192's core vrs 216 core?

Andy-Jones-OC · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:16

192's core vrs 216 core? Can someone tell me the difference and whats the point?
I notice none after having tryed both versions of 260 gtx. In games and 3d mark.

elpedro · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:27

Difference won't be noticeable to the eye, only on graphs

Andy-Jones-OC · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:29

So unless you like graphs theres no point spending ya monie on 216? lol

reflux · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:30

Well the 216 brings it closer to GTX280 performance, but really, the difference between a 216 and a 192 is only around 5-10fps, so it usually isn't noticeable.

However, considering the 216s are only about £20 more than a 192, it's probably worth it.

r0zvad · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:32

I was pretty much going to say what reflux has. The 216 was implemented to compete with the 4870 1GB. But as the 216 aren't much more than the 192s it's a no brainer really.

elpedro · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:33

reflux said:
Well the 216 brings it closer to GTX280 performance, but really, the difference between a 216 and a 192 is only around 5-10fps, so it usually isn't noticeable.probably worth it.

And that's if you're lucky. I posted an old benchmark of Crysis I did with my old GTX 260 (192) overclocked. Some guy matched the same speeds with his 260 (216) and he was 3FPS quicker clock for clock. Both using same amount of RAM and CPU.

Andy-Jones-OC · 27 Mar 2009 at 22:34

Ahhh. 216 value 260 gtx are £149.99 atm

LoadsaMoney · 27 Mar 2009 at 23:54

Andy-Jones-OC said:
So unless you like graphs theres no point spending ya monie on 216? lol

You have to though, as the 192 stream 260 was canned months ago.

elpedro · 28 Mar 2009 at 11:31

LoadsaMoney said:
You have to though, as the 192 stream 260 was canned months ago.

Er no, plenty of etailers stock cards way back to the NV 6 series...

Talrinys · 28 Mar 2009 at 12:39

elpedro said:
Er no, plenty of etailers stock cards way back to the NV 6 series...

That is irrational for sure

elpedro · 28 Mar 2009 at 13:22

Talrinys said:
That is irrational for sure

How? He stated that you have to buy a GTX 260 216 when in fact there are plenty of places that still stock the 192 version, as well as cards that date a lot further back...

I suggest you look up the meaning of irrational before you use it out of context.

muppet · 28 Mar 2009 at 14:29

yea the 6200s lol

reflux · 28 Mar 2009 at 14:31

elpedro said:
How? He stated that you have to buy a GTX 260 216 when in fact there are plenty of places that still stock the 192 version, as well as cards that date a lot further back...

I suggest you look up the meaning of irrational before you use it out of context.

I think he meant it was irrational for these shops to stock such old cards....?

dangerstat · 28 Mar 2009 at 14:34

This is the same arguement between dual core and quad core CPUs. It's only better if what ever program your running uses them. In the GPU world modern games will use all 216 cores or 480 or whatever the next gen card will have because graphics processing by nature is highly parallel.

muppet · 28 Mar 2009 at 17:02

you can never have too much power

-)G(-Sawyer · 28 Mar 2009 at 18:39

muppet said:
you can never have too much power

Not true

straxusii · 28 Mar 2009 at 18:56

Andy-Jones-OC said:
192's core vrs 216 core? Can someone tell me the difference and whats the point?

The 216 core version has 24 more cores and is suited to people who like more than 192 cores in their graphics cards.

HTH

han_solo · 28 Mar 2009 at 20:12

-)G(-Sawyer said:
Not true

lolz

wellibob · 28 Mar 2009 at 20:46

zod that !

widdyst · 28 Mar 2009 at 21:35

I heard the 192's o'clock better is this true