Test Setup, Benchmarks, And Notes
| Test Hardware | |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i7 965 Extreme (3.2 GHz, 8 MB L3 Cache, 133 MHz Bclk), power-saving settings disabled |
| Motherboard | Asus Rampage II Extreme (X58/ICH10) |
| Graphics Cards | BFG GeForce GTX 260 OCX Maxcore 55 896 MB |
| BFG GeForce GTS 250 OC 1 GB | |
| BFG GeForce GTX 9800+ 512 MB | |
| AMD Radeon HD 4870 512 MB Reference | |
| AMD Radeon HD 4850 512 MB Reference | |
| Powercolor Radeon HD 4830 512 MB | |
| Memory | Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 |
| Hard Drive | Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250 GB 7,200 RPM |
| Power Supply | Cooler Master UCP 1100 W |
| CPU Cooler | Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme |
| Test Software | |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate Edition x64 |
| AMD Drivers | Catalyst 9.2 |
| Nvidia Drivers | GeForce 182.06 |
| GeForce 182.08 (Beta) | |
| Benchmark | Configuration |
|---|---|
| World in Conflict | Very High Quality Settings, No AA / No AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Patch 1009, DirectX 10 |
| Very High Quality Settings, 4x AA / 16x AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Patch 1009, DirectX 10 | |
| Far Cry 2 | Ultra-High Quality Settings, No AA / No AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Steam Version |
| Ultra-High Quality Settings, 4x AA / No AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Steam Version | |
| Crysis | Very High Quality Settings, No AA / No AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit Executable |
| Very High Quality Settings, 4x AA / No AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit Executable | |
| Left 4 Dead | Highest Quality Settings, 4x AA / 8x AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, DirectX 10, Steam Version |
| Highest Quality Settings, 4x AA / 8x AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, DirectX 10, Steam Version | |
| Call of Duty: World at War | Highest Quality Settings, No AA / No AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Patch 1.1 |
| Highest Quality Settings, 4x AA / Max AF, vsync off, 1280x1024/1680x1050/1920x1200, Patch 1.1 | |
| 3DMark Vantage | Performance Default, High Quality, Extreme Quality |
Notes
BFG supplied us with three boards for this piece: the GeForce GTS 250 OC being reviewed and, at our request, a GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 and GeForce GTX 9800+.
The GeForce GTS 250 OC edition does run faster than a reference GTS 250 otherwise would. The company’s GeForce GTX 9800+ does run at reference speeds, though. Both boards would operate at identical clocks were it not for the overclock.
Further, BFG’s GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 (dubbed the OCX Maxcore 55) employs dramatically higher clock speeds than a vanilla GTX 260 Core 216. Its core runs at 655 MHz (instead of 576 MHz), its shaders operate at 1,404 MHz (versus 1,242 MHz), and its 896 MB of GDDR3 memory are clocked at 1,125 MHz (instead of 999 MHz). At the time of writing, the Maxcore card includes a copy of Mirror's Edge for free, too. So, if you were planning on buying the $43 game, the price of BFG's overclocked $265 GTX 260 Core 216 card looks a little less imposing.
Knowing that the GTS 250 and GTX 9800+ are essentially the same board with 512 MB of memory and a minor overclock separating them, any variation at lower resolution settings without anti-aliasing (AA) and anisotropic filtering (AF) can likely be attributed to the clock speed tweak, while at higher resolutions (and especially with the detail settings cranked up), you’ll see where frame-buffer capacity plays a much more prominent role in determining performance.
You would have to be stupid to buy one of these with the 4870 going to be the same price.
Why don't you tell the full story like the 512mb version will be worse than the 4850 just like it was when it was called the 9800gtx+.
Good review but how big are these Graphic's Cards
Nvidia seem to have gone mad this past 18 months with so many slightly different cards while ATI seem to have gone 4850,4870 and then the different builders just adding OC on the end while shipping with slight differences to the standard design.
I with they would just go series 8 V1, V2 etc.
You could be reading a list of Nvidia cards and versions and think PTO was a new card at the bottom of the page.
Here is a much better review
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3523
Maybe toms got a really good card from Nvidia but according to anand the 4850 is still a better card.
