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

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by Ravensong13, Jan 20, 2009.

  1. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216
    Just wanted to share todays experience.... I have two identical machines...

    Gigabyte EP45-UD3L mobo
    Mushkin 1000 mhz RAM (4 gig)
    C2D E8400
    Xp pro 32 bit


    I bought a GTX 260 Core 216 (EVGA)
    and a 9800 GTX 512 (EVGA)

    At stock clock speeds

    GTX 260 Core 216= 13,143 on 3dmark06

    9800 GTX+= 13,004 on 3dmark06


    OVERCLOCKED to 3.6 GHZ

    GTX 260 Core 216= 15,251 on 3dmark06

    9800 GTX+= 14,767 on 3dmark06


    OVERCLOCKED to 4.1 GTZ

    GTX 260 Core 216= 16,042 on 3dmark06
    32FPS avg. on FarCry2 max settings

    9800 GTX+= 15,267 on 3dmark06
    30FPS avg. on FarCry2 max settings


    UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

    I now have both video cards fully overclocked. Overclocking the GTX 260 gave nice results, where overclocking the 9800GTX+ gave nothing in FarCry2 and about 1,000 points gain in 3dmark06.

    Also strangely my FPS is lower today then yesterday with the 9800GTX+ in farcry 2... averaging about 27fps now... so today:

    processor overclocked to 4.1ghz, vid cards oc'd to max stable

    GTX 260 Core 216= 18,133 in 3dmark06
    36fps average in FarCry2 at max settings 4xAA

    9800GTX+= 16,306 in 3dmark06
    27fps average in FarCry2 at max settings 4xAA



    I dont know why the 9800 is running slower today... I didnt change any settings, and I went back to yesterdays clocks and it was still slower.... maybe I did a little damage while overclocking it? It never overheated.....
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009
  2. JEskandari

    JEskandari Master Guru

    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 660M
    Why not try to run several game there and compare The difference in FPS
    i think that show better the power of the cards .
     
  3. GalantVR41062

    GalantVR41062 Master Guru

    Messages:
    366
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI Vega 64 CF
    If its the free version of 3dmark then the default resolution is 1280x1024 which is heavy on the CPU based graphics, if you run the same tests at 1900x1200+ then you will see a big change. Also the 260 should not have frame rate spikes/falls, the Min FPS should be a lot higher then the 9800gtx+, but if you ran SLI with the 9800gtx+ vs a single 260, then the 9800gtx+'s should win in most applications. IC you have 2 rigs, so nm.
    ~John
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009
  4. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216

    Im running both machines in 1900x1080 resolution... not familiar with drive sweet. I'm running the 181.20 drivers on both.

    FarCry2 was the real test, but I only tested at my 4.1ghz overclock....

    Performance was pretty much identical.. and thats at 1900x1080. Neither card was really spiking up or down at all... ranged from about 27 to 39 fps on both machines.

    In a couple days I'll try crysis and post fps on that. I'm currently overclocking the GTX 260.. I have to wait for my new cpu cooler to come from newegg before I play around more with the 9800GTX+ machine... the CPU is getting way too hot for my taste with the current cooler.. the other machine has a huge zulman and temps are fine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009

  5. mitzi76

    mitzi76 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,722
    Likes Received:
    19
    GPU:
    MSI 970 (Gaming)
    yeah i had a 9800gtx xfx xxx and found similiar results. however i do think on average its 10/15 fps quicker..

    with overclocking ofc
     
  6. n0t0ryus1

    n0t0ryus1 Member Guru

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX260 Core 216 55nm
    Wow this doesnt look good, considering how I just upgraded to the same card (260) and from the same card (9800gtx+) and have the same processor. I game at 1680x1050 though.
     
  7. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216
    lol.. thats exactly what I was hoping to prevent people from doing =P


    The 260 might have a lot more overclocking potential... we'll see. I got my 3dmark06 score from 16.221 to 17,812 by overclocking the video card (the 260/216)...

    I cant finish overclocking the 9800GTX machine till I get my new CPU cooler... I'll post results in a few days. I haven't started oc'ing the 9800gtx+ card at all yet...
     
