Geforce GTX 280 Performance, Price and Pictures!

[Soetdjuret]

Why would they make the bar four times as high when it's only 80% faster? Because it makes their product look faster and better, it's as simple as that. That's what companies do, day in day out. If the GTX280 really was 4x faster, we would know about it for sure and nVidia would make it perfectly clear on that graph. I've shown you two independent sources - the graph and the specifications of the Ultra and the GTX - to back up my theory. What backing do you have for yours?

I doub't nvidia are lying like that. If youre right then the bars are lying and i can't accept that. I have no backup more than the procental height of the bars thats about it. I can't know for sure, i just can't say youre right because we dont know what the numbers on the side indicates for real. Until then, noone really knows for sure. We can only guess. But the most realistic is that its not 4 times faster no, that sounds a lill too good to be true.

[Vik1dk]

@ Soetdjuret: this BS has been done before, its done now and it will be done again.
Forget the bars and look at the numbers ;)

[CaptNKILL]

I doub't nvidia are lying like that. If youre right then the bars are lying and i can't accept that. I have no backup more than the procental height of the bars thats about it. I can't know for sure, i just can't say youre right because we dont know what the numbers on the side indicates for real. Until then, noone really knows for sure. We can only guess. But the most realistic is that its not 4 times faster no, that sounds a lill too good to be true.

This probably isn't even from nvidia. :rolleyes:

[m0t0rcade]

I don't think anything you "moron?", i speak from the graph nvidia released and are using logical thinking, am not assuming anything here! Mathematics or logical thinking, words against words.. theories against theories. What can i say? The mathematical theory says its 1.8 aka 80% faster if you guess that the nubers on the far left side really is "times faster", but that wouldn't correspond to the bars. The logical theory is that the bar is 4 times as high in a performance chart then this would mean its 4 times as fast, logically. So noone can really say witch one is right as we dont know what the numbers on the left means, we can only guess here. I'd like to see on things from the logical side.

Ps, there's no need to flame and behave like a kid. Youre welcome to take part in this discussion if you feel so. But keep doing as you did in your first post is gonna make your time on nvnews short believe me.


That is because nVidia cut off 0.0 - 0.8 part of the graph to make you think this. I love nVidia, but this is Marketing 101. Dumb people look at the bars and say, well that one is 4x higher so it is 4x better. Then those dumb people buy the card under that assumption.

I am a huge nvidia fan, and will get the GTX 280, but it is not 4x better than the current generation. It is about 1.8x faster like the other guy said. Which is good enough.

[CaptNKILL]

Please stop saying this is nvidia's fault.

Just because it has their logo on it doesn't mean its legitimate. :headexplode:

Most of the graphs that show up in the weeks before a major hardware release are completely made up by geeks with nothing better to do than to prove each other wrong on a forum.

[brady]

That is because nVidia cut off 0.0 - 0.8 part of the graph to make you think this. I love nVidia, but this is Marketing 101. Dumb people look at the bars and say, well that one is 4x higher so it is 4x better. Then those dumb people buy the card under that assumption.

I am a huge nvidia fan, and will get the GTX 280, but it is not 4x better than the current generation. It is about 1.8x faster like the other guy said. Which is good enough.

Bingo! That's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the graph. It doesn't start at 0.0. It starts at 0.8. In other words, the assertion that the 280 is 4x as fast as 3870x2 is simply false. It's 1.8x as fast in Crysis just like the chart clearly shows, assuming this is a legitimate graph. Check your maths people.

[Medion]

Soetdjuret -

The graph has been done like this before. As stated, it doesn't start at zero, it starts at 0.8, and it's a performance delta graph. All of the ATI bars are 1.0, which is their benchmark.

All of the NV bars are in relation to that, so 2.0 = double performance, not 4x as the bars indicate. Use the numbers, and it will make more sense.

