-
NVIDIA GTX295 Preview/Review
-
Oh how sweet it is. Goodbye 4870X2... Nice knowing you
-
:brick: for a review of a product not yet released going against comptitor drivers 2 months old. Credibility out the window right there.
-
Quote:
The complete list of cards tested is as follows:-
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1792MB GDDR3 (ForceWare 180.87)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 1GB GDDR3 (ForceWare 180.48)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896MB GDDR3 (ForceWare 180.48)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB GDDR5 (Catalyst 8.10)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 (Catalyst 8.10)
Y hallo thar. I smell money, lots of it.
Quote:
since drivers alone don't dictate the absolute performance of the hardware
GOOD, why don't you go to pre-BigBang drivers? :rolleyes:
-
Quote:
Windows Vista SP1 Test System
* Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz)
* Gigabyte X38T-DQ6 motherboard
* 2 x 1GB DDR3-1333 Aeneon memory in dual channel mode
* Seagate 7200.10 200GB SATA hard drive
* Windows Vista Ultimate with SP1
You kidding me? 65nm c2q at 3ghz?
-
I'm glad to see it cheaper than the 4870X2 also. It means it does'nt have to beat it in every catagory. I'm sure the X2 will win in a couple of bench's but not many. But for a card $50 cheaper it sure does pwn in the bench's so far. i'm waiting for all the X2 fans to point out everything that was wrong with this review.
-
why testing with old catalyst can't download it from website ? lamos 8.12 gave boost in performance especially in far cry 2 and fallout what a lame site (by the way again games picked by nvidia think its new methodology in benchmarking everyone has its own favourite game )
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
When did those 8.11's come out again? Take into account the 295 is running on beta drivers. performance is sure to increase.
Come on!
Catalyst 8.12 are out since 8/12 and bring massive improvement.
295 may running on beta drivers but it's basically 270GTX Sli, so far from a new product to optmize for Nvidia.
Compare this results with the yesterday Bit-tech review :
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...e-on-core-i7/1
This review is a joke :rofl:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AbelJemka
Come on!
Catalyst 8.12 are out since 8/12 and bring massive improvement.
295 may running on beta drivers but it's basically 270GTX Sli, so far from a new product to optmize for Nvidia.
Compare this results with the yesterday Bit-tech review :
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...e-on-core-i7/1
This review is a joke :rofl:
They have been out since the 10th.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
I'm glad to see it cheaper than the 4870X2 also. It means it does'nt have to beat it in every catagory. I'm sure the X2 will win in a couple of bench's but not many. But for a card $50 cheaper it sure does pwn in the bench's so far. i'm waiting for all the X2 fans to point out everything that was wrong with this review.
how the hell its $50 cheaper :shrug: there is sapphire model available for 489 at newegg :
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...phire%204870x2
p.s its even cheaper after mir
-
Joke and Biased Review ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
I'm glad to see it cheaper than the 4870X2 also. It means it does'nt have to beat it in every catagory. I'm sure the X2 will win in a couple of bench's but not many. But for a card $50 cheaper it sure does pwn in the bench's so far. i'm waiting for all the X2 fans to point out everything that was wrong with this review.
If you can't see what was wrog with this review, you frankly an Nvidia fans :clap:
50$ cheaper with a MSRP of 499$?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...nd&Order=PRICE
Funniest sentence of the article :
Quote:
Will this force ATI into a price-drop? That looks likely and if so, then it will be sweet revenge for NVIDIA, won't it?
X2 price will go more than 150$ down with this card i doubt it :ROTF:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stukov
They have been out since the 10th.
Ok they can't download them? 18/12 today no!
-
goodbye HD4870X2 and hello GTX 295 :rofl:
-
Avg price of a 4870X2 is $530 before rebate. You just found a Xmas deal on one particular model.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
i'm waiting for all the X2 fans to point out everything that was wrong with this review.
:rolleyes: In other words, you're just waiting to troll people.
