less mature SLI drivers and in DX10 the GTX 280 may pull ahead.

If these results hold true under Vista, then I would be very concerned about how the GTX 260 will compete against the HD 4870. The HD 4870 should be considerably faster than the 8800GTX, and given the 280 model is only 45-65% faster... there is a decent chance that the HD 4870 may actually compete in performance, not just price, with the GTX 260.

On one hand it is going to be nice to see actual competition in the graphics industry for the first time since 2006... but on the other hand I think things are going to be almost as bad for nVidia now as it was for AMD in 2007. If the GTX 280 can't beat the 9800GX2, then it will not stand a chance against the HD 4870 X2. 9800GX2 is slower than 8800GTX SLI, yet HD 4870 by itself will defeat the 8800GTX by a decent margin. HD 4870 X2 should be a good deal faster than the 9800GX2, and based on this review at least, GTX 280 can't beat the 9800GX2. If the HD 4870 X2 demolishes the GTX 280, it will leave AMD room to price it not at $499, as was rumored, but at $599 or $649.

 

[BFG10K]

I think the performance gains over the 8800 GTX are generally excellent but they hinge on how fast the 4870 will be and what price it will have.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think the performance gains over the 8800 GTX are generally excellent but they hinge on how fast the 4870 will be and what price it will have.

Considering how fast the 8800GTX was at its release, I think the gains would have been pretty impressive if this card came out last November, a year later. But to me, the GTX 280 should be more than that; it is coming out nearly 2 years after the 8800GTX, and to me 45-65% faster is not very impressive.

It wouldn't be that bad, but as I said earlier, with G92 cards at <$200 and that can compete with the 8800GTX, it becomes even less impressive. Will I choose a 8800GTS 512MB for $160 or a GTX 280 that is ~50-70% faster for $649 (or $499)? With the 8800 series, the only midrange in the $150-200 bracket was the 8600GTS, and it didn't hold a candle compared to the 8800GTX. The GTX may have been 2-3x more expensive, but it was easily 3x or more faster. Now you can get a great card for <$200, and this does not factor in the HD 4850 either.

I think this may be a problem for both nVidia and AMD in the upcoming war, but more of a problem for nVidia. With the kind of power you are going to be able to get for $200 (HD 4850, 8800GTS 512MB) and $300 (HD 4870), most people who have 20" monitors or below are not going to be interested in the high-end. Even 1920x1200 will likely be quite playable, even in Crysis, with an HD 4870. If you have 2560x1600 or want 1920x1200 + AA/AF, then GTX 280 or HD 4870 X2 will be for you. But I think the high-end market is not as impressive as it used to be for the average user when midrange choices are now very good performers, not just cheap cards that nobody wants.

Why is this more of a problem for nVidia? nVidia has themselves deeply rooted in the high-end market with GT200. GT200 probably took a lot of time to develop and obviously it costs a lot of manufacture. So nVidia has put a lot of stake in the high-end market. AMD, on the other hand, is using the same chip for their high-end card as they are using for the midrange parts. Other than designing another PCB, HD 4870 X2 isn't going to cost them much more in design costs over the HD 4870. AMD has themselves rooted in the $200-300 market, and will compete in the high-end market but their overall success is not as tied to the sucess of the high-end compared to nVidia.

 

[BolleY2K]

NVidia is also struggling in the chipset market at the moment - which doesn´t help either. Right now crossfire is much more attractive than SLI in my opinion.

 

[Aberforth]

I think GT2XX series was rushed by NV, it was supposed to come out in Q4 as it was rumored- but now it's coming just a few weeks after 9800GX2 release, the purpose of this foolish move was to compete with AMD's new 4870 series. NV always had this backup strategy to stay in the competition, we definitely cannot expect performance here. A series of worst performing cards usually means NV is losing it, I hope S3 takes over their reputation - it's only fair.

 

[Hauk]

Good comments Extelleron. You make some solid points.

It's hard to justify $649 for a ~45-60% increase over an 8800 GTX that can be had for much much less. Not to mention all other competitive offerings.

I'm torn on this one. I sold off my G92 card and am ready to buy; but it's a waiting game at this point. ATI appears to have made some solid moves...

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BolleY2K
NVidia is also struggling in the chipset market at the moment - which doesn´t help either. Right now crossfire is much more attractive than SLI in my opinion.

I don't know how the chipset market or SLi vs CF relates to the GTX280, but I'd be happy to discuss either with you if you would like to open threads in regard to these topics in the appropriate forums.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think the performance gains over the 8800 GTX are generally excellent but they hinge on how fast the 4870 will be and what price it will have.

