Nvidia's GeForce GTX 285: A Worthy Successor?

Thanks for the article.

Overclocking would be nice to see what the hardware can really do; but I generally don't dabble into overclock video cards. Never seems to work out, either the card is already running hot or the slightest increase in frequency produces artifacts.
Also driver updates seem to wreak havoc with oc settings.

Personally, I'm hoping for a non-crippled GTX 295 using the GTX 285's full specs(^Core Clock, ^Shader Clock, ^Memory Data Rate, ^Frame Buffer, ^Memory Bus Width, and ^ROPs)My & $$$ will be waiting.

I went for the GTX 285. I figure it will run cooler, allow higher overclocks, and maybe save energy compared to a GTX 280. I was able to pick mine up for about $350 while most GTX 280 cards are still selling for above $325 without mail in rebates counted. Thus far, over the last three years I have had exactly 0 out of 12 mail in rebates for computer compenents honored.

ravenwareThanks for the article.Overclocking would be nice to see what the hardware can really do; but I generally don't dabble into overclock video cards. Never seems to work out, either the card is already running hot or the slightest increase in frequency produces artifacts.Also driver updates seem to wreak havoc with oc settings.I just replaced a 8800 GTS 640MB card with the GTX 285. Base clocks for the GTS are 500 GPU and 800 memory. I foget the shaders, but it is over 1000. I had mine running with 0 glitches for the life of the card at 600 GPU and 1000 memory. Before the overclock the highest temperature at load was about 88C, after the overclock the highest temperature was 94C, both of which were well within manufaturer specifications of 115C. I would not be too scared of overclocking your hardware, unless your warranty is voided because of it.

I have not overclocked the GTX 285 yet, I am waiting for NiBiToR v4.9 to be released so once I overclock it, I can set it permantly to the final stable clock. I am expecting to be able to hit about 730 GPU, but it could be less.

Because most single-GPU graphics cards buyers would not even consider a more expensive dual-GPU solution, we’ve taken the unprecedented step of arranging today’s charts by performance-per-GPU, rather than absolute performance.

In other words, no matter how well ATI's strategy of using two smaller, cheaper GPUs in tandem instead of one huge GPU works, you will still be able to say that Nvidia is the best.

Also, why would most people who are spending $400-$450 on video cards not want a dual-card setup. Most people I know see it as a kind of bragging right, just like water-cooling your rig.

One last thing, why is it so hard to find reviews of the 4850x2?

because multi-gpu cards come with their own bag of headaches Daeros. you are better off going CF or SLI then to participate it that pay to play experiment.