GTS 250 Vs. GTS 450 Pros and Cons

[Guest]

Pros and Cons GTS250 or GTS450:

GTS 450

Pros:

192 Cuda cores
GDDR5

Cons:

Only 128 Bits
Only 57.2 Memory Bandwidth
Limited too 2 Way sli









GTS 250

Pros:

256 Bit
3 Way Sli
70.4 Memory Bandwidth
Dont run as hot as the GTS 450's
40nm

Cons:

128 Cuda Cores

 

[Randomacts]

no one in there right mind would SLI either of those imo...

 

[notty22]

no one in there right mind would SLI either of those imo...

Why not ? Its comparable to 5770 in crossfire, which alot of people recommend around here, at least at one time.
It hits a performance point higher than one gtx 460 could hit.
Alot of people buy one card and purchase the second later.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTS_450_SLI/23.html

 

[jyjjy]

The GTS 450 is significantly more powerful, DX11 compatible, overclocks much better and uses less power, much less at idle. The only reason to get the GTS 250 is if you can't afford the GTS 450.

 

[Guest]

The GTS 450 is significantly more powerful, DX11 compatible, overclocks much better and uses less power, much less at idle. The only reason to get the GTS 250 is if you can't afford the GTS 450.

I beg to differ its definitely not significantly more powerfull, go look at some benchmarks, before posting. Infact the GTS 250 is better.

 

[nforce4max]

The GTS 450 is significantly more powerful, DX11 compatible, overclocks much better and uses less power, much less at idle. The only reason to get the GTS 250 is if you can't afford the GTS 450.

As people often to do me by throwing the benchmarks at me. The GTS450 isn't faster with current drivers and the architecture is why it doesn't perform as one would expect compared to older cards. It took a Single GTX460 to make a meaningful upgrade over my two 9800gt sli setup and it (ref) only benches within 1-3% of a GTX285. It all comes down to distributing workload to each of the shaders. The old was limited to 88% of the gpu being used for the game while the remaining 12% of the power was wasted on internal operations such as scheduling and making sure that operations are going as they should. Fermi it seams worse and ATI suffers from the same problem but not as bad.

 

[nforce4max]

If you got a Good board that can two or three way sli and a decent psu to compliment then go with the GTS250. As far as the G92 you can't keep a good dog down. The GTS450 was to me a disappointment and came close to buying one till enough pre-release benches came out then I settled on a GTX460 from Gigabyte. It better in the end to buy one middle of the road or better card then sli/crossfire later.

 

[notty22]

I beg to differ its definitely not significantly more powerfull, go look at some benchmarks, before posting. Infact the GTS 250 is better.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9vgJ1nwu_xA/TIQ5k0P-7sI/AAAAAAAAEhs/g2PEV8v1f_8/s640/unigineheaven.png

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9vgJ1nwu_xA/TIQ5khMbM_I/AAAAAAAAEhk/_QAEeIpxRok/s640/dirt2.png

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9vgJ1nwu_xA/TIQ5jdxY1oI/AAAAAAAAEhU/n2L4Wo2GiQs/s640/crysiswarheadh.png

You realize the gts 450 was most likely running dx11 in the first two benchmarks ?

 

[jyjjy]

I beg to differ its definitely not significantly more powerfull, go look at some benchmarks, before posting.

Why don't you look at the gold badge next to my name and research what it means before acting like I don't know what I'm talking about.
Exactly what models of the two cards are you talking about? The vast majority of the GTS 450s come with a factory overclock, some very extreme, while most current GTS 250s are actually underclocked from the reference speed of 738mhz, often down to 675mhz. Also are you talking about the 1gb GTS 250 or 512mb? What resolution are you going to be using?

 

[notty22]

Here is a USER review of the gts 250 vs gts 450.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=260416

There's one thing we can be sure of: After it's incredibly long life and all the rebrands, the G92 core can finally be put out to pasture.
Like the 460, the 450 has plenty of headroom for overclocking, even after a factory OC from MSI. Perhaps with some additional heatsinks on the memory and VRM sections, even better overclocking could be achieved. It's hard to complain with a close to 200mhz OC over the reference clocks though. It makes you wonder why Nvidia didn't release the card with a higher default clock to put more pressure on the 57xx series from ATI.
It's hard to overlook how late the card is to market. If the 450 and for that matter the 460 were released a year ago, with a bit higher default clock then Nvidia could have been very competitive in the midrange.

 

[OvrClkr]

It depends on the game and the res also, nobody is going to buy a single 250 or a single 450 to run at 1920x 1200 or higher so those numbers above are useless.

@ notty, that review was kinda odd IMO, no sign of the GTS 250 anywhere, it was basically all GTS 450 info.

 

[notty22]

Yeah, I know, I was snooping around that site, and the User just posted that in the review section, it was fresh in my mind so I linked.
Maybe he will build upon his comparisons.

I agree, a lot of new dx11 gpu's are not high settings capable@1080p in this price range. If a user sli a pair of 450's then it would be.

There is no reason to buy a new gts 250 VS a gts 450.
At newegg the prices are 100-110 VS as low as 122

 

[OvrClkr]

yep I agree, at this point in time the 250 is not the most attractive buy.. The 450 has DX11, better OC'ing threshold, runs a bit cooler (just like jyjjy pointed out) + they are both priced fairly equal.

Top of the Line 250
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127495&cm_re=GTS_250-_-14-127-495-_-Product

Top of the Line 450
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127521&cm_re=GTS_450-_-14-127-521-_-Product

Dual 250's are slightly faster than a GTX 285 = 5% slower than a 5850, using the above chart we can say that the dual 450's are about 8/10% faster than the dual 250's. The 450's OC'ed are neck to neck with a 5870 so that IMO is what matters the most.