/ Sign-up
Your question

is the gtx 260 a good card to buy or is it too slow?

  • Graphics Cards
  • Gtx
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
September 15, 2008 6:19:48 AM

what are your opinions?

More about : gtx 260 good card buy slow

September 15, 2008 6:30:50 AM

It's a great card, especially now that nvidia got kicked in the balls, and had to drop their prices. If you tell us what your set-up is, motherboard/chipset, CPU, PSU, and what resolution do you game at we can even narrow it down, whether or not it is complete overkill.
September 15, 2008 8:48:24 AM

Could the question be any more cryptic?
Related resources
September 15, 2008 10:03:27 AM

LOL @ Kitsilencer !!!
Dude, depends on where you're coming from. If you had 9800GTX in SLI then no, it's not that fast but if your last card was a 7600GT then you'll see a big big difference. Also, you need to keep in mind that in order to drive these new mosters (NVidia 200 series and ATI 4800 series) you need a very good CPU to take full advantage and not bottleneck the card (like I do!!)
The 260 is a wonderfull card, but so is the 4870. Do your research before buying
September 15, 2008 3:38:05 PM

thanks for replying.
my processor is the intel e6700 *will be moving to a q9650 in the near future.
my graphics card is, no graphics card, i have onboard video.
my mobo is the retarded lol intel dg35ec (at least, it supports the q9650!).
my os is the fully working (finally) ms windows vista ult. 64bit.
the thing is, i have about $360 this month and i decided on buying a
decent but not that expensive video card, and after all i really don't
play that many games anyway, it is more for the 3d graphics/desktop of vista.
September 15, 2008 3:43:02 PM

i have a 1920x1200 lcd but i play at only 1400x900.
September 15, 2008 4:16:07 PM

jvc08 said:
i have a 1920x1200 lcd but i play at only 1400x900.

if thats the rez you play at the 4850 would be a better option, save some cash
September 15, 2008 4:32:43 PM

A 260 is complete overkill if you do not plan on any form of heavy gaming and only want your Vista Visuals to run smoothly.

Upgrade your processor as that will increase your total performance, and stick in a $70-$100 Video Card.

You should be able to pop in a 9600GT for under $90, have a passable experience gaming and it will be more than enough for the daily operation of Vista, watching movies and playing older games at maximum settings and new games on medium to low.

If Gaming is not your focus, then there is very little advantage to a top of the line GPU, if Gaming is your focus then it's the one area you do not want to skimp out on.

However at this point, anything is better than onboard video.
September 15, 2008 6:58:14 PM

The ram isn't just for Resolutions, I mean look at Crysis 1 Assasin's creed, etc they stress out cards alot even at 1280x1024.

To OP, if you are looking into play games in the future then the 260 GTX would be a good choice for your lcd monitor, and for high textured games.

But if not, then like ranger said the 4850 would do you well , adn its pretty cheap.

Even a 8800 GT could do alot but only for current gen games, as for new games, unless you sli the cards, they might not perform the way you want them to.

Personally if your gaming go with the 260 GTX or the 4870, or better yet wait for the 260 GTX revision, which should be faster than the 4870 or might help it be onpar with it.

nothing to rush now, unless you really must!
September 15, 2008 7:10:56 PM

260 GTX revision ???
September 15, 2008 7:12:20 PM

its not for games its for vista aero, that card i linked to will be fine for vista
September 18, 2008 5:08:24 AM

yeah, if you're not going to be gaming a lot save money and buy an ati 4850 or an nvidia 9800 gtx, you'll still see an incredible performance boost but for $150-$175.
If you really want to save money, put in a 9600 gt for ~$100. It'll run vista great and games pretty well.
September 18, 2008 5:16:52 AM

the revision is they added a few more stream processors so the performance increased to the 4870 levels maybe a little bit more... think they went from 192 to 216 sp...
September 18, 2008 5:18:34 AM

theres a gtx 260 right now for like $230 before rebate so thats an amazing price if u ask me its not worth to pay the ~$80 for the new gtx 260 216... its not much of a difference...
September 18, 2008 5:36:28 AM

Nica Guy said:
theres a gtx 260 right now for like $230 before rebate so thats an amazing price if u ask me its not worth to pay the ~$80 for the new gtx 260 216... its not much of a difference...

Here is more on that. Seems like the 216 performs 2-5 fps better on average than the standard GTX 260, sometimes about 10fps with certain settings in Crysis. I agree it isn't much of an improvement. There is also the possibility that due to the extra shaders it may not OC as well, so my guess is they will perform almost equally.
September 18, 2008 7:39:47 AM

Just buy the XFX GTX 260 xxx edition and you will remember me.
I have this card about 2 months and i am overwhelmed by the performance of GTX 260 xxx. All new games in 1650 x 1080 between 30-55 fps!
It's little more expensive from all the others GTX 260, but the benefits you gain are 12% more power from them and about 20-22% faster from the 4870's.

enjoy smooth play...

