280gtx main problem

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deniiiii21
deniiiii21

1261

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 deniiiii21
Member since 2007 • 1261 Posts

Didnt Nvidia learn something from G92 series, having faster shader clocks core and memory boosts performance more than the big interface or large amount of memory, the case in point the 8800GT it was clocked higher than 8800 family, despite having a very small 256 bit, it was only marginally slower than a 8800GTX which had massive amount of memory and had 128SP's compared to 112 for 8800GT, thats my take,.

Avatar image for mitosiskain
mitosiskain

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 mitosiskain
Member since 2005 • 35 Posts

The gtx 280 does have more stream processors, but the core, shader and memory clock are actually less then the 9800gtx. There is a gig of memory as opposed to 512 mb and its 512bit instead of 256.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-280-review-test/4

The main difference is the architecture.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-280-review-test/3

The gtx 280 has a local cache for each group of stream processors.

Avatar image for mitosiskain
mitosiskain

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 mitosiskain
Member since 2005 • 35 Posts
Oh I forgot... In my opionion they need to utalize a smaller fabrication proccess like 55nm or 45nm before they start throwing those stream processors in, and then obviously giving it a big jump in clock speeds. A lot of people say the architecture is where it counts, I mean radeon has some high clock speeds but nvidia has got them beat in benchmarks. The cache integration thing definetly sounds like a good feature to me.
Avatar image for teddyrob
teddyrob

4557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 teddyrob
Member since 2004 • 4557 Posts
ah guys you hit on some good points and all valid. Many factors come into play when deciding the performance of a card. ATI cards had a slow shader clock in sync with its core clock which was a bit of a let down despite a lot of shaders this time they have gone for even more stream engines and faster shader clocks which are asynchronous.
Avatar image for deniiiii21
deniiiii21

1261

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 deniiiii21
Member since 2007 • 1261 Posts

I just think that this card would have been perfect if it had a GDDR4, but obviously Nvidia is trying to keep the costs down, I think they have milked GDDR3 enough its time to move on Nvidia.

Avatar image for johnny27
johnny27

4400

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#6 johnny27
Member since 2006 • 4400 Posts
main problem is the price.
Avatar image for darkmagician06
darkmagician06

6060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 darkmagician06
Member since 2003 • 6060 Posts
main problem is the price.johnny27
bingo...if it were $350 or even $400 it would be great
Avatar image for johnny27
johnny27

4400

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#8 johnny27
Member since 2006 • 4400 Posts

[QUOTE="johnny27"]main problem is the price.darkmagician06
bingo...if it were $350 or even $400 it would be great

yeah either that or provide a huge performance boost over the 9800gx2 which it fails to do and in some test actually performas worse then it!!

Avatar image for deniiiii21
deniiiii21

1261

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 deniiiii21
Member since 2007 • 1261 Posts
If the rumors are correct 4850 is about 20% faster than 9800GTX while it should cost 200-300$, I mean thats a bargain.
Avatar image for ElectronFlux2
ElectronFlux2

2209

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#10 ElectronFlux2
Member since 2005 • 2209 Posts
If the rumors are correct 4850 is about 20% faster than 9800GTX while it should cost 200-300$, I mean thats a bargain.deniiiii21
Where did you hear this??
Avatar image for UnknownSniper65
UnknownSniper65

9238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 UnknownSniper65
Member since 2004 • 9238 Posts

[QUOTE="deniiiii21"]If the rumors are correct 4850 is about 20% faster than 9800GTX while it should cost 200-300$, I mean thats a bargain.ElectronFlux2
Where did you hear this??

the GTX280 was also suppose to be 50% better than the 9800x2...the rumor mill hasn't exactly been spot on as of late.

Avatar image for Jamiemydearx3
Jamiemydearx3

4062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Jamiemydearx3
Member since 2008 • 4062 Posts

Only problems are, price and how much power you need to run it.

HD 4870 should be AROUND 40% better then a 9800GTX and cost $250.

HD 4850 will be 20-40% better then a 8800gt at $200. (which translates into about 10% better then a 9800gtx)

i got my info from another source but ive found this on google.

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/338967-radeon-hd-4850-vs-hd-4870-a.html (1)

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/333096-dvhw-amd-radeon-hd-4870-20-a.html (2)

It looks about right.

I found more!

http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=856556

"Best card for under $200"

Avatar image for muirplayer
muirplayer

406

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 muirplayer
Member since 2004 • 406 Posts
When has the rumor mill ever been "spot on"?
Avatar image for Goldmatter
Goldmatter

1688

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Goldmatter
Member since 2003 • 1688 Posts
my speculation is that the new cards from ATI will be good performers for there price range at 200$ if it performs like the 400-500$ card range at the moment such as the 260GTX then nvidia have a problem on there hands. I do not think there is even a remote chance ATI will beat nvidia on the performance field whatsoever, but they will be amazing in there price bracket.