[Lfctony]

Here you go, chart redone, with the "correct" index...
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=31744&stc=1&d=1212511488

[brady]

Soetdjuret -

The graph has been done like this before. As stated, it doesn't start at zero, it starts at 0.8, and it's a performance delta graph. All of the ATI bars are 1.0, which is their benchmark.

All of the NV bars are in relation to that, so 2.0 = double performance, not 4x as the bars indicate. Use the numbers, and it will make more sense.

For those not "in the know" delta means change. Apple reports performance of newer generation Macs like this. It sets a previous generation to 1.0 in a certain benchmark and then charts the delta, or change, in performance of a newer generation.

[Dreamingawake]

so coupled with that and all the rumours of specs floating around here and basically
it's all confusing as hell..

[CaptNKILL]

I don't know why people even bother arguing and trying to figure all of this out honestly...

Its all speculation and most of it is probably made up. Anyone who actually has some really juicy information is going to respect the NDA for fear of losing their good position in the industry. :p

I could go mock up a chart, paste an nvidia logo on it and make it half-way believable and then send it to some Chinese site and everyone would be foaming at the mouth and killing each other over it the second it made it back to these forums. :p

[Soetdjuret]

(po)Here you go, chart redone, with the "correct" index...
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=31744&stc=1&d=1212511488

Omfg, i never thought of it this way. Thanks!

Bloody nvidia (po) luring us customers like this, i don't like that... at all. Anyway i updated the first post and corrected the wrongs.

[Uberpwnage]

hopefully they'll make the PCB black, the green looks so out of place with the black fan casing.

[Medion]

I just want to add that I absolutely love the look of that card. I don't really care much for a black PCB though, as the only exposed part is going to be covered when inserted into the PCI-E slot.

[methimpikehoses]

Only a couple of weeks to go!

[bob saget]

Only a couple of weeks to go!

so you are getting it fo sure?

[methimpikehoses]

so you are getting it fo sure?

I'm going to get either the GTX 260 or 280... if they can be had for ~$400

[slaWter]

Bring it on! I'm already nervous ;)

[Medion]

I'm going to get either the GTX 260 or 280... if they can be had for ~$400

Well, official prices are supposed to be $650 and $450. If supply is decent, street prices could be around that or up to $50 cheaper. But if supply is bad, as is rumored with their yields, we could see some price jacking.

[methimpikehoses]

Well, official prices are supposed to be $650 and $450. If supply is decent, street prices could be around that or up to $50 cheaper. But if supply is bad, as is rumored with their yields, we could see some price jacking.

I'm looking for the $450 version if performance at 1920x1200 is up to par with AA enabled. It would be worth it for %50-60 better performance than the 8800GTX.

[Soetdjuret]

I'm looking for the $450 version if performance at 1920x1200 is up to par with AA enabled. It would be worth it for %50-60 better performance than the 8800GTX.

80-100% better ;)

In crysis anyway, and that's compared to the 3870x2 witch is faster than the 88gtx.

[walterman]

Well, those performance graphs are a bit disappointing for my needs :)

1920x1200 SSAA 2x will not run faster than 1280x1024 SSAA 2x on my 8800GTX.

141 GB/s / 105 GB/s = 34% more bw, but, 75% more pixels to fill.

It's not going to be enough :)

[fivefeet8]

Well, those performance graphs are a bit disappointing for my needs :)

1920x1200 SSAA 2x will not run faster than 1280x1024 SSAA 2x on my 8800GTX.

141 GB/s / 105 GB/s = 34% more bw, but, 75% more pixels to fill.

It's not going to be enough :)

Would also depend on any advancements they've done to the compression techniques in the ROPs as well. That seems to have helped the G9x cards be less bandwidth limited. I've heard a 33% over G9x efficiency being thrown around, but nothing set in stone.

[SH64]

Schw33t!!

need actual benchmarks + settings/res details though :bleh:

[Zapablast05]

Looks pretty awesome. I don't trust the picture though. Why would NV put "GT200 Series" on the card? :confused: