Let me know when we can run Crysis in HD full detail on a mid range card that doesn't need its own powerplant. Till then, I'm keeping my money.

Good point...

hm.. they should try to OC it... see how much more you can get than GTX 280... Otherwise you dont want to spend fifty dollar more for 2-8 FPS more

Why does this article seem to think http://hubpages.com/hub/Geforce-9-Series
that 9 series is better than the gtx?

They should offer degree courses in computer graphics card revisions. Add another one to the list of cards that are trying to find fit into a niche than invent one.

I'd also expect much better power-savings from the 285, given smaller 55nm die (yep, even with overclocking).

"Noticeable improvements make the GTX 285 a good solution for new systems, but its value as an upgrade part is purely dependent on the inadequacy of the part it will replace."

What kind of nonce poofy queer way of speaking is this?

still got my eye on a 295..i think that's the way to go..

check it out:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gefo [...] 31470.html


cheers,
bill

p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum

Why not run them at the same speeds? Try the 208 at 648MHz and leave the 285 at its stock 648... Most 208s will easily do 648. I have just bought a 208 for £241 and it's happily doing 702. Why buy a 260 at that price for a 280? Why spend £300 on a 285 for a few fps that will not be noticed anyway? I hope, though, they keep the 280 around for a time so I can buy another for SLI at hopefully less. They won't though since it's too close to the 285. The 295 though is a different beastie and the real upgrade for 280ers but it's steep.

I agree with TRibal GFX. get to the point man.
Whats the bottom line. I aint interested in 5% increase.
Im interested in new hardware giving me 30% increase in performance.

Looks like a waste of manufacturing effort to be honest.

Talk about milking it for all its worth.

This seems to be a waste of time to the consumer. The Power Efficiency of 5 watts in idle is unlikely to sway any punters.
They could have at least added GDDR5?? And also ATi are planning a 40nm die for this year, nVidia should have skipped 55nm.

Yeah, I'm surprised they bothered with 55nm.............
40nm/45nm is pretty well mainstream now. Can get nearly twice the number of transistors on a 40nm design compared to a 65nm design. Power consumption per transistor at the same clock speed is roughly halved as well.
So at 40nm, a GPU design twice as complex as the 280 and clocked at the same speed should consume about the same power..............

I have this set up:

Intel Core i7 920 2.66Ghz (Nehalem)
Akasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler
Asus Rampage II Extreme Intel X58
Corsair 6GB DDR3 1600MHz Triple Channel DDR3
Asus GeForce GTX 285 1024MB GDDR3

Why am i not getting similar results?

Maybe yours i7 is on 2.66? The i7 in test is at 4.00.

i7 2.66Ghz with no overclock made
Asus p6t
Corsair Dominator 6G 1866Mhz
Asus gtx 285
Velociraptor 300G

3d mark vantage score: P14580
Cpu Score : 45130
Gpu Score : 11896

in this review the cpu is overclock but my results almost the double how can this be possible?