Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

gtx 280/260 specs

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 6:12:27 PM


GeForce GTX 280:
# 512-Bit
# 1GB GDDR3
# 240 Stream Processors
# PhysX Ready
# CUDA Technology
# PureVideo HD technology
# Full MS DirectX 10 Support
# Open GL 2.1, SLI, PCIe 2.0 Support
# 2nd gen. Unified architechture delivers 50% more gaming performance over 1st gen. through 240 shader processors

GeForce GTX 260:
# 448-Bit
# 896MB GDDR3
# 192 Stream Processors
# PhysX Ready
# CUDA Technology
# PureVideo HD technology
# Full MS DirectX 10 Support
# Open GL 2.1, SLI, PCIe 2.0 Support



http://www.dvhardware.net/article27294.html

More about : gtx 280 260 specs

May 17, 2008 6:28:14 PM

512bit

nearly doubled the shaders of 9800gtx..

Shader clock should be at least 300mhz faster too, looks like a monster..

May 17, 2008 6:32:41 PM

and no dx 10.1 support... well maybe in g300...
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 6:36:16 PM

Pure video should cost even more , its never free, just adding more monstrous pricing to this monster. Also, noticed no DX10.1 support. Looks like there wont be a single cpu that can truly deliver the output from this card, unless you truly have everything maxxed in game, and the game itself has to be extremely demanding
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 6:43:56 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Pure video should cost even more , its never free, just adding more monstrous pricing to this monster. Also, noticed no DX10.1 support. Looks like there wont be a single cpu that can truly deliver the output from this card, unless you truly have everything maxxed in game, and the game itself has to be extremely demanding



nope no directx 10.1 support. The price of this card is rumored about $500+msrp. they could be a little less in order to compete with amd pricing.
well wouldnt a q6600 quad oc @ like 3ghz not bottleneck the card?
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 6:53:14 PM

Read my post/question
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 7:01:22 PM

yup just read it =]
May 17, 2008 7:08:17 PM

Nvidia, no dx 10.1 support. . . I think they're trying to kill dx 10.1 which is what ATI designed their cards for.


More games that have DX 10.1 is better for me, but without Nvidia delivering a 10.1 card then not a lot of games will program for it. It's a damn shame.
May 17, 2008 7:09:35 PM

This one will make Crysis go cry for its mom.
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 7:15:19 PM

Ycon said:
This one will make Crysis go cry for its mom.

:lol:  Lets all hope so
May 17, 2008 7:17:24 PM

My question though is why does anyone need that kind of GPU power right now? Sure you can do cuda on it, but there really aren't any high profile pc titles coming out soon that will require a GPU upgrade. When the 8800GTX came out everyone wanted to upgrade for cysis/bioshock/COD4, but not i don't really feel the need for a new GPU. I really doubt spore or starcraft 2 is gonna bring my 8800gs to its knees.....
May 17, 2008 7:19:59 PM

Not knowing shader frequency or core clock, but if has a core/mem/shader of say 680/1200/2200, it should run Crysis max'ed out on a 22" with incredible smoothness...

You will need Sli for 30" imo..



a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 7:23:22 PM

Its beginning to sound like we may. Conan, AC of course Crysis and others are out now that challenges todays cards, we need hardware to be AHEAD for a change, let the games devs write to its potential, instead of the other way around. Look at all the crying and want for Crysis. Imagine if a killer game came out, one the everyone wanted to play, not just for the eye candy alone, but was truly a great game? But it was even more challenging than Crysis? Need I say more? If all the 8xxx series couldnt play such a game anywhwere approaching max, thered be a huge problem. I welcome this tech, it allows for alot of growth/potential as far as I can see
May 17, 2008 7:30:36 PM

Not so sure that these cards will play Crysis with everything at very high at a 1680x1050. I think that would be a huge jump in performance.
May 17, 2008 7:35:21 PM

personally, i didnt like crysis. sure, the graphics are amazing, but the game play is horrible... my 2 cents.

as for the GTX 280, i dont think it will compete with the 4870. i'm not saying that the amd solution will be faster, cuz i think nvidia will still have the performance crown, but in price/performance. the GTX 280 is supposed to be $500+, while the 4870 is supposed to be $250-$280 at launch, so you could very well get two 4870's in crossfire for the price of the new nVidia flagship card.