The fact is there are problems with this review.
Quote:
Windows Vista SP1 Test System
* Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz)
* Gigabyte X38T-DQ6 motherboard
* 2 x 1GB DDR3-1333 Aeneon memory in dual channel mode
* Seagate 7200.10 200GB SATA hard drive
* Windows Vista Ultimate with SP1
c2q at 3ghz? Is that supposed to be a joke?
2 gigs of ram? LOL
Quote:
The complete list of cards tested is as follows:-
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1792MB GDDR3 (ForceWare 180.87)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 1GB GDDR3 (ForceWare 180.48)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896MB GDDR3 (ForceWare 180.48)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 2GB GDDR5 (Catalyst 8.10)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB GDDR5 (Catalyst 8.10
They use 2 month old drivers for ati, different driver versions for nvidia and have balls to say
Quote:
drivers alone don't dictate the absolute performance of the hardware
Which we all know is utter rubbish.
I'm all for the next batch of faster cards but get the testing done right.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AbelJemka
Ok they can't download them? 18/12 today no!
I was saying the drivers 8.12 have been available since December 10th. How they can prepare a review on the 18th of December for a product that isn't even launched (actually releases Janurary 8th) and not be able to go to AMD's webpage and update their driver is beyond me. Hell, 8.11 has been out for at last 30 days. Wait, I do know how they were able to frack it up, BIAS and UNPROFESSIONALISM.
Did a bunch of posts just disappear?
-
Nice to see it beat the 4870X2, not so nice to see it in the same form as the 7950 and 9800GX2. I think I'll wait for the next best single PCB and hopefully single gpu graphics card :D
-
In a couple of hours OBR is releasing a review with the 8.12. Lets just forget this review ever happened since the drivers were obviously old. All of you come to his thread when he posts it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
Avg price of a 4870X2 is $550 before rebate. You just found a Xmas deal on one particular model.
And who's care? Actual price you can't buy and X2. You can't buy a 295 for Christmas.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stukov
Did a bunch of posts just disappear?
I don't think so... :shrug:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
Avg price of a 4870X2 is $530 before rebate. You just found a Xmas deal on one particular model.
haha there is powercolor model available for 499 and its even cheaper after rebate and sapphire isn't christmas deadl or smthng they lowered price 3 weeks ago :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Macadamia
I don't think so... :shrug:
I think my page just loaded faulty after my post.
-
I agree the specifications of testing were a joke... HZ doesn't have enough money for a cheap X58 and a 920i at least? oh c'mon...
tho I finally see the whole card and admit I...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
In a couple of hours OBR is releasing a review with the 8.12. Lets just forget this review ever happened since the drivers were obviously old. All of you come to his thread when he posts it.
We can't see 295 barely edge X2 but Nvidia will have the performance crown so all will be good...
-
i can only see 2 cards for 560$, out of nine on newegg
average is 526$
this review is clearly biased, waiting for better...
the card will get the performance crown in most games, but not with a so big margin as shown in this review
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clonez
i can only see 2 cards for 560$, out of nine
average is 526$
this review is clearly biased, waiting for better...
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3479&p=6
You can get it for 460/470 on two of the main buying sites.
-
the GTX 295 looks pretty powerful, I'm impressed :eek:
am a bit miffed as to why they did not use the Catalyst 8.11 drivers however I can see why they did not use them. FYI reviewers don't have a lot of time these days to review hardware (thanks to these quick product cycles).
I wouldn't be surprised if the Catalyst 8.10 drivers were used on the 4870X2 in a different article/review and they just copied those scores into this review...it's not bias, just confined to the time constraints.
I hope that newer drivers also bring us with GTX 280's performance increases to, after all the cards are pretty similar?
I wonder whether the GTX 295 suffers from the microstutter problems which the 9800 GX2 and HD 4870X2 cards suffer from?
I hope not.
Regards
John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blacky
tho I finally see the whole card and admit
I...
