Benchmark Results: World in Conflict
Without AA or AF, the minor overclock and extra 512 MB of memory make no difference in setting the GeForce GTS 250 apart from the GeForce GTX 9800+ that came before it. And the GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 board is faster at 1920x1200 than either G92-based card at 1280x1024.
At the same time, the GTS 250 is able to outpace AMD’s Radeon HD 4850 with 512 MB. It takes a Radeon HD 4870 512 MB in order to best the “new” Nvidia card.
The results are similar once AA and AF are turned on. The GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 extends its lead, no doubt thanks to significantly more memory bandwidth than the two G92-based cards. Once again, the GeForce GTS 250 falls in between the performance of AMD’s Radeon HD 4850 and 4870 cards.
18
Comments
Sponsored
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.