Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by popcorn1, Feb 24, 2009.
just wanted you to know i reported a few of your posts degrading members
just wanna let know some peoples that i7 920 don't outperform a 3.00+ dual core processor at gaming performance, exception is when you use sli or crossfire(Xà with heavy cards
I hate to say this, but he does have a point. It's a poorly argued point, but it is valid. The GTX 295 may not perform as well as the OP would have liked, but it's still a great card - just look at the benchmarks on Guru3D's reviews. However, I was led to believe that a GTX 295 is slightly faster than two GTX 260's in Dual-SLI. (Just if anyone wanted to know, Dual_SLI'ing a GTX 260 (192 SP) with a GTX 260 (216 SP) is actually faster than SLI-ing identical cards.)
For gaming, if it is indeed the most computationally-intensive sort of application most people run, an i7 would probably perform identically to a Q6600. Not that the i7 is rubbish (though it is at it's current price), but that the Q6600 is very good (even without considering it's excellent price) and already offers more than enough power for even the most demanding games.
GTX295 has 2xGTX260, each with 240sp, not 216sp
Even if Core i7 920 would have same performance as Q6600 clock for clock, it would still clock much higher than the Q6600 due to better tech process and higher initial Mhz. Of course in reality the architecture is different, and even clock for clock the i7 outperforms core2 based processors.
Therefore your statement that for gaming Q6600 = Core i7 920 isn't valid.
P.S. As a side note: I've owned E4300, E8400, Q6600 and Core i7 920 and surely can tell the difference between each one of them performance wise.
Q6600 isn't a processor to compare with i7 for gaming
to be honest, I think mine oc 4.00ghz e8500 can pown a 3.00 ghz i7 920 processor in some games( except far cry2 maybe)
I don't think the OP was saying anything against the GTX295, more asking a question about what's on the card. I can understand where the OP is coming from though. Both those "quotes" are from the newegg.com review on the card. Both users rated the card with 1 egg claiming it was utter garbage and did not even come close to the HD4870X2 because of it's price and lack of RAM, DDR5 and 2gb. The OP is simply asking whether these reviews are true or should be taken with a grain of salt, nothing more.
Now to the OP, the card performs well. I wouldn't really listen to some of those idiots on newegg. They cry because they spend top dollar on something and it doesn't work as well as they hope it would, so they try to make the rest of us suffer by telling us the hardware is garbage and not to buy it. They are right about the mirrored VRAM though. However the HD4870X2 has the same mirrored VRAM so there is nothing to fret about there. The GTX295 and 4870X2 are neck and neck with margins for a win/lose for each card. From what I've seen in reviews, the 4870X2 is more geared towards higher resolutions due to the more VRAM. It may only be 5 FPS over the 295 in that resolution, but it's still higher. However some will dispute that the 295 is just generally faster overall, and flip-side for the 4870X2.
I guess it all depends on what games you play and at what resolution. However it mostly boils down to your preference of which company. Both are great cards and will make you happy.
Sorry that was stupid of me.
I wasn't talking about the OP unless I mentioned him in the same sentence.
If you read the post before replying to it, you'll find that I never did say that the GTX 260's in the GTX 295 only had 240 SP, which is what you're implying. I simply said that a 192 SP and 216 SP SLI's better than 2x192 SP or 2x216 SP. If you do a Google search, you'll find someone on another forum that was curious enough to find out the difference in performance.
To boil down my statement into "Q6600 = Core i7 920" is a bit silly. I'll rephrase it without changing the intial meaning (my English is not that bad you know): there are currently no games that require more than a Q6600 to run with flawless performance. This is even more true for high-end graphics cards, since all graphics processing is outsourced to the graphics card. If you are playing at lower resolutions (e.g. 1280x1024) and have a mid-range card (e.g. GeForce 98000 GTX), then there will be quite a difference.
However, if you play at higher resolutions (i.e. anything above 1600x1200) the computer starts to shift the stress and workload onto the graphics card, which may or may not be able to handle it. If it is a high-end graphics card (e.g. GTX 260 and onwards for Nvidia), then almost all graphics functions will be performed by the graphics card. That is the whole fundamental concept behind graphics cards: a dedicated piece of hardware just for graphics - it's faster than having the CPU perform the same functions.
Did you actully read who he reported? it's not your post in the quotes.
Also that bit at the end about talking down etc, no offence but that makes you look kinda silly and about 10 years old typing comments like that.
Yes, we all know it's incredibly immature, but let's move on. They all got reported and their posts are there for everyone to see (in all their shame).
I'd say price and chipset compatibility should be the only factors when choosing between the two, or power consumption if one's PSU is borderline. I doubt any human being can tell a difference in performance.
Personally I chose the GTX 295 because my X38 board is only compatible with Crossfire. This way I made sure I wouldn't be tempted to buy a second card, which results in considerable savings.
Well there are only three dimensions for selecting hardware: (1) Price; (2) Performance; and (3) Compatibility. There is a synthetic difference, but almost no discernible in-game difference at resolutions up to 1900x1200 (I don't think Guru3D's review didn't bench beyond that).
I like your thinking though, with buying a Nvidia card on a crossfire board.
I beg to differ a 4.5GHz I7 any other 4.5Ghz processor in any thing.
First off stop quoting in every post all the rest of you are doing is feeding the fire all of you stop fighting in this thread if I seen any more I will close this thread and give out infractions.
Just wanted to point that out regarding your post. You stated you didn't mention the OP, and you did.
As far as the rest of that post goes, it seems like you were defending piotrek with it. The OP just simply asked if the GTX295 and the HD4870X2 had mirrored memory. What Piotrek said was completely unnecessary. Piotrek was more attacking the fact that the OP has some nice stuff and complaining that he must be a spoiled rich kid. He never asked for a comparison about the GTX260 SLi vs the GTX295.
Now to your point about the i7 vs the Q6600 for gaming, that is perfectly plausible. A greater CPU will show it's strength in gaming in either lower resolutions or in multi-gpu setups. So there's no doubt that a powerful CPU is more meant for future proofing a system.
Summing that up, a lot of us have gone off-topic in this thread due to what Piotrek had said. The OP just wants to know if these dual-GPU cards use mirrored memory. And to that question, the answer is yes.
Man this guy is a D!CK
Shut the F up man, all you do is bash people.
People come to these forums for help, not to be ridiculed by A$$es like you.
Don't be so hard on people because you still live in
mamas basement. uke2:
Regardless of the reasoning behind all the information on the processors coming out, I actually found it quite informative.
When that Gtx300 series hits, I really hope the top dog card is another sandwich one, so I can get some beastly quad SLI goin on my 3.8ghz i7 920.
I guess you can't read.