Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

First Official GeForce GTX 280 Review

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 13, 2008 10:05:47 PM

Soo at 1600x1200 the 3870x2 and geforce gx2 stomp it..lol

Man if those scores are somewhat true that's pretty sad even on beta driver's...
Related resources
June 13, 2008 10:18:09 PM

They dont stomp it?? They beat it at 3dmark06....


keep in mind this is 1 card/gpu and both of the others have 2 each.


Much faster then a single G92 core tbh... but, it is like beta drivers, so who knows.


I did expect a little more though for the price it is supposed to be launched at. Tbh with this, the price reduced 9800GX2's may be a better buy when it's launched.
June 13, 2008 10:21:06 PM

it really doesn't look too good. makes me pretty nervous to shell out $700 for it in a few days. i've been waiting since april to build though since i thought the 9800x2 sucked on 2560x1600. i just can't make myself wait until the fall. if the 4870x2 was out not, maybe that would be different, but who knows what that will do in comparison.

just ordered my xhd3000 today, so the process has already begun.
June 13, 2008 10:30:25 PM

I expected more for the price, but that review is by no means damning. The GTX280 is only behind in older programs, such as Half life 2 Episode One and 3dMark06, which doesn't bother me in the slightest. What really matters to me is it's performance in Crysis and World in Conflict, where it leads by a significant margin. Admittedly it only leads by a small margin in CoH, but I'm still convinced the GTX280 is the way to go. If someone can prove that it is not, beyond a doubt, however, I will gladly purchase a different card. I'm looking for the best, within a fairly large budget range.
June 13, 2008 10:37:58 PM

Idiots,

50% better framerates and Crysis and World in Conflict, the new Hard to render games.

Who cares if it gets only 150 frames in HL2, or the older stuff.
June 13, 2008 10:40:09 PM

darktravesty said:
I expected more for the price, but that review is by no means damning. The GTX280 is only behind in older programs, such as Half life 2 Episode One and 3dMark06, which doesn't bother me in the slightest. What really matters to me is it's performance in Crysis and World in Conflict, where it leads by a significant margin. Admittedly it only leads by a small margin in CoH, but I'm still convinced the GTX280 is the way to go. If someone can prove that it is not, beyond a doubt, however, I will gladly purchase a different card. I'm looking for the best, within a fairly large budget range.

With budget in mind, it's not the way to go. $700 would be almost enough to quad sli two 9800gx2, after the price drop when the new cards comes out. It's more than enough to quad crossfire two 3870x2s, which already dropped to $314.99 before mir, and $284.99 after. It'll drop in price even more after new cards comes out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Either setups will far outperform the one gtx280 that cost $700 alone.
June 13, 2008 10:45:04 PM

Granite3 said:
Idiots,

50% better framerates and Crysis and World in Conflict, the new Hard to render games.

Who cares if it gets only 150 frames in HL2, or the older stuff.

Actually, it's lower than 50% for Crysis, and much less than 50% for World in Conflict. The 20fps for 3870x2 doesn't count. World in Conflict has unique scaling problems with the card over single 3870 due to software issue. Compare it with the 9800gx2's score instead. Let's just say, for $700 price tag, there are other good things in life to spend it on.
June 13, 2008 10:46:16 PM

dagger said:
With budget in mind, it's not the way to go. $700 would be almost enough to quad sli two 9800gx2, after the price drop when the new cards comes out. It's more than enough to quad crossfire two 3870x2s, which already dropped to $314.99 before mir, and $284.99 after. It'll drop in price even more after new cards comes out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Either setups will far outperform the one gtx280 that cost $700 alone.


Rumor has it the GTX280 launch price dropped to $500. Regardless, to SLI I would need to get a new motherboard as well, as I got an Intel one that does not support SLI or Crossfire, and my PSU is 650W/52A. Not sure on the exact requirements for putting 9800GX2's in SLI, but I imagine 650W would really be pushing it.
June 13, 2008 10:46:16 PM

Granite3 said:
Idiots,

50% better framerates and Crysis and World in Conflict, the new Hard to render games.

Who cares if it gets only 150 frames in HL2, or the older stuff.


just what i was thinking...
June 13, 2008 10:49:19 PM

darktravesty said:
Rumor has it the GTX280 launch price dropped to $500. Regardless, to SLI I would need to get a new motherboard as well, as I got an Intel one that does not support SLI or Crossfire, and my PSU is 650W/52A. Not sure on the exact requirements for putting 9800GX2's in SLI, but I imagine 650W would really be pushing it.

$500 would make sense, let's hope that's the case. And Intel chipsets do support Crossfire. One Intel chipset also support both Crossfire and SLI, but it's the ultra high end Skulltrial board, and out of price range for most of us. :p 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 10:49:45 PM

^ exactly... its still in the hundreds... you still can't tell the difference frame wise... anyways this was already posted here... either way I think the 4870 X2 will take the performance crown from nvidia and will be at a better price... but these are beta drivers which probably suck.... and the scores will only get better...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-251494_33_120.ht... look at the pictures near the bottom of the page... the gtx 280 does significantly better than the other current gen cards...

but once again it shows the 4870 right behind it... so the 4870 X2 in my opinion will be the top dog
June 13, 2008 10:51:36 PM

I must have missed something here...

I see the single gpu gtx280 stomping the dual gpu cards; except in 3dmark which last time i checked.. we dont play, so who cares.

Worth $700 ... I dont think so!
a c 171 U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 10:55:38 PM

I think both sides are right. First, good job Nvidia for getting the performance of two GPUs onto a single PCB, with only one GPU. This is actually a good thing.

The problem is thats all they did. Without seeing more scores and having the details behind them (AA levels? Res?) its hard to say how much better this single card is when compared to the older cards. If all Nvidia could do is give us 9800GX2 in a single card, they *should* have some issues.

I say should because we still don't have any "real" reviews of the 4870. (AMD and rumor sites don't count.) IF AMD has managed to increase the performance of their cards, then yes, Nvidia has a big problem on their hands.

While not as cool, lets not forget the lower end of the market. If this is the big bad 280, how will the 260 compare? Can they even release a 240/220 that performs better then current cards? If the power/heat issues are as large as the rumor sites say, then I don't see much reason to buy the "240" over the 8800GT.
June 13, 2008 11:00:49 PM

I'm gonna buy it, even if it could be out performed by an SLI/Crossfire setup. Plus it only consums 25wats in idle and I only spend 1/4 of my time playing games so it's gonna make a big differance compared to crossfire HD3870x2 or 2 9800GX2's on my power bill.
June 13, 2008 11:02:39 PM

From what I am seeing they managed to make a single GPU card that performs better than the 9800GX2 by large margins in newer games. I am by no means an expert on this sort of thing, but the more I look at it the more I am impressed. However, I definitely agree that we need to see more details on the AA levels and whatnot (or perhaps that information is there, am I missing something? All I see specified are the resolutions)
June 13, 2008 11:19:39 PM

Hmmm... I'm a bit skeptical. Aside from the lack of specifics, some obvious errors in the article (2560 x 1200 *cough*) and the bias-o-meter on most everyone here (including myself) reading levels over 9000, this is a magazine article and a scan of one at that. This means a few things.

1 - It could be shooped.

2 - Even if it isn't shooped, it's a magazine, which means that they could be inflating their findings or giving you the best case scenario or something like that so that it generates buzz and profits.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 11:45:05 PM

The sneaky Nvidia already have plans to put the cards that will compete with the new ones out of commission. Don't expect the 8800 GTS, GTX or even the GT to be sold if they are comparable in performance to the new ones. I think that the EOL of the GTS is soon and the others will join shortly.
June 14, 2008 12:28:59 AM

Quote:
Hey guys, could u imagine a well known MAGAZINE making such awfull mistakes like 2560x1200... lol? Or 1600x1200 and everywhere in the review the poster is talking about 1900x1200. This is FAKE.

FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE


Just what I was thinking.
nVidia have a huge legal department just waiting to pounce on anyone releasing info prior to the official date, and this is a magazine.

Still can't wait for Monday for the nice official reviews and benchies
June 14, 2008 12:29:53 AM

crusoe74 said:
Just what I was thinking.
nVidia have a huge legal department just waiting to pounce on anyone releasing info prior to the official date, and this is a magazine.

Still can't wait for Monday for the nice official reviews and benchies

Photoshopped pic? :p 
June 14, 2008 12:35:36 AM

HD4870 looks like it will FTW

:D 
June 14, 2008 12:41:08 AM

Seems like good performance to me.