I predicted that spot on :ROTF:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JohnZS
the GTX 295 looks pretty powerful, I'm impressed :eek:
am a bit miffed as to why they did not use the Catalyst 8.11 drivers however I can see why they did not use them. FYI reviewers don't have a lot of time these days to review hardware (thanks to these quick product cycles).
I wouldn't be surprised if the Catalyst 8.10 drivers were used on the 4870X2 in a different article/review and they just copied those scores into this review...it's not bias, just confined to the time constraints.
I hope that newer drivers also bring us with GTX 280's performance increases to, after all the cards are pretty similar?
I wonder whether the GTX 295 suffers from the microstutter problems which the 9800 GX2 and HD 4870X2 cards suffer from?
I hope not.
Regards
John
If you have the time to do a review of a card that isn't out yet, then you should have time to use recent drivers for the competitions cards OR you can simply not include them.
Why not just put them against a 3870 X2 with 8.1 drivers while they are at it? Sure that would make the GTX 295 look good. Hell, they might as well copied Nvidia's marketing slides and called it a day. The whole thing is horribly unprofessional.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stukov
If you have the time to do a review of a card that isn't out yet, then you should have time to use recent drivers for the competitions cards OR you can simply not include them.
Why not just put them against a 3870 X2 with 8.1 drivers while they are at it? Sure that would make the GTX 295 look good. Hell, they might as well copied Nvidia's marketing slides and called it a day. The whole thing is horribly unprofessional.
Hi Stukov
The thing is they probably do not have a lot of time with the card itself. Reviewers probably only have the card for a few days and then have to post it back.
I agree with what you are saying Catalyst 8.11/8.12 would be nice and perhaps should be required for reviewing such cards as these drivers include bug fixes and even performance tweaks for the games in these reviews (FarCry2 and Left4Dead etc).
John
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blacky
I agree the specifications of testing were a joke... HZ doesn't have enough money for a cheap X58 and a 920i at least? oh c'mon...
tho I finally see the whole card and admit
I...
haha awesome song :ROTF:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clonez
i can only see 2 cards for 560$, out of nine on newegg
average is 526$
this review is clearly biased, waiting for better...
the card will get the performance crown in most games, but not with a so big margin as shown in this review
I agree with you, it's inevitable that NVIDIA would come with something faster some day. The performance difference won't be as big as what was shown in the review though.
It will probably lower the price on the 4870X2, which is always nice for those whom want one. I'm more interested in what the GTX265 and GTX285 will do to the current pricing structure, the GTX265 will probably be a reasonable bit faster than the 4870 while priced around the same price as what the 4870 currently is and that will benefit us all.
-
there is no 265 as far as i remember only 285
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eric66
there is no 265 as far as i remember only 285
correct, GTX 260 had a revision already (216) makes no sense to launch another GTX 26x named product!
-
I am a Nvidia fanboy and i find that the review was a joke. Come on Nvidia let the reviewers do what they want. you never know they might work in Nvidia's favor. I think OBR's review or Guru3D's review will be the ones to look forward to.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE
I am a Nvidia fanboy and i find that the review was a joke. Come on Nvidia let the reviewers do what they want. you never know they might work in Nvidia's favor. I think OBR's review or Guru3D's review will be the ones to look forward to.
I posted it above.
-
ati needs to improve its software that dead space bench is joke what are they thinking i don't know
-
Damn the performance diference in Crysis Warhead is :eek:
-
is it just me or are the gains over 280/260 shy of impressive?
-
its basically gtx 280 sli until 2560x1600 res then it dies :P
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
XS2K
Wow, 1792mb of memory isn't enough at 2560x1600. :eek:
-
no it isn't 1796 only 898 or smthng like that nvidias weird memory choices this card is simply hybrid of gtx 280 and gtx 260 poor memory kills it in very high res
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
3NZ0
Wow, 1792mb of memory isn't enough at 2560x1600. :eek:
The card only has 896mb of memory because the memory isn't shared for both gpus.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...d-preview.html
The Hardware Canucks preview is up.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slovnaft
is it just me or are the gains over 280/260 shy of impressive?
