GeForce GTX 280 & GTX 260 Gaming Performance

[Megasty]

They seem to "perform the same" as the fps have been standardized to the score of a 3870X2.

If a 3870X2 gets 40 fps in Game A, it is 1.0 in that bar.
If a 3870X2 gets 10 fps in Game B, it is 1.0 in that bar.

The graph is ascertainable but the setting are up in the clouds. We don't know if they jacked up the setting to where the 3870x2 would be getting 1-5 fps or 40-60 fps. I wish people would be more upset about this rather than just saying that the graph is BS

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

well i am upset about that res and aa and af are big questions.

 

[Temps_Riising]

They seem to "perform the same" as the fps have been standardized to the score of a 3870X2.

If a 3870X2 gets 40 fps in Game A, it is 1.0 in that bar.
If a 3870X2 gets 10 fps in Game B, it is 1.0 in that bar.

Thanks.....I was answering the specific point in Post # 15

 

[Steevo]

The graph and associated lack of data are crap.


I prefer real numbers, like FPS, average, min, max. Settings used, different settings, as AA becomes a minor thing at huge resolutions.

 

[DarkMatter]

The graph and associated lack of data are crap.


I prefer real numbers, like FPS, average, min, max. Settings used, different settings, as AA becomes a minor thing at huge resolutions.

I agree in that there should be more info there, but I can't blame them really for using that numeric aproach. They should have said the settings and then used relative performance if they wanted. But on the other hand fps is not always the best solution for marketing (better said showing the card, marketing does have a negative meaning nowadays), and I am not supporting the idea of making misleading benchmarks, but how do you sell a card that is 2x more powerful than the existing ones when released games won't benefit and won't use all of it's power? Sometimes you have to use scenarios where the old card would only do 5 fps to show the real power of the card. The goal certainly isn't getting 200 fps, it's getting good framerates at higher settings, right? But if those numbers were used (i.e 15 fps vs. 30fps) people would claim bias, and if lower settings were used:

1- The full potential of the card is not used nor represented. For example a CPU bottleneck occured: 80 fps vs 100 fps.

2- The real potential is showed off but the Numbers are meaningless for the people. i.e. 100 fps vs 200 fps. >> What do you need 200 fps for?

It's not easy to market that kind of performance. It happened similar things with X1900 XTX and 8800 GTX, and will always happen. They try to fight that situation with that, even though the are doing it wrong.

 

[flashstar]

I agree in that there should be more info there, but I can't blame them really for using that numeric aproach. They should have said the settings and then used relative performance if they wanted. But on the other hand fps is not always the best solution for marketing (better said showing the card, marketing does have a negative meaning nowadays), and I am not supporting the idea of making misleading benchmarks, but how do you sell a card that is 2x more powerful than the existing ones when released games won't benefit and won't use all of it's power? Sometimes you have to use scenarios where the old card would only do 5 fps to show the real power of the card. The goal certainly isn't getting 200 fps, it's getting good framerates at higher settings, right? But if those numbers were used (i.e 15 fps vs. 30fps) people would claim bias, and if lower settings were used:

1- The full potential of the card is not used nor represented. For example a CPU bottleneck occured: 80 fps vs 100 fps.

2- The real potential is showed off but the Numbers are meaningless for the people. i.e. 100 fps vs 200 fps. >> What do you need 200 fps for?

It's not easy to market that kind of performance. It happened similar things with X1900 XTX and 8800 GTX, and will always happen. They try to fight that situation with that, even though the are doing it wrong.

Or, the graph could be fabricated. IE Fake. Without references it's impossible to tell and thus the graph should be assumed to be fake.

 

[TonyStark]

According to that, Crysis performs better than FEAR

I also like how the 4870x2 is the same speed in every game

Percentages, genius.

 

[Urbklr]

Percentages, genius.

Lawl, I already got corrected a few times. Just keep it coming...

Just leave it, genius.

 

[MrHydes]

By MrHydez


THANKS TO NVIDIA'S shutting us out, we are not
handcuffed about the GT200 numbers, so here they are. Prepare to be
underwhelmed, Nvidia botched this one badly.


Since you probably care only about the numbers, lets start out with them. All
3DMark scores are rounded to the nearest 250, frame rates to the nearest
.25FPS. The drivers are a bit old, but not that old, and the CPU is an Intel
QX9650 @ 3.0GHz on the broken OS, 32-bit, SP1.

Source: Theinquirer

GTX 280 drops to $499
GTX 260 to $399

Nvidia was planning to launch the Geforce GTX 280 at
$599 and the GTX 260 at $449, but now it looks like both cards will end up
cheaper than it was originally planned.


The reason for this is simple, ATI will price its cards aggressively. The new
suggested retail price might drop as low as $499 for the GTX 280 and $399
for the GTX 260. We were advised that some of these prices, especially the
GTX 260 might go down further within a weeks after the launch.


ATI's Radeon HD 4870 will again be cheaper than the GTX 260 and our
sources believe that it can give it a run for its money. We will see about
that, but at least the HD 4870 will end up cheaper to begin with.

Source: fudzilla