Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the the 260 GTX worth it?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • EVGA
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 31, 2008 7:49:16 PM

I have a gigabyte P35-DS3R with 4gigs of ram with an E8400@3.6ghtz.
I have had the privilege to try out the EVGA 8800SC as well as the 880GT 512 , 8800GTS 512 and the 9800 GTX+ 512. I am using the 32bit XP corp service pack3. My 3dmark scores have gone from 11,500 to 15,000 with the EVGA 9800GTX+. I got a EVGA 260GTX SC 896 and the score only increased only to 16,200. Is this in the ballpark so to speak? Overclocking to 700 mghtz yields about 300 points more using EVGA precision.
Am I using a good utility or stick to riva tuner? Is there more to this card visa vi vista because I think its not really worth it since the 9800GTX+ SC currently @$169 CDN is more a value than the
260GTX SC @$269 CDN. This is most interesting conundrome. Any opinions on this re single card solution? :heink: 

More about : the 260 gtx worth

August 31, 2008 11:52:25 PM

3dmark is pretty worthless in terms of gauging a system performance. What you need are real benchmarks. Playing in games using Fraps to benchmark is the best way to test.

You'll notice a bigger gap if you crank the 3dmark settings all the way up. Might wanna try that, but noting beats real game benchmarking.

As for value, you'll have to make that choice. Some people feels that paying $550 for a HD4870X2 is worthy. According to TGH's recent videocard test, the 8800GT holds the lowest price per frame, so it's the "best value" if you want to look at it that way.

Both the 9800GTX and GTX260 are excellent videocards. Depending on what games you want to play, you can't go wrong with either. What I would do is grab the 9800GTX+ and use it until the next gen videocard comes out.
September 1, 2008 12:35:20 AM

Tbh considering physics at the moment and the things it can bring to the game Id seriously prefer a GTX260 over a 4870. And it's just more solid basically, raw power over driver optimisations.


Then again there's no way id pick either of those over a 4850xfire setup :D 

4850xfire > GTX260 > 4870 > 4850
Related resources
September 1, 2008 12:36:38 AM

I wouldn't^, if your going to grab anyhting from scratch and its only a temp solution it would have to be 8800 GT(99$-140$) or 8800 GS (80$ - 120$)

the 9800 GTX+ is an over priced PILE:)  It just an oced 10 nm less gimmic with higher sticker tag:) 

IF anything the 8800 GTS 512 would be a really good bet, now that I remember some have been going for less than 150$ on Newegg. And that card is bascially a Downclocked 9800 GTX

EDIT: But to Answer your question, the 260 GTX isn't in my taste, but it could be for some. I would have to say unless its cheaper than the HD4870 or you have an SLI board, I would go for the 4870 or 4850:D 
September 1, 2008 12:40:50 AM
September 1, 2008 12:48:27 AM

If no upgrade path is possible or wanted then yes ^^^ agree :D 


But as I said b4, 4850xfire.. still tops em all :) 
September 1, 2008 12:49:21 AM

Hatman said:
If no upgrade path is possible or wanted then yes ^^^ agree :D 


But as I said b4, 4850xfire.. still tops em all :) 


It also cost much more, and requires a new motherboard. :p 
September 1, 2008 12:51:16 AM

Not necesarily since most ppl will be on intel alredi.

If ur not then they probably are on nvidia which means they'll be looking for SLI anyway :p 

Well taht's my way of thinking its quite floored but possible I guess haha.
And here in the UK it doesn't, gues sit depends on prices. With a single 4850 being £110, a 4870 being £175 and a GX2 being £210. heh.

It does perform better though :) 
In general :) 
September 1, 2008 12:55:00 AM

here the GX2 is around 200-400$ the 4850 is 180-300$ (I don't kno who would pay over 200 for it)

take their lowest price, 2 4850s 360$, take 1 GX2 atleast at which price we see them the most now, 250 and and you get 100$ for CPU, RAM, HD or just games:) .

Although I do like the 4850 solution better, just because it would perform better, but then again 100$ goes a long way:D 
September 1, 2008 12:56:22 AM

Fair enough. 2x 4850s far cheaper then GX2 here guess it depends on where ur at.
September 1, 2008 1:02:16 AM

Amen:) 
September 1, 2008 1:07:26 AM

Hatman said:
Not necesarily since most ppl will be on intel alredi.

If ur not then they probably are on nvidia which means they'll be looking for SLI anyway :p 

Well taht's my way of thinking its quite floored but possible I guess haha.
And here in the UK it doesn't, gues sit depends on prices. With a single 4850 being £110, a 4870 being £175 and a GX2 being £210. heh.

It does perform better though :) 
In general :) 


Most people on Intel? You do realize that overwhelming majority of Intel boards do not support cf, right? OP's happen to be one of them. Only one pcie slot. Plus p45s bottleneck 4000s cf, so the only choice is x38/48, which cost $200+.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/7/page_7_benchma...

And those are UK prices, OP lives in Canada.
Price of 9800gx2 is $275, or $245 ar on Newegg, less than 4870, far less than gtx280, while outperforming both.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Before you say Newegg is not for Canada, they're launching in Canada.
http://www.newegg.ca/
Besides, I'm sure there are other retailers with cheaper prices.