Yeah, it's probably driver related though. SLI doesn't always work at 100% without a lot of tweaking.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
XS2K
We all know, that Crysis is NVIDIA friendly game :P
The performance difference between 4870X2 and GTX295 isn't that big, when we keep in mind how late is the new sandwich. It IS the fastest card, but too late. Now we are waiting to see if ATi have something hidden with the Side Port.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.BSEL
The card only has 896mb of memory because the memory isn't shared for both gpus.
Well done Sherlock, I think we all know this. My point is, the 2gb that the 4870x2 has shows that once again nvidia have cut short the high res ability of their 'GX2' style card by not having enough memory attached to each gpu.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.BSEL
again nvidias favourite top 5 games :ROTF:
-
Well how can anyone deny that is the fastest card not avilable yet.
If the 499U.S at launch price is right,thats a winning combo,since the x2 cost me 560U.S the first week.
-
results are different in some games for example gurus crysis review and hardwarecanucks are totally opposite
-
So the HD4870X2 is the 2nd fastest video card now. :D Guess I'll just hold on for awhile since the performance at 2560x1600 isn't quiet what I expected.
And about the whole GTX280/260 hybrid thing, still don't get though, probably due to heat and power consumption that Nvidia can't slap 2 GTX 280 together?
-
all previews using the same games :down:
-
We knew for sure that the GTX295 will beat the 4870X2 in majority of titles and supposed to be more expensive , i don't know why some people don't want to accept it , You need only to read the specs to know that it is faster ...
-
Here is my review: http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?o...2266&Itemid=44
It is complete in Czech language, but pictures and graphs dont need a translation.
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...rds_3_mini.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...rds_2_mini.jpg
Test system:
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...t_system_2.jpg
Core i7 965 Extreme @ 3.6GHz
3*2048MB Transcend DDR3 - 24-8-8-8-1T 1333MHz
Asus Rampage II Extreme
1x Radeon, 1x GeForce
Gigabyte Odin 1200W
GeForce 180.88, Catalyst 8.12
Vista Ultimate 32-bit
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...w/vysledky.png
Results in percents ...
more pictures, complete performnce table at review : http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?o...2266&Itemid=44
-
if you cherry pick games yes it will own for sure
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eric66
again nvidias favourite top 5 games :ROTF:
Hence the "Preview". :rolleyes:
Anyways, you guys should all be aware that the "Average FPS only" take on things doesn't show the poor minimum FPS performance of this card in Crysis WH DX10.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SKYMTL
Hence the "Preview". :rolleyes:
Anyways, you guys should all be aware that the "Average FPS only" take on things doesn't show the poor minimum FPS performance of this card in Crysis WH DX10.
In my review are minimal FPS, In Crysis has this card poor performance, nvidia says it in email three days ago. I am waiting for new drivers, before Crysis testing ...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eric66
results are different in some games for example gurus crysis review and hardwarecanucks are totally opposite
I don't see that. They used basically the same settings and DX10. If you look at our DX10 results, they line up quite well but Guru doesn't show min FPS so I don't know if we line up there.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OBR
In my review are minimal FPS, In Crysis has this card poor performance, nvidia says it in email three days ago. I am waiting for new drivers, before Crysis testing ...
I know but that should not stop anyone from posting the results, now should it? ;)
-
but its only small diferent and 105 degress:shrug:...not much good as new GPU king
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SKYMTL
I know but that should not stop anyone from posting the results, now should it? ;)
hehe, i ve used GTA IV ...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OBR
hehe, i ve used GTA IV ...
Good stuff.
