GTX280 complete legit reviews

[MrHydes]

NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX280 REVIEWS

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-280-review-test/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320089,00.asp
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=577
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=13736
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/gtx280/
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...._gtx_280_performance_revealed_-_msi_n280gtx/1
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUxOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA_GeForce_GTX_280_and_GTX_260_Unleashed
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gtx-280,1953.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-geforce-gtx-280-1gb-superclocked-review.html
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=3&id=2593
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=1

NDA as finished

 

[panchoman]

@cuda: OMG

yeah amd is in real big trouble.. i dont think they can beat cuda and if nvidia does an x2 version..... they are royally screwed.

 

[calvary1980]

I like the 260 benchmarks better than I expected.

- Christine

 

[Oliver_FF]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_280_Amp_Edition/2.html

 

[Oliver_FF]

I was expecting more in 3DMark06 tbh, and the power consumption is just silly XD

 

[calvary1980]

yea, with everything being smaller, more efficient and greener I thought we would eventually go back to a competitive 450 watt range market guess that won't be happening anytime soon lol.

- Christine

 

[Oliver_FF]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp... GDDR3 TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - Retail

Anyone want one by tomorrow morning? £490 delivered XD

 

[Megasty]

Both cards look great, but why in the hell is the 280 $250 more than the 260 :shadedshu

 

[Gam'ster]

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp... GDDR3 TV-Out/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) - Retail

Anyone want one by tomorrow morning? £490 delivered XD

lol nice ill take 2. Seen the price of the EVGA SSC Edition

Gam

 

[MrHydes]

GAMING REVIEW by GURU3D


CRYSIS



Image Quality setting:

• 0x Anti Aliasing
• 16x anisotropic filtering

Follow the green line please ... with Medium Image Quality settings up-to
1280x1024 again is really playable up-t 2560x1600 actually. That's just really
impressive.

So that made me wonder .. let's check image quality settings set at DX10
with high & very high settings as well.





CRYSIS



*Phew* - I honestly do not know what Crytek was thinking. Please be aware
of the fact that we test at the most difficult in-game position to render.
Overall your framerates will be a tad higher. We deal with worst case
scenarios.

Quite frankly, at very high IQ .. 1280x1024 would be quite playable. Believe it
or not, but the GTX 280 is showing a lot of muscle here.




CALL OF DUTY 4: MODERN WARFARE



there are some situations where a 9800 GX2
simply is faster than the GeForce GTX 280. Though coincidentally, the first
benchmark we show is hit hard. COD4 likes shader cores, a lot .. and the GX2
just has more of them, and is faster clocked as well.

So there are some situation where the GX2 will win from the GeForce GTX
280.

Image Quality setting:

• 4x Anti Aliasing
• 16x anisotropic filtering
• All settings maxed out

WORLD IN CONFLICT







ENEMY TERRETORY: QUAKE WARS



Quake Wars - Enemy territory; so many of you are playing
it. No need to comment here, the card is more than powerful enough to play
the game at very nice image quality settings.

in fact up-to 1920x1200 at the very best IQ settings we see the game being
CPU bound. That's just fricking awesome performance.

Image Quality setting:

• 4x Anti Aliasing
• 16x anisotropic filtering
• Soft Particles disabled (as it's not supported by the Radeon HD cards).

3dMARK ADVANTAGE




To this end, 3DMark Vantage has two GPU tests, each with a different
emphasis on various visual techniques, and two CPU tests, which cover the
two most common CPU-side tasks: Physics Simulation and AI. It also has four
visual quality presets (Entry, Performance, High, and Extreme) available in
the Advanced and Professional versions, which increase the graphics load
successively for even more visual quality. Each preset will produce a
separate, official 3DMark Score, tagged with the preset in question.




GPU SCORE



The blue colored results are the standard performance tests done on
Vantage. See that orange line .. that's actually the same performance test
for the GTX 280 yet I decided to go rough with it, I set the resolution there
at over 4 million pixels at 2560x1600, even then it's still faster than a 9800
GTX.

That is pure strength my friends.


Source: guru3d

no big deal i think...

