Asus ENGTX260 Matrix
Now we’re getting to the upper echelon of the price/performance ladder in Nvidia's lineup: GeForce GTX 260 cards. First up is Asus' ENGTX260 Matrix.
We recently looked at another one of Asus’ Matrix-series cards based on the Radeon HD 4850 GPU, and the ENGTX260 Matrix shares the hallmarks of the unique Matrix line: a hybrid cooler allowing for both passive and active operation, powerful low-level control over voltages and clock speeds, and purported higher energy efficiency.
The Asus ENGTX260 Matrix comes in an attractive package that is a cut above what we’ve seen from the less-expensive cards. Even inside the box, everything is carefully segmented into Asus-branded compartments.
In addition to the driver and utility CDs, there is a Molex-to-PCIe power adapter, a component video output adapter, a DVI-to-VGA adapter, and a DVI-to-HDMI adapter. There are no retail games included with this one.
The card is unique to Asus. It does not employ the reference PCB, but is still quite large at just under 11" long. It sports the same 896 MB of DDR3 memory as the reference model and has two six-pin PCIe power connectors.
The large non-reference cooler utilizes two fans and four heat pipes to keep the card acceptably cool in both passive and active modes, and it takes up two slots worth of space. Due to the hybrid operation, the card doesn’t force all of the heated air out of the back of the case as one would expect at first glance. Instead, the heated air is pushed out of the sides of the card and stays in the case.
Related Stories :
- Deals for June 9: GeForce GTX 260 For $140.99
- GeForce 9600 GT/GTS 250/GTX 260 Non-Reference Roundup
- Inno3D's GeForce GTX 260 with FreezerX2
- GeForce GTX260 with New PCB Design
- ATI Readies OEM Special: Super RV770 To Challenge GeForce GTX 260, 280
- Nvidia's GeForce GTX260 Cards Debut Well Above MSRP
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 260/280 Review
- Colorful Reveals Water-Cooled iGame GeForce GTX Titan
- GeForce GTX 770 & GTX 780 Pictured on Chinese Site
- Leadtek Launches the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB Hurricane II OC
I was rather disappointed with this article. Not the article itself but with the slightly misleading Title/Intro. When clicking the article I thought I was going to find a massive battle between these vendors on different tiers, instead you show us different instances of 2 slightly different cards of the same type from one vendor....if that makes sense
I mean you have Gigabyte vs Gigabyte in the 9600gt section, Asus vs Asus in the 250 section and so on.
:-/
Great article
i wish it had more cards, i think you need 4 parts, try some back cards like the 4870x2 darkknight? good stuff as always!
thx!
Man, this article makes my 9600GT look so old.
wow how is the gts 250 performing so close to the gtx 260 wasn't the gtx 260 20% faster ?
It's not clear to me why are you comparing '3dmark score' when you should post 'GPU score'.... It's a graphics card comparision, not platform comparision.
It's not clear to me why are you comparing '3dmark score' when you should post 'GPU score'.... It's a graphics card comparision, not platform comparision.
Nothing but the cards is changed so you're not comparing platforms.
We cannot see clearly the bang for the buck card there if we ain't seeing some ati cards like the 4770 and others..
The drop down menu sure is fast... :-)
You noticed that too hey LOL.Check out my lovely Avatar.
Nothing but the cards is changed so you're not comparing platforms.
Sure. A reason more to show GPU score. 3dmark score is too much influenced by CPU's power, and it's no longer relevant, the way it used to be once...
By using a Quad Core and a low-performing GPU you can achive same 3dmark score as using a dual core combined with a considerably stronger GPU, 3dmark Vantage gives too much credit to CPU. But the overall FPS in games it's often higher in the second case: dual core + better GPU.
Recent review showed the 260 being neck to neck with the 4870; both in price and performance, those cards are in the same point.
Since my 8800GT should be between the 9600 and the 250, I guess that the best upgrade path is to buy a second 8800GT, reaching probably 260/4870 performance.
I searched the web for 8800GT SLI benckmark running in i7 920, but got no one single review...