Edit: ah, a little late. :na: 
September 1, 2008 1:09:44 AM

Belles_Toaster said:
I have a gigabyte P35-DS3R with 4gigs of ram with an E8400@3.6ghtz.
I have had the privilege to try out the EVGA 8800SC as well as the 880GT 512 , 8800GTS 512 and the 9800 GTX+ 512. I am using the 32bit XP corp service pack3. My 3dmark scores have gone from 11,500 to 15,000 with the EVGA 9800GTX+. I got a EVGA 260GTX SC 896 and the score only increased only to 16,200. Is this in the ballpark so to speak? Overclocking to 700 mghtz yields about 300 points more using EVGA precision.
Am I using a good utility or stick to riva tuner? Is there more to this card visa vi vista because I think its not really worth it since the 9800GTX+ SC currently @$169 CDN is more a value than the
260GTX SC @$269 CDN. This is most interesting conundrome. Any opinions on this re single card solution? :heink: 

I don't think the GTX260 is that much faster than a 9800GTX+ until you start cranking up the resolution and AA. If you take overclocking into account though the GTX260 wins hands.

3DMark 06 is too CPU limited to be of much use these days, try out some 'real' games and see what you think.
September 1, 2008 1:11:44 AM

3dmark 06 you can have a really good Graphix Card and crappy CPU and You'll get less than some1 with a good CPU and a moderate Graphics card:) 
a b U Graphics card
September 1, 2008 1:12:09 AM

Copy n paste doesnt work for some countries? heheh
a b U Graphics card
September 1, 2008 9:49:45 AM

Hatman said:
Tbh considering physics at the moment and the things it can bring to the game Id seriously prefer a GTX260 over a 4870. And it's just more solid basically, raw power over driver optimisations.


I wouldn't bother mentioning PhysX, since you need a second card to use it effectively anyways might as well run the HD4870 as your main card and then buy that second card (cheap GF9600) when you need physX.

Best combo for graphics and PhysX: HD4870+GF9600 > GTX260+GF9600

Really I wouldn't worry about PhysX until it's more than a demo level on 2 games.
September 1, 2008 4:48:54 PM

What I understand from the discussion is that the 8800GT is the best value @ $100. The 9800GTX+ is much faster but comparable to the ATI 4850. The 260 GTX has some innovations like the physics, etc and more memory to handle the higher filtering and AA setting without breaking a sweat. The 260GTX is a 65nm build with a 55nm refresh
shortly. This would mean another 100mghtz onthe core much like what happened to the 9800GTX+. What gets me is the low core speeds which remind me of my short lived 8800GTS 320mb.
So then in raw terms the 3dmark06 score of an additional 1200-1500 points on the 260GTX over the 9800GTX+ is reasonable but it really shines at higher settings. I saw the 260GTX SC by EVGA for $239 CDN.
The price has tumbled alot since introduction ,when are the 55nm refreshes due to hit market and have they started production?
September 1, 2008 4:55:15 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
I wouldn't bother mentioning PhysX, since you need a second card to use it effectively anyways might as well run the HD4870 as your main card and then buy that second card (cheap GF9600) when you need physX.

Best combo for graphics and PhysX: HD4870+GF9600 > GTX260+GF9600

Really I wouldn't worry about PhysX until it's more than a demo level on 2 games.


+1 on physx. It is so overrated.

Although I wouldn't run both ATI and Nvidia drivers/bloatware on one OS. They don't play well with each other. The potential problems are just... not worth the headaches.

If you have a new single Nvidia card plus an old one, it might be worth the trouble of keeping the old one in for "free" physx (not truly free, since there can be a pretty large cpu load cost) so the old card isn't wasted. There's just no point on any other setup.
September 2, 2008 10:54:16 PM

The 260 GTX+ is supposed to hit market on September 30, 2008, it is
supposed to have more power. It reminds me of the 8800GT to 8800GTS refresh with more shaders enabled. :bounce: 
September 2, 2008 11:19:04 PM

Belles_Toaster said:
The 260 GTX+ is supposed to hit market on September 30, 2008, it is
supposed to have more power. It reminds me of the 8800GT to 8800GTS refresh with more shaders enabled. :bounce: 


That's not a sound comparison. 8800gts use higher binned g92 chips in addition to more stream processors. The additional sps results in a small but solid 15% performance increase across the board. The higher binned chip results in higher overclocking. Besides, g92 8800gts and 8800gt are designed at the same time, aiming at 2 different ranges. 8800gts is never meant to replace 8800gt.

A better comparison of gtx260 to gtx260+ would be between 9800gtx and 9800gtx+. If their performances are any indication, gtx260+ is not worth it. :p 
September 3, 2008 2:22:25 AM

^Actually there was a G80 8800GTS with 112 shaders released just around the time the 8800GT came out.
September 3, 2008 4:13:06 AM

the 8800 GTS was released months before the 8800 GT lol....

November 2006

while 8800 GT was October 29, 2007 just about 1 year:D 
September 3, 2008 12:23:31 PM

^Yes, but an updated version with 112 SPs was released with the 8800GT to keep it relevant. eVGA's went under the moniker "8800GTS SSC".
Quote:
It turns out that NVIDIA and their board partners had one additional trick up their sleeve for the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB. Rather than sticking with the original GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB specifications, which call for 96 stream processors running at 1.2GHz and a 500MHz graphics core, a second, more powerful GPU has been concocted that equips newer GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB cards with 112 stream processors – just like the GeForce 8800 GT.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800...
September 3, 2008 12:44:19 PM

oh okay, I actually never heard of that lol :) 
September 3, 2008 12:51:39 PM

L1qu1d said:
oh okay, I actually never heard of that lol :) 


It doesn't exist anymore. :p 
September 3, 2008 1:04:15 PM

:)  just like almost all of Nvidia's cards;) Haha....sigh*
!