Out of curiosity, when you tested Crysis Warhead, were you seeing sub-10FPS minimums from time to time the the GTX 295?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spectrobozo
all previews using the same games :down:
...and from the first preview:
Quote:
NVIDIA was rather picky about the games we could use to test the GeForce GTX 295 for this preview and one of the approved games was first person shooter, Far Cry 2.
Basically they are sponsored by Nvidia and have to go by what Nvidia allows them to. No wonder the numbers look good - there is a reason why they don't want to show certain games.
The 3 GHz 65nm Quad & Cat 8.10 in the first preview are sponsored by Nvidia aswell, I guess. :rolleyes:
Is this what hardware reviewing has gone to? :mad:
Nvidia_respect--; :down:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kemo
We knew for sure that the GTX295 will beat the 4870X2 in majority of titles and supposed to be more expensive , i don't know why some people don't want to accept it , You need only to read the specs to know that it is faster ...
I don't care who has the fastest hardware out. I am more concerned about the previews and bias in them. How are we supposed to get real information when Nvidia itself is telling "You can only use this and this game because the rest do not look so good for us!"? Why should we believe what Nvidia tells us? I understand that Nvidia itself is not really telling us anything, but more like showing us what they want us to see. Showing us only the good stuff. I completely understand that it is PR, but it really takes quite a bit reliability away from the sites which do not make it clear that the games are picked by Nvidia. Same goes for AMD/ATI aswell, but I haven't really seen this kind of acts from AMD/ATI, as I've seen from Nvidia.
-
-
Wow, The GTX295 owns in Deadspace.
Can any of you guys test it with a Modded 181.00 drivers?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calmatory
Is this what hardware reviewing has gone to? :mad:
People these days don't seem to understand the difference between a preview and an actual review. If this was a review where the final conclusion was based off of the performance of 5 Nvidia-picked games, you would definately have something to complain about. However, not one of the previews I have read comes to any firm conclusions; just impressions based on the limited testing they were able to conduct.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SKYMTL
I don't see that. They used basically the same settings and DX10. If you look at our DX10 results, they line up quite well but Guru doesn't show min FPS so I don't know if we line up there.
yeah you are right :D min fps tells the whole story :up: great job even with cherry picked games your site is my favourite along with Hard and anand
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Warboy
Wow, The GTX295 owns in Deadspace.
Can any of you guys test it with a Modded 181.00 drivers?
No, DeadSpace doesn't have a Crossfire profile, that's why isn't scaling well.
-
I'll be getting 2 of these for my blood rage! :eleph:Just hope a good waterblock comes out:yepp:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jam2k
No, DeadSpace doesn't have a Crossfire profile, that's why isn't scaling well.
Can't you just rename the exe to fix that? or something, I've heard about fixes for that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OBR
Core i7 965 Extreme @ 3.6GHz
3*2048MB Transcend DDR3 - 24-8-8-8-1T 1333MHz
Asus Rampage II Extreme
1x Radeon, 1x GeForce
Gigabyte Odin 1200W
GeForce 180.88, Catalyst 8.12
Vista Ultimate 32-bit
Results in percents ...
more pictures, complete performnce table at review :
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?o...2266&Itemid=44
Dead Space doesn't have a CF profile, so GTX295 is 12% faster overall 1900x1200 16+8 than 4870x2
Doesn't look good for a card that arrived 6 months later :down:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jam2k
No, DeadSpace doesn't have a Crossfire profile, that's why isn't scaling well.
Actually, when you look at the difference between a single HD 4870 1GB and the X2, it is evident that there is a CF profile in place. The issue is that the game itself doesn't run at particularly high framerates on ATI hardware.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jam2k
Dead Space doesn't have a CF profile, so GTX295 is 12% faster overall 1900x1200 16+8 than 4870x2
6 months later, doesn't look good :down:
com'on, when you quote a post with images, change the IMG tags to URL! It's annoying.
*ON TOPIC*
SKYMTL, Thanks for your answer. Do you think it's possible to run the could using modded 181.00 drivers?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Warboy
Can't you just rename the exe to fix that? or something, I've heard about fixes for that.
