Graphics Card Performance and Classification

[thepizzaman]

The 295 can out perform a 285 and 280, and in a lot of cases can also out perform a 4870x2 as well.

The specs differ quite a bit. The 295 has the lowest core clock at 576MHz that is equivalent to the 8400GS. The 280 at 604MHz, 285 at 648MHz, and the 4870 X2 at 750MHz. The winner is clear
I stick to my order.

Clock speeds aren't everything though, and you don't buy a 295 to run it without SLI enabled, so having it run in SLI is going to out perform a 280 and 285, and will infact out perform a 4870x2 regardless of clock speeds.

no it can't be true.............. lol
i will reject your reality and substitute my own haha

 

[MrNeeds]

The specs differ quite a bit. The 295 has the lowest core clock at 576MHz that is equivalent to the 8400GS. The 280 at 604MHz, 285 at 648MHz, and the 4870 X2 at 750MHz. The winner is clear
I stick to my order.

Clock speeds aren't everything though, and you don't buy a 295 to run it without SLI enabled, so having it run in SLI is going to out perform a 280 and 285, and will infact out perform a 4870x2 regardless of clock speeds.

no it can't be true.............. lol
i will reject your reality and substitute my own haha

gotta love mythbusters

 

[skunksmash]

The 295 has the lowest core clock at 576MHz that is equivalent to the 8400GS. The 280 at 604MHz, 285 at 648MHz, and the 4870 X2 at 750MHz. The winner is clear
I stick to my order.

what!!!!


how dare you use the terms....8400GS & GTX295, in the same sentence :eek:
just B/C the 295 has a lower clock speed MEANS NOTHING..


GTX295 = A combined 480SPs, on a combined 896bit bus (the largest on the planet)
not too mention the 2x GT200 cores & the 1792mb VRAM...


GTX285 = 240SPs, on a 512bit bus, 1024mb VRAM (great card, but the 295 surpasses it)


HD4870x2 = 1600SPs, 2gb DDR5, on a combined 512bit bus, 2x 4870 cores (super performer, but still not as powerful as the 295)


8400GS = 450mhz core, 256mb DDR2 @ 800mhz (lol) & god knows how many SPs (this card is CRAP & has no place with whats listed above)



when i see a GTX285 out perform a GTX295, then i shall bump it up the list....





SK

 

[thepizzaman]

Clock speeds aren't everything though, and you don't buy a 295 to run it without SLI enabled, so having it run in SLI is going to out perform a 280 and 285, and will infact out perform a 4870x2 regardless of clock speeds.

no it can't be true.............. lol
i will reject your reality and substitute my own haha

gotta love mythbusters

heck yes

 

[boredgunner]

GTX295
HD4870X2
GTX285
GTX 280
GTX265
GTX 260 216
HD4870 1GB
GTX 260
9800GX2 (G92)
HD4870
9800GTX+
HD4850
9800GTX (G92)
8800 ULTRA (G80)
HD3870X2
8800GTX (G80)
8800GTS ...(G92)
HD4830
9800GT ....(G92)
8800GT ...(G92)
HD3870
HD4670
9600GT ...(G92)
HD2900XT
HD2900PRO
8800GTS (G80)
8800GS(G80)
8800GTS 320MB

I believe it should be more like this.

GTX 295
HD 4870 X2
GTX 285
GTX 280
*HD 4850 X2
GTX 260 CORE 216 55nm
GTX 260 CORE 216
HD 4870 1 GB
HD 4870 512 MB
GTX 260
9800GX2 (iffy, it can be above this spot too)
*GTS 250 1 GB
*9800GTX+ 1 GB
*HD 4850 2 GB
*GTS 250
9800GTX+
HD 4850
9800GTX
HD 3870 X2
8800 Ultra
8800GTX
8800GTS G92
*GTS 240 1 GB
*9800GT 1 GB
*8800GT 1 GB
*GTS 240
9800GT
8800GT
HD 4830
*8800GTS (640 MB 112 stream processing cores)
8800GTS 640
HD 3870
*GTS 230
9600GT
8800GT 256 (it can be above the GTS 230 in some cases)
8800GTS 320 (it can be above the GTS 230 in some cases)
*9600GSO 768 MB
*8800GS 768 MB
*9600GSO
8800GS

* = Either left out or very close to release

 

[Everlong]

The 8800 Ultra should be above the GTS250.

 

[boredgunner]

The GTS 250 is a 9800GTX+, which typically outperforms an 8800 Ultra unless you're running high resolutions (above 1680 x 1050). The extra transistors and faster clock speeds help out a lot.

