Is it me or Nvidia prices going up ?

[jigger]

OcUK's 285's are hitting the £300 mark,

DDR2 9600gso £80 for such a poor card


The dollar rate is really good at the minute as well. 1.64

 

[kylew]

I'm surprised that they're even carrying the 9600GSO, I'm pretty sure OC said they weren't carrying it as it was a blatant scam.

As for the GTX285, while it's still over priced at its lowest price, it's still £30 short of £300.

 

[Rroff]

Heh the 9600GSO is a joke - shouldn't be more than £40 tops....

No one with any sense would buy a 285GTX anyhow unless they were using a 2560x display for tri-SLI w/ 1024Mb and if you have that kinda display you prolly not gonna baulk at the prices...

Aslong as the 260GTX stays around the £100 mark thats fine with me.

EDIT: Just wait for the "GT310/315" G92b core cards at £160

EDIT2: I'm supried they didn't bump the core speed up on the GSO - unfortunatly the average consumer if they see:

260GTX 576Mhz core 896Mb RAM
9600GSO 700MHz [Its actually 580MHz but I'm bumping it for effect] 1500Mb RAM

Despite the price difference will see the GSO as the better card... especially as its cheaper with "better" specs - I bet "they" (not OcUK specifically) sell serious numbers of this "scam".

 

[jigger]

Just had a look at the whole range and the Cheapo Sparkle 275 and Plait 260 seem to be the only Nvidia cards worth considering. And then you would need to mad or fanatical not to get the £120 4890.



Asus 285 Out of Stock £229.99

BFG 285 Pre-order £396.99

BFG 285 9 in stock £271.99

BFG 285 10+ in stock £269.99

EVGA 285 10+ in stock £309.99

EVGA 285 10+ in stock £319.99

EVGA 285 2 in stock £551.99

MSI 285 8 in stock £359.98

 

[Rroff]

260GTX weighs in well against the 4890 so I don't see you'd have to be mad or fanatical.

 

[jigger]

The 260 takes a pasting from the 4890. Its performs well against 4870 and the Palit 260 is wroth considering out of them two.

But you would still need your bumps feeling when you could have the 4890 for the same price.

Nicely selected Rroff. £120

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/EAH4890_TOP_SuperML/6.html

Anyway

 

[reflux]

The 4890 is faster, sure, but it isn't that much faster. Not worth going from a 260 to a 4890 for example.

 

[Rroff]

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4890_nvidia_geforce_gtx_275/page6.asp - a pasting?

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4890_nvidia_geforce_gtx_275/page7.asp - 4fps difference - not really a pasting either...

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4890_nvidia_geforce_gtx_275/page5.asp - bit more like a pasting but then the game is using features the 200 series can't use - we could equally throw in a few dead space benchmarks to even that up...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd4890_toxic_vaporx/12.htm (aside from the 1280x benchmark - the stock 260 is sticking it to the overclocked 4890 editions)

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd4890_toxic_vaporx/14.htm ( 4890 OC'd editions are a bit faster but hardly pasting the 260)

So on balance accross a broad range of titles there really isn't that much in it between the 2... sure the 4890 is quite often faster - but only by a couple of fps most of the time and theres quite a lot of games where one or other card absolutely pastes the other.



EDIT: I see where the "pasting" bit comes from tho... most reviews show 260GTX on reference clocks - up against overclocked 4890 models.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

No cards are worth going to from the 4870/260 (apart from the 295.x2), as you only have to give those a slight clock to get the 1 or 2 frames that the next card up is faster by, its bloody ridiculous, theres no need for the 4890/275/285.

 

[jigger]

Maybe after the 10th prices will be slashed.

 

[Rroff]

Nicely selected Rroff.

That was selected to be a good representation of the real picture...

sure we can throw in some ATI centric reviewers like "trusted" reviews to balance it but then I'd have to throw in tomshardware... and thats just ugly.

