First GTX260 (216 SP) benchmarks

[Heinz68]

Source HKEPC (http://www.hkepc.com/?id=1684&page=2&fs=idn#view)
The new GTX 260 (216SP) wins every bench when compared to the 260 (192SP) the original version but the percentage is low.
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8498/gtx260pic1oy8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/gtx260pic1oy8.jpg/1/w643.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img177/gtx260pic1oy8.jpg/1/)

When compared to the HD 4870 I don't see much gain there. In the 4 games which play well on NVIDIA cards even the 260 (192SP) was doing well and in two off the games the HD 4870 was faster with AA than the new GTX 260 (216SP). Even without the AA the Crysis and CoH benchis are more like a tie.

The only clear winner for the GTX 260 (216SP) are the PT Boot and the Lost Planet but the same aplies to the original version.
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/443/gtx260hd4870yg0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/gtx260hd4870yg0.jpg/1/w642.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img152/gtx260hd4870yg0.jpg/1/)

[Redshirt #24]

To quote Charlton Heston in True Lies: this isn't exactly blowing my skirt up, gentlemen. It's good for a semi-refresh, I suppose, but considering this is now more expensive than the HD4870...

[CAUTION]

Actually I am getting pissed at Nvidia for constantly coming out with bullsh*t. Why even waste your time and are time, with this minor improvement? If things don't change soon I am thinking of going to ATI. This is only because I have been waiting on a solution for SLI to work with dual monitors, and also ATI GPU's have better image quality. And this is coming from a Nvidia fanboy.

[Redshirt #24]

In fairness (well, sort of), this particular refresh was no doubt going to happen at some point. nVidia likely pushed it up when the 4870 hit and started beating down suckers. Having said that: unless there's some specific way of telling the 260Bs apart from the original 260s a lot of people are going to be confused and, yes, pissed off...

[CaptNKILL]

While this isn't always true, I'm seeing a trend of the 4870 winning when neither card is performing very well...

When you're getting an average of 40fps, that means half the time you could be in the 20s... why throw AA into the mix to get 30fps average? I definitely don't spend money on my system to watch a game fluctuate between 15 and 40fps.

The 260 seems to have consistently higher averages when a game is actually running good enough to play. The 4870 does do better with AA, but in a lot of cases AA seems to be forced into benchmarks even if the result is nearly unplayable...

It drives me nuts that "30fps average" is seen as some sort of sweet spot these days. That means your game is a slide show half the time, and "not too bad" the other half.

[CaptNKILL]

Also, do we know the rest of the specs for this thing? More SPs = more shader processing power, not the ability to render scenes faster.

[Redshirt #24]

I could be wrong, but AIUI the only significant difference between the 260b and the original 260 was the SP count. They'll probably save clock speed bumps for after the 280 refresh hits...

[slaWter]

Actually I am getting pissed at Nvidia for constantly coming out with bullsh*t. Why even waste your time and are time, with this minor improvement? If things don't change soon I am thinking of going to ATI. This is only because I have been waiting on a solution for SLI to work with dual monitors, and also ATI GPU's have better image quality. And this is coming from a Nvidia fanboy.

That'll be finally possible with the 180 drivers coming this month! Multi-Monitor support and X58 with SLI support will finally make SLI an option for me again.

[K007]

why even waste time release something like this...

[PeterJensen]

uselss nvidia card...again...jesus!

[DHP]

Clear win over the HD4870. :)

[Heinz68]

Clear win over the HD4870. :)
Sure the benchmarks clearly show that. :rolleyes: Now we only need to include couple games that run extremely well on ATI.

[hell_of_doom227]

Actually I am getting pissed at Nvidia for constantly coming out with bullsh*t. Why even waste your time and are time, with this minor improvement? If things don't change soon I am thinking of going to ATI. This is only because I have been waiting on a solution for SLI to work with dual monitors, and also ATI GPU's have better image quality. And this is coming from a Nvidia fanboy.


ATI garbage? Are you insane? Their bloated ATI Catalyst needs 10 minutes to load at startup. My uncle (hard core gamer) replaced his HD4850 with GTX260 and said, can't believe what ATI crap is once i got GTX260 card.

[kazna]

Their bloated ATI Catalyst needs 10 minutes to load at startup.
CCC takes around 3 seconds to start up on $400 Acer laptop. I never noticed a start up time on my desktop when I had a 4850.

