Nvidia 270, 290 and GX2 roll out in November

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Tech Report should have done benchmarks with a 260 216 card at stock to clarify the confusion..

But, lets get real.

Even if overclocked, the HD 4870 1GB couldn't touch an overclocked GTX 260 216.

This was the primary reason I bought my GTX 260. It's a helluva lot more overclockable than the HD 4870.

If you're going to overclock, the Nvidia card is definitely the better solution hands down

---

LOL do you even understand what the word "architecture" means in this context?

Just becuase the GTX 260 goes to a higher fequency than the 4870 does not! make it more overclockable :ROTF:
maybe you should get some technical understanding before you make such blatently foolish claims.

those Pentium D's could do 4ghz back in the day but they still sucked compared to a 2.33 ghz core2 duo :fact:

How about GX2 290 H2C edition? ;) If you have them all ship with waterblocks, you sort of negate the need for lower clocks or triple-slot designs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobsama

How about GX2 290 H2C edition? ;) If you have them all ship with waterblocks, you sort of negate the need for lower clocks or triple-slot designs.

---

you also get massive RMAs from inept users who overheat the card trying to plug it into a reserator or bigwater 735.

not to mention you completely dump the market of the person who way more money than sense and doesnt want to deal with this new-fangled "water" cooling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

LOL do you even understand what the word "architecture" means in this context?

---

Who brought up architecture? Perhaps you should learn to read before you question my ability to comprehend the english language.

Quote:

---

Just becuase the GTX 260 goes to a higher fequency than the 4870 does not! make it more overclockable :ROTF:

---

So you're saying overclocking does not denote attaining a higher frequency than stock?

I thought that was the primary objective of overclocking. To increase frequency, thus resulting in greater performance..

But I'm not as smart as you I suppose.. Or maybe I'm just not as illiterate.

Quote:

---

maybe you should get some technical understanding before you make such blatently foolish claims.

---

Why don't you demonstrate your superior technical understanding for us then?

Quote:

---

those Pentium D's could do 4ghz back in the day but they still sucked compared to a 2.33 ghz core2 duo :fact:

---

The very fact that you use an idiotic comparison like the P4D and the C2D to analogize the GTX 260 and the HD 4870 just goes to show how "superior" your technical knowledge is.

The P4D was clearly an inferior architecture compared to the C2D in overall performance, and particularly in terms of IPC.

The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB on the other hand, are practically neck and neck in terms of performance, and both architectures utilize different methods of achieving that performance.

Whatever else, the facts still stand.

1) The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB are very similar in performance at stock clocks, so using the P4D/Core 2 Duo analogy is absurd beyond belief.

2) The GTX 260 216 on average can achieve a greater overclock percentage than the HD 4870 without resorting to volt mods or after market coolers.

If you read a few reviews, then you'd come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

I wouldn't say it's more important, just equally so.

The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB are practically neck and neck at stock clocks, but the GTX 260 overclocks like a bat out of hell.

Whats not to like about free performance? :up:

Another factor why I chose Nvidia again, is because of the drivers. Some people may think that ATI has better drivers, and they're free to believe that.

However, I don't think many would doubt that Nvidia's ability to squeeze performance out of their cards through driver optimizations is much more impressive than ATI's.

Nvidia has a track record of this, going back to the old detonator days. Hopefully the 180xx drivers continue this trend.

---

^This = Load of crap. :rolleyes:

Do you have any data to support this argument?

Case in point, your HD 4870s achieves a 19% overclock on the core through volt mod.

My GTX 260 216 achieved a 28% overclock at stock volts and stock cooling.

IPC matters of course, but so does frequency. Both facts are crucial to overall performance.

When both cards perform similarly at their stock clock, the ability to overclock can make all the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobsama

How about GX2 290 H2C edition? ;) If you have them all ship with waterblocks, you sort of negate the need for lower clocks or triple-slot designs.

---

The high costs involved in designing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing an dual GPU model would make no sense for such an low volume market as liquid cooled video cards. They would need higher volume air cooled GX2 sales to go with it, all of them shipping with waterblocks would not work imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

I wouldn't say it's more important, just equally so.