Yeah, sure you can.
I don't own the game so I can't try myself :(
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Warboy
Wow, The GTX295 owns in Deadspace.
Can any of you guys test it with a Modded 181.00 drivers?
i wonder how long will it take ati to notice that difference :ROTF:
-
Looks sweet as hell. I love it. I wonder how these things will fold. Any news on how Quad SLI will scale? Hopeuflly better than the 9800 GX2.. I've already got a grand saved up for these bad boys. I ordered a FSP 5 1/4 Supplimental PSU for the second card haha
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Warboy
com'on, when you quote a post with images, change the IMG tags to URL! It's annoying.
*ON TOPIC*
SKYMTL, Thanks for your answer. Do you think it's possible to run the could using modded 181.00 drivers?
Fixed :)
-
ATI's known for hotfix's.. Theyll fix the Dead space but i have a feeling they still wont even come close. Ati's 1600 shaders do one instruction set at a time. Nvidia's 480 Shaders do 5 instruction sets at a time.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SKYMTL
Actually, when you look at the difference between a single HD 4870 1GB and the X2, it is evident that there is a CF profile in place. The issue is that the game itself doesn't run at particularly high framerates on ATI hardware.
Sometimes a title may scale poorly, due to default AFR profile.
What we need is an optimized profile ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SKYMTL
People these days don't seem to understand the difference between a preview and an actual review. If this was a review where the final conclusion was based off of the performance of 5 Nvidia-picked games, you would definately have something to complain about. However, not one of the previews I have read comes to any firm conclusions; just impressions based on the limited testing they were able to conduct.
As a wise and respectet reviewer you must understand that people base their conclusions in the graphs more than in the text reviewer writes. I am quite sure that you agree with me that all the graphs really give is an ilusion of a fast card. And as the games are picked by Nvidia, it gives false illusion of actual performance. It makes it look better than it does. And I shall repeat that people look at the graphs. And I also repeat that I understand this kind of act (of desperation, as ATI calls it) from Nvidia, quite cheap & good PR.
Afterall, the performance the graphs show is better than what people will get.
-
No power consumption numbers.. is that in nDA ?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
ATI's known for hotfix's.. Theyll fix the Dead space but i have a feeling they still wont even come close. Ati's 1600 shaders do one instruction set at a time. Nvidia's 480 Shaders do 5 instruction sets at a time.
/FACEPALM
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jam2k
Fixed :)
Thank you.
-
From [H]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardOCP
The GeForce GTX 295 is coming, but with a bit less bang than NVIDIA had probably hoped for. It has a performance advantage in FarCry 2 but loses that performance advantage in Fallout 3, a game we know a lot of people are playing this holiday season. Albeit the GTX 295 does not suffer some of the graphical bugs that plague the 4870 X2 in Fallout 3 that give the true gaming advantage to the GTX 295. While it may not have won the performance crown in every game here today, it did manage to match the Radeon HD 4870 X2 for the highest playable in-game settings in each game we tested.
NVIDIA has definitely made this a worthy competitor to the Radeon HD 4870 X2. But in no way is this a “4870 X2 killer.” From our narrow look here today with what is likely to be an immature driver set, the GTX 295 is matching the 4870 X2 in gameplay. Maybe it will best it in a month, but I would not bet on it.
The GeForce GTX 295 is a nice evolution of the GTX 200 series, and offers up some new configuration possibilities, but will it really be a preferred gaming card when you can get two 216 Core GeForce GTX 260’s (with higher clocks) for a combined price that is lower than a GTX 295? And SLI can now be had on Intel chipset motherboards? And it seems that the 4870 X2 is a bit better bet in terms of AA looking forward?
Time will tell, and we have much more testing to do before we can make any final conclusions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
ATI's known for hotfix's.. Theyll fix the Dead space but i have a feeling they still wont even come close. Ati's 1600 shaders do one instruction set at a time. Nvidia's 480 Shaders do 5 instruction sets at a time.
