|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 17, 2008 16:30:49 GMT -5
One of these behemoths of a card outdoes the 9800 GX2 at just about everything except Crysis, but it's when AA is turned on or using insane resolutions that they show their true strength. Max detail @ 1920x1200 it runs at 38.3fps average, with 4x AA on it goes with a respectable (very) 26.4fps. In comparison the 9800GX2 with those same settings gets 47.3fps and 22fps with AA
This is a card I will definitely get as I'm limited to 1 PCI slot, the GX2 has HORRIBLE cooling (have you seen the size of the outer vent? its nowhere near big enough) and the 280 beats it at every other game. I personally dont care about noise as I am planning on buying a set of surround headphones anyway. My only problem is the cheapest GTX 280 I can find (at ncix) is $669, but the GTX 260 is a good overclocker for $300 less that comes within 6% of a stock 280
The GTX 260 is also on-par with the 8800 Ultra, being just slightly faster but also has more shaders and less heat
Keep in mind too: the drivers are brand new, no optimizations yet. This thing is just showing raw power for now, wait until they throw in the optimizations!
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by hzac on Jun 18, 2008 0:32:12 GMT -5
Nerd
|
|
|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 18, 2008 1:43:23 GMT -5
thank you hzac, means alot coming from you  *notes the title under my pic* |
|
|
|
Post by hzac on Jun 18, 2008 2:18:12 GMT -5
Its way to over priced. all new things are. Just wait a bit
|
|
|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 18, 2008 3:59:19 GMT -5
well of course, I wont be buyin it until March '09, either as strictly an upgrade for my current PC or as part of a whole new system (Thinkin bout the Core 2 Duo E8400). Hopefully the 260 will drop below the 300 or even 250 mark, with the 280 following closely. If I were to upgrade RIGHT now, It'd definitely be the 9800GX2 for $399.
|
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 18, 2008 12:34:36 GMT -5
i wouldnt waste my money on that or even an 8800 even if i had that kind of money. the 9600GT is under $200 and performs very respectively. my brother bought one and every game he has runs perfect or damn near it cranked. he has a 19" wide LCD at i think 1280x1024 on desktop and 1440 something ingame. UT3 cranked (litterally on Insane with everything up), Bioshock cranked, Crysis (i think almost all the way up), and GRID cranked. nothing slows or jerks. he complains when he cant run a game at 60fps on the highest resolution cranked, and for that he is dumb. if i could run crap at 1024x768 all the way up i'd be happy as a motherfuker. people underestimate that card so much because it is cheap, but check the comparison charts online and it is obvios that that is the best bang for littlest buck.
|
|
|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 18, 2008 21:58:15 GMT -5
not because it is cheap, and I'm not underestimating it either. The GeForce 6600GT has the power to run just about any game pre-2007 maxed out @ 1280x1024. The 9600GT is a slightly cut down version of the 8800GT its deficiencies are its shaders (64 of them IIRC) and lower clock speeds. However the 8800GT can be had for $140. Considering I bought mine for $360 in January, thats a huge price drop. The 8800GT is by far the best bang for your buck, the cheapest 9600GT on the same site the 8800GT goes for $140 on, is $179. For $39 more you can have less performance (albeit slightly). Price has nothing to do with underestimation with me. Also all the features the 9600GT has, the 8800GT has as well, being the first of the GeForce 9 series (it's a G92, not a true Geforce 8), the 9600GT is the G94. The GeForce 8's are all G8x's.
But you gotta go with what you can afford, and both GTX cards are out of my range right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy.neo on Jun 19, 2008 5:08:11 GMT -5
Hai gaise.  |
|
|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 19, 2008 6:03:54 GMT -5
I'm a little skeptical on those HD 4850 benches. I mean do you remember when the 3850 was the next big thing to come from ATi and it turned out to be as big of flop as the HD 2900 was?
Also the GTX280 should smoke the 9800 GX2 with AA on, 1GB of TRUE memory and 512bit bus = win
the 240 shaders mean almost nothing to games, however when it comes to CUDA apps like folding @ home they are everything.
