NVIDIA GTX295 Preview/Review

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-18-2008, 08:46 AM
mascaras

Hi

can you post all the Previews in 1st Post ??

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=66

:up:
12-18-2008, 08:53 AM
ap4lifetn

so what now, AMD enables sideport?
12-18-2008, 08:56 AM
ChinStrap

I love when new GPU previews come out. Free entertainment baby. I absolutely LOVE how worked up some of you people get.
12-18-2008, 09:04 AM
Mr.BSEL

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...viewed/?page=9

Based on this review, it seems that the gtx295 is the card to get if you own core i7.
12-18-2008, 09:06 AM
Klarko

Well looks extremely biased, besides the guru review.

Prediction: ATI enables sideport, and cuts price of X2.
12-18-2008, 09:13 AM
Linchpin

If sideport actually provided any meaningful gains it would've been enabled from the start.
12-18-2008, 09:14 AM
Monkeywoman

that guru3d review is crazy! if the 295 had more mem, like a solid 1gig for each core, it would pwn at higher rez. overall, that's one fast card.
12-18-2008, 09:15 AM
zerazax

As a 2560 x 1600 gamer, seeing it die with AA at that res vs. the 4870X2 is dissapointing. Looks like i'll be keeping my 4870x2 a bit longer
12-18-2008, 09:28 AM
Circaflex

dang i was gonna snag a 4870x2 but looks like ill order this instead!
12-18-2008, 09:28 AM
WhiskeyAlpha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.BSEL

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...viewed/?page=9

Based on this review, it seems that the gtx295 is the card to get if you own core i7.

Thanks for this :up:

What was refreshing here was to see a good old 8800Ultra slugging it out and suprisingly not falling that far behind the GTX 260-216.

Considering the volt mod and silly clocks my 8800GTX has been happily running at for the last year or so, I think I'm gonna hold out for the ATi/Nvidia next gen before jumping.

Judging by those benchmarks, I reckon I must be somewhere around stock GTX 260 performance, which'll do me for the time being :)
12-18-2008, 09:30 AM
Carfax

When will they review the new single core cards?
12-18-2008, 09:30 AM
Klarko

Why does it not have 1 full gig like the X2 again?
12-18-2008, 09:36 AM
Chad Boga

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacky

the 1 million question for reviewers:

- Does the GTX 295 joins the Microstuttering club?

I would like to know the answer to this too.

Who is the better microstutterer, 4870x2 or GTX295?
12-18-2008, 09:36 AM
Monkeywoman

4870x2 in Canada is 700 bucks...so this thing should bring it down to 499 if not lower...riight? i have to get rid of my 1950!
12-18-2008, 09:38 AM
Chad Boga

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

4870x2 in Canada is 700 bucks...so this thing should bring it down to 499 if not lower...riight? i have to get rid of my 1950!

I very much doubt you will see that kind of a price reduction or even half of that much.
12-18-2008, 09:45 AM
Silver Bullet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

4870x2 in Canada is 700 bucks...so this thing should bring it down to 499 if not lower...riight? i have to get rid of my 1950!

$560 CND .... link: price canada

I suspect with the 295 launch in Jan it drop to maybe $500 ish .. cause with 499US is around $600CND.
12-18-2008, 09:49 AM
[XC] Synthetickiller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

When will they review the new single core cards?

This is what I want to see. I don't want an SLI card. Microstutter, driver support, etc is always a problem from past history (9800gx2, 7950gx2). How does the gtx265/285 compare?

I might just be keeping my gtx260 if these cards don't improve 10%+.
12-18-2008, 09:58 AM
jt1

I'm wondering what will be the fastest setup for folding: Triple GTX295 OC'd or Quad GTX285 OC'd. It doesn't seem like the GTX295 will have much OC headroom, but it'd be difficult for the 285's overcome the shader count. A more general question is, one GTX295 equals how many GTX285's?
12-18-2008, 10:04 AM
Caveman787

Considering it doesnt exist we don't know yet....

