Well i was wandering since you have the actual thing could you please ruan a 3dmarks2006 since vantage is quite new and i doubt the majority of us have used it so if you could please give us some heads startQuote:
Originally Posted by GAR
Thanks
Printable View
Well i was wandering since you have the actual thing could you please ruan a 3dmarks2006 since vantage is quite new and i doubt the majority of us have used it so if you could please give us some heads startQuote:
Originally Posted by GAR
Thanks
This is my first post. I will keep it short.
This thread saddens me. I thought the g280x2 was going to be my messiah and free my 2560x1600 display :(.
Time shall tell my children. Until then, I shall continue to rock my 7900gt. AA FTW.
Call me gullible.:comp10::bows:Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
What I want to know is how does a monthly magazine get a hold of a GTX 280, run there set of benchmarks, write it up, go to print and deliver it to their customers before any of our trusted sources can? I have never read PC Gamer so I don't know if they have a hardware section. They compare a GTX 280 to GeForce 9800 GX2 and Radeon 3870 X2 so they must have a benchmark computer they dust off occasionally.
I guess us gullible creatures will soon find out what the GTX 280 will do when this damn NDA expires. I'll be interested to see what kind scores you give it running 3DMark06, Vantage, Crysis, Half Life 2: Episode One, Company of Heroes and World in Conflict.
I guess you realize that my buying decision may lie on your shoulders as to whether I buy a GTX 280, his little brother or jump ship!:D
Look forward to your review.:)
Maybe the magazine was to go in circulation at a certain time to coincide with the lifting of the NDA and got out early? Or maybe the NDA on print material is different. Or they could have picked one up from an Asian source and are not under NDA, who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb
Remember it takes time to do hardware reviews, most of them are probably already done or almost done and waiting to be published.
Or Nvidia supplied them with a card. :)
I briefly considered picking one up, but decided against it. I've got other things to buy :cool:
if your rig is the same as in your sig, you would be cpu limited anyways. :p: ;) (no offence.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
704$ :down: 4870 CF 360$ x2 720$ :clap: or 4850 CF total 420$:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flinch
Must have pulled it down ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorguls
seems to be just a little faster than a gx2 or a little slower:down:
those benchmarks don't look right.... it shows the 9800 GTX scoring 30 fps on crysis at insanely high resolution with 4xAA and 16xAAQuote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
about the same as the review of the sapphire 3870x2 wc 9800gtx 29.1 fps
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/S...rcooled/9.html:shrug:
Well it all depends how the benchmark was made, ingame it runs often faster than many of the timedemos in the Crysis benchmark utility and there's also a wide range of slower and faster running timedemos and remember it's DX9 "High" settings and combine that with a not so demanding timedemo it could be legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_d
Yet mate for a SINGLE GPU solution these are great scores (if true) many peeps tend to forget the X2 are dual GPU's and work fab in SLI supported games but can pretty average in other games... just the price seems to be the real shocker :rofl:
so 280 GTX final clocks are 700/1150/1400?
No Zotac GTX 280 AMP Edition Specs 700/1150/1400/Default GTX280 Specs 600/1100/1300.(Point of View)Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Ron7aldo
Sorry but they are not great at all. Maybe fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I expected 30% over gx2, and 75%+ over my 8800 gtx, but it's just not there.
Lets not forget that drivers will improve, but if those results are true, its a big disappointment.
it's on a PCIe 1.1a MB isn't? c2d...
maybe PCIe 2.0 and c2q give more advantage for the gtx 280?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
to bad it only ranges from 40-100% faster then a 8800gtx ;)
me like, but me canna afford.
but the test showing 8800gt at 4x 16x 1600x1200 in crysis and 34 fps @ high settings is a farkin joke...id say more like <20fps at those settings.
20-25 fps @1280x1024 with 4xAA roughly.
Is that lower range that worries me. When i say some figure i generally think as MINIMUM. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
You expected it to be a minumum of 75% faster than G80 in all scenarios? Based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
Something with low core clocks will never be 75% faster at lower resolutions where core clocks shine and cpu speeds actually matter. It isn't going to surprise me when this thing gets its @$$ handed to it by much cheaper solutions at 1280X1024 and the like. Fortunately, there are people who have a purpose for cards like this.(this implies it, but does not mean me specifically)Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
They are using the same test system to benchmark each video card. I would think you can use each group of benchmarks to judge how one card would scale to another card. There's no way you can judge those benchmarks to what we get on our systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
I ran the following Crysis test:
EVGA 780i
Q6600 @ 3150 MHz
EVGA 8800 GT SC (2x) SLI
Crysis Benchmarking on Vista 64
Timedemo: benchmark_gpu
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
Those setting wouldn't be playable with my system. The only component that I have in common with the Techpowerup test system is the PSU.
afaik wizzard also uses a custom time demo for crysis testing so higher fps then with the build in test are possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb