Slashdot Mirror
Hands On With Nvidia's New GTX 280 Card
notdagreatbrain writes "Maximum PC magazine has early benchmarks on Nvidia's newest GPU architecture — the GTX 200 series. Benchmarks on the smokin' fast processor reveal a graphics card that can finally tame Crysis at 1900x1200.
'The GTX 280 delivered real-world benchmark numbers nearly 50 percent faster than a single GeForce 9800 GTX running on Windows XP, and it was 23 percent faster than that card running on Vista. In fact, it looks as though a single GTX 280 will be comparable to — and in some cases beat — two 9800 GTX cards running in SLI, a fact that explains why Nvidia expects the 9800 GX2 to fade from the scene rather quickly.'"
Can it play Duke Nukem forever?
Before the only computer that could do this at even medium graphics was Link
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934
Conclusion: 9800GX2 is faster and cheaper
How is Nvidia able to year after year make these amazing advances in power while Intel makes (although great) only modest advances?
As I said I do not know anything about chip design so please correct me on any points.
Something that has always concerned me (more as I play games less often now) is how much power these cards draw when they aren't pumping out a zillion triangles a second playing DNF.
Most of the time (90%+ probably) I'm just doing very simple desktop type things. While it's obvious from the heat output that these cards aren't running flat out when redrawing a desktop surely they must be using significatnly more power than a simple graphics card that could perform the same role. Does anyone have any figures showing how much power is being wasted?
Perhaps we should have two graphics cards in the the system now - one that just does desktop type things and one for when real power is required. I would have thought it would be fairly simple to design a motherboard such that it had an internal only slot to accept the latest and greatest 3D accelerator card that suplimented an on board dumb-as-a-brick graphics card.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
I for one, Now plan on purchasing a new space heater soon for my box (NOTE: Nvidia GT200 has a TDP of 236W!)... so long as I can FINALLY have Crysis playable at resolution!
-Another good article on the GTX280 (GT200 GPU) at TR: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14934
The article talks about the new card smoking ATI and showing 50% improvement yet the benchmark chart at the end of the article shows only a couple games got 50% fps boosts and ATI still outperformed it in Crysis with a card that is available today.
Why would Vista make the performance gains so much less? I could see XP running say 20% better with both cards, but why does Vista penalize the new card so much?
Digital Restrictions Management strikes again, I guess...
Vista: where do we want you to go today?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
In most reviews, the 9800GX2 is faster, and it's also $200 cheaper. As a multi-GPU card it has some problems with scaling, and micro-stutter makes it very jumpy like all existing SLI setups.
I'm not well versed in the cause of micro-stutter, but the results are that frames aren't spaced evenly from each other. In a 30 fps situation, a single card will give you a frame at 0 ms, 33 ms, 67 ms, 100 ms, etc. Add a new SLI card and let's say you have 100% scaling, which is overly optimistic. Frames now render at 0 ms, 8 ms, 33 ms, 41 ms, 67 ms, 75 ms, 100ms, and 108ms. You get twice the frames per second, but they're not evenly spaced. In this case, which uses realistic numbers, you're getting 60 fps might say that the output looks about the same as 40 fps, since the delay between every other frame is 25 ms.
It would probably look a bit better than 40 fps, since between each 25 ms delay you get an 8 ms delay, but beyond the reduced effective fps there are other complications as well. For instance, the jitter is very distracting to some people. Also, most LCD monitors, even those rated at 2-5 ms response times, will have issues showing the 33 ms frame completely free of ghosting from the 8 ms frame before the 41 ms frame shows up.
Most people only look at fps, though, which makes the 9800 GX2 a very attractive choice. Because I'm aware of micro-stutter, I won't buy a multi-GPU card or SLI setup unless it's more than 50% faster than a single-GPU card, and that's still ignoring price. That said, I'm sort of surprised to find myself now looking mostly to AMD's 4870 release next week instead of going to Newegg for a GTX280, since the 280 results, while not bad, weren't quite what I was hoping for in a $650 card.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I was just about to go buy a new video card! Now I'll hold out!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Full Tilt
Only you can prevent FUD!
But does it run Crysis on full? I mean, can it REALLY?
More benchmarks, power numbers and GPGPU testing here - http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA_GeForce_GTX_280_and_GTX_260_Unleashed
and in some cases beat â" two 9800 GTX cards running in SLI, a fact that explains why Nvidia expects the 9800 GX2 to fade from the scene rather quickly.
Bullshit. The 9800GX2 is consistently quite a bit faster (TechReport's very detailed review here), and it costs around $450, while the GTX 280 costs $650 (with the younger brother the 260 at $400), with the only drawbacks being more power drawn and higher noise. Even then, I think it's a no-brainer.
Don't get me wrong, these are impressive single-GPU cards, but their price points are TOTALLY wrong. ATI's 4870 and 4850 cards are coming up at $450 and $200 respectively, and I think they'll eat these for lunch, at least in the value angle.
are royally screwed ? it was a 'new' card and all.
well done nvidia. very microsoft of you.
Read radical news here
8000gts were much louder than their 3870 counterparts too.
i dont get why people fall for that - push a chip to limits, put a noisy fan on it, and sell it as high performance card.
at least with ati 3870 you can decide whether you gonna overclock the card and endure the noise or not.
Read radical news here
Anyone know when the new ATI card will be released?
Based on the information I've seen on it, it will be pretty comparable in terms of performance, but at a far cheaper price.
I'm hoping that the new ATI card performs within 10% - 15% or so of the GTX280 because I'm getting a bit tired of the issues I have with my current nVidia 8800GTS cards. (SLI)
I cannot set the fanspeed in a manner that will "stay" after a reboot.
My game of choice actually has some moderate-sever issues with nVidia cards and crashes at least a couple times a week due to some issue with nvcpl which I have bugged for 10 different versions of drivers and they never fix
My last ATI Card was their 9700Pro. I switched to nVidia because, while their drivers are closed source, the installation in Linux is far easier and their performance was pretty top-notch. Now I'm considering switching back to ATI if they can deliver a decent competitor.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I run Crysis, all maxed out, on an 8800gtx, and only get lower than 30fps in the end battle.
If I want more speed, i'll get another 8800. That card is phenomenal, and about to get a lot cheaper.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
When run under Vista, it features tons of additional effects. Those are the reasons why the speed improvement in Crysis aren't that much impressive under Vista.
PS: And for the record, Radeon HD3870X2 uses the exact same GDDR3, not GDDR4 as TFA's review says. ATI choose to go for GDDR3 to cut the costs of the dual GPU setup. (Only a few non standard boards by 3rd party manufacturer use GDDR4 and a PCI-express 2.0 bridge).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
But every time Nvidia releases "THE new, big thing" the prices of the previos and, especially, the second-previous generation cards drop by a significant amount, making them worth the buck for an occasional gamer who doesn't want to spend a fortune to play games and is happy with his games running on the low to medium details settings.
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
did you read The 8800 GTX has 24 ROPs and the 9800 GTX has 16, but if the resulting pixels need to be blended as they're written to the frame buffer, those two GPUs require two clock cycles to complete the operation. The 9800 GTX, therefore, is capable of blending only eight pixels per clock cycle. The GTX 280 not only has 32 ROPs but is also capable of blending pixels at full speed--so its 32 ROPs can blend 32 pixels per clock cycle. The GTX 260, which is also capable of full-speed blending, is outfitted with 28 ROPs. without you eyelids drooping and your head nodding onto your chest
You did ?
You may enjoy this or this then.
Yes, but will you be able to hear your games over the roar of the fans on this thing?
Nvidia has made great strides in reducing its GPUs' power consumption, and the GeForce 200 series promises to be no exception. In addition to supporting Hybrid Power (a feature that can shut down a relatively power-thirsty add-in GPU when a more economical integrated GPU can handle the workload instead), these new chips will have performance modes optimized for times when Vista is idle or the host PC is running a 2D application, when the user is watching a movie on Blu-ray or DVD, and when full 3D performance is called for. Nvidia promises the GeForce device driver will switch between these modes based on GPU utilization in a fashion that's entirely transparent to the user. So, yes, they hear you, and are making improvements in this area.
today is spelling optional day.
This year I put my disposable income towards getting in on all three next generation consoles, and the PC will languish for a long time yet.
I don't think I've changed, I think the market has changed.
They're getting bigger and hotter, and no longer feel like cutting edge kit. They feel like an attempt to squeeze more life out of old technology.
DirectX 10 as a selling point is a joke, with the accompanying baggage that is Vista all it does is slow games down, and none of them look any better for it yet. In any case, there are only five or six of them. You can pick up an 8800GT 512 for less than 150 dollars these days, and it's a powerhouse, unless you're gaming in full 1080p. There is no motivation to put one of those power hungry bricks in my rig. Nothing gets any prettier these days, and FPS is well taken care of at 1680x1050 or below.