The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB are practically neck and neck at stock clocks, but the GTX 260 overclocks like a bat out of hell.

Whats not to like about free performance? :up:

Another factor why I chose Nvidia again, is because of the drivers. Some people may think that ATI has better drivers, and they're free to believe that.

However, I don't think many would doubt that Nvidia's ability to squeeze performance out of their cards through driver optimizations is much more impressive than ATI's.

Nvidia has a track record of this, going back to the old detonator days. Hopefully the 180xx drivers continue this trend.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Case in point, your HD 4870s achieves a 19% overclock on the core through volt mod.

My GTX 260 216 achieved a 28% overclock at stock volts and stock cooling.

IPC matters of course, but so does frequency. Both facts are crucial to overall performance.

When both cards perform similarly at their stock clock, the ability to overclock can make all the difference.

---

Actually your posts do read that overclocking is more important then what actual performance is gained. Regardless if the OC achieved results in diminished returns. At that point the example of which video card over clocks "higher" becomes moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Case in point, your HD 4870s achieves a 19% overclock on the core through volt mod.

My GTX 260 216 achieved a 28% overclock at stock volts and stock cooling.

IPC matters of course, but so does frequency. Both facts are crucial to overall performance.

When both cards perform similarly at their stock clock, the ability to overclock can make all the difference.

---

This is the data?

:rolleyes:

What's that sound? That's the sound of utter silence when the most rabid of AMD fanbois posts an article about Nvidia. Where is all the hate and bile and character assassination that was shown with that HardOCP article? Hmmm? I'm waiting people. Yes. The majority of people who post on the xtremesystems news forum are DEFINITELY biased toward AMD/ATI and against Nvidia. The response to this article proves that utterly. Although I can't think of many here who are anything like that psychopath at theinquirer. That guy is definitely not playing with a full deck. He needs to take some meds and get some perspective. Did an Nvidia exec rape his little sister or something? Jesus. We are talking about a couple of corporations here for christ sake. You'd think we were talking about competing religions or something.

And I'm sure he has GREAT connections at Nvidia to know all these secrets. He is the first person an Nvidia employee would trust with this kind of info. Riiight. The funny part is he actually errs in the wrong direction. There aint gonna be no GX2 card until 2009. Period. And when it is released you can bet that it WILL beat the 4870x2. I don't care if Nvidia has to sell a bunch of genetically engineered hamsters with the card they are going to make sure that it beats the 4870x2 OR THEY ARE NOT GOING TO RELEASE IT AT ALL. Again. Get some perspective people. Both companies hire a bunch of engineers and they make stuff. To assume that Nvidia lost its lead and will never get it back is absurd when you look back at the past decade of GPU history.

And for those of you who have invested heavily in AMD stock, please look up "Ethics" on wikipedia. Jeez. Posting anti-Nvidia or pro AMD stuff here is not going to make your stock go up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

^This = Load of crap. :rolleyes:

Do you have any data to support this argument?

---

What arguement? You mean about the drivers?

That was my opinion, and not an assertion. If you don't believe it, then I could give a sh*t.

That opinion comes from years of owning Nvidia cards. Many other long time Nvidia users will tell you the same thing.

I remember when the Detonator 20xx managed an up to 20% increase for the GF3 series, after it was criticized for barely out performing the GF2 at it's debut.

ATI also increases performance through their drivers of course, but it seems to be more incremental from the reviews that I've seen.

We'll see when the 180xx drivers come out.

Some people really seem to get upset by the tone of many articles on the Inq about nvidia, and I wonder why this is.
Yes Charlie can not be called objective or neutral, and he often blends his own opinion together with interesting news about upcoming GPU's, but surely most here are able to read an opinionated piece of text and seperate fact from opinion?

That article was interesting and entertaining the way I see it, even though I do not dislike nvidia like Charlie does, I can see where he is coming from when it comes to some of his criticism.

Remember, nvidia is not your mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Actually your posts do read that overclocking is more important then what actual performance is gained. Regardless if the OC achieved results in diminished returns. At that point the example of which video card over clocks "higher" becomes moot.

---

I see your point, so let me clarify.

