Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

asus gts 250 1gb vs Geforce 9800 GX2 ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 15, 2013 11:35:29 AM

asus gts 250 1gb worth it to exchange to Geforce 9800 GX2 ?

(in the future i want to play with GTA 5,)
August 15, 2013 11:43:21 AM

probably not that worth it, both are old and pretty power hungry. might look into something newer if your system can support it
m
0
l
August 15, 2013 11:49:13 AM

artiny said:
asus gts 250 1gb worth it to exchange to Geforce 9800 GX2 ?

(in the future i want to play with GTA 5,)


IF you want to play GTA5 in future.. buy at least a 8750 card or a gtx750 .... THAT is the minimum!
These cards are outdated and old... don't spend you're money on them.. wait a little and then buy the cards i mentioned..

m
0
l
Related resources
August 15, 2013 11:50:02 AM

Stick with the 250. You will get a bit better performance out of the gx2 at lower resolutions, but if you're playing at 1920x1080, the memory on the gx2 will get in the way - its 1gb RAM only functions at 512 mb (in a SLI/xfire configuration, video data is duplicated in the RAM for both cards. a gx2 is SLI on one card.)

effectively, the gx2 has half the RAM of the 250.

Also, I don't know what the most current drivers are that the 9800's can use, but if they're older than 2 years, you won't be getting the benefit of Nvidia's frame metering. Frame metering spaces out the frames rendered by each GPU evenly, so you don't have runt/dropped frames. runt/dropped frames are ones that will show up in a fps benchmark but are too small to notice when playing, so you get no benefit from those frames.

On top of that, to run the gx2, you'll need at least 35a on your PSU's 12v rail.

even more, SLI scaling was poor prior to the 400 series. you'd get an extra 50% performance from adding a second GPU if you were lucky.

stick with the 250 :) 
m
0
l
August 15, 2013 11:59:21 AM

If you have a bit of money and don't mind used cards, you can pick up a gtx 480 on ebay for $75-80 with a bit of patience, which is leaps and bounds better than either of the original options.
m
0
l
August 15, 2013 12:08:02 PM

quilciri said:
Stick with the 250. You will get a bit better performance out of the gx2 at lower resolutions, but if you're playing at 1920x1080, the memory on the gx2 will get in the way - its 1gb RAM only functions at 512 mb (in a SLI/xfire configuration, video data is duplicated in the RAM for both cards. a gx2 is SLI on one card.)

effectively, the gx2 has half the RAM of the 250.

Also, I don't know what the most current drivers are that the 9800's can use, but if they're older than 2 years, you won't be getting the benefit of Nvidia's frame metering. Frame metering spaces out the frames rendered by each GPU evenly, so you don't have runt/dropped frames. runt/dropped frames are ones that will show up in a fps benchmark but are too small to notice when playing, so you get no benefit from those frames.

On top of that, to run the gx2, you'll need at least 35a on your PSU's 12v rail.

even more, SLI scaling was poor prior to the 400 series. you'd get an extra 50% performance from adding a second GPU if you were lucky.

stick with the 250 :) 


no you are wrong pls look at this

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=606&card2...

the 9800gx2 may be older but it is so much better.. those small differences at the mem and core clock don't matter .. they can be easily increased... lets focus on everything else.. it runs any game much better

another proof:

http://www.hwcompare.com/5186/geforce-9800-gx2-vs-gefor...


please don't listen to this guy.. he is giving you completely wrong information...
m
0
l
August 15, 2013 12:22:00 PM

He is not talking about playing games on a 9 year old game engine such as source. He wants to play GTA5. In modern AAA games, which will have much larger textures, 512mb of RAM is a bottleneck at 1920x1080 or higher.

Also, you need to do more research, bero. if you think pointing to an fps benchmark proves your point, then you don't understand the paragraph about frame metering at all.
m
0
l
August 15, 2013 12:43:05 PM

bero213 said:

another proof:

http://www.hwcompare.com/5186/geforce-9800-gx2-vs-gefor...


please don't listen to this guy.. he is giving you completely wrong information...


Those aren't even real benchmarks...if you scroll to the bottom,

"Please note that the above 'benchmarks' are all just theoretical - the results were calculated based on the card's specifications, and real-world performance may (and probably will) vary at least a bit. "

What you linked is a guess ...they didn't have a gx2 to test with.
m
0
l

Best solution

August 15, 2013 8:49:45 PM

Here is the conclusion from an actual 9800 gx2 review...from Tom's Hardware itself. The review points out the 512mb of RAM per GPU holds the card back. The low memory of the card was already a problem when it first came out. It's even worse with modern games.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9800...

That's without even considering the frame latency issue, which wasn't discovered until more recently.

In the future, bero,
1: be more civil about correcting people. We're supposed to be here to help.
2: You might want to make sure you're right before correcting anyone in the first place, or at least do so in a way that admits you might not have all the information.

In conclusion, Artiny, stick with the 250 :) 
Share
August 17, 2013 2:10:04 AM

Thank you for the answers :p 
m
0
l
!