GeForce GTX 280 & 260 Tested - tech
(hx) 04:54 PM CEST - Jun,16 2008
- Post a comment
Nvidia
today announced a new graphics processor with 240 computing cores, giving
PCs the horsepower needed to run three-dimensional games and scientific
applications. The new GeForce GTX 280, the largest GPU ever built by Nvidia,
includes 1.4 billion transistors and delivers 933 gigaflops of performance. It
succeeds the GeForce 8800 GTX, which had 128 cores and delivered 518 gigaflops
of performance. The first reviews can be found on
AnandTech,
Benchmark Reviews,
Bjorn3D,
CHW,
ComputerBase,
Driver Heaven,
Guru3D,
ExtremeTech,
EliteBastards,
HardOCP,
Hardware
Secrets,
Hot Hardware,
ChilleHardware,
InsideHW,
MadBoxPC,
Neoseeker,
Overclockers Club,
Overclock3D.net,
PC
Perspective,
techPowerUp!,
Technic3D,
The TechReport,
TheInquirer,
Tweaktown,
t-break.
What you make of the GeForce GTX 280 may hinge on where you come down on the
multi-GPU question. Clearly, the GTX 280 is far and away the new single-GPU
performance champ, and Nvidia has done it again by nearly doubling the resources
of the G80. Its performance is strongest, relatively speaking, at high
resolutions where current solutions suffer most, surely in part because of
its true 1GB memory size. And one can't help but like the legion of tweaks and
incremental enhancements Nvidia has made to an already familiar and successful
basic GPU architecture, from better tuning of the shader cores to the
precipitous reduction in idle power draw.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have a big single-GPU card like the GTX
280 than a dual-chip special like the Radeon HD 3870 X2 or the GeForce 9800 GX2
any day. Multi-GPU setups are fragile, and in some games, their performance
simply doesn't scale very well. Also, Nvidia's support for multiple monitors in
SLI and GX2 solutions is pretty dreadful. The trouble is, things are pretty
decidedly not equal. More often that not, the GeForce 9800 GX2 is faster than
the GTX 280, and the GX2 is currently selling for as little as 470 bucks,
American money. Compared to that, the GTX 280's asking price of $649 seems
mighty steep. Even the GTX 260 at $399 feels expensive in light of the
alternatives-dual GeForce 8800 GTs in SLI, for instance-unless you're committed
to the single-GPU path.
Another problem with cards like the 9800 GX2 is simply that they've shown us
that there's more performance to be had in today's games than what the GTX 260
and 280 can offer. One can't escape the impression, seeing the benchmark
results, that the GT200's performance could be higher. Yet many of the changes
Nvidia has introduced in this new GPU fall decidedly under the rubric of
future-proofing. We're unlikely to see games push the limits of this shader core
for some time to come, for example. I went back and looked, and it turns out
that when the GeForce 8800 GTX debuted, it was often slower than two GeForce
7900 GTX cards in SLI. No one cared much at the time because the G80 brought
with it a whole boatload of new capabilities. One can't exactly say the same for
the GT200, but then again, things like a double-size register file for more
complex shaders or faster stream-out for geometry shaders may end up being
fairly consequential in the long run. It's just terribly difficult to judge
these things right now, when cheaper multi-GPU alternatives will run today's
games faster.
|