P.S. for those (4870 lovers) who will probably tell me to send them links just see this:


see the latest vga charts of Tomshardware and put this card between normal GTX 260 and GTX 280.
September 18, 2008 7:46:41 AM

u get 12% more from normal gtx 260? and 20 - 22% from 4870?

i dont think thats right do the math and ur saying the normal gtx 260 is faster 4870 which we all know it is not...
September 18, 2008 7:50:45 AM

the only way a gtx 260 is worth buying is if u get it under $250...
September 18, 2008 7:52:18 AM

and the link this guy provided seems wrong to me...
in unreal tournament at 1680 x 1050 a 9800gtx beats any other card????????
i dont think so...
September 18, 2008 8:19:43 AM

Nica you are totaly wrong!
I cant understand you guys (4870 lovers) that even if you see the results and benchmarks of Tomshardware,in all resolutions with AA, antialising on normal GTX 260 is little faster than 4870.
So can you imagine the results of XFX GTX 260 xxx edition which is close to GTX 280?

Think before you write something...
September 18, 2008 8:27:37 AM

not a 4870 lover just sent one back actually, so stop blaming everything on fanboyism and read first...
i recommended the gtx 260 in the first place... im just saying the truth i dont know about that link u gave but i read in every other comparison that the 4870 is a little faster than the normal gtx 260... go to 3dguru and see for yourself or anandtech...
also neither the gtx 260 nor the 4870 are the best buy as the 9800gx2 costs almost the same and it smokes all those cards out of the water...
even the version of the gtx260 u provided so the only gtx 260 worth buying imo is the one for $220 after rebates...
its a great card im not saying anything different just not the best at the price...

September 18, 2008 8:28:17 AM

im a 4870x2 lover anyways :D 
September 18, 2008 8:31:17 AM

hey can u send me a link with that 260 u have? with newegg if possible...
September 18, 2008 9:59:13 AM

Everybody, seriously stop...

If you play at 1400*900 just grab a 4850 it costs like $140 on and they have some pretty decent third-party coolers on them now, so heat isn't really an issue unless your case doesn't have great air-flow to begin with.

if u have a 1900*1200 monitor why not play at that resolution :whistle:  , a gtx 260 or a 4870 would allow you to do that very nicely

as for all this crap about a gtx 260 being a better card than a 4870, yeah it's possible w/ some factory overclocks and what not, but seriously look at the margins, it's nominal at best.

I use a full-fledged G92 core, and love it, it drives my 1900*1200 resolution beautifully and to get the newest revision of that core might run you like $180-ish, honestly since there isn't a big enough difference to spend $40 on that just get an 8800GTS 512 [G92 core].

The way I see it, you can go with a 800gts 512, b/c they can be had for practically $140, or a 4850 [similar pricing]. [in that range those are very strong GPU's for the price] They both would work fine, and hey look for one of those w/ a free game or some other incentive b/c reference coolers are usually pretty stock and to be honest, they all pretty much work great. If your case doesn't have great air-flow you may want to invest some money in a few good fans, dual ball bearing, panaflo, yate-loons, w/e just make sure air-flow is good! Otherwise you may experience random problems b/c of overheating...and which btw will be of no fault of your hardware....

September 18, 2008 6:45:20 PM

The GTX 260 and HD 4870 are both fantastic cards, and they're pretty closely matched. The new 260 is a pretty minor difference, it has the same performance as some OC'd TX 260's.

But that hardware secrets review is whack. A whole bunch of numbers don't make sense to me. I've never seen the HD 3870 X2 scale to 100% (Edit: just looked, and the 3870 X2 they used is OC'd, sorry), let alone in a game like Crysis, and the UT3 charts are totally out of whack. According to that graph:
9800GTX > GTX260 XFX > GTX 260 > GTX280. Odd.
September 18, 2008 7:51:53 PM

agree 1000% with Dekasab... those benchmarks are so wrong...
the 9800gtx outperforms any other card in the market in UT3?? WTF???
September 18, 2008 8:09:04 PM

I don't want to continue the argument but, you can't compare older games that already have good frame rates as nobody bothers to optimize drivers for them. You also can't use Crysis or Lost Planet as those games are known for their heavy Nvidia bias. Same goes for AMD with CoJ. The only way it is fair to use these games for comparison for deciding the better card is when you are looking for a card with intent of playing that game.
I also own an nvidia card so you can't say I am biased.

As for the XFX I have no doubt it is a great card. However, most of us would rather buy a cheaper card and OC it ourselves as we can usually do better than the factory OCed ones.

I agree with Frozengpu as far as the card and resolution comments go. You own a nice screen you might as well use it. If not I will be happy trading you monitors, my gpu could use a good work out.
September 19, 2008 3:58:28 AM

Seriously speaking though, your native resolution is pretty good, you should use it, since you are planning on obtaining a very powerful GPU, you might as well enjoy it seeing as that's a privilege most ppl don't have.
September 19, 2008 11:03:36 AM

sorry wron g post
September 19, 2008 2:31:53 PM

It seems that the GTX 260 on average performs better than the gx2. The gx2 is also more expensive.