 

[Everlong]

An 8800 Ultra has more RAM and a higher memory interface with the same amount of shaders. If it can out perform my 8800GTS 512, it can outpeform a 9800GTX+ and most likely a GTS250. If a 9800GTX/GTS250 does outperform it in anything, the difference won't be massive.

 

[boredgunner]

On top of the 8800GTX

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

 

[Everlong]

On top of the 8800GTX

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

You missed these Radeon HD 4850 512MB and GeForce 9800 GTX+ Performance Quick Take

And I did say, if the 9800GTX out performs the Ultra in anything, the difference won't be massive, and the most it is on there is like 4 or 5 fps.

I might overestimate the Ultra against the GTS 250 though, as it should run more efficiently, so perform better.

 

[boredgunner]

Probably less, but that's not the point, the point was to fix the list.

 

[Gnys]

I don't understand why TM didn't show GX2 in SLI? In SLI, those cards will smoke 85% of the competitors on high resolutions.
You people must be on crack. It doesn't matter what the setting of the GPU, memory & shader clock is but the architecture/engineering itself is more relevant. From what I've observed the bus width function in a graphic card plays an vital role to the performance. Second would have to be the nano-metric architecture of the processor and memory module.

 

[boredgunner]

Yes, the chipset engineering is important and the GX2 (9800GX2?) uses two G92 chips. The bus width is also important, and again the 9800GX2 only has a 256 bit bus width.

 

[Everlong]

I don't understand why TM didn't show GX2 in SLI? In SLI, those cards will smoke 85% of the competitors on high resolutions.
You people must be on crack. It doesn't matter what the setting of the GPU, memory & shader clock is but the architecture/engineering itself is more relevant. From what I've observed the bus width function in a graphic card plays an vital role to the performance. Second would have to be the nano-metric architecture of the processor and memory module.

I think it was in SLI. You don't by a GX2 just to run it in single GPU mode.

In my opinion, the amount of shaders/pipelines alongside the bus interface are the most important things, but the downside to what Nvidia do is they put the bus width too small for some cards i.e. a 256bit interface can only really make the best use out of 512mb, like what's been said by Skunk (I think) somewhere around here, so piling 1GB up on a card isn't going to make much of a difference, whereas a card like the 8800 GTX/Ultra and the GTX200 cards have a larger interface to accommodate the large amount of memory on it.

The GTS250 should be quite a performer even it it is still using a G92 chip, it's been rebuilt to be more efficient and to run much cooler, which is why I think I overestimated what it's capable of against a high end G80 card.

And Gnys, where did any of us state that the GPU/memory/shader speed is defines how good a graphic card is?

 

[skunksmash]

Everlong is correct.......


ok guys, i know the list needs updating feel free to point out what you believe needs changing...


im just waiting for some more benches on the GTS250 before its placed in line...

& it looks like i forgot the 4850x2 all together...


another thing ppl need to bear in mind is, some of the cards on the list are a pretty close call so the list format can appear deceiving considering many cards would be on par with each other & not above or below....


its not gospel, different rigs will produce different results.... its just a general ''who's who'' for GFX cards.




SK

 

[Gnys]

I think it was in SLI. You don't by a GX2 just to run it in single GPU mode.

In my opinion, the amount of shaders/pipelines alongside the bus interface are the most important things, but the downside to what Nvidia do is they put the bus width too small for some cards i.e. a 256bit interface can only really make the best use out of 512mb, like what's been said by Skunk (I think) somewhere around here, so piling 1GB up on a card isn't going to make much of a difference, whereas a card like the 8800 GTX/Ultra and the GTX200 cards have a larger interface to accommodate the large amount of memory on it.

The GTS250 should be quite a performer even it it is still using a G92 chip, it's been rebuilt to be more efficient and to run much cooler, which is why I think I overestimated what it's capable of against a high end G80 card.

And Gnys, where did any of us state that the GPU/memory/shader speed is defines how good a graphic card is?

I remember browsing varies competitor gpu battles & they always outlined the GX2 (single) or GX2 SLI mode/s. Differential medium between the single & dual gpu was around 30% so those charts are improper.
Everyone's interpretation is different, Frank.

 

[Everlong]

Found some benchmarks of the GTS 250 NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 Mainstream GPU - HotHardware

www.scan.co.uk have some in for £150, so around same price as 9800GTX+ as well, and them benchmarks have it bench pretty much identical to a 9800 as well.

 

[skunksmash]

cheers Everlong.......

i willl update the list after work......






SK

 

[skunksmash]

OK..... the list has been updated.


let me know if were all in agreement with the HD4850X2 & the GTS250's positions..??






SK

 

[Everlong]

Looks good to me