I can't wait until mid-july when we'll be seeing some more concrete benchmarked comparisons between the 4850, 4870, 260, 280, 9800GTX+ and all the other previous-gen cards!
It's going to be a gpu-palooza, good luck getting all those tests done guys!
I own a 8800GTX. Im personally more interested to see how the 4870 stacks up against the 260/280 to be honest. Nvidia has been taking us for a ride the last 18 months with overpriced cards. Only now that they have some competition are the prices coming down. AMD, whilst not aiming for the top end, are actually targetting the market segment that I now belong in...... affordable performance cards.
While there's a lot of stuff in here about the parallel processing capabilities of the chip, I don't think the investment in the 280GTX is valid, even with their CUDA initiative. By the time the technology is in place to make the API valuable to the PC gaming experience, a new card will be out that offers as good, or better, performance in that respect, and, in all likelihood, substantially better graphics processing power, at a lower price point. Pioneering or not, it doesn't seem like a sound investment of money. ;)
They are clearly trying to hit the University Market with CUDA...
just wait until Virginia Tech (or some other school) makes a super computer thats comparable to the worlds leader (http://www.top500.org/system/9485)
that things Rpeak is 1375776 Gflops...
a GTX280 is ~900 Gflops
that means ~1600 GTX280s could "theoretically" be on equal footing with that super computer.
lets compare wattage too.
1 GTX280 uses ~400Watts...
that entire super computer pumps out 2.5MEGAWatts or 2.5million watts
400W * 2000 = 800000 Watts or .8 Megawatts.
yes yes you can moan and groan about how inaccurate it is, but I am just stating them to prove a point.
Simply, This thing is a BEAST.
IF you work in a science department of some university, and only have a 40K budget for super computing usage (IE having to lease time or whatnot) you can just build a sick one with these suckers and now you OWN the super computer
OH YEAH, and as a side note, the 100th fastest Super computer on that list has a Rmax of 24576, so to get in the top 100, 40 of these would suffice. (again, im not including RAM, SANs, fiber channels etc etc... )
I would like gaming performance over video encoding ect. I've never actually had to wait for encoding because I just run it while I sleep so there's no real benefit, sounds to me like it's still gonna take forever anyways. The only benefit I could get from this is if Autodesk would use cuda to 12X there render times in mental ray, that'd be sweet.
link 20 of them up you got some insane power there
i just Hope F@H do not put an limit on How many GPUs you can use with that setup there (say GPU all water cooled cpu less important should get by air cooled)
haha, i totally don't get the obsession with folding and the video encoding doesn't sound like an outright win to me. the questions raised about that suggest to me that once it's all out people are going to be left going meh. so i think i might avoid buying nvidia for a while.
Originally Posted by zero0ne They are clearly trying to hit the University Market with CUDA...
just wait until Virginia Tech (or some other school) makes a super computer thats comparable to the worlds leader (http://www.top500.org/system/9485)
that things Rpeak is 1375776 Gflops...
a GTX280 is ~900 Gflops
that means ~1600 GTX280s could "theoretically" be on equal footing with that super computer.
lets compare wattage too.
1 GTX280 uses ~400Watts...
that entire super computer pumps out 2.5MEGAWatts or 2.5million watts
400W * 2000 = 800000 Watts or .8 Megawatts.
yes yes you can moan and groan about how inaccurate it is, but I am just stating them to prove a point.
Simply, This thing is a BEAST.
IF you work in a science department of some university, and only have a 40K budget for super computing usage (IE having to lease time or whatnot) you can just build a sick one with these suckers and now you OWN the super computer
OH YEAH, and as a side note, the 100th fastest Super computer on that list has a Rmax of 24576, so to get in the top 100, 40 of these would suffice. (again, im not including RAM, SANs, fiber channels etc etc... )
9800gx2 destroys 4850 and 4870 Quiet a few sites now have reviews of all 4 cards
For performance crown AMDATI losses again to a last gen card. ( congratz) Price performance they may win but who honestly cares. Most wont upgrade from 8800gts or 8800gtxs for what is a small upgrade.
personally still have 2 8800ultras, Dont game above 1680*1050 ( who really needs a 25 inch screen in a bedroom really ) Still run every game i play at max settings. Till im down below medium theres no reason to upgrade. And that is ATI and Nvidias problem. Crysis the game that requires the biggest beast to play. Will be as high as it gets for a few years yet id think. The standard rig for crysis on high wont be seen by many till 2012, Farcry took 6 years for most people to max.