Considering how fast the 8800GTX was at its release, I think the gains would have been pretty impressive if this card came out last November, a year later. But to me, the GTX 280 should be more than that; it is coming out nearly 2 years after the 8800GTX, and to me 45-65% faster is not very impressive.

It wouldn't be that bad, but as I said earlier, with G92 cards at <$200 and that can compete with the 8800GTX, it becomes even less impressive. Will I choose a 8800GTS 512MB for $160 or a GTX 280 that is ~50-70% faster for $649 (or $499)? With the 8800 series, the only midrange in the $150-200 bracket was the 8600GTS, and it didn't hold a candle compared to the 8800GTX. The GTX may have been 2-3x more expensive, but it was easily 3x or more faster. Now you can get a great card for <$200, and this does not factor in the HD 4850 either.

I think this may be a problem for both nVidia and AMD in the upcoming war, but more of a problem for nVidia. With the kind of power you are going to be able to get for $200 (HD 4850, 8800GTS 512MB) and $300 (HD 4870), most people who have 20" monitors or below are not going to be interested in the high-end. Even 1920x1200 will likely be quite playable, even in Crysis, with an HD 4870. If you have 2560x1600 or want 1920x1200 + AA/AF, then GTX 280 or HD 4870 X2 will be for you. But I think the high-end market is not as impressive as it used to be for the average user when midrange choices are now very good performers, not just cheap cards that nobody wants.

Why is this more of a problem for nVidia? nVidia has themselves deeply rooted in the high-end market with GT200. GT200 probably took a lot of time to develop and obviously it costs a lot of manufacture. So nVidia has put a lot of stake in the high-end market. AMD, on the other hand, is using the same chip for their high-end card as they are using for the midrange parts. Other than designing another PCB, HD 4870 X2 isn't going to cost them much more in design costs over the HD 4870. AMD has themselves rooted in the $200-300 market, and will compete in the high-end market but their overall success is not as tied to the sucess of the high-end compared to nVidia.

Your post discounts "halo effect", the general correlation between having the top end GPU or CPU and lower end sales.

It also ignores the fact that you always pay a premium for the top performing single GPU, because that is a market itself. There are many people, like BFG10K and n7 for example, who do not wish to purchase multi GPU solutions.

If the 25X16 market isn't impressive to you, you haven't played with it. 25X16 @ 30" WS is a bigger improvement than anything else you can do for your computer in terms of immersion. (and I've done everything else short of shining it on my rec room wall with a projector) These cards are very nice for 25X16.

NVIDIA has always been more heavily invested in the high end, and ATi used to be the number graphics company in the world without high end at all. It's two different company philosophies, there's no point in speculating which is right. Given NVIDIA has grown to be the largest discrete graphics company in the world and enjoyed enormous success, it's difficult to imply they are "foolish" for their strategy.

Everyone on this board should hope NVIDIA maintains their strategy of producing the highest end single GPU because that is what all the single core crowd wants, and that is the foundation of the leading multi GPU solutions. The consumer only wins here.

 

[Nemesis 1]

No disrespecy intended Rollo . But thats a bunch of hog wash and you no it. In fact there are threads here at AT were you said it the other way around .

Now we all understand its your job to spin things. Thats the problem now rollo we all KNOW its your job . Befor you could make an arguement because you were cloaked in disception and stealth.

Rollo I think we all know that the 280 260 are going to be the top performers.

But ATI is offering solid performance at a great price . To argue against that is stupid. The guys that want top single card single gpu are going to buy NV.

The people who will want probably the highest performance card will get the 4870x2.

The people who want to Xfire or sli will likely buy ATI 4850s Its the smart buy.


The 280 is fast and it is the fastest single gpu solution on earth. But really not real SLI able . Same for the 260.

SO yes NV has the TOP SINGLE GPU Video card. We have to wait to see who has the single fastest top card.

Rollo stop being a salesman for a minute and look at the choices we have this round . I think everyone is pretty happy . Lets applaud the tech on both sides and hats off to AMD/ATI for bring solid performance at a good price.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Well, if those results on the 280GTX are accurate, it looks like I will be going ATI. If they compared this GTX280 to a 8800ULTRA the performance increase would diminish even further. It is hard to justify $649.00 for such a card. Especially when you could (hypothetical, assuming you have an SLI board) run two 8800GT's for ~250 and keep up with it in most games.

Now, I agree that there should be a premium for a single GPU over a multi GPU with the same performance, but when I plug in the numbers 300 for MGPU versus 600 for SGPU of same performance I receive a startling message in my brain that says "DATA DOES NOT COMPUTE" It just doesn't make sense to go SGPU at the price point.