I think that tomshardware should review non up-to-date cards as the 8800 and the ATI equivalents, in crossfilre/SLI, since for many users, it should make sense to buy a second card that to upgrade to a 260/4870.
older reviews on those cards does not accounted for the scalability on I7 x58 platform, and probably ATI and Nvidia dedicated more time tweaking drivers for newer cards, so maybe the 8800GT does not perform well today (the SLI on core 2/Quad did not worked very well in the past)
I'll second Marraco's suggestion above. I got an aging 8800GTS, and so I'm wondering if I should SLI it or buy a new Nvidia 250/260... I'm not gonna get anything by trying to sell it used.
...I searched the web for 8800GT SLI benckmark running in i7 920, but got no one single review...
It looks like I searched the wrong queries.
here are some benchmarks. They show performance like a pair of 4770 (better than 4890), But I trust much more Tomshardware benchmarks
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] ?p=3775122
It's not clear to me why are you comparing '3dmark score' when you should post 'GPU score'.... It's a graphics card comparision, not platform comparision.
Franly, I find the 3DMarks show a more realistic performance difference than the GPU score.
...Asus vs Asus in the 250 section and so on.:-/
The GTS 250 cards were ASUS vs. Zotac.
Great article wish it had more cards, i think you need 4 parts, try some back cards like the 4870x2 darkknight? good stuff as always!thx!
We had a lot of vendors submit non-reference GeForce cards so this is the article we had the parts for. I'm trying to make more graphics card reviews happen so I'm planning on a Radeon version in the future.
I'll second Marraco's suggestion above. I got an aging 8800GTS, and so I'm wondering if I should SLI it or buy a new Nvidia 250/260... I'm not gonna get anything by trying to sell it used.
If your card has 512MB, your 8800 GTS is simply an underclocked GTS 250. If you overclock it you'll bring performance much closer to the new GTS 250, I wouldn't upgrade... just add another one if your board supports it.
We cannot see clearly the bang for the buck card there if we ain't seeing some ati cards like the 4770 and others.
This isn't a budget card roundup, it's a GeForce non-reference roundup. Of course we'll have articles that focus on Radeon vs. GeForce, but this isn't one of 'em.
Recent review showed the 260 being neck to neck with the 4870; both in price and performance, those cards are in the same point.Since my 8800GT should be between the 9600 and the 250, I guess that the best upgrade path is to buy a second 8800GT, reaching probably 260/4870 performance.I searched the web for 8800GT SLI benckmark running in i7 920, but got no one single review...
Absolutely, a second 8800 GT is the way to go for you.
If you want to know what two 8800 GTs can do, remember that the 9800 GT is simply a re-badged 8800 GT. Just google something like "9800 GT SLI benchmark" and you'll have a good idea what your cards can accomplish.
Great article guys.
One thing that I think is blatantly obvious, at least from the cards in this article, Is that there is a price premium for NVidia cards in the low-mid price ranges ($60-120). Lets compare non-reference ATI and NVIdia cards focused on gamers: (Not counting MIRs)
Low-Mid range gamer card: (512MB)
9600GT 512 MB gigabyte overclocked edition: $100
9600GT cheapest $77
9800GT cheapest - $115
4670 cheapest $65
4830 cheapest - $84
4770 cheapest - $100
4850 cheapest (Non-reference OC model) - $110
Comparing these prices to Cleeve's relative performance chart it looks like NVidia takes a bit of a premium for their lower end cards. So I ask, why?
Mid-high range: (512MB)
Cheapest 250 - $130
Cheapest 4870 - $165
Mid-high range: (1GB)
Cheapest GTS 250 - $145
Cheapest 4870 - $175
Things look better for Nvidia in the mid-high range, as the GTS 250 is priced in between 4850 and the 4870 - which is were everyone says it lies performance wise.
So why do we perceivably pay a premium for low range NVidia cards? Could it be that there is a general conception amongst the consumers purchasing GPUs in this price range that NVidia is better than ATI - regardless (or in ignorance) of the bench marks? Or is it that NVidia is arrogant in their pricing?
I ask you