 

[Steevo]

I like how they toute things like movie compression as a new feature. I could do that with my X1800XT a long time ago.


I like the performance, and the power consumption is a bit high, but only when gaming. Too much heat.

 

[MrHydes]

OVERCLOCK3D Review: GEFORCE GTX 280



By MrHydez


By MrHydez

CRISYS




CRYSIS Cost per frame



3DMARK ADVANTAGE




3DMARK06




UNREAL TOURNMENT3




Conlusion

Maybe it's unfair that we should pit this single-GPU card against the
monstrous dual-GPU 9800GX2, but when you consider that the cost of
the GX2 will be around £60 cheaper than the GTX 280 at launch, we
can't help but feel that NVIDIA may well have shot themselves in the
foot.

With this said, the GTX 280 does have some advantages over the
9800GX2 in other areas. For starters, it consumes less power both at
idle and under load. It's quiet (which is more than can be said for the
GX2 at times), and it doesn't raise the temperature inside your PC case
like you've got a three-bar heater in there.

NVIDIA will also be keen to tell you about the other areas the card
excels in, for example its ability to transcode video's up to 7x faster
using their very own "BadaBoom" software and the whole host of other
applications that will be able to take advantage of the GTX 280 via
CUDA. While this is an area that we haven't really explored in today's
review due to time restrictions, we can't help but wonder how these
applications would run on a 9800GX2. After all, it too is CUDA-ready.



Source: overclock3D

my favourite review here with some decent CPU that's what

this GPU's need not Quad's at 3.0GHz

 

[DarkMatter]

All that I can say it's too mixed reviews. None two of them are equal. In some GTX 280 is faster than the GX2 and in some others it's slower, same game, same settings. And happens the same with power consumption. And this two things are also mixed between different reviews so we have 4 different GTX 280 pictures in comparison to the GX2:

1. better performance - worse power consumtion
2. worse perf - better pc
3. worse perf - worse pc
4. the performance-per-watt wonder.

Which one should we believe? There's no coherence even between most reliable sites.
I haven't looked at them closely except TechReport and Guru3D, pretty much my favourites, but it seems most sites are using different drivers, as well as mobos and CPUs (more than on other launches IMO, as they are using now 680i, 780i, X48, X38, P35 and 790i boards and I think I have seen 3 different drivers used). I would say a beast like this one needs a fast system to show it's full potential, but are we talking about massive system bottleneck here paired with some poor early drivers?

 

[MrHydes]

EVGA Joins GTX 280 party

http://www.evga.com/products/prodlist.asp?family=GeForce+GTX+200+Series+Family

 

[MrHydes]

Which one should we believe? There's no coherence even between most reliable sites.
I haven't looked at them closely except TechReport and Guru3D, pretty much my favourites, but it seems most sites are using different drivers, as well as mobos and CPUs (more than on other launches IMO, as they are using now 680i, 780i, X48, X38, P35 and 790i boards and I think I have seen 3 different drivers used). I would say a beast like this one needs a fast system to show it's full potential, but are we talking about massive system bottleneck here paired with some poor early drivers?

my favourite is overclock3D and i've never seen anyother but 177.26 have you?


give link plz

and diferente results depends on many things: PC config; Software used; the reviewr him self

not to mention some go with average scores, some with maximum and others with minimum... so it's hard to tell

 

[ChromeDome]

here is a video of a presentation with the card in action with Far Cry 2. according to the end of the presentation (this is the second half) this is the game in a "no compromise" configuaration. IOW high res, IQ, Lighting, etc....

http://www.farcry2-hq.com/media,54,nvidia-editors-day-gameplay-footage---part-2.htm#main_content

looks like pretty good performance if the game is as demanding as the visuals suggest. look at the last part with the wide open spaces

thing looks Crysis worthy. i just hope it runs a little better


/not spending $500 for a vid card

 

[eidairaman1]

my favourite review here with some decent CPU that's what

this GPU's need not Quad's at 3.0GHz

No card ever needs MultiCore CPUs just to run right, bottlenecking is such a myth in my book.