You have to compare it to an 8800 ultra or a 9800 GTX - comparing it to the dual GPU cards is not totally fair. Although you still can; the dual gpu cards lose a lot of their scaling if they go into a quad setup - don't forget that.

As a point of interest, gtx280 SLI/tri SLI is going to make tri ultra or quad SLI gx2 look like a jokeshow assuming they get the software working 100%

Factually, do we need this kind of hardware at this particular junction? Probably not. But i'm with Granite3 - this card is quite superior to those it was compared to - and it will be vastly superior compared to 9800 GTX/ 8800 Ultra as well; especially in next generation titles.

For people with large displays, this is a know brainer. Playing 1680*1050 on a 27" would probably look like ****, I only use a 22" but I find anything lower than native res looks terrible. So given native res on large displays, i'd say this card would be a no brainer for that as well.
June 14, 2008 12:44:01 AM

ovaltineplease said:
Seems like good performance to me.

You have to compare it to an 8800 ultra or a 9800 GTX - comparing it to the dual GPU cards is not totally fair. Although you still can; the dual gpu cards lose a lot of their scaling if they go into a quad setup - don't forget that.

As a point of interest, gtx280 SLI/tri SLI is going to make tri ultra or quad SLI gx2 look like a jokeshow assuming they get the software working 100%

Factually, do we need this kind of hardware at this particular junction? Probably not. But i'm with Granite3 - this card is quite superior to those it was compared to - and it will be vastly superior compared to 9800 GTX/ 8800 Ultra as well; especially in next generation titles.

For people with large displays, this is a know brainer. Playing 1680*1050 on a 27" would probably look like ****, I only use a 22" but I find anything lower than native res looks terrible. So given native res on large displays, i'd say this card would be a no brainer for that as well.

The problem with that logic is, you'd be comparing $700 card to a $250 card, which makes no sense. You should compare similar costing configurations, regardless of anything else.
June 14, 2008 12:45:11 AM

crusoe74 said:
Just what I was thinking.
nVidia have a huge legal department just waiting to pounce on anyone releasing info prior to the official date, and this is a magazine.

Still can't wait for Monday for the nice official reviews and benchies



If it is a fake, its more than an extremely elaborate fake
June 14, 2008 12:47:46 AM

dagger said:
The problem with that logic is, you'd be comparing $700 card to a $250 card, which makes no sense. You should compare similar costing configurations, regardless of anything else.


Which 250$ card did I mention? 9800 GTX, 9800 GX2 and 8800 Ultra have not seen price reductions until extremely recently if at all.

People aren't going to go out and buy recently reduced cards today only to upgrade them on Monday, and if they do they are likely cracked out or using EVGA Step-up which is a special case circumstance.
June 14, 2008 12:54:17 AM

ovaltineplease said:
Which 250$ card did I mention? 9800 GTX, 9800 GX2 and 8800 Ultra have not seen price reductions until extremely recently if at all.

People aren't going to go out and buy recently reduced cards today only to upgrade them on Monday, and if they do they are likely cracked out or using EVGA Step-up which is a special case circumstance.

Well, g92 8800gts perform the same as 9800gtx, and cost $159.99 after mir. :p 
http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/03/geforce-9800gtx-revi...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

One 3870x2 cost $300, and 2 of them on quad crossfire for $600 will both be cheaper and significantly outperform the $700 single card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
June 14, 2008 1:00:42 AM

gamecrazychris said:
I'm gonna buy it, even if it could be out performed by an SLI/Crossfire setup. Plus it only consums 25wats in idle and I only spend 1/4 of my time playing games so it's gonna make a big differance compared to crossfire HD3870x2 or 2 9800GX2's on my power bill.


I'm getting 2 and retiring my faithful old 8800GTX's long live the 8800GTX!
June 14, 2008 1:03:53 AM

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but i'm going to reaffirm 2 things:

one; the cards you are comparing have received stock clearing prices in the last week to week and a half. Its only "arguably" a 160$ card - because a 8800 GTS 512 was a 300$ video card 1 month ago. Likewise less than a month ago a single 3870 x2 was 500$

Both of those GPU arrays are not overly high performance - 8800 GTS 512 is max 2 card SLI, and it only parallels the 9800 GX2; 9800 GTX is a more fair comparison because it has tri-sli as an option so its aimed for enthusiasts like the gt200 series are.

