GTX260 55nm Preview/Review

http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/12/27/GPU%20tem.png
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/12/27/power-1.png
http://en.expreview.com/wp-content/u...2008/12/12.jpg
http://en.expreview.com/wp-content/u.../2008/12/2.jpg

Quote:

---

Test of 3D performance VS Radeon HD4870

Actually, 3D performance is not our focus in this review, because the structure and frequency are the same as before. The only change is processing, which hardly affects the performance. We have compared GTX260 with GTX260 (216SP, 65nm), and the difference is very little. So we choose 1GB Radeon HD4870 for comparison. Sapphire Radeon HD4870 is priced at about $265.

To even things up, we disabled PhysX acceleration in 3DMark Vantage. GTX260-55nm outperforms by 4.46% in average. Its performance is best in COD4: Moderm Warfare, 16% faster than Radeon HD4870. While in Left 4 Dead, Radeon HD4870 1GB outperforms by 9%.

In 25 benchmarks, GTX260-55nm is superior in 17. The two parts are even in 2 (within 1%), and Radeon HD4870 1GB does better in 6 tests.

---

http://en.expreview.com/2008/12/27/t...ce-gtx260.html
http://www.expreview.com/review/2008...681d10994.html


Updated: EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 55nm Superclocked Edition Video Card Review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rd-review.html

no temperature or power usage improvements. I hope this review is wrong..

If its true simply:
LOL

Yeah, there's nothing else to say.

Wow, thats,,,,well umm,,,,not looking very exciting if that's all there is to be expected.

Guess we'll have to wait for a more detailed review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

no temperature or power usage improvements. I hope this review is wrong..

---

of course not, but it has the same performance than the GTX280 in many games, so for lower power consumption, I guess it's a good step in the good direction.:)

Let's hope they clock better on the shaders then the current 65nm models

You would think if these numbers where right they could have released an X2 variant already.

great all the wait for nothing.

Of course NV wanted a cheaper card to produce with the tough competition but they even went as far as cutting back on the cooling solution and power consumption hasn't even gotten lower, more like slightly higher? This card should be like 20~30 bucks cheaper than current GTX260 Core-216 but knowing NV it will be like 20 bucks expensier even. No thanks. For NVIDIA's sake I hope this was a flawed card that got tested.

Yeah looks like nvidia just wanted a cheaper cost'd product for them to sell :)

i have a 55nm 216 evga on the way

ya the 55nm cooler is a lils maller and has 1 less heatpipe but i rly expected a lower power consumption

load numbers of 4870 seems to be incorrect radeon draws less in load

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eric66

load numbers of 4870 seems to be incorrect radeon draws less in load

---

That's probably true but on Furmark, the power consumption of the 4870 skyrockets for some reason.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...mpared/?page=2

LOL! Power consumption is more? Maybe they mixed up cards on the graph?

Sure something is wrong with the review, otherwise they wouldn´t release an X2 version

I don't know something is fishy about that review... how can Power Consumption & Temps are higher than previous model, I guess ill wait for guru3d or anandtech for review.

Something doesn't add up there, power consumption should be noticeably lower under idle and load unless the 55nm part they tested was an overclocked version. I can understand temps not going down as they wouldn't change too much anyway and if the cooler is not as efficient as the previous 65nm cooler that would explain the temps staying about the same. You have to remember that the engineers that design the stock cooling solutions aren't interested in achieving the lowest possible temps, only keeping the temps in the proper operating range, which is just what the stock cooler does. It costs more to build a better cooler and that's what the aftermarket is for, and the Nvidia engineers know this. I'm not ruling out these test results as they are likely within some margin of error, only saying the power consumption looks suspect. I'll wait for more credible sites to post their results. Judging by the fact the top of the line EVGA SSC 55nm 260/216 has slightly higher clocks than the previous 65nm FTW 260/216, I'd say it's probably a testament to the cooler operation of the 55nm part since overclocking potential is very likely to be better than the 65nm part.

Ouch, new PCB design (VRM) makes FC waterblocks obsolete :clap:

There is a report from the much maligned Charlie D. at the Inq stating that the b2 stepping of the gt200 55nm was not very good. Looks like the report was accurate.
Article was back in November Nvidia 270/290 in deep trouble the Inq is not connecting directly atm for me so google link.

Quote:

---

That leaves power and speed. Unfortunately, the shrink is a mess and not working out well at all, so neither of those features panned out. Where does that leave us? With a shrunken GT200 that doesn't really perform any better or worse than the current part, but gives NV a little better breathing room. That is the current best case.

---

If this is true, I hope the GTX 285 doesn't suffer the same fate..

Thats the card I'll be stepping up to in January.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maratus

Ouch, new PCB design (VRM) makes FC waterblocks obsolete :clap:

---

Only until a new design is released. Nothing new there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulhamm

There is a report from the much maligned Charlie D. at the Inq stating that the b2 stepping of the gt200 55nm was not very good. Looks like the report was accurate.
Article was back in November Nvidia 270/290 in deep trouble the Inq is not connecting directly atm for me so google link.

---

Any new stepping is going to be better than the previous stepping. Don't believe everything you read. New steppings are always superior because technology advances so frequently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blkout

Any new stepping is going to be better than the previous stepping. Don't believe everything you read. New steppings are always superior because technology advances so frequently.

---

Kinda like "G200-103-B2" is faster & more efficient than "G200-103-A2"?
Oh, wait? :shrug:
:D

G200-103-B2 = 55nm
G200-103-A2 = 65nm

looks like this is gonna be a slooooow year for Nvidia, hopefully ATI will make a killing in the midrange with the 740 and arrive at its upward trend equal with the GT300 in October.

Well, this kinda sucks but at least it vindicates my buying a GTX-260+ a few weeks ago...

oh the humanity

Dur.. it's not a new product! It's purely a cost savings move as evident in the lack of re-branding.

I don't know why anyone expected anything more.

I just wonna know will it clock better than 65nm gtx260 216sp...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sr7

Dur.. it's not a new product! It's purely a cost savings move as evident in the lack of re-branding.

I don't know why anyone expected anything more.

---

I think most people expected same cooling solution, lower temperatures, less power consumption => better overclockability. Somehow it failed in at least 3 of these categories if you read this specific review, it's got a cut down cooling solution, slightly higher temp, about same/higher load power consumption. xD

Overclockability might be slightly better still but looks like it won't be as huge improvement as I had hoped for. I have hoped for like ~750MHz core overclock in avg seeing how great 65nm GTX's get close or reach that.

If the 55nm is really performing like that, there wouldnt be a GX2 to follow.

Either that or somehow nV thought a GX2 wasnt feasible until now due to cost, not thermal envelope + associated cooling....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I think most people expected same cooling solution, lower temperatures, less power consumption => better overclockability. Somehow it failed in at least 3 of these categories if you read this specific review. xD

---

People treat these things as though they are iron laws, and yet they are not. You *tend* to see things correlate as you move further and further to smaller process nodes, but one hop doesn't guarantee anything of the sort.

Not to mention it seems they're comparing both GPUs at the same clocks, where they will perform the same obviously, and 4% is within noise. To attribute a few percent performance improvements to anything is absurd. 1-4% is going to be within margin of error/noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

If the 55nm is really performing like that, there wouldnt be a GX2 to follow.

Either that or somehow nV thought a GX2 wasnt feasible until now due to cost, not thermal envelope + associated cooling....

---

You guys know that both ATI and NVIDIA bin the lower leakage chips in order to put together dual GPU products with just 2 power connectors, right?

To look at power usage of these chips and comment on dual-gpu scenarios is not really accurate because these chips are not representative.

Parallels can be drawn. Even for well binned cores, the production line still has to be "in the zone" for the idea to work.

PCI-E slot+ 2 power cables-> 1 power cable per card + the PCI-E slot power is a BIG difference, even with a voltage and MHz drop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sr7

People treat these things as though they are iron laws, and yet they are not. You *tend* to see things correlate as you move further and further to smaller process nodes, but one hop doesn't guarantee anything of the sort.

---

Of course these things aren't iron laws but it's much more likely to become a success rather than a failure as NVIDIA are aiming for those achievements, lower cost (most important), lower power comsumption & heat dissipation => base clocks can be raised if the process goes well so prices can be raised on the products too. With NVIDIA that is such advanced manufacturer with all kinds of advanced equipment you'd just expect the successratio to be rather high. Of course that doesn't mean it couldn't become a failure but the risk is rather small still why most people expect a success rather than a failure.

oh my, nvidia is ridin teh faiboat again...