Maybe comparing it to 280's since they do would work a little better.
12-18-2008, 10:05 AM
jasonelmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt1

I'm wondering what will be the fastest setup for folding: Triple GTX295 OC'd or Quad GTX285 OC'd. It doesn't seem like the GTX295 will have much OC headroom, but it'd be difficult for the 285's overcome the shader count. A more general question is, one GTX295 equals how many GTX285's?

i'm thinkin 1 and a half. Tri 285 setup should be comparable to quad Sli with the 295. i'd have to give the crown to the 295's tho
12-18-2008, 10:09 AM
Mr.BSEL

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt1

I'm wondering what will be the fastest setup for folding: Triple GTX295 OC'd or Quad GTX285 OC'd. It doesn't seem like the GTX295 will have much OC headroom, but it'd be difficult for the 285's overcome the shader count. A more general question is, one GTX295 equals how many GTX285's?

Firingsquad overclocked the gtx295 pretty well.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...nce/page13.asp
12-18-2008, 10:11 AM
WhiskeyAlpha

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

OBR, maybe it's just a typo but it seems a little odd that you are using 6GB DDR3 with a 32bit (and hence 4GB limited) operating system for your benchmarking. Once you subtract the GPU memory from the 4GB aren't you left with a fairly small amount of memory (relatively speaking)?
12-18-2008, 10:14 AM
gallag

looks like a monster.
12-18-2008, 10:28 AM
kemo

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeyAlpha

OBR, maybe it's just a typo but it seems a little odd that you are using 6GB DDR3 with a 32bit (and hence 4GB limited) operating system for your benchmarking. Once you subtract the GPU memory from the 4GB aren't you left with a fairly small amount of memory (relatively speaking)?

He should be getting a minimum of 2.7GB but with SP1 he might see more than than but i don't think that it will be greater than 3.5GB and in both cases it is good enough for all the reviewed games including GTA which takes 1.75GB of my system
12-18-2008, 10:37 AM
OBR

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeyAlpha

OBR, maybe it's just a typo but it seems a little odd that you are using 6GB DDR3 with a 32bit (and hence 4GB limited) operating system for your benchmarking. Once you subtract the GPU memory from the 4GB aren't you left with a fairly small amount of memory (relatively speaking)?

yes, i know my system is using only 3GB, but i have my 20 testing games on 32bit vista }which i am using on every test machines), in normal conditions i have on that machine 64bit vista ...
12-18-2008, 11:00 AM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAR

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.

there is no new gtx 260
12-18-2008, 12:07 PM
VOID WARRANTY

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

there is no new gtx 260

thats weird because a 55nm revision seems kinda of new...not to mention nvidia is going to let manufacturers make there own designs for the cards like new heat sinks and pcb colours and zotac is rumored to make a 1.5gb version of the 260..i also heard that nvidia is dropping the 192sp version and 216sp,s will be standard...i guess were see what happens next month
12-18-2008, 12:10 PM
dan7777

not sure its worth step up from bfg gtx260-216 and paying £200 for extra 10-15fps in games like crysis warhead hmmmm will hold out see what other cards they bring out.
12-18-2008, 12:32 PM
[XC] Synthetickiller

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan7777

not sure its worth step up from bfg gtx260-216 and paying £200 for extra 10-15fps in games like crysis warhead hmmmm will hold out see what other cards they bring out.

I think a lot of people are wondering the same thing. The core 216 was a buying point for many people. Step up was also a big consideration since many have that option now. Question is, is it worth it?

I think this is kinda bogus how the GTX295 reviews are out, but gtx285 reviews and 265 (if it exists) is not out. I was hoping to step-up, but not till I have the info.

Dan7777, I'm in the same boat. I do not see a point steping up AND spending 150+ USD on a new card for a 10% gain. If these cards are not 25% better than the ones we have now, I don't know if I could justify it.
12-18-2008, 12:46 PM
gojirasan

Until we see microstuttering tests, all these comparisons are useless. How many of you guys are liking the taste of crow now that Nvidia is releasing a dual GPU card WAY before spring/summer 09?
12-18-2008, 12:58 PM
kadozer

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojirasan

Until we see microstuttering tests, all these comparisons are useless. How many of you guys are liking the taste of crow now that Nvidia is releasing a dual GPU card WAY before spring/summer 09?

