GTX260 In Stock!

Started my step-up from my EVGA 9800GTX on the 260. Seeing as how I have $300 in credit on a card that now costs $200, I thought it would be worth it to use it for the GTX260.

I am Queue #81, how long do these usually take?

Check the Evga forums for some idea how fast the Queue is moving.

Huh? Who doesnt charge more for a factory OC?

And look at CPUs....E8500 is $100 more for 160mhz....

What???.How is that when a single is faster than the gtx260

Are you out of your mind? Using Anandtech's results, a SINGLE HD4870 beats the GTX260 IN EVERY, YES EVERY GAME TESTED, excluding Oblivion. (By a whopping 1.5 FPS ) And the Ati card is $100 cheaper!!! The GTX260 and the GTX280 are a joke. Anybody purchasing them are either using the EVGA step-up program, or can't accept the fact that Ati is back in the game. Yes, the GTX280 is the very top performer, but at $650, it's an outrageous waste of money.

Interesting results in the multi-GPU section.
Crysis CF and SLI @ 1680x1050 resolution:
HD 4870 single 35.6 4870 CF 39
8800GT single 25.9 8800GT SLI 46.1
Thats like...... almost a whopping 20% better result and savings of over $300 when using 2 cards?

HD 4870CF does pull ahead at 1920x1200 resolution though - if you're lucky enough to have that big a monitor.

Those guys with an 8800GT/8800GTS/9800GTX and SLI motherboard should be feeling pretty good about now if they have 22" or smaller monitors.

Yeah, but Crysis has always run well (comparatively speaking) on Nvidia cards and poorly on Ati cards. Look at the #'s for Crossfire in others games.
Call of Duty 4 1920x1200
4870=82fps
Crossfire 4870=156fps

Oblivion 1920X1200
4870=41fps
Crossfire 4870=71fps

Bioshock 2560x1600
4870=70fps
Crossfire 4870=119fps

I think Crysis isn't a very fair measurement for Ati cards.

nah, stay away from the 9800GX2 - its kinda a doomed card really - I don't think a 9800GX2 has ever been worth what it costs because 9800GTX SLI outperforms it for the same price and 9800GX2 Quad SLI is a microstutter fest.

I think people put a bit too much value into Crysis benchmarks. I mean, seriously, I'm getting sick of it now. It's always 'Crysis' this and 'Crysis' that. Not everyone plays the damn game and from what I hear it wasn't even a blockbuster FPS, more like a decent one.

The only thing Crysis has going for it is that it's really, really pretty. However, at this point in the stage of technology, game graphics are going to become so good and so close to one another that really it won't be easy to tell which game looks better than the other. On top of that there's talk that Crysis engine is poorly optimized and that's half the reason it whips graphics cards to shreds.

I think it's time we stopped judging a graphics card solely by a single game that has a reputation for making your computer its bitch. Just because a game is hard to run doesn't mean it's good or pretty (in this case though, Crysis is very pretty). I'll be you anything that Valve, 2K, Epic Games and other great FPS makers have the technology to make games just as pretty as Crysis, but that run better on a wider range of machines and have better gameplay.

And really, after a certain point, you'll have to pull out a microscope just to see the subtle differences in graphic fidelity between two games. Once we reach that point I think it's time we stop bitching about what card can run the most beautiful game and what can't.

</rant>