As for Ati they are dead in the water on high end performance market . It will still be a 1 performance king nvidia who can still charge as they please.
Ati can reduce power all they want In the high end world of fastest wins and money is no object pc building . Which is who cards like the 9800gx2 are aimed at there is only one winner. Those people dont care about power consumption they just want hte fastest pc in the world.
As for the gtx280 STill needs alot more real world testing to see if its really any better. At some sain resolutions. Testing at 2500 or whatever hte res is. Doesnt matter to most people. If you game at that res u will go blind.
Until games can run soloy from a gpu. You will still need a very fast cpu.
Im not impressed by either ATI or Nvidia since the release of the orginal 8800gtx which is close to 2years now, Also Laughed hard that a 9800gx2 is still faster in crysis,
Even for crossfire of 2 * 4870, They will still be blown to peaces when you go tri sli or quad sli with 280gtx, Cost doesnt matter in high performance land only performance does. 4870x2 is here soon also.
tri 280 gtx sli may cost alot but it will destroy crossfire setups.
Performance nvidia wins again
price Ati wins again
no difrent than last time. Ill buy the cheaper card for my media system and if the 280sli proves a decent upgrade over 8800 ultras ill put that in main pc and be done with it..
Put simply tho, what this means is that all of us who have recently bought a G92 really havent wasted our money. I would hazard a guess that best bang for buck still lies with buying two 8800GT or GTS cards and SLI-ing them. Given that the GX2 effectively is "G92-SLI-in-a-box", their strong performance shows that really a pair of high clocked 8800GT's or GTS's would be a wise option, and also avoids the nasty overheating of 9800GX2 cards.
Originally Posted by Andy Mc Tim, thanks for the link. Sucks that it's not available for the 9800GX2 yet......
Wow didn't take them long! Am running a beta Nvidia driver at the mo with the physx stuff built in. So far only tried to run the UT3 Physx mod pack (looks awesome, but a bit of a performance hit...) and the folding@home gpu client, which makes my 9800GX2 make a funny noise.....
Originally Posted by rollo From the performance reviews ive seen
At the settings these cards are aimed at
9800gx2 destroys 4850 and 4870 Quiet a few sites now have reviews of all 4 cards
For performance crown AMDATI losses again to a last gen card. ( congratz) Price performance they may win but who honestly cares. Most wont upgrade from 8800gts or 8800gtxs for what is a small upgrade.
personally still have 2 8800ultras, Dont game above 1680*1050 ( who really needs a 25 inch screen in a bedroom really ) Still run every game i play at max settings. Till im down below medium theres no reason to upgrade. And that is ATI and Nvidias problem. Crysis the game that requires the biggest beast to play. Will be as high as it gets for a few years yet id think. The standard rig for crysis on high wont be seen by many till 2012, Farcry took 6 years for most people to max.
As for Ati they are dead in the water on high end performance market . It will still be a 1 performance king nvidia who can still charge as they please.
Ati can reduce power all they want In the high end world of fastest wins and money is no object pc building . Which is who cards like the 9800gx2 are aimed at there is only one winner. Those people dont care about power consumption they just want hte fastest pc in the world.
As for the gtx280 STill needs alot more real world testing to see if its really any better. At some sain resolutions. Testing at 2500 or whatever hte res is. Doesnt matter to most people. If you game at that res u will go blind.
Until games can run soloy from a gpu. You will still need a very fast cpu.
Im not impressed by either ATI or Nvidia since the release of the orginal 8800gtx which is close to 2years now, Also Laughed hard that a 9800gx2 is still faster in crysis,
Even for crossfire of 2 * 4870, They will still be blown to peaces when you go tri sli or quad sli with 280gtx, Cost doesnt matter in high performance land only performance does. 4870x2 is here soon also.
tri 280 gtx sli may cost alot but it will destroy crossfire setups.