Will at least be a way to diferentiate the old 260 from the new one? Like does it say on the box "55nm can of whoop ass edition"? Or will boxes be the same as the old ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azraeel101

oh my, nvidia is ridin teh faiboat again...

Will at least be a way to diferentiate the old 260 from the new one? Like does it say on the box "55nm can of whoop ass edition"? Or will boxes be the same as the old ones?

---

:rofl: I think it will depend on the companies making the package if it will be recognisable or not. At least EVGA clearly states 55nm and uses another appearence for the boxes on their 55nm counterparts.

Well this is rather unexpected.

I knew not to expect miracles per say, but I was figuring we'd at least get slightly lower temps and
power consumption... This is just pitiful.

The can of whoopass remains broken and cracked... Another year of complete Nvidia dominance is nigh!

Looks like the 55nm for Nvidia has leakage problems. It makes scene to dump this stepping at GTX260 and not the 270/290. My guess is there hoping a new stepping will have less leakage but you never know till the new stepping is tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

Well this is rather unexpected.

I knew not to expect miracles per say, but I was figuring we'd at least get slightly lower temps and
power consumption... This is just pitiful.

---

You're absolutely right and everyone else too.

I mean I "thought" that the process transition from 65nm to 55nm was going to revolutionize entirely the GPU industry and thus sending everything else into chaos.

Who would've have thought that going from 65nm to 55nm was not going to change anything at all? I'm extremely puzzled and I am tired of get the hopes so high that I'd go and believe that something of that magnitude and such magnitude wouldn't do anything at all.

______________________


But in the other hand though, it's better than the 4870.

I would but it but.....mann! I thought that the 55nm processing was going to be such an amazing technology compared to the 65nm. Oh well!, let's see how 40nm does.

Why would you think it would revolutionize everything. RV670 and RV770 are at 55nm already and there's nothing magical about them. A 4870 draws about as much power as a GTX 260 65nm.

well.... im still happy with my gtx260-216 overclocked to 750mhz competes with the 280 crysis load 62 cool enuf 4 me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sr7

Dur.. it's not a new product! It's purely a cost savings move as evident in the lack of re-branding.

I don't know why anyone expected anything more.

---

Agreed, this card has to adapt to a new competition environment with a cheap to make HD 4870 1 GB card, so nVidia is basically try to aim for the best yield, by staying with the same clock specification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I think most people expected same cooling solution, lower temperatures, less power consumption => better overclockability. Somehow it failed in at least 3 of these categories if you read this specific review, it's got a cut down cooling solution, slightly higher temp, about same/higher load power consumption. xD

Overclockability might be slightly better still but looks like it won't be as huge improvement as I had hoped for. I have hoped for like ~750MHz core overclock in avg seeing how great 65nm GTX's get close or reach that.

---

Those three hopes can only happen if the card were still a 350 US$ card, which is not true, that's why the situation is very understandable.

I think nVidia put the lowest denomination for this card clock specs, so they can have the best yield, and the better chips can go to GTX 285 and 295 cards. Clearly they will put GT200b chips over a heavy binning process, with mass production for a high mainstream card in mind (GTX 260), using the smallest die size you can get and the cheapest board and RAM you can put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

If the 55nm is really performing like that, there wouldnt be a GX2 to follow.

Either that or somehow nV thought a GX2 wasnt feasible until now due to cost, not thermal envelope + associated cooling....

---

With golden chips available through binning process, nothing is impossible -but availability might be affected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnipingWaste

Looks like the 55nm for Nvidia has leakage problems. It makes scene to dump this stepping at GTX260 and not the 270/290. My guess is there hoping a new stepping will have less leakage but you never know till the new stepping is tested.

---

I was wondering the same thing. I can only assume that in time more information will be revealed.

hmmm, i may step up to this from my 4850. Can get the 675mhz card today for
£220 - not a bad price at all.

Does anyone know how much the GTX 285 is going to cost in UK / EU when it comes out in january?

i can't believe someone has'nt overnighted one of those 55nm from EVGA's site. This review is lacking big time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasonelmore

i can't believe someone has'nt overnighted one of those 55nm from EVGA's site. This review is lacking big time.

