gtx 280/260 specs

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

and no dx 10.1 support... well maybe in g300...

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?

yup just read it =]

This one will make Crysis go cry for its mom.

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.....

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

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.

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

any1 no anything about amd new physics?

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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

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

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

My eyes..

Paragraphs boys

Sorry dos1986,
Just checked back through. Dont think I did to badly. My english teacher would be proud of me
Mactronix

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

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

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

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?