Enjoying my crow here but dear god why does Nvidia insist on crippling their memory? Seems rushed ...GX2 part Deux electric boogaloo. :rofl:
12-18-2008, 01:02 PM
Solus Corvus

Looks like the new fastest card. It's not a terribly compelling upgrade for me though considering all the new stuff right around the corner.

Also, Nvidia should have taken FO3 off their list.
12-18-2008, 01:09 PM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Looks like the new fastest card. It's not a terribly compelling upgrade for me though considering all the new stuff right around the corner.

Also, Nvidia should have taken FO3 off their list.

:ROTF::clap: so it is new fastest card in certain games :D
12-18-2008, 01:12 PM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

:ROTF::clap: so it is new fastest card in certain games :D

Don't be foolish. That's how it always is. The 4870x2 was the fastest in only in certain games too, it was a big list though. There are always going to be exceptions to any architecture's reign.
12-18-2008, 01:17 PM
[XC] Synthetickiller

Where is the ****ing GTX285 reviews? Stats even? This is getting ridiculous.
12-18-2008, 01:20 PM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Don't be foolish. That's how it always is. The 4870x2 was the fastest in only in certain games too, it was a big list though. There are always going to be exceptions to any architecture's reign.

and how many games we saw in previews to make it fastest card in the world ? lets see : dead space far cry crysis fall out left 4 dead thats it ? and lets look at in game benchs :

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

lost in 2 won in one
12-18-2008, 01:23 PM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller

Where is the ****ing GTX285 reviews? Stats even? This is getting ridiculous.

IMO, the only reason nV even allowed the GTX295 previews was to stunt some of the 4870x2's christmas sales. Since the GTX285 isn't faster then the x2 there would be no point in releasing early info on that.
12-18-2008, 01:24 PM
SKYMTL

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

and how many games we saw in previews to make it fastest card in the world ? lets see : dead space far cry crysis fall out left 4 dead thats it ? and lets look at in game benchs :

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

lost in 2 won in one

Yes, lets.

Their charts show the minimum framerates for both cards dipping below 10 on a number of occasions yet their results at the bottom of each chart show MUCH more than that. :shrug:
12-18-2008, 01:26 PM
mascaras

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

there is no new gtx 260

Expreview said there will be a new GTX260 55nm from Zotac

http://en.expreview.com/2008/12/05/f...html#more-1550

regards
12-18-2008, 01:41 PM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Yes, lets.

Their charts show the minimum framerates for both cards dipping below 10 on a number of occasions yet their results at the bottom of each chart show MUCH more than that. :shrug:

their charts are broken from what i understand look at numbers below (if thats true gtx295 dips to 2 fps :D )
12-18-2008, 01:48 PM
SKYMTL

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

their charts are broken from what i understand look at numbers below (if thats true gtx295 dips to 2 fps :D )

At least I wasn't imagining things...
12-18-2008, 02:18 PM
mrcape

WHen is this out retail?
12-18-2008, 02:27 PM
dan7777

8th jan i think....
12-18-2008, 02:32 PM
villa1n

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Don't be foolish. That's how it always is. The 4870x2 was the fastest in only in certain games too, it was a big list though. There are always going to be exceptions to any architecture's reign.

Truth.
And Fallout 3, Cod:WaW, FarCry2, L4D, are all very heavily played by most gamers, especially fps enthusiasts. And dead space is relevant, and its always fun to see what cards score on Crysis, so I m not sure that the choices for the preview were that irrelevant.. these are all popular titles, vs things like call of juarez etc that were always i felt a little obscure.
12-18-2008, 02:36 PM
Tonucci

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Yes, lets.

