http://www.azerty.nl/8-160-80998/engtx280-htdp-1gb.html
516 Euro.
GTX 260 is 354 Euro
Printable View
http://www.azerty.nl/8-160-80998/engtx280-htdp-1gb.html
516 Euro.
GTX 260 is 354 Euro
That's probably the only website with such low prices. Everywhere else its 550 Euro. Plus the POV edition with 700 on the clocks will be 600 Euro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Also, I have NO idea wtf you guys are talking about. The GTX 280 was never meant to be 2x the 8800 Ultra or the GTX :stick:
It's a monster of a card and will only get better from here on out. ATI is in NO WAY any form of clear.
Pekram
It's just for that price ($650 USD) people expect it to perform according to the pricetag, and it seems like HD4850 might put a 9800GTX run for it's money so I bet HD4870 will perform somewhere between 9800GTX and 9800GX2 depending on game it might be even very close or par with 9800GX2 and that with a pricetag of $350. Now if GTX 280 only performs about par with 9800GX2 or slightly better than it who would pay so much more money for so little extra performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I personally hope GTX 280 will perform not only par or slightly better than 9800GX2 but significantly better to make it worth that $650 pricetag as otherwise a pricedrop is to be expected and the INQ's $500 pricetag would sound more reasonable but yea I don't have much faith in those Techpowerup's faked or leaked numbers or whatever, so to me GTX 280 performance is still wide open mystery.
Just saying it doesn't suprise me people expect that much performance boost out of these cards. ;)
Honestly, it could be that nvidia wasn't expecting the 9800gx2 to be so powerful when they were designing gt200 (in other words they weren't expecting to have to worry about clocking the gpus high) or that ati forced nvidia to play its hand with the 9800gx2 and make it more powerful than they expected
Someone said it before, I'll say it again:Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
God bless competition :)
Perkam
I will, i just got my p5q3 dlx, gotta get some time later today or tommorow to set my system up and do some testing, also i will have 4850 crossfire to test on this board next week :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by masxerofkartis
I take it you assume its due more to ati:)Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
nda broken ppl
saw zotac 2 280gtx on sale in lyn in malaysia
that shop sold 2 already
sishh the heatsink is bigger than the 9800gtx.. the size and weight similar to my 9800gx2..
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
even if is just a litle extra performance , but :
GTX280 is single GPU >> no problems/compatibility with any game , no stutering , 100% "clean" & smoother in all Games !
9800GX2 also has more performance than 8800GTX/ULTRA , however we see lots of gamers choosing 8800GTX/ULTRA because is single GPU
regards
hopefully others will follow suit now
people forget. yes it may have only a little faster numbers than the 9800gx2 but the 9800gx2 does have microstuddering. so ya the FPS is within 1-5FPS of each other but the real in game feel is more like 15FPS off. and at higher resolutions and AA settings the lead only grows. not to mention the drivers that will be coming out. and yes a 4850 crossfire will give similar FPS to the GTX 280 but then your limited to a X38 or X48 (maybe P45) chipset, you have microstuddering so again the GTX280 will run smoother and faster you have to deal with crossfire which IS NOT supported in all games and has some issues in other with glitches and artifacting, also some review still show crossfire in windows XP to yield low gains in games like crysis. the powerconsumption should be similar but the 4850's may be a tad more hunger, also heat goes back into your case with the 4850 stock cooler so that becomes an issue. the 4850's also do not have the features of the CUDA platform so you get no Ageia Physics support and lower support for other programs like video editing software and such. Crossfire and SLI are just not ideal solutions and when you can get similar performance from a SINGLE card as well more features. the way i see it the GTX 280 is being downplayed by the success of the 9800gx2 when the 8800gtx came out it was fantastic because the 7950gx2 was a bad card and drivers were poor. but Nivida did things allot better with the 9800gx2 and now that the GTX 280 ONLY has 100% more performance than the 8800gtx people are getting down at it?? looks to be a good card to me. another thing to remember is that most of these sites still use 3GHz Core 2 Duo's or 3.2GHZ Quads (max) and some still even use PCI-Express 1.1 mobo's. that's not fast enough and both the CPU and mobo will bottle neck the GPU and most resolutions. but put a 3.8GHZ or higher qaud with it and it will FLY.
Yea well that alone isn't worth paying $150 for imo, rich bastards yep but in general that wouldn't cut it as we have to remember every person aren't that much aware of the stuttering or the very various results with GX2 depending on game etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
EDIT: Yes like hipno650 explained above if taken into account all that it surely gives a benefit with the GTX 280 but NVIDIA can't expect the card to get sold for those reasons alone, many buying decisions are made up from reviews where pure performance numbers are checked, not how it behaves in reality hench why I'd expect a price drop if performance is close or par with 9800GX2 and HD 4870 comes closer than expected.
honestly i would have no problem with a price drop:D that just means i can get one sooner.:up: but i think this is going to look very similar to the 8800gtx days. the 8800gtx is now the X1950XTX (people down play it i had mine running Crysis all on High playable) and the 7950GX2 is now the 9800GX2 just with better performance in comparison. and the GTX 280 is now the 8800gtx and the HD4870 will slot into become the HD2900XT but just with a lower price tag but worse performance compared to the GTX 280. and look what happened to the 8800gtx is still the fastest Single GPU for sale today (save the ultra) and is possibly one of the most popular high end cards ever made and has lasted how many years now on top?Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
nor only i agree with what this man claims,Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
but also i share the same feeling about it... nice speech!
have you been paid? just kiding... :up:
has anyone observed microstutering on vista 64 with 4+ gigs of ram?
i have the feeling its a ram/os issue rather than an inherent flaw of crossfire/sli
Personally, I think you guys are overdoing the micro-stuttering issue, there are plenty of people that have xfire or sli systems that don't seem to notice it or at it isn't enough to really matter. But eitherway, until the 4870x2 comes out, there's no way to know if the card will have the same amount, less, or no microstuttering as 4870 xfire. Personally I feel that the 4870x2 will outperform the gtx 280 in terms of fps, the 4850 is just too powerful from the results we've seen and the gtx 280 doesn't seem to be a big improvement over the 9800gx2 which will very likely be spanked by the 4870x2. It just matters how smooth the game play is in games that fps don't matter (as both high ends get more than you'll notice), and smoothness could be affected by many things, especially ati's drivers. Even if they eliinate the micro-stuttering to some extend you never know what could go wrong with a dual gpu setup from the driver stand point
Are you insinuating 2.0 is going to give a performance boost, if so, I don't buy that theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
If I'm misunderstanding your post, feel free to correct me.
That's wrong. Microstuttering is most of the time only noticeable in the 30-40fps region. You have also stuttering when playing at 60fps but the relative time-differences are too small to be perceivableQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
thank you and oh no i have not been paid but that's the way i see things now. i just think single GPU setups are far more attractive in almost all reasons over multi-GPU systems be they single card with2 GPU's or muti card. however i will not deny that to get the extra extra extra performance SLI or TRI SLI of GTX 280 would be the way to go:DQuote:
Originally Posted by MrHydes
i have not tested or seen microstuddering for myself. i plan on getting a pair HD4850's sometime after is get a GTX 280 and testing the microstuddering issue for myself. most reports i have seen are Vista 32bit and i would be interested to see XP 64bit and Vista 64bit with 4GB or more of RAM. but to think about it it only shows up in Multi GPU systems so it may be a driver issue but for Nivida and AMD to have the same issue is questionable. and i would admit that the theory behind microstuddering does make sense. but only one way to find out...test it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
like i said i have not tested it for myself so i am just going by what what others say. and yes i have seen the videos of NFS pro Street being played on a HD3870x2 on PCGH and it looks brutal. the FPS is more than playable but the game looks like it is running at 5FPS:(Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
another reason i did not highlight is that of the AMD's drivers. from my personal experience they are not the best and i have used there new stuff (HD2900Pro and HD3850) and i find using them to be a tad frustrating.
this is were the unknowns come into effect. we know most single current cards display no increase in performance when on a 2.0 mobo compared to 1.1 however the GTX 280 is a beast and it might be reaching the limits of the 1.1 bus. time will tell how much if any performance will go up on GTX 280 from 1.1 to 2.0 but i would like to see reviewers using 2.0 mobos so we can totally eliminate it being a problem in there reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flinch
Edit: that's good to know that microstuddering is noticeable more at lower FPS then higher FPS. the problem is however the most demanding games (like crysis) run exactly in that envelope on the 9800GX2 and the GTX 280 (from what GAR has told us) and thus the 9800GX2 will see microstuddering and even if they have the same FPS the GTX 280 will be more playable. this also opens up the discussion of what is a playable FPS and at what FPS do you notice differences. that is a topic that has ruined to many threads so i would prefer not to start it but i can i can notice the difference between 60HZ and 120HZ TV's and the difference between 50FPS and 60 FPS for me is noticeable in most games.
I'll take note of that :)
I was wondering why I got such terrible results with the above test. I noticed that some Vista 64 users were running DX9 and 32 bit so I decided to try it. I didn't know that the DX10 and 64 bit combination was such bad news.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.905
and thats typically the situation in waht sli gets you, if your singel card can run 30-40fps you dont need sli, you buy it when your card comes in the 20-25fps range, that it boost your fps to 35-40 and it fells like 15fps. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by pest
hmm funny that 1600x1200 is faster then 1680x1050.... especial 1600x1200 has more pixels to render then 1680x1050.Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb
Could that be due to ratios?? (4:3 performs better than 16:10 O_o????)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I don't think ratios affect performance, do they???
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb
try to run also 64bit but DX9 !
maybe your SLi not working properly in DX10 mode
regards