First off, are you suggesting the HD 4870 achieves more from frequency boosts than the GTX 200?

Thats the crux of the matter. If you believe the HD 4870 gains more actual performance from raising the clockspeed than the GTX 260, then by all means, buy the HD 4870 and overclock it to the max.

I on the other hand, believe the opposite which is why I decided to go with the GTX 260.

The GTX 260 is clocked at a meager 576mhz, yet manages to easily keep up with the HD 4870 which is clocked at 750mhz.

Yes I know, cross architectural clock speed comparisons and how it relates to performance is complicated, but still, the GTX series gains a lot of performance from overclocking and is certainly not inferior to the HD 4870 in this regard.

Thats why people are calling the GTX 260 216 a GTX 280 killer, because it can easily rival, or surpass the GTX 280 when overclocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

I see your point, so let me clarify.

First off, are you suggesting the HD 4870 achieves more from frequency boosts than the GTX 200?

Thats the crux of the matter. If you believe the HD 4870 gains more actual performance from raising the clockspeed than the GTX 260, then by all means, buy the HD 4870 and overclock it to the max.

I on the other hand, believe the opposite which is why I decided to go with the GTX 260.

The GTX 260 is clocked at a meager 576mhz, yet manages to easily keep up with the HD 4870 which is clocked at 750mhz.

Yes I know, cross architectural clock speed comparisons and how it relates to performance is complicated, but still, the GTX series gains a lot of performance from overclocking and is certainly not inferior to the HD 4870 in this regard.

Thats why people are calling the GTX 260 216 a GTX 280 killer, because it can easily rival, or surpass the GTX 280 when overclocked.

---

:shakes:
Please re-read my post. Thanks :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

:shakes:
Please re-read my post. Thanks :up:

---

Very well, on diminishing returns.

While diminishing returns is obviously a factor, does that mean we should not push our hardware as high as it can safely go?

Call it the enthusiast's curse, but most of us here will always try to push our hardware to the max, even if it results in minute performance gains.

Do I need my C2Q at 3.6ghz, when I game at resolutions and settings that are GPU limited?

No, of course not. But it's at 3.6ghz anyway, and it will stay there.

I see your point, but from the perspective of an enthusiast, it's moot.

My point is just the same as Carfax, when it comes to compare GTX260 vs HD4870.

About the topic, it's just a load of crap written by the duchebags, who cares?

I'll be waiting it out for a 40nm Nvidia offering... GTX 380 maybe?

Problem right now is that even an 8800 GT can max out MOST games at 1680/1050 right now, and only really Crysis and poorly optimized newer games (IE STALKER Clear Sky) won't max out smoothly.

And the ultimate irony? Even on the next setup up (280 and kinda 4870X2) Crysis/STALKER still aren't truly "maxable" smoothly. Barring certain cases of course, I realize things aren't THAT simple.
Then you can get into SLI/CF setups and argue that point... But I'd say that the hassle/inconsistency/microstutter kinda hurts that option, makes it unviable at this point for me at least.

That's my view on it anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

I'll be waiting it out for a 40nm Nvidia offering... GTX 380 maybe?

Problem right now is that even an 8800 GT can max out MOST games at 1680/1050 right now, and only really Crysis and poorly optimized newer games (IE STALKER Clear Sky) won't max out smoothly.

And the ultimate irony? Even on the next setup up (280 and kinda 4870X2) Crysis/STALKER still aren't truly "maxable" smoothly. Barring certain cases of course, I realize things aren't THAT simple.
Then you can get into SLI/CF setups and argue that point... But I'd say that the hassle/inconsistency/microstutter kinda hurts that option, makes it unviable at this point for me at least.

That's my view on it anyways.

---

Well, I play Crysis at 1920 x 1200 4xAA all on Very High and it's been smooth as silk so far. (I just reinstalled it, so still haven't got to the more demanding levels yet)

But that's not really on topic.

Quote:

---

code name is GT206

---

Shame it isn't 206GTi!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

I thought that was the primary objective of overclocking. To increase frequency, thus resulting in greater performance..

