bit-tech.net | Pre-OC Nvidia GeForce GTX 280 and 260

impar 19th July 2008, 10:20

Greetings!

Would be interesting to see the extra power consumption of those pre-OC cards.

zoot2boot 19th July 2008, 10:45

lol, more gtx260s and 280s and still no 4850 or 4870 review? maybe it been explained in the forums but i've been reading the site less and less because of the uneven coverage.

LeMaltor 19th July 2008, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoot2boot
lol, more gtx260s and 280s and still no 4850 or 4870 review? maybe it been explained in the forums but i've been reading the site less and less because of the uneven coverage.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

One of the days you missed perhaps?

zoot2boot 19th July 2008, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeMaltor
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoot2boot
lol, more gtx260s and 280s and still no 4850 or 4870 review? maybe it been explained in the forums but i've been reading the site less and less because of the uneven coverage.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

One of the days you missed perhaps?

no, i saw that. it's more of a round up than a review. i'm just suprised that such a major release went without its own review.

Bindibadgi 19th July 2008, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoot2boot
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoot2boot
lol, more gtx260s and 280s and still no 4850 or 4870 review? maybe it been explained in the forums but i've been reading the site less and less because of the uneven coverage.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

One of the days you missed perhaps?

no, i saw that. it's more of a round up than a review. i'm just suprised that such a major release went without its own review.

I agree, but we decided Tim is the only one with the expertise to write it and unfortunately he's been unable. There has been no overclocked or custom HD 4000 series cards hit the market yet either, so we're waiting on them.

Mankz 19th July 2008, 11:59

I like the cooler on the Asus card.

wuyanxu 19th July 2008, 12:59

i think those speeds are reach-able using software overclock, so why spend more?

mrb_no1 19th July 2008, 13:08

ok, i read in the article that no oc'd ati had reached the market yet and i just dont get why ati are waiting....i checked oc'ers and they have nothing on pre order either. i can only figure that ati wants to extend the impact of the 4000 range, as if they release everything now they have nothing to show for 6 months. But if they launch the 4000, let nvidia respond with oc'd 260/280's and then wait a month or 2, and let partners release oc'd 4000 cards they then get back a chunk of consumers as nvidia probably wont have anything to show seen as they already have their oc'd cards in the market place, thats the only reason i can think of as an outsider.... still, i cant see me forking out for an nvidia, i like to support ati and have alot of repsect for them so i'll wait for the oc'd 4000 to upgrade from my ill fated 2900xt :P

peace

Bindibadgi 19th July 2008, 13:12

I honestly don't know - I had a PR for a custom Sapphire HD 4850 with 1GB of GDDR3 yesterday but I'm not sure if it's overclocked.

We'll find out soon :)

Tim S 19th July 2008, 14:38

zoot2boot: I was in the process of writing up the 4800 architecture article at the end of June when I had to unfortunately stop because my wife passed away (with cancer) on Saturday 12th July... I've not been into the office yet this month because of that. I hate to use a personal problem as an excuse for coverage not happening, but unfortunately in this situation RL came before my job.

To put the record straight, there's no ill-intention in the coverage, it's just the way things unfortunately played out for us with my situation - although Rich and Harry have done a fantastic job of covering the respective gaming performance of the 4870 and 4850 (helping to fill the void while I've been coming to terms with what's just happened), they aren't really up to writing a full-blown architecture piece on RV770. Neither have sat in front of the architects and I think it's fair to say that neither have the same level of understanding as I do.

Rest assured that it's coming (and I think the cards are some of the best ATI's ever released), it's just taking a bit of time given what's happened in my life in the past few weeks. Sorry.

tank_rider 19th July 2008, 15:25

Another good article, one thing missing though was how the pre-overclocked cards overclocked more. Was there anymore headroom than the stock speeds?

ChaosDefinesOrder 19th July 2008, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S
zoot2boot: I was in the process of writing up the 4800 architecture article at the end of June when I had to unfortunately stop because my wife passed away (with cancer) on Saturday 12th July... I've not been into the office yet this month because of that. I hate to use a personal problem as an excuse for coverage not happening, but unfortunately in this situation RL came before my job.

That's aweful Tim, such a shame! My thoughts and sympathy are with you!

Amon 19th July 2008, 15:40

The Asus card on a few tests is mislabeled "Asus Nvidia GTX 280 TOP".