from some of the "rumors" floating online, the 4870 is supposed to actually be very close to the performance of the GTX 280. well, i guess we shall wait and see. from the looks of it, both amd and nvidia will be releasing their cards in about a month.

and before anyone decides to call me an amd fanboy, keep in mind that before my 2900pro, all of my previous video cards were nvidia.
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 7:35:27 PM

Making a game more demanding than any hardware could handle was what hurt Crysis' sales (not piracy, sorry EA). I know LOTS of people on here who said they would wait until they had the hardware to play it. Well, that and the game isn't much different than the first one and is mostly just eye candy...

It would be good to have hardware that is ready when the next wave of games come out. We might have to wait a bit for this hardware to be fully utilized, as I think a lot of companies are looking to code for the consoles first and then port to PC. That will hold PC gaming back quite a bit.
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 7:36:05 PM

I think it will, if the specs are true. Looks to be double performance, or there abouts at this point, and with that horse power, it should handle even 24" displays at Ultra
May 17, 2008 7:38:32 PM

9800GX2 very high on Crysis is pretty smooth...

Gtx280 should be 25% faster..

a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 7:52:38 PM

any1 no anything about amd new physics?
May 17, 2008 7:54:05 PM

The 4870 is supposed to be around 88GTX speeds. not GTX 280 speeds.
May 17, 2008 8:27:35 PM

If the 4870 is around 8800gtx speeds it won't have that much market share especially at 280 bucks. I would expect it to be about a solid 50%faster than an 8800gtx based on the specs I have seen but Idk how gddr5 is going to perform. Also have red just rumors that I don't trust it to be very close and even pass a 9800gx2 but we shall see what happens. I just hope this gtx 280 doesn't require that much power.

I also am wondering if this thing really does perform how long we are going to half to wait for a viable upgrade for this thing. Anyone who bought an 8800gtx might finally have something worth upgrading to now what 18 months later. I am hoping for the best from both amd and nvidia.
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 8:49:18 PM

radguy said:
If the 4870 is around 8800gtx speeds it won't have that much market share especially at 280 bucks. I would expect it to be about a solid 50%faster than an 8800gtx based on the specs I have seen but Idk how gddr5 is going to perform. Also have red just rumors that I don't trust it to be very close and even pass a 9800gx2 but we shall see what happens. I just hope this gtx 280 doesn't require that much power.

I also am wondering if this thing really does perform how long we are going to half to wait for a viable upgrade for this thing. Anyone who bought an 8800gtx might finally have something worth upgrading to now what 18 months later. I am hoping for the best from both amd and nvidia.


I dont know i mean im all for healthy debate and speculation but its getting so that every one is second guessing other peoples gusses, some more educated than others. As jaydeejohn has pointed out CPU wise IF, BIG IF this thing is what it says and performs like the site claims then why would anyone want to buy a card that will be held back by the CPU. The seasable thing to do is buy the card thats cheaper and still performs well at a reasonable price. Thats where i see the 4870 etc cards coming into their own. Ever one seems to be taking this info at face value at the minuite yet when the ATI rumours came out people were quick to jump on them and dissmissthem as fancyfull.
If the ATI cards are released and dont easilly beat a GTX (either one they are very similar) then ATI may as well give up there and then. Personally i expect the cards to come out and be between 25-40% faster/better. Thats just my educated guess :) .
I just wish we could get some solid reliable benchies so we finally know whats what.
Mactronix
May 17, 2008 9:07:12 PM

San Pedro said:
Not so sure that these cards will play Crysis with everything at very high at a 1680x1050. I think that would be a huge jump in performance.


Hardly. I play it smooth at 1680x1050 with everything at very high on my 9800 GTX. I'm running it and my Q9450 at stock at the moment too, just untill I make sure everything is working right. If you add full AA, then it would be a jump, but without, it's easily doable with affordable cards.
May 17, 2008 10:34:27 PM

We should starting a betting ring! Everybody put down your estimates for the speeds of the GTX280 and the 4870!.

4870: 7-10% faster then a 88GTX
GTX280 : 3-5% faster then a 98GX2

@ 1900x1200
May 17, 2008 10:51:49 PM

9800gx2 is 30% faster than a Ultra in most games like Crysis, Company of Heroes, World In Conflict, Fear etc @ 1920 by 1200..

I would say a Gtx2 will be at least just as much a difference..

Gtx280 30% faster then a 9800gx2

4870 20% faster then a 8800Ultra

4870X2 10% faster then a Gtx280

May 17, 2008 11:06:35 PM

@ 1900x1200

4870 10% faster than Ultra
GTX 280 same speed as 9800gx2 in games that optimize SLI power (CoD4, CoH come to mind) and 25-30% better in games that aren't. So it will be an overall better buy. Just my opinion.
May 17, 2008 11:19:04 PM

I think it will be faster than the 9800gx2

512bit bus with GDDR3 at 2000-2200 would be faster than any available ram on a 256bit memory bus....

The thing is going to be untouchable when it comes to post processing.

1100 MHz on a 512 bit is 140 GB /bandwidth. 240 shaders, 32 ROPs, 1 GB of Ram, 60 TMUs, 120 TFUs

Its going to fly...
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 12:30:46 AM

i agree with dos1986 this thing is going to be untouchable. the new core is much better then the g80/92.
i think it will beat the 9800gx2 by 20-25%
=]
May 18, 2008 4:37:43 AM

ok maybe I just have high hopes

I really don't think that a cpu bottleneck should be a big concern. Someone looking at a 400 - 600+ dollar video card should know they need a decent cpu to back it up. I don't see a q6600 at 3.2-3.6 hurting it that much if at all. How bad is the 9800gx2 being bottleneck these days.

These gpus in SLI is where you would start to see real significant bottlenecks on todays decent cpus. And in the past wasn't the cpu a bottleneck at more than one point time

"I just wish we could get some solid reliable benchies so we finally know whats what. "
totally agree
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 4:56:42 AM

Benchies would be great, but I think itll be a couple weeks before we see anything solid. My questions on the cpu front is this tho. Unless they start going multi thread today, we arent really seeing that much Improvement in cpus. Theyre going wider, not faster. Yet the gpu still has a few archs to go faster. Having a balanced system in the future may be decicded on multi threading, not getting the fastest cpu
May 18, 2008 8:22:02 AM

Looks good, though I'm kinda disappointed there isn't any Directx 10.1 and they are still using GDDR3 support. But oh well, we'll see how well it performs when it gets released.
May 18, 2008 8:32:56 PM

im gunna guess
GTX280 5-10% > 9800GX2
HD4870 15-20% > 8800ULTRA
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 8:59:41 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Benchies would be great, but I think itll be a couple weeks before we see anything solid. My questions on the cpu front is this tho. Unless they start going multi thread today, we arent really seeing that much Improvement in cpus. Theyre going wider, not faster. Yet the gpu still has a few archs to go faster. Having a balanced system in the future may be decicded on multi threading, not getting the fastest cpu


Yes i agree thats basically what i said on the other thread regarding this topic.
Personally i think that while a good thread and topic for conversation that your fears will prove unfounded.
As i said the devs will just have to start codeing for multi cores, if and when the problem arises. You can bet they have already done work on this as usually they are at least a couple of generations ahead of joe public with the research side of things.
If as has been said a 2.6 ghz chip can keep up with the cards we have now then i dont see a problem anyway, there are affordable chips today that can hit 4ghz without breaking sweat on an air cooler.
Whats the forcast in FPS for this monster anyway there does come a point where its all overkill anyway. i think it will be similar to a car engine (Yes i know not cars again) it can do 160 MPH but thats just a side effect of making it work well between 30 and 70.
Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 9:15:05 PM

Firstly, theres no fears at all. Read the first word of the topic : Speculation. And yes, theyll have to go to multi threading for cpus to keep up. But currently, were seeing something that hasnt happened in awhile, gpus faster than cpus. And like I said, until theyre multithreading, its only going to get worse. Thats fact, not fear. Will the speed of cpus double by next year? Highly unlikely. Will gpus? Very likely. There you go. We need multithreading soon, within a year or so, or its going to get retentive
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 9:31:40 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Firstly, theres no fears at all. Read the first word of the topic : Speculation. And yes, theyll have to go to multi threading for cpus to keep up. But currently, were seeing something that hasnt happened in awhile, gpus faster than cpus. And like I said, until theyre multithreading, its only going to get worse. Thats fact, not fear. Will the speed of cpus double by next year? Highly unlikely. Will gpus? Very likely. There you go. We need multithreading soon, within a year or so, or its going to get retentive