---

which doesn't mean your card will fly :ROTF: for example i oced my 8800 ultra bringing core to 670 only made my card 1 fps faster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carfax

Who brought up architecture? Perhaps you should learn to read before you question my ability to comprehend the english language.



So you're saying overclocking does not denote attaining a higher frequency than stock?

I thought that was the primary objective of overclocking. To increase frequency, thus resulting in greater performance..

But I'm not as smart as you I suppose.. Or maybe I'm just not as illiterate.



Why don't you demonstrate your superior technical understanding for us then?



The very fact that you use an idiotic comparison like the P4D and the C2D to analogize the GTX 260 and the HD 4870 just goes to show how "superior" your technical knowledge is.

The P4D was clearly an inferior architecture compared to the C2D in overall performance, and particularly in terms of IPC.

The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB on the other hand, are practically neck and neck in terms of performance, and both architectures utilize different methods of achieving that performance.

Whatever else, the facts still stand.

1) The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB are very similar in performance at stock clocks, so using the P4D/Core 2 Duo analogy is absurd beyond belief.

2) The GTX 260 216 on average can achieve a greater overclock percentage than the HD 4870 without resorting to volt mods or after market coolers.

If you read a few reviews, then you'd come to the same conclusion.

---

... its not about "inferior" architecture. Its about how the architecture behaves at higher clock speeds.

you keep spewing crap about how it reaches higher frequencies but the fact of the matter is that the r700 architecture has 800 SPs in a unified design whereas Nvidia does this vastly differently. The increase of 30 mhz on the r700 architecture has much greater effect than a 30 mhz increase on the GT200 architecture. I don't have numbers on this but I think everyone who has used both cards can say that this is essentially true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

increase of 30 mhz on the r700 architecture has much greater effect than a 30 mhz increase on the GT200 architecture.

---

Prove it with facts, not with words, please. I am very interested about knowing if that's true or false. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gojirasan

What's that sound? That's the sound of utter silence when the most rabid of AMD fanbois posts an article about Nvidia. Where is all the hate and bile and character assassination that was shown with that HardOCP article? Hmmm? I'm waiting people. Yes. The majority of people who post on the xtremesystems news forum are DEFINITELY biased toward AMD/ATI and against Nvidia. The response to this article proves that utterly. Although I can't think of many here who are anything like that psychopath at theinquirer. That guy is definitely not playing with a full deck. He needs to take some meds and get some perspective. Did an Nvidia exec rape his little sister or something? Jesus. We are talking about a couple of corporations here for christ sake. You'd think we were talking about competing religions or something.

And I'm sure he has GREAT connections at Nvidia to know all these secrets. He is the first person an Nvidia employee would trust with this kind of info. Riiight. The funny part is he actually errs in the wrong direction. There aint gonna be no GX2 card until 2009. Period. And when it is released you can bet that it WILL beat the 4870x2. I don't care if Nvidia has to sell a bunch of genetically engineered hamsters with the card they are going to make sure that it beats the 4870x2 OR THEY ARE NOT GOING TO RELEASE IT AT ALL. Again. Get some perspective people. Both companies hire a bunch of engineers and they make stuff. To assume that Nvidia lost its lead and will never get it back is absurd when you look back at the past decade of GPU history.

And for those of you who have invested heavily in AMD stock, please look up "Ethics" on wikipedia. Jeez. Posting anti-Nvidia or pro AMD stuff here is not going to make your stock go up.

---

Dude, I get your point but lets be honest. your just as guilty as the next when it comes to biased opinions. I just recently removed some of your quotes from my sig where you were saying anything at all to put NV on a pedastel lately I noticed you changed your tune so I removed them to be fair.

also your placing a GX2 in 09 and thats running up near R800 or rv870 so it may not hold the crown for long.

It's true see any review that reviews them overclocked, the gtx series doesnt scale as linearly with overclocking as the 4000 series.

That's why a 850 overclocked 4000 series matches a gtx260 at 750 mhz. 100 mhz overclock compared to 175 mhz overclock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

About the topic, it's just a load of crap written by the duchebags, who cares?

---

I don't get it, why is it a load of crap? The article contains many interesting things that could be considered news, if only one would be able to not get upset by someones opinion about a company. (a company that is not your mother btw)