Slashdot Mirror
Complete Nvidia GTX280 Scores Posted
Groo Wanderer writes "Since boredom is a dangerous thing on the weekends, I decided to alleviate mine by running 233 benchmarks on the new GT280. This includes 28 gaming related tests across up to nine resolutions, and 9800GTX numbers thrown in for good measure. Since there were no NDAs involved in getting you these numbers, we are not bound by the pesky NDA that lifts tomorrow. You can read all of the numbers here; enjoy."
they didn't use the same driver version... that can do something in the end, right?
Can it run Duke Nukem forever?
Something tells me us high end laptop users won't have much use of that generation cards as they only give a increase to FPS if you use extremely high resolutions, 2560x1600 on my 15.4", I wish, it's also supposedly to drain a lot more power and is bigger.
Sigh.
Big thanks to Slashdot for saving me a few hundred bucks.
Did NVIDIA remove the annoying TV out problems for fullscreen videos in Windows? As of now, I am going back to ATI cards later on (end of the year?).
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
ATI/AMD's new cards look more interesting. Performance is there, but also power saving and video processing. In both those areas they beat nVidia hands down.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Especially when it comes to ATI, I wouldn't count the chicks before they actually hatch. They have a knack, really a talent, a _gift_, for screwing up half the time.
I also wouldn't take any theoretical numbers as gospel. For either of the two. They both love to talk about theoretical gigatexels per second and GB/s of memory bandwidth as if the pipelines will always be fully used, every cycle, and memory was a continuous read that never had any RAS and CAS cycles in there.
But especially for ATI. They have that talent again for screwing up, but with good maths to back up the idea that it should have worked.
Starting from the original Radeon, which _should_ have had exactly the number of texturing units to fully utilize the memory bandwidth, and no more. (I.e., without wasting silicon on units which would just stall waiting for data anyway.) It should have run circles around NVidia's card of the same generation, right? In practice, it fell a bit short.
Or look at the more recent HD2xxx and HD3xxx cards. In theory the HD2600's unified architecture should have done miracles, but in practice it never quite worked that well. In theory, the HD38xx should have fixed that, except it barely made it competitive with an 8800 GT. In some games. At some resolutions. On a good day.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against either of the two. If anything, I used to dislike Nvidia a bit, which made me favour the ATI's. But, if I'm to learn anything from history, I'm a bit wary of making such bold pronouncements as "This will crush the GT280 in just about every conceivable benchmark". There are already plenty of cases where such prophecies were made, and just ended up with the prophecised Nvidia-killer quickly repackaged as "see, we don't want to compete at the top end. We'll just make it a mid-end card, ok? It's not that we can't compete at the top, mind you. We just suddenly find it obscene to charge $500 for a graphics card."
Or to put it otherwise, too often I've heard one or the other (but, again, ATI a bit more) crying "Wolf" and they barely managed to produce a dachshund. I'll wait until I actually see the big bad wolf this time, before joining in the chorus marveling at what a big, strong and fast wolf it is.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's very telling to look at the disparity in scores between the two cards in 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 06. The two cards perform almost the same on the 06 version, whereas there's almost a 2x gap between them for Vantage. I don't think I trust that.
We get a million comments saying how no one can afford this let's run some analysis.
GPU size, 65/55nm , pipelines 240 vs Mainstream 192, Mem-Bus 512 vs 448 Mainstream , so basically this means that the next generation mainstream card will be 80% as fast as this card.
Allright, so for $250-300 (in aproxx 6 months)you can get a GFX9800 x 1.2. Not too shabby, especially as this is the generation of PC games that kicks console asses.
Rock on nVidia, catch up time ATI... god I hope these things are user programmable.
AA isn't really meant for High Resolutions. It's meant to curb "Jaggies." The higher the resolution your set at, the more taxing AA is, and the Lower the visual benefit. Your allready packing more pixels, so your lines will have less jaggies in the first place.
/. think about that?
I allways find it interesting how people want to run crazy resolutions, w/ AA maxed.
Am I way off the mark here? What does
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.