Their charts show the minimum framerates for both cards dipping below 10 on a number of occasions yet their results at the bottom of each chart show MUCH more than that. :shrug:

I noticed that in some other [H] reviews....from the top of my head i think i read somewhere that they use some kind of average-minimum numbers... :shrug:

Or maybe they do not compute saving points during the tests ? :confused:
12-18-2008, 02:44 PM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by villa1n

Truth.
And Fallout 3, Cod:WaW, FarCry2, L4D, are all very heavily played by most gamers, especially fps enthusiasts. And dead space is relevant, and its always fun to see what cards score on Crysis, so I m not sure that the choices for the preview were that irrelevant.. these are all popular titles, vs things like call of juarez etc that were always i felt a little obscure.

there are all fps games except fallout which is semi fps so all gamers are fps gamers :shrug:
12-18-2008, 02:48 PM
Kaldor

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeyAlpha

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:

I know average and lowest framerate with lots of AF and AA are where its at. A better comparison would be to look at these cards on a 22-24" monitor. At that point it really doesnt matter as they will both pretty much max out a 1920x1200 res LCD anyway. A very small portion of people are running a 30" monitor.
12-18-2008, 02:53 PM
ahmad

So how much are two gtx280s?

Lets see how it compares to 4850x2 in crossfire. With the same drivers and few other games (grid?) ;)
12-18-2008, 03:05 PM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

there are all fps games except fallout which is semi fps so all gamers are fps gamers :shrug:

Dead space isn't first person.

Out of those games I am playing L4D, Dead Space, and FO3 regularly. Yes, it does annoy me that ATI can't deliver proper dead space performance. But after seeing the performance of the GTX295 I won't be losing any sleep over sticking with my x2.

To me it looks like current x2 owners shouldn't bother with the GTX295. But those looking for a new card out of the current lineup should seriously consider a GTX295 over the x2. For me though, the economical choice would be a water block and soldering iron for vmods. :cool:

No need to sugar coat anything, reality is sweet enough already.
12-18-2008, 03:08 PM
gamervivek

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tonucci

I noticed that in some other [H] reviews....from the top of my head i think i read somewhere that they use some kind of average-minimum numbers... :shrug:

Or maybe they do not compute saving points during the tests ? :confused:

save points,there are simply too many of them in crysis games.:shakes:
12-18-2008, 03:16 PM
dan7777

is it worth the jump from a gtx260-216 overclocked to 1 of these not so sure
12-18-2008, 03:53 PM
trinibwoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller

Where is the ****ing GTX285 reviews? Stats even? This is getting ridiculous.

Supposedly 648 core, 1476 shader, 1242 memory. So if you want to see how it performs just lookup a eVGA FTW or XFX XXX review as the clocks on those are similar. But of course it's expected that it will overclock higher than those cards can achieve.
12-18-2008, 04:02 PM
dinos22

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBR

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.

[IMG]http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/GTX_295_preview/Cards_3_mini.png

[IMG]http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/GTX_295_preview/Cards_2_mini.jpg

Test system:

[IMG]http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/GTX_295_preview/Test_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

[IMG]http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/GTX_295_preview/vysledky.png

Results in percents ...

more pictures, complete performnce table at review : http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?o...2266&Itemid=44

thats a great (p)review hehe

but we need figures on 3DMARK06 and 3DMARK vantage with stock CPU and then OC cpu

also gfx OCs :):D :up:
12-18-2008, 04:16 PM
WhiskeyAlpha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaldor

I know average and lowest framerate with lots of AF and AA are where its at. A better comparison would be to look at these cards on a 22-24" monitor. At that point it really doesnt matter as they will both pretty much max out a 1920x1200 res LCD anyway. A very small portion of people are running a 30" monitor.

I agree totally :yepp:

I think the majority of serious gamers are probably using either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 so yeah, I agree that should be where the focus is.

Of course, there are those that'll be using the 'ideal' 30", 2560x1600 monitors and it is still nice to see what sort of performance they put in there, despite the fact it is a very niche market. :up:
12-18-2008, 04:39 PM
villa1n

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

there are all fps games except fallout which is semi fps so all gamers are fps gamers :shrug:

FPS games are called FPS for a reason lol. Frames per Second matter much more in First Person Shooters, than fps in lets say supreme commander, as long as the threshold is met, lets say 30-40 fps in an RTS, anything above is eye candy. In an FPS for example if i m playing at 125fps in C0D4 and your playing at 90... my bullets have a better chance at hitting you first/ reacting etc.
12-18-2008, 04:45 PM
Nedjo

LOL lonog time didn't see this much lame graph (NHF OBR):

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...w/cod_noaa.png
12-18-2008, 04:52 PM
[XC] Synthetickiller

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Supposedly 648 core, 1476 shader, 1242 memory. So if you want to see how it performs just lookup a eVGA FTW or XFX XXX review as the clocks on those are similar. But of course it's expected that it will overclock higher than those cards can achieve.