Again, this is all based on presumption.. But as I get older I cherish my hard earned dollar more and more and it sure looks nVidia is not getting my money thing time around... But we will see. Maybe neither company will get my money this round.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think the performance gains over the 8800 GTX are generally excellent but they hinge on how fast the 4870 will be and what price it will have.

Considering how fast the 8800GTX was at its release, I think the gains would have been pretty impressive if this card came out last November, a year later. But to me, the GTX 280 should be more than that; it is coming out nearly 2 years after the 8800GTX, and to me 45-65% faster is not very impressive.

It wouldn't be that bad, but as I said earlier, with G92 cards at <$200 and that can compete with the 8800GTX, it becomes even less impressive. Will I choose a 8800GTS 512MB for $160 or a GTX 280 that is ~50-70% faster for $649 (or $499)? With the 8800 series, the only midrange in the $150-200 bracket was the 8600GTS, and it didn't hold a candle compared to the 8800GTX. The GTX may have been 2-3x more expensive, but it was easily 3x or more faster. Now you can get a great card for <$200, and this does not factor in the HD 4850 either.

I think this may be a problem for both nVidia and AMD in the upcoming war, but more of a problem for nVidia. With the kind of power you are going to be able to get for $200 (HD 4850, 8800GTS 512MB) and $300 (HD 4870), most people who have 20" monitors or below are not going to be interested in the high-end. Even 1920x1200 will likely be quite playable, even in Crysis, with an HD 4870. If you have 2560x1600 or want 1920x1200 + AA/AF, then GTX 280 or HD 4870 X2 will be for you. But I think the high-end market is not as impressive as it used to be for the average user when midrange choices are now very good performers, not just cheap cards that nobody wants.

Why is this more of a problem for nVidia? nVidia has themselves deeply rooted in the high-end market with GT200. GT200 probably took a lot of time to develop and obviously it costs a lot of manufacture. So nVidia has put a lot of stake in the high-end market. AMD, on the other hand, is using the same chip for their high-end card as they are using for the midrange parts. Other than designing another PCB, HD 4870 X2 isn't going to cost them much more in design costs over the HD 4870. AMD has themselves rooted in the $200-300 market, and will compete in the high-end market but their overall success is not as tied to the sucess of the high-end compared to nVidia.

Your post discounts "halo effect", the general correlation between having the top end GPU or CPU and lower end sales.

It also ignores the fact that you always pay a premium for the top performing single GPU, because that is a market itself. There are many people, like BFG10K and n7 for example, who do not wish to purchase multi GPU solutions.

If the 25X16 market isn't impressive to you, you haven't played with it. 25X16 @ 30" WS is a bigger improvement than anything else you can do for your computer in terms of immersion. (and I've done everything else short of shining it on my rec room wall with a projector) These cards are very nice for 25X16.

NVIDIA has always been more heavily invested in the high end, and ATi used to be the number graphics company in the world without high end at all. It's two different company philosophies, there's no point in speculating which is right. Given NVIDIA has grown to be the largest discrete graphics company in the world and enjoyed enormous success, it's difficult to imply they are "foolish" for their strategy.

Everyone on this board should hope NVIDIA maintains their strategy of producing the highest end single GPU because that is what all the single core crowd wants, and that is the foundation of the leading multi GPU solutions. The consumer only wins here.

nVidia has always been more invested in the high-end? That's not true at all, this is the first round where nVidia has been more focused on the high-end than AMD has been. And this time around, it looks like AMD will have the fastest card that you can buy, even though they aren't even focusing on that market. It's looking pretty certain to me that the HD 4870 X2 will be the fastest card money can buy. And even if you dislike multi-GPU solutions, it looks like the HD 4870 X2 should be close to the GTX 260 in performance even if Crossfire doesn't work. So basically, you are getting a card with single-GPU performance like the GTX 260, and then in 95% of games where Crossfire works, you see way higher performance than even the GTX 280.

But saying nVidia has historically been more focused on the high end just isn't true; since G80, yes, but before that, not even close. nVidia's high-end solution has never been very appealing until G80 IMO since the Geforce 4 series before ATI launched R300. Since then, they have had very good midrange solutions, but ATI has always had a faster high-end available. X800 beat 6800, X1800XT beat 7800GTX 256MB, X1900XTX beat 7900GTX. The 7950 GX2 was more expensive, had bad driver support (certainly in Vista), and still will not beat the X1950XTX in modern games. So IMO, ATI was the undisputable high-end champ from the days of R300 to the X1950 series. Comparing R580 vs. G71 in modern games, there isn't even a comparison. R580 is way, way more advanced and the die size shows this (314mm^2 vs 196mm^2 @ 90nm).