 

[DarkMatter]

my favourite is overclock3D and i've never seen anyother but 177.26 have you?


give link plz

and diferente results depends on many things: PC config; Software used; the reviewr him self

not to mention some go with average scores, some with maximum and others with minimum... so it's hard to tell

Uff I don't remember where. Sorry. I'm definately not going to read all those reviews again.

I remember seeing 177.34, 177.26, 177.22 (I'm thinking it might be a typo) and 177.16 which was the only one mentioned in one of the tests that I checked to see which driver they were using, although most probably that was only used for older cards.

But now that I think, OS is another factor too, as some are testing on XP yet. I thought they all were testing on Vista now, but seems not.

My comment was not about that there are differences (I already knew it ) but that IMO are significantly greater than on previous ones, as if this cards were more sensitive to these changes.

But I think most favorable reviews were using 177.34. As a matter of fact you can enter Wizzard's review and check that out. He's using those and it's one of the reviews where the cards does better. Maybe we have to start to talk about these new cards as with Ati in the last generation.

 

[panchoman]

what im getting outta the benchies:

gtx 280 pwns in synthetics (computing, phyx, cuda)
game rendering? NAH 9800x2 pwns there

 

[wolf]

it would be nice to see the GTX280/260 pitted against G92's and G80's using 177.26

then the performance lead will become even smaller, with the cheaper and trusty G92's pulling even further ahead.

 

[francis511]

http://www.dailytech.com/6162008+Da...IDIA+GeForce+GTX+280+Edition/article12100.htm

 

[yogurt_21]

Uff I don't remember where. Sorry. I'm definately not going to read all those reviews again.

I remember seeing 177.34, 177.26, 177.22 (I'm thinking it might be a typo) and 177.16 which was the only one mentioned in one of the tests that I checked to see which driver they were using, although most probably that was only used for older cards.

But now that I think, OS is another factor too, as some are testing on XP yet. I thought they all were testing on Vista now, but seems not.

My comment was not about that there are differences (I already knew it ) but that IMO are significantly greater than on previous ones, as if this cards were more sensitive to these changes.

But I think most favorable reviews were using 177.34. As a matter of fact you can enter Wizzard's review and check that out. He's using those and it's one of the reviews where the cards does better. Maybe we have to start to talk about these new cards as with Ati in the last generation.

I'd imagine that thes cards are significantly bottlnecked by both system and drivers at this point. the gtx280 has ALOT of raw horsepower which I seriously doubt is optimised quite yet. so it'll probably end up around 20% faster than the 9800gx2 on average on good drivers and a decent rig to back it up. but I still think that clock speed is the issue here, and that the gt200b will be able to alleviate that issue.

 

[MrHydes]

GeForce GTX 280 with QX9650 at 4GHz






















It was good to take the time to go visit IBuyPower Australia and see what
the GTX 280 was capable of when placed in a higher clocked environment.
For the most part the overclocked QX9650 processor used here did manage
to breathe a bit more life into the card.


It’s nice to see the card get a significant boost in some situations, but as
you can see some games aren’t always a matter of simply adding more CPU
power. It’s clear that some games want more graphics card power, and for
that reason we will be diving into SLI multi GPU setups later on tonight, so
keep an eye out for some 4GHz SLI love.


Has my opinion changed on the GTX 280 from earlier in the night? – No, not
really; it still feels a bit lack luster and flat. What we hope to see though is
that the GTX 280 really begins to shine in an SLI environment. The only
problem I can see is that if the card begins to really shine in SLI, we’re
looking at $1200+ USD or $1500+ AUD setup costs, which is far from cheap.


There is no doubt that the GTX 280 does love the extra GHz that is on offer
from the IBP system, and for the most part we do see some excellent gains
in applications. We can see that when running PT Boats at 2560 x 1600, the
difference between the two setups was that the game would be playable at
2560 on the IBP system while you would probably be a bit disappointed
plodding along on the 3GHz system.


Source: tweaktown

getting better

 

[MrHydes]

they've managed to reduce the 285 TDP to 183W from 236W

that's great...