I'm waiting for clocks to be confirmed. My core 216 doesn't OC worth a damn compared to many guys here. I'm getting 653/1484/1057 vs stock @ 576/1242/999.

Like others have said, all these numbers at 2560x1600 are pointless for many of us. 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 stats are the most important to many gamers. I guess they aren't being shown since there's no need for this card at those resolutions and ati's card doesn't get destoryed at those res's either.

Lets just cross our fingers that prices on the 55nm line will be cheap and not super inflated like usual.
12-18-2008, 05:02 PM
safan80

I'd like to see power comsumption and temps of this card. January 8th is just too late for this card.
12-18-2008, 05:09 PM
trinibwoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller

Like others have said, all these numbers at 2560x1600 are pointless for many of us. 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 stats are the most important to many gamers. I guess they aren't being shown since there's no need for this card at those resolutions and ati's card doesn't get destoryed at those res's either.

I wouldn't say they aren't needed. There are games out there now that would still tax the 295 at 1680x1050 with 8xQ or 16xS and TRSAA enabled. Just depends on how you like to use the available power.
12-18-2008, 05:51 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

their charts are broken from what i understand look at numbers below (if thats true gtx295 dips to 2 fps :D )

When frame rates dip that low it should cause some stutter. But lets reflect on history starting with the 7950:

The 7950 was released on (or about) June 2006.
Next gen GPU (G80) was released on (or about) November 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7950 had roughly a 5 month selling period before next gen gpu entered market

The 9800 GX2 was released on (or about) March 2008.
Next gen GPU (GTX 200 series) was released on (or about) June 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9800 GX2 had roughly 3 month selling period before next gen GPU entered market

The 295 will be released on Jan 2009 (roughly).
Next gen GPU (300 series) will be released on (or about) XXX XX, 2009???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will be the selling period before the next gen GPU enters the market?

This is something I ponder on if I were interested in this video card. As with the other incarnations they also performed well yet only had the market to themselves for only a few months.

Side note:
I believe the dates are accurate but if they are not let me know, thanks!
12-18-2008, 05:53 PM
[XC] Synthetickiller

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

I wouldn't say they aren't needed. There are games out there now that would still tax the 295 at 1680x1050 with 8xQ or 16xS and TRSAA enabled. Just depends on how you like to use the available power.

And those should have been shown too, just not just insanely high res that will affect very few games. :rolleyes:
12-18-2008, 06:04 PM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Side note:
I believe the dates are accurate but if they are not let me know, thanks!

Seems correct to me according to wiki which is what I assumed you based the dates on :D
12-18-2008, 06:22 PM
ap4lifetn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klarko

Why does it not have 1 full gig like the X2 again?

It has the bus width of a GTX260, but the shaders of a GTX280, GTX260 = 448bit so 448x2 = 896, 896x2 = 1792
12-18-2008, 06:25 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by moogle

Seems correct to me according to wiki which is what I assumed you based the dates on :D

Hmm I almost forgot the GT212 GX2 rumored for Q2 2009 release. Therefore:

The 7950 was released on (or about) June 2006.
Next gen GPU (G80) was released on (or about) November 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7950 had roughly a 5 month selling period before next gen gpu entered market

The 9800 GX2 was released on (or about) March 2008.
Next gen GPU (GTX 200 series) was released on (or about) June 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9800 GX2 had roughly 3 month selling period before next gen GPU entered market

The 295 will be released on Jan 2009 (roughly).
Next gen GPU or the GT212 GX2 will be released on (or about) Q2 2009 (or sometime after)???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will be the selling period before the next GX2 or next gen GPU enters the market?

Again, if the GT212 GX2 is true. Honestly when you spend that kind of money it's something to think about.
12-18-2008, 06:32 PM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Again, if this is true. Honestly when you spend that kind of money it's something to think about.