Midrange, that's another story. ATI had it perfect with the 9600 series of cards, which offered great performance and great overclocking. But after that, ATI's midrange solutions sucked. The X700 Pro wasn't competitive with the 6600GT and the X700XT never made it to market. The X1600 series was an absolute joke, and it didn't stand a chance against the 6800GS or the 7600GT. The 7600GT and 6800GS were two amazing cards, the 7600GT the more impressive of the two. It was a midrange card, but able to beat the previous top-end, the X850's and the 6800's.

In the G80 vs R600 gen, neither company focused on midrange one bit. The 8600 & 2600 series both sucked big time. It's only now that the refresh parts (RV670, G92, G94) have been launched that we see good performance at the <$200 market.

You talk about paying a premium for high-end, but the point is that if you are paying a premium, you should be getting absolute premium performance. We saw this last generation with G80 & R600, and we saw it previously as well. If you paid 2-3x more for a high-end card, you got 2-3x the performance. Now though, nVidia is asking us to pay up to 4x more (8800GTS 512MB = $156, GTX 280 = $649) for 50-70% more performance.

I'd be glad to sample the 2560x1600 goodness, I just don't have $1,500 to spend on a monitor and $1,000 to spend on graphics cards to play at that res.

You talk about GTX 280 being the preferrable card for people at that res... as I said, I really don't think that is going to pan out. HD 4870 X2 is going to be faster than GTX 280, now that I've seen the results of HD 4850 & GTX 280 I'm pretty sure of that. And you aren't going to be giving up anything by going with the 4870 X2. Assuming microstutter is fixed and some improvements are made (shared memory for example) the HD 4870 X2 will be a vastly improved solution over the 3870 X2. It will have single-card performance slightly lower than a GTX 260 likely, but when Crossfire works properly (which is 95% of the time) you will see it perform way beyond the GTX 280.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

The 280 is fast and it is the fastest single gpu solution on earth. But really not real SLI able .

<Looks at computer next to desk, wonders if it exists in light of this info>

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

The 280 is fast and it is the fastest single gpu solution on earth. But really not real SLI able .

<Looks at computer next to desk, wonders if it exists in light of this info>

LOL, I cannot say I always appreciate your posts, but this one was great... Regardless if it was true or not. LOL

:thumbsup:

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

The 280 is fast and it is the fastest single gpu solution on earth. But really not real SLI able .

<Looks at computer next to desk, wonders if it exists in light of this info>

VR-Zone posted a little snippet that they tested the GTX 280 in SLi and the entire system consume ~190W at idle and ~508W at load.

VR-ZOne GTX280 SLI power consumption

I would say that is pretty decent..I believe it is less than dual 8800GTX in SLi uses


of course VR-ZOne's forums seem to be full of ATI fanboys...even when a good preview of the GTX 280 comes out...they chime in "oh boy nVidia screwed up again ATI is going to kick their butt"

One person posted in the power consumption thread

this is a laughable situation nvidia have gotten themselves into. Guess my HX 520W won't be running SLI with these cards, what a surprise.

um hello ...you wouldn't be able to run HD3870X2 crossfire, or 8800GTXsli...or probably even HD4850Crossfire on an HX520 either... ATI's cards are looking to be a much better value than nVidia's now but those types of stupid comments are ridiculous.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
nVidia has always been more invested in the high-end? That's not true at all, this is the first round where nVidia has been more focused on the high-end than AMD has been. And this time around, it looks like AMD will have the fastest card that you can buy, even though they aren't even focusing on that market. It's looking pretty certain to me that the HD 4870 X2 will be the fastest card money can buy. And even if you dislike multi-GPU solutions, it looks like the HD 4870 X2 should be close to the GTX 260 in performance even if Crossfire doesn't work. So basically, you are getting a card with single-GPU performance like the GTX 260, and then in 95% of games where Crossfire works, you see way higher performance than even the GTX 280.

But saying nVidia has historically been more focused on the high end just isn't true; since G80, yes, but before that, not even close. nVidia's high-end solution has never been very appealing until G80 IMO since the Geforce 4 series before ATI launched R300. Since then, they have had very good midrange solutions, but ATI has always had a faster high-end available. X800 beat 6800, X1800XT beat 7800GTX 256MB, X1900XTX beat 7900GTX. The 7950 GX2 was more expensive, had bad driver support (certainly in Vista), and still will not beat the X1950XTX in modern games. So IMO, ATI was the undisputable high-end champ from the days of R300 to the X1950 series. Comparing R580 vs. G71 in modern games, there isn't even a comparison. R580 is way, way more advanced and the die size shows this (314mm^2 vs 196mm^2 @ 90nm).

Midrange, that's another story. ATI had it perfect with the 9600 series of cards, which offered great performance and great overclocking. But after that, ATI's midrange solutions sucked. The X700 Pro wasn't competitive with the 6600GT and the X700XT never made it to market. The X1600 series was an absolute joke, and it didn't stand a chance against the 6800GS or the 7600GT. The 7600GT and 6800GS were two amazing cards, the 7600GT the more impressive of the two. It was a midrange card, but able to beat the previous top-end, the X850's and the 6800's.

In the G80 vs R600 gen, neither company focused on midrange one bit. The 8600 & 2600 series both sucked big time. It's only now that the refresh parts (RV670, G92, G94) have been launched that we see good performance at the <$200 market.

You talk about paying a premium for high-end, but the point is that if you are paying a premium, you should be getting absolute premium performance. We saw this last generation with G80 & R600, and we saw it previously as well. If you paid 2-3x more for a high-end card, you got 2-3x the performance. Now though, nVidia is asking us to pay up to 4x more (8800GTS 512MB = $156, GTX 280 = $649) for 50-70% more performance.

I'd be glad to sample the 2560x1600 goodness, I just don't have $1,500 to spend on a monitor and $1,000 to spend on graphics cards to play at that res.

You talk about GTX 280 being the preferrable card for people at that res... as I said, I really don't think that is going to pan out. HD 4870 X2 is going to be faster than GTX 280, now that I've seen the results of HD 4850 & GTX 280 I'm pretty sure of that. And you aren't going to be giving up anything by going with the 4870 X2. Assuming microstutter is fixed and some improvements are made (shared memory for example) the HD 4870 X2 will be a vastly improved solution over the 3870 X2. It will have single-card performance slightly lower than a GTX 260 likely, but when Crossfire works properly (which is 95% of the time) you will see it perform way beyond the GTX 280.

I fully disagree with you here Extelleron. Nvidia was ALWAYS heavily invested into creating the highest performance GPUs from the start, 1996 till this day. Don't you remember the Wars they had with 3DFX, and eventually killing the company and absorbing it. NV is fearless, they were always at the top of the performance since the TNT/TNT2/GeForce 1 days till now. The only time they had a hiccup was the Geforce FX 5800 (AKA blow dryer, and thats when ATI clearly took the top spot with their Radeon 9700.

Over the years ATI was the only company that would compete with NV, but for a while their drivers were not as polished as Nvidia. And during the last few years ATI did improve both drivers and GPU performance, but I wouldn't say they were the performance leader. It was a seesaw game, NV takes the performance lead, ATI takes it back. But overall NV was the performance leader, and looking at the last 12 years, NV thrashed all other GPU companies around including ATI.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

The 280 is fast and it is the fastest single gpu solution on earth. But really not real SLI able .

<Looks at computer next to desk, wonders if it exists in light of this info>

LOL, I cannot say I always appreciate your posts, but this one was great... Regardless if it was true or not. LOL

:thumbsup:

Still NDA time for a bit, but the guys at NVIDIA never stop impressing me. My blood pressure probably jumped 50 points when I opened this review kit.

 

[Nemesis 1]

OK rollo what ever you say . but the 4870x2 doesn't look real Xfire able to me either . Thats just to much of a system load . Throw all the ice cream on it that you want. These things are power pigs.

 

[Aberforth]

NV has very good stealth marketing strategies :roll: I am sure AMD can get few tips from them.

 

[taltamir]

if you are referring to nRollo... then you should know AMD is giving cards to Nemesis 1...

so that lovely back and forth was between a guy getting free cards from nVidia, and a guy getting free cards from AMD. Both of them BECAUSE of their posts on forums...

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
I think ATI is going to win this generation, those are outrageous prices, crossfire HD4870s would cost less and (according to rumours) might end up being faster than a GTX 280.

This is nice because ATI will finally get back in the game and the fierce competition will make it even better for us customers.

well looking at the early leaked benchmark , i ain't impressed with either of them (R4XX or GT2XX).


CRYSIS 1920x1200 AA OFF & High Quality settings :
GT260 : 29.75
GT280 : 35.75

$449 for the 260, $649 for the 280 is nvidia recommended price i think.

now to wait for detail article on 16th.

Rumors of yield problem maybe the reason for the high price as they can't pump out enough cards to meet the demand.

those numbers were "charlied", I'd wait for something a little more reliable.

If anyone knowns the number :! its you :! MR disguise

who do you think I am?