Game over, graphics cards.
I wonder what will happen if everyone figures this out? Imagine a world in which the next gen of consoles is no longer subsidised, or driven, by PC enthusiasts...
how loud is it and does it need the hoover dam to power it up?
the way things are going you will need 2 power supplies in a PC. one for the video card and one for everything else
Please: We here at Slashdot are trying to catapult the propaganda that Vista is a failure. Your bringing in "facts" and "benchmarks" isn't helping.
Will nobody think of the FUD?
No wonder people say Console killed the PC game star -- "Alright, got my hardware list done. Time to order. Oh, look what just came out, guess I'll wait for prices to drop. Alright, they dropped! No wait, a new processor is out, think I'll wait. Sweet, think I can order now. No, nevermind, Crysis just came out, I'll have to wait until I can afford the current bleeding edge. Awesome, I can afford it now! No, a new GPU just came out that runs the game better. Oh, SATA 600 is coming out. Ah, forget this, I'm buying an Xbox."
Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
not to mention that the games that are still played a few years after release will look absolutely fantastic.
First of all, I would like to remind everyone that benchmarks are subjective. I know this may come as a shock to you, but just because someone types with perfect grammer, has a pretty banner and a nice website layout that doesn't mean they aren't immune to bias or hyperbole. Even further, sometimes their intentions are honest, but their results just aren't typical
:oP)
A perfect example of this was the ongoing debate about the 9600GT vs 8800GT vs HD 3870. Go through about 5-6 different reviews and you'll realize that there clearly isn't a winner in the fight, yet some websites won't hesitate to call the HD 3870 inferior, or try to pidgeon hole the Radeon card as being a "better value" - overlooking the fact that it outperformed the NVidia card on some games, while using less power and running cooler. The fact of the matter is all 3 of the cards perform better that the other 2 in at least 1-2 situations, but some people are just plain reluctant claim an ATi card is better than it's NVidia counterpart (due to it having almost the same performace with lower power consumption).
It's all subjective people. Benchmarks have never been an exact science anyways.
(ps: You all aren't kids anymore. Google this stuff for yourself and save me some time. I'm at work too you know
Aero graphics must surely be bad for the environment - it prevents most of the GPU from powering down.
No sig today...
They still have 10 more years to develop video cards before Duke Nukem Forever comes out!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
From the look of the benckmarks, neither the SLI 9800's nor the new card tame crysis at all. You can't make a poorly coded game fluid with more power I guess.
and it's probably noisier too :D.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I've been holding out this generation, holding onto my 7900GT. I like the GT because it delivers solid performance for only 60w, which is half the power ATI's x1900 series was offering at the time. I've also been able to stall because games like Team Fortress 2 and Quakewars ET still look great on my current card.
:)
Only now with the release of the 8800GT and 9600GT is the power consumption/performance ratio getting reasonable (and yes, the ATI 3870 has similar power consumption to the 8800GT, but cannot match it in performance). I'm actually enticed by the 55nm 9800GT (due out in July), which should cut the power consumption of the 8800GT to the same as my 7900GT
The only other card I'm considering is the 4850. Only time will tell if it delivers better performance than the 8800GT without breaking my power budget.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Mod parent "informative". Thanks for the info.
No sig today...
Kid today don't know they're born.
I sat for a year next to a Silicon Graphics twin-tower GTX. Now THAT was a noisy machine. Any GeForce is whisper-quiet compared to that.
No sig today...
The GTX280 part looks quite powerful; but its die size is really extreme. Anandtech claims that maximum best case yield for the 280 is 105 chips per 300mm wafer. TFA notes that Intel can put 6 dual core Penryns in the same space These guys quote just under $3,400 for a single 300mm wafer. So, assuming absolutely optimal yield, the GTX280's core costs ~ $300 to manufacture, not counting R&D, packaging, distribution, etc. A gigabyte of RAM suitable for a high end graphics card (read, not 10 dollars worth of DDR2) adds some more, and the board, passives, and assorted other logic do as well.
Obviously, the above numbers are wild speculation; but the punchline is that these parts can't possibly be cheap to manufacture. I suspect that NVIDIA will see some nice sales to lunatic early adopters, and they'll probably have a compute only version of this card for high end computing; but there is no way that it could hit mass distribution price points. Even at $650, I'm not sure that NVIDIA's margins are all that exciting on this particular part.