Ok well lets see then. If theres no fears then you are not actually thinking this will happen you just though it a good topic for descusion. Good i to think it sa good topic. :)  .
And " were seeing something that hasnt happened in awhile, gpus faster than cpus" as you said only speculation not fact.
Also how do you figure its highly likley that the speed of GPU's will double in a year ? How old is the GTX/ ULTRA. there still isnt any thing significantly faster. so where is this mad rush of speed coming from ?
When they need to multithread they will and not before, it takes longer and is more resourse consuming to do so they wont rush to it when it isnt needed yet.
Remember the card in question is an Nvidia beast and as long as TWIMTBP is about you can bet the hardware and software to play the games will be there (unless M$ throw another spanner in the works like DX10) :) 
I do agree that the GPU will always have the potential to outstrip a CPU for raw pace but just dont see it being an issue.
Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 9:41:06 PM

Why do we see people questioning the need for these cards then? Is it becausde theres nop games than can push them? Would those games then need to be multithreaded to do so? Is AI going to improve? The usage of each chip (cou/gpu) needs balance. The current pace is unbalanced. It wont change. Will our games? Im not talking badly coded games either. If this card isnt needed, then whats the point? Is that what youre saying? And speculation means it MAY happen. May shouldnt bring fear. Speculation may bring insight.
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 9:55:04 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Why do we see people questioning the need for these cards then? Is it becausde theres nop games than can push them? Would those games then need to be multithreaded to do so? Is AI going to improve? The usage of each chip (cou/gpu) needs balance. The current pace is unbalanced. It wont change. Will our games? Im not talking badly coded games either. If this card isnt needed, then whats the point? Is that what youre saying?


Ok i will answer your question and then perhaps you will answer mine instead of replying with a barrage of question like a politician who has been asked something awkward ?
I havent seen anyone question the need for these cards, i dont read all the posts on here or the other forums i am a member of but i will take your word for it that people are.
Um lets see, Crysis comes to mind, if you want to run it in DX10 and high detail.
Multi-threading a game wouldnt make it any harder on the hardware it would facilitate the possibility of making life easier.
AI is always improving and evolving.
I dont see where i mentioned anything about the card not being needed.
Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 10:05:50 PM

Crysis is just one game. Thse cards are for Crysis and newer games, ones not out yet. Lets say that the new not out games require even more than Crysis. Then theres more demand on all your equipment. If the current pace of software (games) keeps up with the current pace of hardware (GPU faser evolving than cpu) then that leaves the cpu lacking. This card isnt for Crysis alone. This card should last for another 18 months, with derivatives from it. So, youre saying that in 18 months, the cpus will have improved without multithreading, for the next generation of gpus?And the software demands at that time? I said you acted like this card wasnt needed by your response to my post. This is forward looking, as is this thread, as is this card. If were to assume the demands will be higher from our future software, and the gpu side is being dealt with, then the conclusion I came to, thru speculation, is that in order for cpus to keep pace with these demands, theyll have to use their multi cores thru multi threading.
May 18, 2008 10:20:50 PM

My eyes..

Paragraphs boys

a c 130 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 10:33:58 PM


This,"then the conclusion I came to, thru speculation, is that in order for cpus to keep pace with these demands, theyll have to use their multi cores thru multi threading."
Is just laughable.
It seems you dont even know what you posted yourself. You were looking to the CPU horison presumably for a better CPU.
I posted that there wasnt a need and logicaly it just needed the devs to code properly for multi cores.
A few posts down you bring the consept up as Food for thought.
Now not only do you still fail to give straight answers to straight questions you have tried to turn the issue away from the CPU's to the cards, and are trying to debate a point with me using my own observations and claiming them as your own. :non: 
It seems that i may have upset you somehow when i used the wording that your "fears would be unfounded" you react like i was somehow insulting you. If so i appologise and meant no hard feelings.
Mactronix
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 10:36:44 PM

dos1986 said:
My eyes..