3870x2 quad crossfire is an underperforming configuration for gaming... Is it passable 6 months after release for literally half the price? Somewhat sure, but its not wowing anyone really. In my opinion 3870x2 is a waste of money for the performance you do get out of it at quad crossfire.

two; for users with large displays (1900 native res), quad crossfire/tri SLI 9800 GTX/Quad SLI are just not good enough for next gen titles at those ultra high resolutions. They just lack vram for that as the article shows and has other articles in the past show..
June 14, 2008 1:22:22 AM

ovaltineplease said:
I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but i'm going to reaffirm 2 things:

one; the cards you are comparing have received stock clearing prices in the last week to week and a half. Its only "arguably" a 160$ card - because a 8800 GTS 512 was a 300$ video card 1 month ago. Likewise less than a month ago a single 3870 x2 was 500$

Both of those GPU arrays are not overly high performance - 8800 GTS 512 is max 2 card SLI, and it only parallels the 9800 GX2; 9800 GTX is a more fair comparison because it has tri-sli as an option so its aimed for enthusiasts like the gt200 series are.

3870x2 quad crossfire is an underperforming configuration for gaming... Is it passable 6 months after release for literally half the price? Somewhat sure, but its not wowing anyone really. In my opinion 3870x2 is a waste of money for the performance you do get out of it at quad crossfire.

two; for users with large displays (1900 native res), quad crossfire/tri SLI 9800 GTX/Quad SLI are just not good enough for next gen titles at those ultra high resolutions. They just lack vram for that as the article shows and has other articles in the past show..

So two 3870x2 in quad crossfire configuration, which cost $600 and significantly outperform the single card for $700, is a waste of money? Okay, it's definately not the best bang for the buck by a long shot, but not nearly as much of the $700 card's waste.

It's a matter of comparasion. More performance for less money = waste?

Sure, you can sli the gtx280... for 1.4 grand. :sarcastic: 
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 1:33:09 AM

I agree with OvaltinePlease. Firstly, this is a legit article, and secondly, its apples to apples here. 1 card =2 cards with diminishing returns and sli issues is a good thing. If they were 2-300$ wed all be buying them, but they arent. Another point, in regards to having 1gig vram, you need a card that is capable of using that much ram. The G9xxx series may have been fast enough, but the BW was to small, and the Ultra/GTX was wide enough, but again, too slow for many games maxxed at 19x12
June 14, 2008 1:39:47 AM

dagger said:
So two 3870x2 in quad crossfire configuration, which cost $600 and significantly outperform the single card for $700, is a waste of money? Okay, it's definately not the best bang for the buck by a long shot, but not nearly as much of the $700 card's waste.

It's a matter of comparasion. More performance for less money = waste?

Sure, you can sli the gtx280... for 1.4 grand. :sarcastic: 



2 3870x2s are not going to outperform the gt200 in next gen games at 1900 res or higher; so what exactly are you replying to? The gt200 has a gig of framebuffer, the 3870x2 quad crossfire has a 512 frame buffer. The gt200 actually has the potential to play at ultra high res, the 3870x2 crossfire doesn't.

Furthermore 3870x2 is going to get walked on by gt200 series and 4800 series in any games which use havok or physx

Man with the way you make comparisons why don't we just pretend its Christmas when the price of the gt200 series has dropped like a rock in the face of the 4870x2 launch and make the same biased price/performance comparison even in the face of new technology vs old technology

I just believe that your thinking is a bit Draconic; 4800 series and gt200 series are more than likely going to perform much higher than old tech in next gen games and high resolutions - that is the ONLY point i've made and you keep countering with price/performance arguements which don't make sense given the context of the posts you are responding to!
June 14, 2008 1:45:28 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I agree with OvaltinePlease. Firstly, this is a legit article, and secondly, its apples to apples here. 1 card =2 cards with diminishing returns and sli issues is a good thing. If they were 2-300$ wed all be buying them, but they arent. Another point, in regards to having 1gig vram, you need a card that is capable of using that much ram. The G9xxx series may have been fast enough, but the BW was to small, and the Ultra/GTX was wide enough, but again, too slow for many games maxxed at 19x12



Those still doesn't make that single card for $700 faster than quad gpu for $600, not by a long shot. It's more money for less. Why would care about anything other than the end result performance?