Hey if people wanna get bumped by NVIDIA let them ;)
You can only point on the reoccuring patterns for them to see.
12-18-2008, 06:50 PM
Warboy

yea.....I remember when I bought my 7950 GT, then the 8800 series came out then my 8800GTS/8800GTX a few months after that for a slight price drop. Then i lived off that till i got my GTX 280, So I'm guessing I'm waiting till I get a GT300 based card for my next one because a 3 month step-up isn't enough. =/
12-18-2008, 06:55 PM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

LOL lonog time didn't see this much lame graph (NHF OBR):

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...w/cod_noaa.png

LOL:clap::eek::(
12-18-2008, 07:04 PM
Blacky

Quote:

Again, if the GT212 GX2 is true. Honestly when you spend that kind of money it's something to think about.

I'mo most of the people buy the best hardware any manufacturer can offer to date, they don't sit and wait to rumors come true, also even if is true when they wait for that "GT212 GX2" (for example) and when the time comes another rumor or annoucement comes out of another powerful card, its a vicious cycle if you follow it you never buy anything waiting for new stuff...:shrug:
12-18-2008, 07:08 PM
Calmatory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacky

I'mo most of the people buy the best hardware any manufacturer can offer to date, they don't sit and wait to rumors come true, also even if is true when they wait for that "GT212 GX2" (for example) and when the time comes another rumor or annoucement comes out of another powerful card, its a vicious cycle if you follow it you never buy anything waiting for new stuff...:shrug:

Same people will get 10 % better gameplay for 100 % the price. Can't blame them really but... :ROTF:

...but thats how SLI/CF work! :down:
12-18-2008, 07:11 PM
knightwolf654

its strong, but not enough of a performance gap on current models to call for a upgrade.
12-18-2008, 07:17 PM
Blacky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Same people will get 10 % better gameplay for 100 % the price. Can't blame them really but... :ROTF:

...but thats how SLI/CF work! :down:

Thats why I think that the people who got the G80 card from start was the best investment of their lives :D
12-18-2008, 07:21 PM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacky

Thats why I think that the people who got the G80 card from start was the best investment of their lives :D

That's what I'd like. Another card that will have the same longevity as the G80. I don't see that happening though as ATi have pulled their socks up.
12-18-2008, 07:25 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacky

I'mo most of the people buy the best hardware any manufacturer can offer to date, they don't sit and wait to rumors come true, also even if is true when they wait for that "GT212 GX2" (for example) and when the time comes another rumor or annoucement comes out of another powerful card, its a vicious cycle if you follow it you never buy anything waiting for new stuff...:shrug:

Then those individuals shouldn't be the 1st complaining when next gen/concept does come out. This is why I took note of this trend. In situations like this you really can't have it "both ways". One way...when it suites you. Then another way when it doesn't.
12-18-2008, 11:36 PM
OBR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

LOL lonog time didn't see this much lame graph (NHF OBR):

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...w/cod_noaa.png

If will be vertical axis from ZERO, you didnot to recognise difference, point will be at same place ... because this in some games are vertical axis above zero ... dont read axis but NUMBERS!

dinos: Vantage 3D Perf: with Core i7 3600MHz

X2 - 16 927
280 - 12 276
295 - 18 971
260 - 10 715
4870 - 10084
12-18-2008, 11:44 PM
dan7777

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBR

If will be vertical axis from ZERO, you didnot to recognise difference, point will be at same place ... because this in some games are vertical axis above zero ... dont read axis but NUMBERS!

dinos: Vantage 3D Perf: with Core i7 3600MHz

X2 - 16 927
280 - 12 276
295 - 18 971
260 - 10 715
4870 - 10084

ive got gtx260-216 overclocked and my vantage score is....14,500 :) seems like it aint bad:up:
12-19-2008, 12:16 AM
Stukov

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBR

If will be vertical axis from ZERO, you didnot to recognise difference, point will be at same place ... because this in some games are vertical axis above zero ... dont read axis but NUMBERS!

dinos: Vantage 3D Perf: with Core i7 3600MHz

X2 - 16 927
280 - 12 276
295 - 18 971
260 - 10 715
4870 - 10084

Orb, with respect, the graph is very misleading.

The mathmatical difference in FPS is 1.1% yet your graph spacing shows a 20% distance in space. (~63.5 pixels of space in a ~317 pixel graph) That is a 19% divergence from what the actual spacing should be and what you show in your graph.