So ATI is pretty impressive to stay close of Nvidia with a so huge gap in power :rofl:
-
No they just have different architecture's. Do the research before you start this:rofl:
-
the 1 million question for reviewers:
- Does the GTX 295 joins the Microstuttering club?
-
they won't test it until review i think or until nvidia allows them :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jasonelmore
No they just have different architecture's. Do the research before you start this:rofl:
He was being sarcastic. Technically you're still wrong.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calmatory
As a wise and respectet reviewer you must understand that people base their conclusions in the graphs more than in the text reviewer writes. I am quite sure that you agree with me that all the graphs really give is an ilusion of a fast card. And as the games are picked by Nvidia, it gives false illusion of actual performance. It makes it look better than it does. And I shall repeat that people look at the graphs. And I also repeat that I understand this kind of act (of desperation, as ATI calls it) from Nvidia, quite cheap & good PR.
Afterall, the performance the graphs show is better than what people will get.
I agree to a certain extent but let me step out of my reviewer's shoes for a second here and take a personal approach to this.
I don't count myself as a "gamer" by any stretch of the imagination since I still play the original Homeworld quite often due to the fact it is...well...fun. New games don't really hold much sway for me due to the simple fact that many have the "been there, seen that" feel to them. The newer games I usually play through once to find a suitable benchmarkable area and then let the collect dust between reviews.
However, some of these "Top 5" games have actually held my attention for longer than usual. I find myself playing Fallout 3, CoD: WaW, L4D and even Dead Space more than I normally would. Why? Because they are actually pretty decent games.
Just because Nvidia chose to put their name all over their performance numbers doesn't diminish the fact that the are all quite popular. Indeed, even if these weren't part of Nvidia's "list", I would still probably be including them in the reviews for the sole reason of their popularity and pure enjoyment.
On the flip side of things, assuming a reviewer will go out of his way to try to find some games which perform better on ATI hardware is expecting the impossible. Sure, Clear Sky and X4 seem to benefit ATI but other than that, Nvidia seems to have a choke hold on most newly released and upcoming games. This means that reviews will naturally slant towards Nvidia when games are first released. That doesn't make the p/reviews biased in any way, shape or form; it tells the actual story of Nvidia working directly with developers while ATI needs to go through one or two driver revisions before they get performance nailed down in some popular games. That is the reality of the situation and it would be dishonest for the reviewers to not tell the story as we see it. :up:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spoof
We all know, that Crysis is NVIDIA friendly game :P
The performance difference between 4870X2 and GTX295 isn't that big, when we keep in mind how late is the new sandwich. It IS the fastest card, but too late. Now we are waiting to see if ATi have something hidden with the Side Port.
Too late? Ati wont have anything till Q2 2009, its not late at all. Nvidia is in good position right now, with the GTX 285 and new GTX 260 coming out, they should be in good shape.
-
Bit-tech have their preview up here, using cat 8.12s for the ATi models. I like their transparency regarding the Nvidia restrictions.
Looks like the GTX295 just about holds it's head up over the 4870X2, though it seems to be limited by memory bandwidth tbh. I'm sure a little bump on those memory clocks will make the world of difference at high res with lots of AA.
-
Meh, when your pushing 100fps, whats the real difference between 100 and 105. Nothing your eyes can see. The reviews show that ATI still does take the win with hi-res, hi-AA, hi-detail benchmarks. The Nvidia card seems much more at home with a little less AA.
Interesting card, but I wish Nvidia would have dumped the sandwich design. I wont be buying one. My ATI 4850s on my 22" LCD are plenty.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SKYMTL
I agree to a certain extent but let me step out of my reviewer's shoes for a second here and take a personal approach to this.