Plus, I dont know where you got those but the 9800 GTX is slower than the 8800 at almost any resolution.
GeForce 8800 Ultra G80 90nm 612MHz/ 128 SPU@1512MHz 384bit 768MB@2160MHz(e) 64TLU 24R 175w 576 GFlops
GeForce 9800 GTX G92 65nm 675MHz/ 128 SPU@1688MHz 256bit 512MB@2200MHz(e) 64TLU 16R 156w 648 GFlops
GeForce GTX 280 D10U-30 65nm 602MHz/ 240 SPU@1296MHz 512bit 1024MB@2214MHz(e) 80TLU 32R 236w 933 GFlops
The 9800 while technically superior on paper, it lacks the ROP's (Rasterizers, or R as above) to put the image together fast enough. However it beats the 8800 Ultra at Cuda applications, such as F@H. However there is no way the 9800GTX can hold a candle to the 280. However, again, price to performance, the 9800GTX is FAR more attractive.
EDIT: I just noticed I put "however" starting 3 sentences alone in the last paragraph LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 19, 2008 17:02:58 GMT -5
u know what card can still boogy for real cheap? the 8600.. it can play UT3 cranked. VERY CHEAP! and for some reson it dont even require its own molex connector
im thinkin this chart was drawn up in paint.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy.neo on Jun 19, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5
im thinkin this chart was drawn up in paint. No. |
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 19, 2008 19:39:27 GMT -5
im sorry, Microsoft Excel
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy.neo on Jun 19, 2008 20:20:00 GMT -5
im sorry, Microsoft Excel Prolly. And why not? |
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 19, 2008 21:03:32 GMT -5
why not what?
|
|
|
|
Post by EtHiZzLe on Jun 19, 2008 22:12:33 GMT -5
OMFG Ban that IP seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by fghkkiu on Jun 20, 2008 2:48:04 GMT -5
*stop it.*
-x_orange90_x
|
|
|
|
Post by iukiu kiu on Jun 20, 2008 2:49:17 GMT -5
*stop it..seriously*
-x_orange90_x
|
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 20, 2008 5:16:33 GMT -5
i would if i knew how
|
|
|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 20, 2008 6:13:35 GMT -5
some more benchies came out, a single 4850 gets 5.88fps in Crysis @ 2560x1600 maxed. the GTX 280 gets 12.83. In comparison the 3850 gets 3.99fps. HOWEVER thats the biggest difference between the 3xxx and the 4xxx. Other differences are very minute and a Crossfire setup still gets bent over a barrel by a single GTX 280
Also: the 8600GT is agood, cheap card but considering you can play almost any game maxed out, faster, at a higher resolution with the 8800GT for only $35 more, the 8800GT just keeps becoming a better and better deal. I mean cmon! $140 for Crysis maxed out @ 1280x1024? Wheras the 8600GT barely manages 6 fps @ 640x480 on high, again for a $35 difference. There is nothing that can hold that price to performance ratio as well as the 8800GT has.
|
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 20, 2008 6:39:46 GMT -5
i can play Crysis on 640x480 on low at 15-20fps..so i think the 8600 can do better than 6. it can do TimeShift cranked with no lag.
|
|
|
|
Post by EtHiZzLe on Jun 20, 2008 14:10:25 GMT -5
sorry, wasn't sure if it was one of those simple fixes or not. oh i have a GeForce card, but I dont think its very powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by mew905 on Jun 20, 2008 14:55:45 GMT -5
keep in mind though, you're talkin about low. What video card do you use? That sounds like what my brother's 8400 GS gets in Crysis on low.
|
|
|
|
Post by EtHiZzLe on Jun 20, 2008 15:17:45 GMT -5
umm lemme see
NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
not very familiar with NVIDIA cards, so I'm not sure of the quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by xorange90x on Jun 20, 2008 19:08:58 GMT -5
o, i forgot to say its a 6200 OC.
|
|
*notes the title under my pic*