Performance nvidia wins again
price Ati wins again
no difrent than last time. Ill buy the cheaper card for my media system and if the 280sli proves a decent upgrade over 8800 ultras ill put that in main pc and be done with it..
Wow, where to start with that lot.
For a start, you say that people at the high-end only care about performance and nothing else then cite yourself as an example with your two 8800Ultras. Yet you admit to having only a 1680x1050 screen. What is that all about? One Ultra will do you fine, as will one 8800GTX, one GTX280, one4870, one 4850, the list could go on.
Second, of course a 9800GX2 beats a 4850 or 4870, who would think it wouldn't. It costs more and uses two cards.
Third, yes people really, really do care about price/performance. You may not but then your sanity has been proven by buying two Ultras for a 20" screen.
No, you really don't need a fast CPU. An old Athlon X2 will still do most people fine for gaming unless they want to encode video in the background or something.
The reported sales figures for ATIs 4000 series show that ATI certainly isn't dead in the water.
Playing at 2560x1600 will make you blind? Wuh?
Most of all though, you need to understand that the vast majority of discrete graphics cards sold are for the 'mainstream' market, which is what ATI is aiming for. I'm happy for them to do that. If I can spend £150 and play all the games I want on my 20" screen then jobs a gooden.
Could you please test and mention how GTX 280 and 260 perform as a Workstation Card? With GTX 260 at $360 I'm really considering the card instead a low end workstation graphics card. It would be great if you could test and see if this what Nvidia is saying gonna take "graphics beyond gaming" is any good at rendering in pro 3D apps, and etc. Or is a similar priced workstation graphics beats this?
Even if you don't have the time to test it, could anyone at least guess and suggest if similarly priced low end/older workstation is better than a higher end/new card like the GTX 260?
Originally Posted by Cheap Mod Wannabe Could you please test and mention how GTX 280 and 260 perform as a Workstation Card? With GTX 260 at $360 I'm really considering the card instead a low end workstation graphics card. It would be great if you could test and see if this what Nvidia is saying gonna take "graphics beyond gaming" is any good at rendering in pro 3D apps, and etc. Or is a similar priced workstation graphics beats this?
Even if you don't have the time to test it, could anyone at least guess and suggest if similarly priced low end/older workstation is better than a higher end/new card like the GTX 260?
not sure about the memory it offers for workstation card, might not be enough 900MB vs 1.5GB.
but when compared to 8800GTX (G80) equivalent, it should pack a larger punch in terms of computing power.
Comments 26 to 50 of 54
I can't wait until mid-july when we'll be seeing some more concrete benchmarked comparisons between the 4850, 4870, 260, 280, 9800GTX+ and all the other previous-gen cards!
It's going to be a gpu-palooza, good luck getting all those tests done guys!
And congratulations, Tim :)
I mean make the rest of the system really really cheap to compensate for the expensive GPU.
It actually means that the rest of the system is hand-made out of mud brick and sod to compensate for the expensive GPU.
just wait until Virginia Tech (or some other school) makes a super computer thats comparable to the worlds leader (http://www.top500.org/system/9485)
that things Rpeak is 1375776 Gflops...
a GTX280 is ~900 Gflops
that means ~1600 GTX280s could "theoretically" be on equal footing with that super computer.
lets compare wattage too.
1 GTX280 uses ~400Watts...
that entire super computer pumps out 2.5MEGAWatts or 2.5million watts
400W * 2000 = 800000 Watts or .8 Megawatts.
yes yes you can moan and groan about how inaccurate it is, but I am just stating them to prove a point.
Simply, This thing is a BEAST.
IF you work in a science department of some university, and only have a 40K budget for super computing usage (IE having to lease time or whatnot) you can just build a sick one with these suckers and now you OWN the super computer
OH YEAH, and as a side note, the 100th fastest Super computer on that list has a Rmax of 24576, so to get in the top 100, 40 of these would suffice. (again, im not including RAM, SANs, fiber channels etc etc... )
http://www.dvhardware.net/article.php?sid=27538
link 20 of them up you got some insane power there
i just Hope F@H do not put an limit on How many GPUs you can use with that setup there (say GPU all water cooled cpu less important should get by air cooled)
umm no. that's not how it works.