If it's a single gpu performance the same as quad setup for the same price, it's certainly an advantage. But this is not the case. You're right, the gtx 280 is technically superior, but $700 is $700. Comparing two setups where one cost three times as much as the other is comparing apples to oranges. It's an absmal performance per buck ratio.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 1:48:56 AM

In all fairness a penny saved .... but if you have diminishing returns doing it, it doesnt matter. This article was written what? 2 days ago? The official drivers arent out yet, and wouldnt show the full results. There will be huge improvements with these cards when released, and even more on the next driver update, thats common in any new release, just like the 4xxx series from ATI will have.
June 14, 2008 1:49:28 AM

dagger said:
Those still doesn't make that single card for $700 faster than quad gpu for $600, not by a long shot. It's more money for less. Why would care about anything other than the end result performance?

If it's a single gpu performance the same as quad setup for the same price, it's certainly an advantage. But this is not the case. You're right, the gtx 280 is technically superior, but $700 is $700. Comparing two setups where one cost three times as much as the other is comparing apples to oranges. It's an absmal performance per buck ratio.



I can see the posts on the Dunia engine tech support forum already:

"quad crossfire ati3870x2 crashing freezing low performance with AA low performance at 1900*1200 PLEASE HELP!"

If you want to compare apples to oranges so be it, but at least compare it to the right oranges.

Do you think i'm going to run out and buy dual gtx280s on the 18th? No. Am I going to buy them once there is games that actually demand that power? Yes.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 3:10:47 AM

Beating the 9800GX2 by that much in crysis is no small feat. That's huge! I'll hold judgment until we see a lot of reviews, but it's looking like it possibly beats a 9800GTX by 100% in crysis.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 3:23:19 AM

I would guess by looking at this, some games are optimized in the drivers, and some obviously arent. The ones that are will still see improvements, nice ones. ATI isnt the only ones that improves drivers, especially like I said, on new releases. The real question will be, after the 2xx series are released and the 4xxx series are released, will their current prices hold up? Ill wait, but I think I know which way Im going to go, even so, Ill wait
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 3:33:31 AM

However Paul, check out computerbase's results in Crysis @ 2560x1600;

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarte...

..and tell me whether the PCGamer results don't seem a little 'off', and notice the performance of a single HD3870 vs theX2, too bad that review didn't include single cards as well like a GF8800U or GF9800GTX.

edit: Actually looking at it again the PCGamer results for the GTX280 are the exact same fps as the ComputerBase results for the GF8800U. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 3:40:42 AM

Quote:
Hey guys, could u imagine a well known MAGAZINE making such awfull mistakes like 2560x1200... lol?


Yeah actually I can, especially since I used to subscribe to PCGamer and Maximum PC and their editors sucks as bad as some websites' editors (*cough* eh Pauld[H] ? *cough*), and it's the major errors that made me cancel my subscription long ago. PC Gamer isn't Wired, I don't think their journalistic standards are something that would be lauded by journalism schools. :pfff: 
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 3:49:54 AM

Ape, dont be so [H]ard on them heheh
June 14, 2008 3:51:45 AM

If that review was legit, then yes, the 280 GTX sounds disappointing, unless NVIDIA comes up with a better driver. Not really worth spending 700 dollars for a product if its performance isn't that great.
June 14, 2008 3:57:00 AM

**** pathetic in my opinion; if it only achieves about 34 FPS at 1920x1200 in Crysis on High with no antialiasing, I have no reason to upgrade from my 8800GTX still. I want to play Crysis on Very High, and I want at least 4x antialiasing, not some jaggy **** on a new $600 card with my 1920x1200 display.
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 4:15:12 AM

its sad, while my 3 8800gtx's have served me well...their going to have to for a bit longer unless nvidia does get the 280gtx's running better. Though i beleive the magazine review isn't legit. i have heard rumors that while the 280gtx actually is a solid card its like another half step forward much like the the original 8800 series to g92 series and 7800 to 7900 jumps. Nvidia spent a lot of time on gpgpu cuda) and physics (intagrating agegia even further than the 8800's cuda version)and not enough on game performance. though now there cards will run folding@home. lame if its all true. glad i have a few differant setups! sad some of them are gonna have to wait for new cards.
June 14, 2008 6:17:12 AM

Heyyou27 said:
**** pathetic in my opinion; if it only achieves about 34 FPS at 1920x1200 in Crysis on High with no antialiasing, I have no reason to upgrade from my 8800GTX still. I want to play Crysis on Very High, and I want at least 4x antialiasing, not some jaggy **** on a new $600 card with my 1920x1200 display.