So I gave you 1 situation where the 260 rapes, one where the 4890 rapes and one where the 4890 is faster but so close as makes no difference... which is pretty much the whole picture if you have 20+ games in your collection.

 

[Rroff]

Tho thats a bit contrary to my point - being that you wouldn't have to be insane to buy a 260GTX over a 4890 - I don't dispute its the faster card.

EDIT: I wouldn't hold too much by the COD4 benchmarks anyhow - couple of cvar changes that make pretty much no noticeable difference to the visual quality can change whether it runs faster on ATI or nVidia hardware by a massive amount.

 

[Calneon]

I bought my GTX 280 for £210 last year (£240 with 10% discount), and i'm very pleased that a year on they haven't fallen in price a bit .

 

[Rroff]

I paid £210 for my first 260GTX (BFG MAXCORE OC) on release day...

Can't say I regret it, I also have 260GTX SLI in my gaming PC that cost me under £300 for both cards and they power through anything at max settings 2048x.

 

[timaloy]

im loooking for a new graphics card i have aati 4870 but use a 42inch hdtv any ideas any one

 

[Rroff]

What res is the 42" tho - most are either 1366x768 or 1920x1080 both of which the 4870 will handle ok... tbh to make it a worthwhile jump from a 4870 unless you can sell it for a good price - you'd either have to look at a 4870X2 or SLI if you happened to have an SLI board.

 

[jigger]

This is your post Rroff. I'll start a new thread in a moment for you.

I have used 1680x1050 4xAA as much AF as possible.

260 stock speeds.

4890 Stock speed *Green*

4890 Overclcoked 50mhz on the core and 25Mhz on the mem.

I could have cherry pick some results but that's just not how I get down

I have tested a GTX280 and 4890 and got almost exactly the sames results. I don't have a GTX260 and I;m not sure what spec card was used in the tests.

Other advantages of the 4890 are it overclocking ability. Even the garden variety 4890's will touch 1000Mhz on the core, shaders and memory.

Also you seem to get more per Mhz over the Nvidia cards.

I have tested half a dozen and all clocked very well. I run a pair @ 1035 core 4700 core for a while.

Anyway I feel you would have to be nuts or a fanatic to pick a 4890 over a GTX260.

 

[Rapido!]

Some tests where 4890 wins by a few frames here N there

How utterly self-defeating; look at the COD4 result, 98 fps vs 103. WOW, WHAT A CLOBBERING, THERE'S NO POSSIBLE COMEBACK TO THAT.

Other advantages of the 4890 are it overclocking ability.

How can you declare that a 4890 advantage, when you haven't got a 260-216 to compare it to? My SLI'd 260-216s are rock solid stable at 750 core, whatever the shader linked number is (1500+), and memory is good for at least 1240.

We're talking 25% higher than reference speeds, and my overclocks aren't exactly one-off outliers either. 260 is, proportionately speaking, a much better overclocker than 4890 is.

Also you seem to get more per Mhz over the Nvidia cards.

Meaningless fanbOi statement.

Anyway I feel you would have to be nuts or a fanatic to pick a 4890 over a GTX260.

Heh, agreed. I'd get that dyslexia looked at, btw.

 

[Leeroy123]

id take the 295 all day long ,quality .

 

[kylew]

How utterly self-defeating; look at the COD4 result, 98 fps vs 103. WOW, WHAT A CLOBBERING, THERE'S NO POSSIBLE COMEBACK TO THAT.


How can you declare that a 4890 advantage, when you haven't got a 260-216 to compare it to? My SLI'd 260-216s are rock solid stable at 750 core, whatever the shader linked number is (1500+), and memory is good for at least 1240.

We're talking 25% higher than reference speeds, and my overclocks aren't exactly one-off outliers either. 260 is, proportionately speaking, a much better overclocker than 4890 is.


Meaningless fanbOi statement.


Heh, agreed. I'd get that dyslexia looked at, btw.

Smug git...