A few price comparisons..
US vs. UK prices*
Radeon 4830: $89 vs $133 (+50%)
Radeon 4850: $139 vs $191 (+38%)
Radeon 4870: $164 vs $253 (+55%)
Geforce GTX 9800+: $144 vs $249 (+74%)
Geforce GTS 250: $149 vs ??
Geforce GTX 260: $229 vs $314 (+37%)
* Inclusive of VAT.
why compare a 1GB nVidia card against a 512MB ATI one?
A few price comparisons..US vs. UK prices* Radeon 4830: $89 vs $133 (+50%) Radeon 4850: $139 vs $191 (+38%) Radeon 4870: $164 vs $253 (+55%)Geforce GTX 9800+: $144 vs $249 (+74%) Geforce GTS 250: $149 vs ?? Geforce GTX 260: $229 vs $314 (+37%)* Inclusive of VAT.
Sickening isn't it? Heaven knows what happens to the price when it leaves the American shores...
Anybody ever gone on a shopping trip to America? EG can you get these prices on the street, in shops? I would go just to say "bad luck, old boy" to GWB..but if I can get a Gfx card for 66% of the price too (4850) then ..YAnksville FTW!
Sickening isn't it? Heaven knows what happens to the price when it leaves the American shores...
You should see what it does when it gets to Germany, then! :,(
Blame the governments. Nvidia Cards aren't made in the US, their made in China, and since import taxes into the EU from the east are stupid, not to mention they could be coming in via the US (more tax)and your looking at a minimum 40% price increase.
Why dont you test with the stock GTS 250 and 260, Or OC versions of all cards tested?
Most consumers wont be buying the OC versions anyway. When they can get a better gpu for the same price. This is especially the case with the GTS250. Why by a rebranded 9800 oc when you can get a stock 260 for the same price.
Nvidia continues to flounder as they re-work their old products in a desperate attempt to compete at any level with AMD. This should be a great lesson not only in building a great video card but in marketing as well. AMD took a better product, made it much more affordable and rammed it down Nvidia's throat. This "new" GTS is indeed putting lipstick on a pig.
Terrible article. Not only is nVidia pulling a fast one but Toms is helping them. Again. I thought the 'tards that nVidia had in their back pocket had been thrown off the site, but I was wrong. In Ireland (and possibly the UK too) a STOCK GTS250 is equivalent to a stock HD4850 1GB, and a STOCK GTX260+1 is rougly equivalent to a no-frills HD4850X2 or a very heavily OCd HD4870 1GB. So why does Toms persist in pitting an OCd GTS250 against a much cheaper HD4850 and a massively OCd GTX260+ against a stock HD4870 which over here would be around HALF the price? (try running that thing against two of those HD4870s in CF!) There's a very simple reason why Toms did this. Money talks.
how is it that Anandtech's article claims the GTS250 as having lower idle and load power consumption compared to the 9800gtx+ but in Toms article it is the same.
What about a comparison on power consumption with EVGA's custom cooler version of 9800gtx+ which also only requires one 6 pin power connector
http://www.ncix.com/products/index [...] omoid=1015
how is it that Anandtech's article claims the GTS250 as having lower idle and load power consumption compared to the 9800gtx+ but in Toms article it is the same.
What about a comparison on power consumption with EVGA's custom cooler version of 9800gtx+ which also only requires one 6 pin power connector
http://www.ncix.com/products/index [...] omoid=1015
these test are really biased towards nVidia. you use OCed cards and compare them to reference designs, i bet that if you used a TOP version of the 4870/50 the results would've shown that the GTX+ and the 250 are'nt competitive.
What is the point in testing a re-badged card, the performance hasn't changed from when it was first released like a gazillion years ago. Roll on next gen cards already if there are any...
Bring on the day when they find their spine and write a review that just shows the good and bad points of both cards tested and leave it to the reader to decide.
Where's the integrity gone? Oh wait, it left when the site got redesigned.
Besides what others have said about a OC'd card tested against stock why don't they just do the sensible thing...
Test the cards from reference designs so you can see the potential of the raw hardware, not the gimmicky crap that partner companies slap on the product after they get it.