---

at least it's something

remember that going from 65nm to 55nm is a MUCH smaller step than going from 80nm to 55 like ati did with the R600->rv670


it may consume as much power as the 65n ones but it's supposed to be muc cheaper for nv to make and clock a little bit better than the 65nm ones

i don't understand why a lot of people are upset and bash nvidia just because it consumes as much power :shrug:

Expectations is the name of the game. People expected lower prices, higher clocks and lower temps and lower power consumption. None of those things have materialized hence the disappointment. But we really need to wait for full reviews of retail cards though. I also find it strange that nobody has just bought one and reviewed it.

If you thing those figures are right about the power consumption then your very gullable. Remember that the GTX 295 uses 285 Watts. and that's two G200 Chips. Compared to 2 GTX 260's which consume 450 watts of power. The 55nm Process has allowed a lot of power consumption as far as the 295 goes. I dont' see why the GTX 265 would be much different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Why would you think it would revolutionize everything. RV670 and RV770 are at 55nm already and there's nothing magical about them. A 4870 draws about as much power as a GTX 260 65nm.

---

Well, if you read the previous post before mine. You'd see that EVERYONE "thought" that nVidia would revolutionized the GPU industry by moving from 65nm to 55nm.

It's rather amusing that everyone believes that with a reduction in processing, such major improvement "should" occur.

I for once don't see anything magical about the reduction of the GPU. But everyone else "expects" this magical accomplishment with a mere change.

___________________________________

And something tells me you did not look at the 2nd picture, where a 260 draws 265W vs the 4870's 312W and even at idling the 4870 draws more too. So, no such thing as "as much" from what you can see.

Ah, gotcha. Well "everyone" needs to temper their expectations so as to avoid being disappointed over and over. G80 and 4870 are two recent examples of us being pleasantly surprised though. But that can't happen every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

Kinda like "G200-103-B2" is faster & more efficient than "G200-103-A2"?
Oh, wait? :shrug:
:D

G200-103-B2 = 55nm
G200-103-A2 = 65nm

---

The 55nm will consume less power and produce less heat than the 65nm if all settings are equal. This is not even debatable, simple physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Ah, gotcha. Well "everyone" needs to temper their expectations so as to avoid being disappointed over and over. G80 and 4870 are two recent examples of us being pleasantly surprised though. But that can't happen every time.

---

very true, a great example of 65nm to 55nm that wasn't a g80 or a 4870 is clearly the 3870. It was a low power card for sure but it set the 4870 up for greatness.

I think nvidia would have been better off going for a risk on the 280/260 being 55nm in the first place rather than leaving the midrange with nothing to run off of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnipingWaste

Looks like the 55nm for Nvidia has leakage problems. It makes scene to dump this stepping at GTX260 and not the 270/290. My guess is there hoping a new stepping will have less leakage but you never know till the new stepping is tested.

---

You sure are drawing a lot of conclusions from ONE half-assed preview.

Something that everyone should keep in mind when judging measured heat on these 55nm GPUS is thermal density. I dont know if nVidia lowered vGpu on these new cards or not, but assuming they did not there is going to be a similiar amount of heat being dissapated thru a smaller contact area with the HSF- therefore equal or higher measured temperature. (Thermal density could even be higher with a decrese in vgpu...)

This being said, I think what everyone is still hoping to see is a decrease in net power consumption.

I also subscribe to the theory that nVidia is closely binning these first 55nm chips for use in the GX2s. Releasing a "new" 260 216 is a great way to use up chips that leak more current than they should on the new process. They are also more than likely binning current chips for the upcoming 285 as well. If I had to guess, these 285 bins probably fall somewhere between the GX2 chips and the "recycled" 55nm 216 parts for leakage.

Fact that a 470 mm^2 chip endowed card with 896 MB 448 bit specs must be sold at around 250 US$, i think nVidia would make sure every darn chips count. But i do also think, when people get lucky with this card, they can get a golden chip that clocks amazingly, because i don't think the sales of GTX 295 and 285 would be that high in this kinda economic environment, while the demand of nicely priced GTX 260 core 216 would be quite high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

looks like this is gonna be a slooooow year for Nvidia, hopefully ATI will make a killing in the midrange with the 740 and arrive at its upward trend equal with the GT300 in October.

---

whens this going to happen? the 740

the only one i could find online was the eVGA and the dang things sold out almost everywhere it's offered.

Wow, i was expecting another 9800GTX+, slightly lower power consumption but OCs higher. Once you OC it the power consumption is actually the same or more than the old one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

whens this going to happen? the 740

---

well since its already taped out it should be out before the end of Q1 '09

nvidia's new midrange doesn't come till at least q3

I want to see max core and shader clock for these.