Its a prerelease benchmark on a beta driver - it will more than likely improve once they live drivers are running.

Also bear in mind the beta likely doesn't include physx support (although i'm not sure if crysis supports that or not)

I really think you'd be fine playing crysis on very high 19*12 maybe even with 2x AA (i'd say SLI would definitely be AA worthy but I could be wrong of course :S)- it doesn't seem unrealistic to me because a 9800 gx2 can do 30fps avg in everything but the most extremely intense gameplay at 16*12 on very high with no AA as is.

Even still, I wouldn't base this all on Crysis as the baseline - its a great benchmark for next gen gpus like this; but there will be more games coming out in a few months that will actually take advantage of this kind of hardware like crysis does.
June 14, 2008 6:18:30 AM

atomicWAR said:
its sad, while my 3 8800gtx's have served me well...their going to have to for a bit longer unless nvidia does get the 280gtx's running better. Though i beleive the magazine review isn't legit. i have heard rumors that while the 280gtx actually is a solid card its like another half step forward much like the the original 8800 series to g92 series and 7800 to 7900 jumps. Nvidia spent a lot of time on gpgpu cuda) and physics (intagrating agegia even further than the 8800's cuda version)and not enough on game performance. though now there cards will run folding@home. lame if its all true. glad i have a few differant setups! sad some of them are gonna have to wait for new cards.



I don't think its unreasonable to expect to get 2-3 years out of a top notch video array like 3way SLI 8800 GTX - don't be so disappointed, you bought quality and it has delivered; you should be pretty happy with it really :X
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 7:15:45 AM

well not that theinqurer.net is mostly BS but hey do have a set of benchies up for the 280 and 260 gtx....As for the 280gtx being superior dual gpu cards when rumor mill puts the 4870x2 as top dog. now lets say your right they are similar. with crossfire X on the 4870x2 they did away with the PCIe bridge they had in the 3870x2. now the gpu's are hardwired in crossfire with unifed ram. Vastely superior to Nvidia's or even previous AMD/ATI attempts at dual gpu. Plus the driver only see's a 4870x2 as a single GPU not a dual....allowing according to AMD/ATI tech spec for the potential of 8 gpus in tandom in crossfire X's current incarnation. leaving nvidia dusted assuming the scaling is similar on a per card bases and the dual gpu is indeed transparent, something the 3870x2 came close to but were short of with the pci bridge hindering things forcing crossfire to view it as seprate gpus. But then again there could been some one on the grassy nole!

as for feeling bad about my 8800 GTX's, i don't i made a solid choice and the present trend for SLI otherings makes me believe more so every day. i was just expressing remorse that nvidia, to whom which i am partial, had done a better job with the 200 series instead of a another stumble. they are alreay in a corner with intel holding back nehalam's quickpath liscense, i would hate to see them out of the game....forgive me if i don't have faith in intel's larrabee competeing with AMD/ATI on the same level we currently see with AMD/ATI and nvidia.

link to inquirer's supposed "tests" of the 280 and 260 gtx's....disappointing if even remotely accurate

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/12/...
a b U Graphics card
June 14, 2008 7:22:16 AM

If I had a 2xGTX, Id wait and see performance,price and look for the refresh, or if money wasnt a factor, go sli and blow away any other 2-3-4 setup thats currently out
June 14, 2008 12:59:38 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
If I had a 2xGTX, Id wait and see performance,price and look for the refresh, or if money wasnt a factor, go sli and blow away any other 2-3-4 setup thats currently out

That's a hard thing to say. Would anyone really 1.4k to sli that thing? "money wasn't a factor" used to be willingness to spend like $500 on graphics. Now it's a factor even for people who used to claim it's not. :sarcastic: 

In the past, there have been cards that offered far greater performance gain ratio over existing ones, and they never cost nearly this much.
June 14, 2008 1:23:12 PM

$600 for a paltry 34 FPS at 1600x1200 ...LMAO.... even the Queen of Monaco wouldn't be happy with that purchase.

Anyway i'm gonna wait for more reviews.
!