  8. n0t0ryus1

    n0t0ryus1 Member Guru

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX260 Core 216 55nm
    Thanks for killing my excitement :(
     
  9. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216

    well... if you are running vista maybe things will be different....?

    incidentally, according to data on futuremarks site... there is basically no difference between a 260 and a 280 either if you are running an E8400 and XP.... so dont go upgrading to a 280 expecting that to fix this situation =P.
     
  10. n0t0ryus1

    n0t0ryus1 Member Guru

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX260 Core 216 55nm
    Actually running both Vista and Windows 7. I have heard that the 260 C216 could be clocked to speeds of the 280. However, you cant clock it to a 280 OC'd :nerd: I plan to step up to a 285 in the future anyway, but im pretty dissapointed in the small fps boost you got. I wanna see how Crysis turns out.
     

  11. clairvoyant129

    clairvoyant129 Active Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX 480 SC+
    So basically what you're saying is there is no difference between 9800GTX+ and GTX 260 SP216 or even GTX 280. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216
    Well what I was saying actually...

    look at the benchmark results for 3dmark06...

    if you look at E8400 machines with 260's and 280's there is no difference in the max score accomplished... and you can be sure that those top scorers were overclocking.

    So I assume that to get the benefit of a 280 over a 260 you'll need a different processor... say an i7.
     
  13. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216

    Please note that while one game isnt enough data....

    Farcry2 at MAX settings under windows XP yielded nearly identical FPS on the two machines at 1900x1080 resolution.
     
  14. clairvoyant129

    clairvoyant129 Active Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX 480 SC+
    3DMark06 is useless, replace that dual core with a core 2 quad at 3.6GHz and you'll see your GTX 260 SP216 breaking 17k and at 4GHz, you can easily get up to 19k. Basically for 3DMark06, any quads (Core 2s and i7s mostly) can easily boost your score up, which means it's a bad GPU benchmark.

    Have you tried boosting your AA up? Try 1920x1200 with 4x or even more anti-aliasing, it should put a huge strain on the 9800GTX+ with its puny 512MB vram on a 256bit bus.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009
  15. Ravensong13

    Ravensong13 Active Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 260-core 216

    Well that doesnt change the fact that FarCry2 at max settings is running the same on the two machines.

    I'm running 4x AA in FarCry2 on both machines as well... havent tried 8x yet.. ill have to wait for that cpu cooler before I mess around any more.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009

  16. clairvoyant129

    clairvoyant129 Active Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX 480 SC+
    Well your comparison doesn't make sense,

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And that's with a regular GTX 260 with 1680x1050 resolution and 4x AA with 4x AF, looks like big difference to me. Either your card is defective, or there are outside/other factors influencing your results.
     
  17. YuKsS

    YuKsS Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus gtx 1070 strix oc
    lol.. well this is MY experience.. i came from a 9800gtx+ to gtx260(192sp)

    and to be honest, the boost in performance was about 5%.. same results in 3dmark06 ans same results in games.. in crysis was the SAME. i was dissapointed, but my hope was that maybe my cpu wasn´t enough to handle the card.. now i know that even a faster cpu as a 8400 at 4ghz has almost the same result.

    ps. :(
     
  18. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,285
    Likes Received:
    1,384
    GPU:
    -
    it's been clearly know that the GTX 260 216 wasn't that great since the beginning (hence the reason i've always been disappointed in it, if you're surprised by this, then you should have looked at the VGA charts, 5-20fps difference throughout all the games listed and resolutions

    The one place the GTX 260 does kick in, is with AA

    http://www.guru3d.com/category/vga_charts/
     
  19. Nemes1s

    Nemes1s Master Guru

    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x560Ti SLI ASUS + EVGA
    This thread made me really happy about my purchase! lol. But yeah, i only game at 1440x900, so it wont warrant the extra cash for me to get a GTX260.
     
  20. n0t0ryus1

    n0t0ryus1 Member Guru

    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX260 Core 216 55nm
    The one thing I was looking forward to and bam! Just got shot down. When I had my 9800GTX+, i wasnt very happy. Crysis would struggle and I had constant GPU crashes. It was a defective card no doubt about that, but I figured id treat myself for my troubles and went ahead and moved up to a Super Clocked Evga GTX 260 Core 216 55nm. I figured id see vast improvements, but now I see this post. I shouldve looked at some benchmarks before anything. Whatever, I still got a sweet deal on it. $215 shipped!
     

Share This Page