Vista is a slow, crawly, disgusting vomited animal. And people are buying that slow crap from microsoft as it's the second coming of christ.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
More and more these commodity graphics cards are being used for non-graphical high speed computing by taking advantage of the insane parallelism of the GPUs.
Someone please develop CUDA benchmarks to be included in future reviews.
We need several apps: one with a kernel that is trivial enough to be constantly starved for memory, one that is the opposite (compute heavy, memory light), integer vs. FP, and something that specifically benefits from the new double-precision floating point that only the newer stuff has.
Get back to me soon, mmmmK?
That is DirectX fault, not hardware vendor's!
And why that doesn't happen with OpenGL? If you take the latest bleeding edge graphics card and play the first version of Serious SAM on it (which requires a very old OpenGL version), it will run perfectly.
I would like to see video cards slow down clock cycles like CPUs (e.g., AMD Cool'n'Quiet). I don't always play games, 3D stuff, etc. Most of the time, it is surfing the Web, e-mails, newsgroups, watch videos and Flash (might need video card's accerelation for this so speed it up), etc.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
That's a space heater by any definition.
Blah blah, more trolling. Try developing games or visualization apps sometime. You will come to appreciate how ridiculously superior (albeit closed) DirectX is compared to OpenGL. Open source apologists tend to defend OpenGL's shittiness despite all evidence to the contrary, but from an objective, developer-ease point of view, there's simply no comparison.
There are also plenty of cards that ship with crappy OpenGL drivers, increasingly moreso thanks to the decline in popularity of OpenGL. DirectX is fairly well defined, and is one of those few products where I honestly believe that MS won the market share fair and square.
Nvidia should write an os for their chips, and bang them into a custom nvidia board, an Nvidia only platform. It'd be the most massively parallel computing capable system out there I'm sure. Beats the trouble most exiting cpu based systems seem to be having moving into multi-threading etc.
I figure by the time my kids are looking at porn the the graphics will be life like and there will be no need to have real sex.
Given the amount of power these things apparently need, are they going to be whirring monstrosities too?
I like having a quiet machine (though my current quiet PSU probably wouldn't be enough for more than one of these things, yeesh...).
Can you / do you need to fit third-party quiet fans to these enormous-and-apparently-enclosed-form-factor cards?
Choice of masters is not freedom.
From the fine article:
Posting AC to avoid you and your shill accounts. Vista sucks and so do you M$ astroturfers.
My current pc: Vista 64 bit premium evga 790i ultra q9450 @ 3.3 GHz 4 GB DDR3 @ 1800MHz evga 9800 GX2 2 power supplies: PSU 650W (powering SATA drives and MOBO) Graphics PSU 800W (fits into cd bay and can power up to 4 cards or two 9800GX2's) I'm not sure what everyone is bitching about but if you don't own or have personally tested a 9800GX2 or a gtx 280 then, like others have posted, do not trust some web sites review. Yes, some are good, but lots are biased. That's not what this post is about though.... My 9800GX2 is great; I've yet to come across a game that cannot handle all high settings. I run Age of Conan at all high with 16xq anti alias with 50-90+ fps. I don't base my graphics card performance on reading other editors/companies benchmark tests. I base it on actually owning it and applying hands on gaming and testing it with the particular games and programs that I use. (AoC, CoD, etc etc, & programs like SolidWorks) I AM UPGRADING to the gtx 280. Yes it's an upgrade. It's a better/newer card. However, I cannot fully vouch for it until I receive it. When I get it (aprox 1 week) I will let you all know how it compares to my current set up. I'm confident that it will perform better, and I KNOW that it will perform better in dual SLI than a 9800GX2 will in dual SLI (2 cards - i.e. 'quad sli'). Also, the 280 will allow me to run true triple sli if needed, but is probably unnecessary atm. As for people complaining about fan noise- 9800GX2 is very quiet, I was surprised since it's keeping to GPU's cool. As an engineer and computer builder (hobby) I find it humorous as to how many people waste their time nagging about things they don't and probably will never own. Go buy one and try it out for yourselves, it's truly and amazing card. Ps. The 280 will be tested by me when I get it in a week. I do not care to give it a great review or a bad review. I am simply going to be comparing it to the 9800GX2. Out of curiosity I would then like to test it against the best ATI card that will be out in about 2-3 weeks. Any suggestions on that please let me know. -thanks