Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

is the 260 GTX core 216 the best mid range choice?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 4, 2008 1:17:42 PM

I own a 9800 GX2 (for about 3 months) but I´ve been reading a lot of bad things about it, bad driver support, low FPS, AA handling problems, so I decided to sell it and get another one, after reading a lot of reviews and comparison tables I think the core 216 is a better choice than the 4870 1GB, plus is cheaper at least in my country. You can get the EVGA 260 core 216 stock for around $312.00 and the Diamond 4870 1GB for around $357.00, I know that sounds a little pricey but you have to order this cards from the US.

I'll use one card only (no SLI or CrossFire) and 1920 x 1200 resolution. I need to make the best decision, I can´t afford to make a bad choice again, so, which card is the best??

Thanks for your comments
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2008 1:42:55 PM

You'll have to decide that for yourself. The most recent "best cards for the money" article at this site discusses that both of these cards offer compelling performance.

On a side note, I would not consider either of these cards mid-range. You're definitely looking a lot closer to high-end, especially with the inflated prices in your country.

December 4, 2008 1:43:31 PM

So, you had a 9800GX2, but you got rid of it because you "read a lot of bad things about it."

Does that mean it performs perfectly in the games you choose at the resolution you choose but you can't be seen with such a card due to its low reputation in the press?

I've heard of social climbers, but this takes the cake. Pick your top three games and check out various benchmarks of the cards you are considering. All of the cards you are interested in are top performers, but performance varies widely across titles.

I personally avoid dual-GPU solutions due to driver and heat issues, single GPU performance is just as good in almost all situations.
Related resources
December 4, 2008 1:53:05 PM

If the 9800x2 plays all your games at your intended resolution to your liking then why bother upgrading now? If you are going to 'upgrade' then between the HD4870 1gb and GTX260 216 choose the cheaper of the two as performance is relatively close.
December 4, 2008 2:09:44 PM

i would say the Core 216 is the better of the 2. it has been shown to out perform the 4870 in many reviews that have both, the GTX 260-216 isnt ahead by a major margin but it does seem to get 5-10 fps more in the reviews ive read. i own one and its great but im not using it right now because i have SLI 9800GTX+ but next month im buying another Core 216 for SLI. so look at some reviews and decide but the Core 216 is slightly better than the 4870
December 4, 2008 2:24:12 PM

Social climber??? LOL ok, here´s the thing, right now I have a 17 inch 1280 x 1024 monitor. Yesterday I bought 26 inch monitor (should arrive in the next days).

My GX2 is ok in all my games but crysis and crysis warhead, it crawls in some areas (all max'd out no AA), making the game unplayable.

If my card performs like this at 1280 x 1024, how it will perform at 1920 x 1200??? That´s what bothers me. My processor is a C2D e8400 @3.78GHz so I don´t think this problem is CPU related.
December 4, 2008 3:26:56 PM

Hrmm, you'd think it would be fine at 12x10 res.
December 4, 2008 5:02:32 PM

xxcoop42xx said:
i would say the Core 216 is the better of the 2. it has been shown to out perform the 4870 in many reviews that have both, the GTX 260-216 isnt ahead by a major margin but it does seem to get 5-10 fps more in the reviews ive read. i own one and its great but im not using it right now because i have SLI 9800GTX+ but next month im buying another Core 216 for SLI. so look at some reviews and decide but the Core 216 is slightly better than the 4870



that's relative, you could put together a review where the 4870 will win in all the games you test, the bottom line is the cards are that close performance wise that you could not tell the difference with the human eye, in that case it comes down to price or the features of the card and that depends how often you upgrade, if you upgrade every six months you go for the one with the cheaper price, but if you upgrade every two years then longevity comes into play and you might go for dx10.1.
does that make sense.
December 4, 2008 11:03:07 PM

mrmagoogt said:
Social climber??? LOL ok, here´s the thing, right now I have a 17 inch 1280 x 1024 monitor. Yesterday I bought 26 inch monitor (should arrive in the next days).

My GX2 is ok in all my games but crysis and crysis warhead, it crawls in some areas (all max'd out no AA), making the game unplayable.

If my card performs like this at 1280 x 1024, how it will performs a 1920 x 1200??? That´s what bothers me. My processor is a C2D e8400 @3.78GHz so I don´t think this problem is CPU related.


There's your problem: Crysis. No card plays Crysis well. It takes three cards, not just two, to get Crysis running like we expect it to run..which is like every other game that will run great with any single card.

You are in a tough spot and I wouldn't run Crysis with anything less than a GTX280 at that resolution, you can't get blood from a stone!

You like the social climber thing? Funny.

December 4, 2008 11:42:04 PM

Quote:
There's your problem: Crysis. No card plays Crysis well. It takes three cards, not just two, to get Crysis running like we expect it to run..which is like every other game that will run great with any single card.

You are in a tough spot and I wouldn't run Crysis with anything less than a GTX280 at that resolution, you can't get blood from a stone!

You like the social climber thing? Funny.


Yeah, weird but funny. Maybe you´re right and I´m asking to much to my video card (is one of the best cards for crysis) and maybe I should stay with the GX2 for a while and upgrade in a year or two, don´t you think??
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2008 10:13:12 AM

YES. You're just throwing money at a problem that you can't fix with just one card. If you read around the internet a bit and check the benchmarks, it takes a whole lot of horsepower to tackle Crysis.

If you can do what you want it to do, save some $$$ and get a new GPU in the future.

Don't let one game be your only deciding factor, unless that is the only game you will ever play.
December 5, 2008 1:38:36 PM

at such a low resolution, playing crysis would be severely CPU intensive...so it could well possibly be your CPU holding your video card back.
once u get into the higher res ie 1680x1050/1920x1200, your gpu will shine and carry the load...i would suggest just waiting and seeing if your 9800x2 can perform the way you want before you spend 300+.
imo it shouldn't be a significant enough boost to spend all that cash.
December 5, 2008 1:53:20 PM

kingtz said:
In 2-3 years, that's probably going to be specs for mid to upper-mid gaming rig. I wonder if anyone's going to still play Crysis in 1 year, let alone 2?


I find that hard to beleive seeing as 1 280 GTX can mange 30 fps even at 1920x1200 with out AA. The game doesn't scale well with anything more than 2 cards, unless the resolution is massive.

2 4870 X2s? I don't think so, from the reviews I read, the 4870 X2 runs better than 2 4870 X2s. Plus its not technically the first to run the game generally smooth.

The 9800 GX2 can do smooth frames, but I guarantee it that when heavy action is around any system will almost crumble and see a frame drop.
December 5, 2008 2:05:21 PM

He's not moving really. I mean your giving up higher frame rates for lower more steady frame rates, so really its pretty even trade off when it comes to logic, but not when it comes to money.
!