Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
GTX 285 simulated review (GTX 280 clocked to 285 speeds)
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 2,707
- Location
- London & Dubai
would have liked to see a 1920x1200 test.
All these upper-end cards are more suited to 1920x1200
All these upper-end cards are more suited to 1920x1200
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 804
- Location
- Doncaster
Interesting read. One thing it doesent simulate though is how far on average, a 'stock' 285 will be overclock by, and what figures that will give.
Btw, are those clocks they used for the 280, pretty easy to achieve on a stock 280? (not really been following any oc 280 threads). - thanks, joe
Btw, are those clocks they used for the 280, pretty easy to achieve on a stock 280? (not really been following any oc 280 threads). - thanks, joe
Last edited:
Yes, most GTX280 will clock higher, however GTX285 should clock even higher.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,201
- Location
- Liverpool
Yep, I run 720/1485/2600 an there's probably room for a bit more even on the memory!
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
its quite relevant imo, it gives you a point of reference.
How?
A reference that 2 cards is better then one? That's obvious.
Surely when testing cards you need 1 card, 2 cards and 3+ categories?
No it's not pointless in the slightest... it is ATI's fastest enthusiast-class card sold as a single solution, and can rightly be compared to NV's leading enthusiast-class card. That it is essentially two cards has nothing to do with it, and it's NV's fault for not having a comparable solution to compare it to.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
ok...i'm looking at a 4670 but how fast is it compared to a 4830? according to you, the two should never be tested together.
rubbish tbh, id rather as many cards tested together as possible.
It has everything to do with it, the comparison criteria is not the same over the 2 cards making the results completely pointless.
If there both single core's then they should be, but if one is x2 and the other is single, then it shouldnt.
A 4870X2 is OK to be compared to any card, no one cares if it is dual card of what not, they care about performance and as we can see, 4870X2 is the fastest there...
What are you supposed to do? compared it with a 3870X2, 9800GX2 and a 7950GX2?
What stupid review would that be, how are we supposed to know where it stacks up if you cant compare it with any card
What are you supposed to do? compared it with a 3870X2, 9800GX2 and a 7950GX2?
What stupid review would that be, how are we supposed to know where it stacks up if you cant compare it with any card
What stupid review would that be, how are we supposed to know where it stacks up if you cant compare it with any card
It would be a accurate review, rather then a completely pointless "2 card graphics cards are better then singles" omg no wai.
...in your opinion. Not the opinion of the professional media and 99% of forumites.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,192
The 4870x2 makes me hard 
(ok maybe a little
)
(ok maybe a little
)