Paragraphs boys


Sorry dos1986,
Just checked back through. Dont think I did to badly. My english teacher would be proud of me :lol: 
Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 10:50:08 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Benchies would be great, but I think itll be a couple weeks before we see anything solid. My questions on the cpu front is this tho. Unless they start going multi thread today, we arent really seeing that much Improvement in cpus. Theyre going wider, not faster. Yet the gpu still has a few archs to go faster. Having a balanced system in the future may be decicded on multi threading, not getting the fastest cpu

OK, so whats so different than this? This was quoted first by you. It wasnt stealing your idea first, as you replied to it. And whats so different in what Ive typed since? I guess I dont understand what youre getting at, other than we agree that in order for cpus to keep the pace, we will need multithreading. I guess I posted this before, in order for your response, right? Im confused, but we need multithreading, thats for sure
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 10:55:32 PM

Speculating, the cpu isnt parallel, so going larger doesnt help it. Going wider (more cores) doesnt make it faster. Each node shrink at this point, looks like it inhibits ocing. Going multi core is the cpus only option. This isnt so for the gpu, and thats why Im saying all tjis. The pace is unbalanced for the first time ever. Until multithreading comes, allowing the use of all cores on the cpu
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 11:04:28 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
OK, so whats so different than this? This was quoted first by you. It wasnt stealing your idea first, as you replied to it. And whats so different in what Ive typed since? I guess I dont understand what youre getting at, other than we agree that in order for cpus to keep the pace, we will need multithreading. I guess I posted this before, in order for your response, right? Im confused, but we need multithreading, thats for sure


Can you remember what i posted when i replied to this? It was something like yes i agree thats basically what i posted on the other thread etc, my reasons for not thinking it an issue etc.
Your reply to that was to point out that the first word in your thread title was speculation.
So its clear from that little exchange that we were talking about that thread and not this one. yes?
That would be the thread you started so i would think you read all the replies including mine that introduced Multithreading in the way i have already elabourated on a day before you mentioned it.
Mactronix :) 

a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 11:41:55 PM

OK, and I have even earlier posts, but that doesnt matter.I guess what does is that we agree. Good. My answer was wider isnt faster, and more isnt better for the cpu. We agree, lets get multi threading going soon. If we differ, its that I think with these cards, well need it sooner than later. Two of these cards, and there wont be enuff nitrogen to keep up
May 19, 2008 1:50:27 AM

why not 3

question why are we not headed into multigpu as well. I think its obvious that we are headed into a multi cpu step but doesn't that fact that sli and crossfire are becoming more and more successful show that in five years it might be hard to find a single gpu setup for the high end market? why not 3

question why are we not headed into multigpu as well. I think its obvious that we are headed into a multi cpu step but doesn't that fact that sli and crossfire are becoming more and more successful show that in five years it might be hard to find a single gpu setup for the high end market?
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2008 5:40:47 AM

This may be true in 5 years, eventuallyshrinking to a new node will have diminishing returns for gpus as well. Weve pretty much reached that level with cpus. Getting down to, or below 32nm is going to be very problematic. Making a die so huge, on a process of say 32nm, youre talking about some serious heat dispersion problems. Dual , quad, yes itll have to work. With a true mcm or at least shared memory with many smaller chips
May 19, 2008 7:57:46 AM

The real reason why we are not heading as fast into multi GPU is that neither ATI nor Nvidia have simply got either of their solutions to work effectively. Neither scales well and both are inefficient.

At present, the move to multi-GPU via Crossfire or SLI is as much about selling more GPUs as improving performance.
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2008 8:12:17 AM

I think thats mostly true until now. Before we didnt see the scaling we do today. And affordability plus ATIs commitment to multi gpus, forcing nVidia to come out with one as well. This is changing, but currently, with the specs of the G280, and if its what we think it is, even 60% scaling which is reasonable, means 100% faster than the 9800GTX x2 with the G280 in SLI. Thats why I question if software can take advanyage of such a card, like Cryssis or even a tougher, more demanding game, will cpus keep pace?
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2008 8:16:34 AM

It used to be that when you SLIed older mid range, you wouldnt see anywheres near the high end product. Today we see an even greater performance when SLI'ing mid range compared to highend single. Which again just shows the advancements of gpus, where theyve caught up to cpus, and soon will pass them
!