You can't just say "You're stupid if you don't read the numbers" as the graph is misleading no matter what.
12-19-2008, 12:53 AM
X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stukov

Orb, with respect, the graph is very misleading.

The mathmatical difference in FPS is 1.1% yet your graph spacing shows a 20% distance in space. (~63.5 pixels of space in a ~317 pixel graph) That is a 19% divergence from what the actual spacing should be and what you show in your graph.

You can't just say "You're stupid if you don't read the numbers" as the graph is misleading no matter what.

Graphs look fine to me.
12-19-2008, 01:48 AM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

LOL lonog time didn't see this much lame graph (NHF OBR):

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...w/cod_noaa.png

Lol, most misleading graph I've seen in a while. Which is why you always have graphs start from 0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

Graphs look fine to me.

Misleading Graphs

Others disagree ;)
12-19-2008, 01:54 AM
dan7777

im very surprised that the gtx295 only just beats 4870x2 by a few fraps i think people with there 4870x2 cards will be happy to see this....
12-19-2008, 01:59 AM
spursindonesia

Yeah, just ONE FPS faster -which is within benching error margin- and the graph makes it seems got beaten to a pulp and left 4 dead -pun intended. :rofl:
12-19-2008, 02:05 AM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spursindonesia

Yeah, just ONE FPS faster -which is within benching error margin- and the graph makes it seems got beaten to a pulp and left 4 dead -pun intended. :rofl:

:rofl:

It's alright we'll all get branded ATi fans :D
12-19-2008, 02:08 AM
Shintai

289w Tdp Card! :(
12-19-2008, 02:10 AM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

289w Tdp Card! :(

Might not be. GTX280 is 230W~ but when testing a system on load with one of these (3DMark) the wattage from the power meter is suprisingly lower than expected.
12-19-2008, 02:27 AM
tictac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

LOL lonog time didn't see this much lame graph (NHF OBR):

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...w/cod_noaa.png

:( :down:

Graph... fail :shakes:
12-19-2008, 02:28 AM
X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

Quote:

Originally Posted by moogle

:rofl:

It's alright we'll all get branded ATi fans :D

With a few more driver revision x2 will get flogged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tictac

:( :down:

Graph... fail :shakes:

Only if you didn't go to school.
12-19-2008, 02:39 AM
tictac

Quote:

Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

With a few more driver revision x2 will get flogged.

Only if you didn't go to school.

Thanks :D
12-19-2008, 02:42 AM
Stukov

Quote:

Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

Only if you didn't go to school.

So how do you explain 20% difference in graph space with 1.1% difference in performance?
12-19-2008, 02:50 AM
maroon1

Did any one check this
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...preview-3.html

They were using ATI 8.12 WHQL for ATI HD4870 X2, yet GTX 295 performed better in almost all cases

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

results are different in some games for example gurus crysis review and hardwarecanucks are totally opposite

Gurus was using 180.88 Beta while hardwarecanucks was using 180.87 for GTX 295
12-19-2008, 02:52 AM
moogle

Quote:

Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

With a few more driver revision x2 will get flogged.

It'd be nice to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stukov

So how do you explain 20% difference in graph space with 1.1% difference in performance?

Yeah, if the graphs are gonna be drawn like that might as well have put it in a table.
I don't look at graphs for the values and work the difference out myself I expect the graph to show it, and fairly :)
12-19-2008, 02:53 AM
gallag

Whats the big deal with the graph, The numbers are clear to see so its not lying and if you are worrying that "average joe" will be "tricked" then don't, Just because average joe is not a computer geek does not mean he cannot read a graph and "average joe" will not even be looking at these graphs anyway because he is not a computer geek.

Some of you guys need to get over yourselves.
12-19-2008, 03:01 AM
maroon1

Quote:

Originally Posted by spursindonesia

Yeah, just ONE FPS faster -which is within benching error margin- and the graph makes it seems got beaten to a pulp and left 4 dead -pun intended. :rofl:

Did you say 1 fps ?

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im.../GTX295-21.JPG

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im.../GTX295-37.JPG

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im.../GTX295-33.JPG

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im.../GTX295-39.JPG
12-19-2008, 03:04 AM
Stukov

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

Whats the big deal with the graph, The numbers are clear to see so its not lying and if you are worrying that "average joe" will be "tricked" then don't, Just because average joe is not a computer geek does not mean he cannot read a graph and "average joe" will not even be looking at these graphs anyway because he is not a computer geek.

Some of you guys need to get over yourselves.

A graph exists to see a graphical representation of the data. If you say "well only the numbers matter" and are completely removing the accuracy of the graph then there is no need to make a graph in the first place.

That is like saying when documenting a crime scene that only the data is important so instead of taking a picture with a digital camera you finger paint the crime scene.
12-19-2008, 03:04 AM
moogle

Now theres some people who know how to make a graph :ROTF:

Nice looking one too ;)
12-19-2008, 03:06 AM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by tictac

:( :down:

Graph... fail :shakes:

I agree that the graph is horrible. There is a mere 1 fps difference and yet the lines are miles apart when they should be practically on top of each other in a realistic visual representation of the performance difference.

But with that said, it's kinda hard to entertain complaints of intentional misleading. He not only clearly labeled the axes but labeled the individual data points as well. Seriously, who only looks at the colored lines and bars without looking at the words and numbers? Idiots?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maroon1

Did you say 1 fps ?

[2560x1600 result]

[2560x1600 result]

[2560x1600 result]

[1600x1200 result]

lol. :rolleyes:
12-19-2008, 03:42 AM
Stukov

I never accused anyone of making graphs for whatever reason, others may have, I was merely saying they are very misleading.
12-19-2008, 03:48 AM
labs23

Yep, misleading for no apparent reason. Well, seems to me they put nV on top by one point-only for that specific graph though. I just hope that 1 point is really worth it, but its obviously on the margin of error zone, as others stated.
12-19-2008, 04:07 AM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by maroon1

Did you say 1 fps ?

[2560x1600 result]

[2560x1600 result]

[2560x1600 result]

[1600x1200 result]

Most powerful card on the market but no maxumum game settings?
Bit-tech review
Fallout 3 : 2560x1600 8AA+16AF Max Detail
4870X2 73.6 avg 23.0 min
295GTX 48.3 avg 14.0 min
Farcry 2 : 2560x1600 4AA DX10 Ultra High (versus Very high for Hcanucks)
4870X2 41.4 avg 29.0 min
295 GTX 44.8 avg 29.0 min
Left For Dead : 2560x1600 8AA+16AF Max Detail
4870X2 67.8 avg
295GTX 72.3 avg

Funny you use that particular graph for Crysis Warhead :rolleyes:
I can see why :D
12-19-2008, 04:14 AM
Jowy Atreides

Quote:

Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE

Only if you didn't go to school.

Correction; Only if you attended an inferior school.

The business school where I learned Quantative Analysis would cry at these graphs :rofl:
12-19-2008, 04:17 AM
jasonelmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Most powerful card on the market but no maxumum game settings?
Bit-tech review
Fallout 3 : 2560x1600 8AA+16AF Max Detail
4870X2 73.6 avg 23.0 min
295GTX 48.3 avg 14.0 min
Farcry 2 : 2560x1600 4AA DX10 Ultra High (versus Very high for Hcanucks)
4870X2 41.4 avg 29.0 min
295 GTX 44.8 avg 29.0 min
Left For Dead : 2560x1600 8AA+16AF Max Detail
4870X2 67.8 avg
295GTX 72.3 avg

Funny you use that particular graph for Crysis Warhead :rolleyes:
I can see why :D

Not many of us have a 30" Monitor. Not because we can't afford it but because of it's shear size and lag. 1920X1080 is the most important resolution. Those of you who want the 30" Monitor res's need to opt for something different.

The whole reason nvidia kept the frame buffer down instead of going with the 280's memory size and buffer, was to keep the voltage down. The extra memory would have put this card at over 320 watt TDP
12-19-2008, 04:22 AM
SimBy

This card would be nice 5 moths ago. Way too late and not a whole lot better than X2. So basically it's a fail. I'll wait for the next gen from NV and ATI thank you.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:37 AM.

XtremeSystems