I don't count myself as a "gamer" by any stretch of the imagination since I still play the original Homeworld quite often due to the fact it is...well...fun. New games don't really hold much sway for me due to the simple fact that many have the "been there, seen that" feel to them. The newer games I usually play through once to find a suitable benchmarkable area and then let the collect dust between reviews.
However, some of these "Top 5" games have actually held my attention for longer than usual. I find myself playing Fallout 3, CoD: WaW, L4D and even Dead Space more than I normally would. Why? Because they are actually pretty decent games.
Just because Nvidia chose to put their name all over their performance numbers doesn't diminish the fact that the are all quite popular. Indeed, even if these weren't part of Nvidia's "list", I would still probably be including them in the reviews for the sole reason of their popularity and pure enjoyment.
On the flip side of things, assuming a reviewer will go out of his way to try to find some games which perform better on ATI hardware is expecting the impossible. Sure, Clear Sky and X4 seem to benefit ATI but other than that, Nvidia seems to have a choke hold on most newly released and upcoming games. This means that reviews will naturally slant towards Nvidia when games are first released. That doesn't make the p/reviews biased in any way, shape or form; it tells the actual story of Nvidia working directly with developers while ATI needs to go through one or two driver revisions before they get performance nailed down in some popular games. That is the reality of the situation and it would be dishonest for the reviewers to not tell the story as we see it. :up:
Sure they give out some info of the games people are playing and what kind of performance should be expected in those games, it still is a list picked by Nvidia, and the rest of the games shall not be used for testing. This sure is an Nvidia PR thing to let people to do previews, and as such, should not be used as a final judgement of a product.
But yeah, inital results look good, rumoured prices look good and hopefully availibility will be good aswell. Though, niche card for niche market. As such, I am not really interested. :shrug:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Macadamia
He was being sarcastic. Technically you're still wrong.
:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAR
Too late? Ati wont have anything till Q2 2009, its not late at all.
You dont know :shrug: Nvidia was not suppose to release someting before Q1'09 2 months ago just rumors. Now they pull the trigger. There is alos a lots of rumours about ATI this days...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAR
Nvidia is in good position right now, with the GTX 285 and new GTX 260 coming out, they should be in good shape.
They will miss Christmas sales. 260GTX 216 is already out and don't seem to kill 4870 sales so much. 285GTX will replace 280GTX sales. Nvidia is much more 4850, 4830 and 4670 and they still have nothing to counter them :eek:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kaldor
Meh, when your pushing 100fps, whats the real difference between 100 and 105. Nothing your eyes can see. The reviews show that ATI still does take the win with hi-res, hi-AA, hi-detail benchmarks. The Nvidia card seems much more at home with a little less AA.
Interesting card, but I wish Nvidia would have dumped the sandwich design. I wont be buying one. My ATI 4850s on my 22" LCD are plenty.
Not specifically referring to the cards in question but more in a general sense here: More important than the 100 - 105 margin you talk of is minimum and average framerates.
There has been many comparisions between cards over the years where somebody will argue that due to a card having higher average or maximum framerates, it is automatically the better option. It's simply not the case and minimum framerates are really the crucial factor.
If you could run crysis at say 100fps most of the time but hit dips of 10fps every now and then or alternatively have 30fps all the time, 30fps would be the better 'perceived' framerate, due to its stability.
What I'm getting at here is more powerful cards do have a purpose that goes beyond trying to obtain uber-pointless 100+ framerates but rather they allow a high level of detail (including AF + AA) at a good res, with consistently stable minimal framerates :up:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Calmatory
Sure they give out some info of the games people are playing and what kind of performance should be expected in those games, it still is a list picked by Nvidia, and the rest of the games shall not be used for testing. This sure is an Nvidia PR thing to let people to do previews, and as such, should not be used as a final judgement of a product.
Unfortunately, that was the reality of the situation. I can say the same thing about Anand's "insight" into ATI's development process or previews which were posted of last-generation hardware. It all goes through the PR loop which says "how do we make ourselves look good?" before becoming a reality.
