GTX 260 core 216 VS. 9800GTX+ head to head

they arnt as good but not far of i think in sli which is about the same cost as a 280 they dont do to bad and can beat the 2080 in some games thats in sli config on the 9800gtx+'s

 

its 256BIT not mb. the 9600GT's are quite damned powerful actually mine are really only limited by the 512MB. and why would them with the same memory(256-bit GDDR3, same as the 9800GTX+) get more performance with 1GB VS 512MB while the 9800 does not? does not make sense to me.

IMO, even if you get only the same performance in some games, and higher in others... thats worth it.

if you can give me a logical reason, ill accept... but 256-bit should be plenty to access 1GB. it works with GDDR5 on the 4870.

if i had the money, i'de go buy two 1GB and two 512MB 9800GTX+'s but i dont have the money to do it. and until a reviewer does, i guess this will just be unsolved.

 

1GB is a con unless your packing a powerful gpu

 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/page-259115_15_0.html

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1037195

http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?showtopic=31227

hear you go read and see evory one say that 1gb is a con on the 9800gtx+

 

sory bout doble post

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26707613

just more of the same

 

yet there are no solid benchmarks.

give me some actual proof, im tempted to go buy a 512MB and 1GB 9800GTX+ and test em both for you.

please provide actual fact, i've been to all those sites in the past 10 minutes. i've looked and looked, and the only benchmarks i've seen show that the 1GB yeilds a bit more performance. especially in games like crysis.

i dont think the manufacteres are stupid. if the 1GB of GDDR3 on 256-bit bus did not scale when they first tried it, i dont think they would have kept releasing it. its a waste of memory chips!
my opinion, if you have a different opinion i respect that.

 

EXTREME WASTE

 

-then again, im talking about high end cards... yeah, thats just stupid but almost all 9400's have 1GB vram... lol.
thats also only DDR2 128-bit.

 

I'd have to disagree with this post, entirely, i'm done with saying CPU does not matter, because it doesn't, unless you have maybe two of these in SLI, but the GTX 260/280 are NOT that powerful, you guys just seem to think they are, an Athlon X2 will suffice just well, at 3+ Ghz, this statement would be true if he had them in SLI, or tri-SLI, etc.

I have two 8800 GT's in SLI, those cards in SLI, are more powerful then a GTX 260, not by a large amount, but they are more powerful, and i get better benchmarks and FPS in games then "most" people in my same setup, so to say an Athlon X2 is a bottleneck in this situation, is pointless

 

carnt find the bench marks that i found befor any way carnt be botherd to argue

 

I have a pair of 8800 GTS 512 in SLI, E8400 @ 4.1Ghz, and my new rig will have a pair of 260-216's. with a i7 920 hopefully around 4.0-4.2Ghz. I will be very disapointed if the 260's barely beat out the 8800's.

I have seen benchmarks with Fallout 3, where the I7 @ 3.8, is the bottleneck with just (2) 200 series Nvidia cards out to 1920 x 1200 resolution...

So, I doubt the Athlon would do better?

I do not have my new rig ready for benchmarking yet, still getting air out of the lines, lol. But I am guesing that the new rig will do double the FPS in Fallout 3 at 1920 x1200 resolution, with the eye candy maxed.

I am sure that the gains of the 260's will vary, depending on the game. But, if on average, I don't see at least a 50% improvement, I will be ditching the 260's. :nerd:

 

You will see a huge improvement, there loads of tests from respectable IT sites (not some forum members) showing GTX 260 SP216/280 being big improvements over G80s and G90s.

I honestly have no clue what these people are talking about. To me, the definition of "close performance" is 5% and at most 10%, which coincidentally is the difference in performance between GTX 260 SP 216 and GTX 280 (around 5% and more at higher resolutions). There is no way a 9800GTX+ performs within 5%-10% of either of those cards. I have no clue where people are getting the idea that 9800GTX+ performs close to GT200.

 

DEJAVUU....! i can sweart i have read THIS exactly post in the past.. lol the "dejavuu thing is TRUE


PS. my cpu is weak i know.. i´m gonna wait for a while a buy a new rig, keeping my gtx260 and buy another one.. two of these will be decent for nowadays gamin rig .. rigth ?

 

you mobo supports the 7750 thats about as fast as a E8200 i reckon that would give you a faily big boost & its sooooo cheap.

 

in some games, the 9800GTX+ is within 10%, in others it is about 20% behind the GTX260. I'm not sure what all the discussion is about, those are pretty much the results of every review. It depends on your definition of close in performance, but I'd say that's a pretty big difference, although going from a 9800 to a 260 wouldn't seem like a great idea excluding the eVGA step-up program of course.

 

totaly agree with u there

 

3dm06

i know that the 3dmark06 results are way off as i have a 260 / 216 and an e8400 and at default clocks on everything i get 14000 3d marks, and overclocked a little i get 16700, so judging by the guru3d chart im as fast as an ati 4870 in cf which i dont think so.

All in all the 260 216 is a good card i average 40fps in crysis and warhead on highest settings with 8x anti so to me its a powerful card.

Ian

 

I don't know if this is relevant to the discussion, but also I feel that the GTX 260, has an "ace in the hole" with its potential to overclock higher (percentage wise) than most available cards. If it was not for the amount of performance left on the table, in stock form, I would have not went with the 260-216's.

 

yeah...not sure what this post is really all about.

I went from a pretty good oc'd 8800GTS 512mb (basically 9800) at like 800mhz on core etc, to my current GTX280. The difference was very noticeable at 1680x1050.

I would think a GTX260 216 would put the smackdown on a 9800GTX.

 

Never Use 3dmark 06 to compare cards.....

thats your first mistake.

Only use 3dmark Vantage.

second mistake is You are using 1 Game...

3rd mistake is you are using farcry 2 which is a pretty hefty CPU intensive game....

Get Some more results.....Not just from you, I would like to See a comparision with a I7 @ 4 ghz with the 9800 and 260....