To others, out of respect, stop bitching to somebody to conjure you a RV770 review. It isn't a public service and, therefore, there is no debate.

wuyanxu 19th July 2008, 17:47

they are doing this for free! if you want them faster, be patient and click on the ads more

BioSniper 19th July 2008, 23:15

What I'd be interested to see is comparisons to cards like the 8800GT which I'm sure a large quantity of the community have. It'd be nice to see just what the extra few quid could actually net us :)

Baz 19th July 2008, 23:33

We benchmarked the 8800GT last week in our graphics roundup article, so you'll be able to compare its performance there. Sadly, we can't include every card ever in every test we run - where would it end?

You can find the graphics benchmarking article, complete with 8800 GT results here
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

lewchenko 20th July 2008, 01:26

I find it amazing that we are expected to pay a king's ransom for the 260/280 when they have been reduced down massively in the US.

The BFG 280GTX OCX is the states is $479 on New Egg.
In the UK, we are being asked to pay £387 which is the equivalent of $770.

Its disgusting for BFG to be ripping us off like this.

I want one... but am not willing to be stiffed like that.

TRG 20th July 2008, 02:20

Baz: the performance of all video cards should be measured in GeForce 4000 Ti's, or Tees for short. :P

zoot2boot 20th July 2008, 04:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S
zoot2boot: I was in the process of writing up the 4800 architecture article at the end of June when I had to unfortunately stop because my wife passed away (with cancer) on Saturday 12th July... I've not been into the office yet this month because of that. I hate to use a personal problem as an excuse for coverage not happening, but unfortunately in this situation RL came before my job.

To put the record straight, there's no ill-intention in the coverage, it's just the way things unfortunately played out for us with my situation - although Rich and Harry have done a fantastic job of covering the respective gaming performance of the 4870 and 4850 (helping to fill the void while I've been coming to terms with what's just happened), they aren't really up to writing a full-blown architecture piece on RV770. Neither have sat in front of the architects and I think it's fair to say that neither have the same level of understanding as I do.

Rest assured that it's coming (and I think the cards are some of the best ATI's ever released), it's just taking a bit of time given what's happened in my life in the past few weeks. Sorry.

ahh. crap dude. i'm incredibly sorry, that's awful. you have my heartiest sympathy.

you shouldn't apologise, the world doesn't need another 4000 series review that much.

tuaamin13 20th July 2008, 18:41

Why doesn't BT just make a "choose your own benchmark graph" feature. I'm sure you can find some clever web coding monkey to do it. You know, have a list of graphics cards with benchmarks for a certain game, click on "add" and compare it to other cards for the same game. Then you won't have stuff like "But how does it compare to X? What about X in SLI? How about an overclocked Y?"

Redbeaver 21st July 2008, 03:58

wow, Tim. my deepest condolences. please, forget about us and sort the more important things first!

that being said, woohoo... im now more enticed to pick up a vanilla 260 (<$300 now) and overclock it way past 4870 and all the while avoid having another power-hungry turbine-powered-toaster in my box!

ive said it before somewhere, but the only thing holding me back against a 4870 (the better card than 260 undoubtly) is the heat and noise.

id rather jack up some voltage or use tweaked driver or wutever to clock the 260. ive always been an nvidia fanboi :)

the last thing to wait is to see how far can an 4870 be overclocked......

Hiren 21st July 2008, 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuaamin13
Why doesn't BT just make a "choose your own benchmark graph" feature. I'm sure you can find some clever web coding monkey to do it. You know, have a list of graphics cards with benchmarks for a certain game, click on "add" and compare it to other cards for the same game. Then you won't have stuff like "But how does it compare to X? What about X in SLI? How about an overclocked Y?"

Because software changes over time. New drivers / game patches, different games etc. Comparisons wouldn't be all that helpful unless the same set-up is used each time.

mclean007 21st July 2008, 22:01

Nice review, but why post benchmarks for 1600x1200 rather than 1680x1050, which is surely in FAR wider use with the proliferation of 20" widescreen LCDs?

Baz 23rd July 2008, 11:18

some of the benchmark software we use doesn't support batch runs of more than one custom resolution, which we reserve for the ultra high end resolutions. 1600x1200 is actually more demanding than 1680x1050 as there are more pixels on screen, so 1680x1050 performance should be a little better in most instances.

mclean007 23rd July 2008, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz
some of the benchmark software we use doesn't support batch runs of more than one custom resolution, which we reserve for the ultra high end resolutions. 1600x1200 is actually more demanding than 1680x1050 as there are more pixels on screen, so 1680x1050 performance should be a little better in most instances.

Cool. Thanks for the explanation - it just seemed a bit weird that some tests showed 1680x1050 and others 1600x1200. As you say, 1600x1200 is about 9% more pixels than 1680x1050, so I'd expect slightly faster performance from my 20" WS display than a 1600x1200 screen.

Log in

Pre-OC Nvidia GeForce GTX 280 and 260

Comments 1 to 25 of 25