My uncle (hard core gamer) replaced his HD4850 with GTX260 and said, can't believe what ATI crap is once i got GTX260 card.
You mean the $250 card performs better than the $160 card? Amazing.

Thanks for another super constructive and relevant post! :D

Edit:

I hardly see the point of this GTX 260 revision. If these early benchmarks are correct, then they wasted the resources to release a product that doesn't even have a clear advantage in performance. AND it loses its price advantage. I had high hopes of this card being decent to replace my 8800GT. =(

[Heinz68]

+1
Even on my slow setup the CCC loads in couple seconds.
I don't think even 'hell_of_doom227' can believe in what he posts.
I wonder if he believes posting like that helps the community at all.

[CaptNKILL]

ATI garbage? Are you insane? Their bloated ATI Catalyst needs 10 minutes to load at startup. My uncle (hard core gamer) replaced his HD4850 with GTX260 and said, can't believe what ATI crap is once i got GTX260 card.

Was this necessary?

Really?

:headexplode:

[Q]

I hardly see the point of this GTX 260 revision. If these early benchmarks are correct, then they wasted the resources to release a product that doesn't even have a clear advantage in performance. AND it loses its price advantage. I had high hopes of this card being decent to replace my 8800GT. =(

The point is that the average user won't know the difference. If the revision was meant for speed, it would have resulted in a new product number. The revision is to cut manufacturing costs and that's why its still called the GTX 260.

[kazna]

The revision is to cut manufacturing costs and that's why its still called the GTX 260.
How does it cut manufacturing cost? Its still the same 65nm GT200. It actually increases the manufacturing cost because the number of good chips per platter that actually make the 216 SP requirement will be smaller. Now if they were silently making the switch to 55nm, I would understand, but this isn't going to be any cheaper than existing GTX260s.

The point is that the average user won't know the difference.
Why would you release a new and improved product and not market how new and improved it is. I expect these new cards to come with a + sign attached like the 9800GTX+.

This card CANNOT be more expensive than existing GTX260s ($250) or it totally defeats the purpose of being more competitive with the 4870 in price/performance. (which is the only logical reason to release an updated GTX260)

[Xion X2]

ATI garbage? Are you insane? Their bloated ATI Catalyst needs 10 minutes to load at startup. My uncle (hard core gamer) replaced his HD4850 with GTX260 and said, can't believe what ATI crap is once i got GTX260 card.

Ignore this guy. Doesn't know what the $!@^ he's talking about. Never has.

CCC takes about 3-4 seconds to load on a finely overclocked Core 2 CPU. Maybe if he wasn't too chicken to overclock his he would see that.

Who buys an extreme quad with an unlocked multi and keeps it at stock speed? :wtf:

[slaWter]

Who buys an extreme quad with an unlocked multi and keeps it at stock speed? :wtf:

It's a Q6700, not a QX6700 ;)

[Xion X2]

It's a Q6700, not a QX6700 ;)

Well combine that with the 780i and I guess that explains it. :lol:

Q6700s aren't that common.

[josiahsuarez]

they're releasing this because unfortunately it's all they've got. it's better than nothing, but a very small improvement and doesn't really justify the increased price. I guess Nvidia is trying to get their ASPs back up. somehow I don't think this particular product is going to do that. they're going to be in a bad spot at least until the real next gen cards hit in 2009. hopefully they are working on something that will be more competitive for then.

[K007]

ATI garbage? Are you insane? Their bloated ATI Catalyst needs 10 minutes to load at startup. My uncle (hard core gamer) replaced his HD4850 with GTX260 and said, can't believe what ATI crap is once i got GTX260 card.

CCC takes about 2-3 seconds on my PC...it is the same speed as nvcp for me...though i did use nhancher most of the time.

I don't know about the 4850, but to compare it to the gtx 260 is a bit silly, the card for its price is great so its great for those budget gamers, then again the 4870 is also very cheap and defiantly a lot better value for its price.

Also thanks to ATi, nvidia dropped there prices on the gtx 200 series by almost 50%...YOU may think ati is crap...but not nvidia..i don't think they expected the 4870 to be a good price/perfermance...and had no choice but to bring the prices down.....

I would think that most GTX280/260 users would say Thanks ATi...i mean look how fast those prices dropped...

[walterman]

Also thanks to ATi, nvidia dropped there prices on the gtx 200 series by almost 50%...

QFT !

[hell_of_doom227]

Was this necessary?

Really?

:headexplode:

No, it wasn't. I take it back.