I got a stock clocked evga 55nm coming midweek...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nasgul

And something tells me you did not look at the 2nd picture, where a 260 draws 265W vs the 4870's 312W and even at idling the 4870 draws more too. So, no such thing as "as much" from what you can see.

---

expreview's power consumption measurements were done during Furmark which is known to cause RV770s to draw power more than in any other benchmark. Thus using Furmark for powr consumption testing makes no sense as it doesn't represent any real world scenario.

Xbitlabs measures the exact power draw of the card itself (during loop of 3DMark06 SM3.0) and their figures show HD4870 consumes 6 watts more than 65nm GTX260. And since 55nm GTX260 draws 10W more than 65nm GTX260...
:fact:

Idle figures?
Reference HD4870 bios has quite conservative PowerPlay settings for the hungry GDDR5 - users can downclock their memories and cut ~40W... That's a "no-can-do" on GTX260.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaMpiR

I just wonna know will it clock better than 65nm gtx260 216sp...

---

got mine 260-216 clocked to 750-1540-1250 im happy with that. :):rofl::up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LexDiamonds

Something that everyone should keep in mind when judging measured heat on these 55nm GPUS is thermal density. I dont know if nVidia lowered vGpu on these new cards or not, but assuming they did not there is going to be a similiar amount of heat being dissapated thru a smaller contact area with the HSF- therefore equal or higher measured temperature. (Thermal density could even be higher with a decrese in vgpu...)

This being said, I think what everyone is still hoping to see is a decrease in net power consumption.

I also subscribe to the theory that nVidia is closely binning these first 55nm chips for use in the GX2s. Releasing a "new" 260 216 is a great way to use up chips that leak more current than they should on the new process. They are also more than likely binning current chips for the upcoming 285 as well. If I had to guess, these 285 bins probably fall somewhere between the GX2 chips and the "recycled" 55nm 216 parts for leakage.

---

Good point on the thermal disapation! :up:

I to "subscribe" to the theory that nvidia as binning the hell out of these new chips. At this point, nvidia cares a heck of a lot more about the performance crown than mainstream parts such as this new model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

expreview's power consumption measurements were done during Furmark which is known to cause RV770s to draw power more than in any other benchmark. Thus using Furmark for powr consumption testing makes no sense as it doesn't represent any real world scenario.

Xbitlabs measures the exact power draw of the card itself (during loop of 3DMark06 SM3.0) and their figures show HD4870 consumes 6 watts more than 65nm GTX260. And since 55nm GTX260 draws 10W more than 65nm GTX260...
:fact:

Idle figures?
Reference HD4870 bios has quite conservative PowerPlay settings for the hungry GDDR5 - users can downclock their memories and cut ~40W... That's a "no-can-do" on GTX260.

---

Thank you for pointing this out largon. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan7777

got mine 260-216 clocked to 750-1540-1250 im happy with that. :):rofl::up:

---

What cooling method are you using?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

expreview's power consumption measurements were done during Furmark which is known to cause RV770s to draw power more than in any other benchmark. Thus using Furmark for powr consumption testing makes no sense as it doesn't represent any real world scenario.

Xbitlabs measures the exact power draw of the card itself (during loop of 3DMark06 SM3.0) and their figures show HD4870 consumes 6 watts more than 65nm GTX260. And since 55nm GTX260 draws 10W more than 65nm GTX260...
:fact:

Idle figures?
Reference HD4870 bios has quite conservative PowerPlay settings for the hungry GDDR5 - users can downclock their memories and cut ~40W... That's a "no-can-do" on GTX260.

---

Why would it make no sense to use Furmark just because it stresses a video card more than using 3DMark06? If you want to see the maximum current draw, you would choose a benchmark that stresses a card to it's maximum. Disregarding Furmark just for the sake of showing ATI in a more favorable light is just as bad as disregarding any other benchmark to show favorable results for one piece of hardware over another.

While Furmark may not be typical real world scenario today, who's to say that it won't be with tomorrow's games, therefore Furmark is just as valid as any other benchmark assuming one manufacturer is not somehow optimizing their power circuitry to show favorable results, which in this case isn't happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan7777

got mine 260-216 clocked to 750-1540-1250 im happy with that. :):rofl::up:

---

55 or 65nm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

expreview's power consumption measurements were done during Furmark which is known to cause RV770s to draw power more than in any other benchmark. Thus using Furmark for powr consumption testing makes no sense as it doesn't represent any real world scenario.

---

Err.. actually Furmark is kinda MORE relevent as it represents a future real world scenario. Just look at Crysis, if game software keeps evolving at that rate Furmark will be outdated in a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blkout

Why would it make no sense to use Furmark just because it stresses a video card more than using 3DMark06? If you want to see the maximum current draw, you would choose a benchmark that stresses a card to it's maximum.

---

Why would make sense to benchmark power consumption and actual performance with different standards?
RV770 totally and absolutely dominates G200 in Furmark. So does RV770 dominate in real world performance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ket

Furmark is kinda MORE relevent as it represents a future real world scenario.

---

But not present. And I like to deal with present. But that's just me. :shrug:


Btw, what's it like in the future?
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

Why would make sense to benchmark power consumption and actual performance with different standards?
RV770 totally and absolutely dominates G200 in Furmark. So does RV770 dominate in real world performance?
But not present. And I like to deal with present. But that's just me. :shrug:


Btw, what's it like in the future?
:D

---

We're not judging performance, we're judging power consumption. Did you get confused?

2× :rolleyes:
What's the relevance of power consumption in some non-real world situation? One cannot draw any perf/watt concusions based on such figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChinStrap

the only one i could find online was the eVGA and the dang things sold out almost everywhere it's offered.

---

In stock at Newegg

EVGA 896-P3-1255-AR GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 @$254.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130434

EVGA 896-P3-1257-AR GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked Edition @$264.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130433

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChinStrap

the only one i could find online was the eVGA and the dang things sold out almost everywhere it's offered.

---

Newegg wasn't supposed to have any until Jan 5, but they got some in yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

But not present. And I like to deal with present. But that's just me. :shrug:


Btw, what's it like in the future?
:D

---

I like stuff that gives a glimpse into the near future, allows for better preperation ;) As for the future itself.. ITS GREAT! We have flying cars and everything :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

2× :rolleyes:
What's the relevance of power consumption in some non-real world situation? One cannot draw any perf/watt concusions based on such figures.

---

Furmark exists, therefore it's real. Your argument is pathetic, swallow your pride and let it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moiraesfate

Newegg wasn't supposed to have any until Jan 5, but they got some in yesterday.

---

They've had them in stock since launch, mine was ordered last week and has been intransit since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blkout

Furmark exists, therefore it's real. Your argument is pathetic, swallow your pride and let it go.

---

Thank you for expressing your opinion. But I'm afraid I have to be blunt; I couldn't really care less since you're not making any sense regarding the whole matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

Thank you for expressing your opinion. But I'm afraid I have to be blunt; I couldn't really care less since you're not making any sense regarding the whole matter.

---

It really doesn't surprise me that you don't understand, that was obvious from your original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blkout

They've had them in stock since launch, mine was ordered last week and has been intransit since then.

---

Dunno about that. Three days ago they weren't in stock because I checked for prices.

Blkout added to mental ignore list.

EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 55nm Superclocked Edition Video Card Review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rd-review.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 55nm Superclocked Edition Video Card Review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rd-review.html

---

dissapointing on the overclock reading the review 55nm 65nm no different realy in performance in the review overclocked 3dmark 06 19,000 lol i got 65nm version my 3d marks 20,500 :):up:

No, there really is no difference but hopefully with the 55nm core, prices may fall on account of supposedly higher yields.

EVGA GTX 260 216 (55 nm) Review (in German)
http://www.hardware-infos.com/tests.php?test=54

the last 260 55nm I got is vantage 3d stable 771/1612/1200 pretty decent me things

EVGA GeForce GTX260 Core 216 Superclocked (55nm GPU) Graphics Accelerator Review
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/d...-216-55nm.html

EVGA GeForce GTX260 Core 216 Superclocked (55nm GPU) Review
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...200b_reviewed/

figured out what was wrong with my setup

looking at the first two of my cards bios the extra voltage was 1.06v which allowed 734/1512/1200 stable, the third cards was at 1.12v and oc'd 771/1612/1200. After flashing the first two to 1.12v extra I have one that oc's to 783/1566/1250 and the other the same as the third card 771/1612/1200

These cards hate above 60c though, will cause a crash if you dont up the fan speed during furmark exactly at 63 each time