At the settings these cards are aimed at
9800gx2 destroys 4850 and 4870 Quiet a few sites now have reviews of all 4 cards
For performance crown AMDATI losses again to a last gen card. ( congratz) Price performance they may win but who honestly cares. Most wont upgrade from 8800gts or 8800gtxs for what is a small upgrade.
personally still have 2 8800ultras, Dont game above 1680*1050 ( who really needs a 25 inch screen in a bedroom really ) Still run every game i play at max settings. Till im down below medium theres no reason to upgrade. And that is ATI and Nvidias problem. Crysis the game that requires the biggest beast to play. Will be as high as it gets for a few years yet id think. The standard rig for crysis on high wont be seen by many till 2012, Farcry took 6 years for most people to max.
As for Ati they are dead in the water on high end performance market . It will still be a 1 performance king nvidia who can still charge as they please.
Ati can reduce power all they want In the high end world of fastest wins and money is no object pc building . Which is who cards like the 9800gx2 are aimed at there is only one winner. Those people dont care about power consumption they just want hte fastest pc in the world.
As for the gtx280 STill needs alot more real world testing to see if its really any better. At some sain resolutions. Testing at 2500 or whatever hte res is. Doesnt matter to most people. If you game at that res u will go blind.
Until games can run soloy from a gpu. You will still need a very fast cpu.
Im not impressed by either ATI or Nvidia since the release of the orginal 8800gtx which is close to 2years now, Also Laughed hard that a 9800gx2 is still faster in crysis,
Even for crossfire of 2 * 4870, They will still be blown to peaces when you go tri sli or quad sli with 280gtx, Cost doesnt matter in high performance land only performance does. 4870x2 is here soon also.
tri 280 gtx sli may cost alot but it will destroy crossfire setups.
Performance nvidia wins again
price Ati wins again
no difrent than last time. Ill buy the cheaper card for my media system and if the 280sli proves a decent upgrade over 8800 ultras ill put that in main pc and be done with it..
Put simply tho, what this means is that all of us who have recently bought a G92 really havent wasted our money. I would hazard a guess that best bang for buck still lies with buying two 8800GT or GTS cards and SLI-ing them. Given that the GX2 effectively is "G92-SLI-in-a-box", their strong performance shows that really a pair of high clocked 8800GT's or GTS's would be a wise option, and also avoids the nasty overheating of 9800GX2 cards.
2x 8800GT 512 = ~£220
1x 9800GX2 = £300
1x GTX280 = £400.
No contest in my book, unless you really can't do SLI, then there it is right there.
RV740 will be the low-end.
Wow didn't take them long! Am running a beta Nvidia driver at the mo with the physx stuff built in. So far only tried to run the UT3 Physx mod pack (looks awesome, but a bit of a performance hit...) and the folding@home gpu client, which makes my 9800GX2 make a funny noise.....
I'll look forward to the mainstreamy one with lots of piccies.
Wow, where to start with that lot.
For a start, you say that people at the high-end only care about performance and nothing else then cite yourself as an example with your two 8800Ultras. Yet you admit to having only a 1680x1050 screen. What is that all about? One Ultra will do you fine, as will one 8800GTX, one GTX280, one4870, one 4850, the list could go on.
Second, of course a 9800GX2 beats a 4850 or 4870, who would think it wouldn't. It costs more and uses two cards.
Third, yes people really, really do care about price/performance. You may not but then your sanity has been proven by buying two Ultras for a 20" screen.
No, you really don't need a fast CPU. An old Athlon X2 will still do most people fine for gaming unless they want to encode video in the background or something.
The reported sales figures for ATIs 4000 series show that ATI certainly isn't dead in the water.
Playing at 2560x1600 will make you blind? Wuh?
Most of all though, you need to understand that the vast majority of discrete graphics cards sold are for the 'mainstream' market, which is what ATI is aiming for. I'm happy for them to do that. If I can spend £150 and play all the games I want on my 20" screen then jobs a gooden.
Even if you don't have the time to test it, could anyone at least guess and suggest if similarly priced low end/older workstation is better than a higher end/new card like the GTX 260?
but when compared to 8800GTX (G80) equivalent, it should pack a larger punch in terms of computing power.