Got my GTS 250 today

[AzN]

I agree with marcvenice on this one. Not much of an upgrade. 20% better frame rates is not worth selling your card over. You wouldn't tell the difference in most situations. Only thing that would help out is on some vram limited situations. 1 or 2 games at top at that.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
The order can be disputed Keys, like I said, the 8800gts 512mb pretty much equals a 9800gtx, and the 9800gtx+ is just a little faster then a 9800gtx. You said +10% +10% +5%, that comes out to 127%, so according to you the 9800gtx+ would be 27% faster then a 8800gt. Which even you just said is not the case. So you probably painted the picture a little better then you intended too, or I misinterpretated

Either way, gts250 imo isn't a good investment compared to a 8800gt, if the 8800gt only covers 1/3th of the investment. And I think this is exactly why Nvidia renamed the card, which makes me a little sad. Boardpartners didn't convince Nvidia to NOT rebrand the 8800gt into a gts240 for nothing. In fact, the rebrand would have been bullocks, coz the clockspeed of 675mhz < then some oc-ed 9800gt's, that run at 700mhz. But, Nvidia just sold another videocard, to an apparently happy customer, who probably plays fallout 3 2/47, and since he noticed an improvement, all is good.

The order cannot be disputed. I don't know why you think it can. A 9800GTX is a faster 8800GTS512. No dispute. Fact. We are speaking of stock clocks here. No O/C models.
And what is with the 127%? I'd say even if my numbers are off by 5% each, the order still stands. Sorry.

But I agree, for the 3rd time now, if you already own a 8800GT, the next logical step up would be either a second 8800GT (if able), or a GTX260. There's just not enough improvement over a 8800GT to a 9800GTX+/GTS250 to merit the expense of the upgrade.
But like you said, if the OP is happy, all is good.

 

[MarcVenice]

8800gt = 100% Now, a8800gts 512mb, +- 10% faster then 8800gt, = 110%, a 9800gtx+ +-10% faster then 8800gts 512mb, 110*1.1= 121%. 9800gtx+ -+5% faster then 9800gtx, 121%*1.05 = 127%. See ? And yes, the order would be correct, but there's quite a bit of discrepancy between the percentages you came up with, and what is actually the case...

Very moot point I know, but it's just for reference sake, so when some1 asks should I upgrade my 8800gt to a gts250 (or hd4850), we can all say no

 

[SirPaulie]

One of areas that is neat is over-all views to me. Not scientific or ideal but computerbase.de's reviews offer an over-all performance gauge based on a solid sampling.

The 9800 GT may be compared to a GTS-250:

http://www.computerbase.de/art...nitt_performancerating

Also, the added ram may help in the more modern engines like a FarCry2 when compared to nVidia's 512 meg Sku's.

http://www.computerbase.de/art...5/#abschnitt_far_cry_2

The idea of offering a smaller PCB with lower power requirements is so a potential consumer may upgrade without changing cases and power supplies.

It's not what I think is a good upgrade for the OP but does the OP feel it was a good upgrade choice.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, there are a good number of products, in between 8800GT and GTS250.
Here we go:

8800GT < 8800GTS512 (+/-10%) < 9800GTX (+/-10%) < 9800GTX+ (+/-5%) < GTS250 (=/> 9800GTX+). Each one faster than the next with the GTS250 being equal or greater than 9800GTX+, with several enhancements.
1GB, smaller PCB, lower power consumption.

So, from an 8800GT, I think the OP did ok with his choice. GTX260 would have been my choice, but If the OP is happy, that is all that matters.

Keys, just because Nvidia put 47 different sku's between an 8800GT and GTS250, that doesn't change the fact that it's a marginal upgrade. I think the 1GB may help a bit since he games at 1920 res more than anything.

People worry too much about power supplies. I ran a overclocked (beyond 800MHz) 2900Pro which is a huge power hungry chip as well as an overclocked/overvolted 65nm Phenom (another pretty big power user - TDP of 125 watts at stock voltage and speeds) quite happily on an Antec Neo Power 500 watt unit. Doesn't EVGA allow for step up? See how you like the GTS250, but I think you'd be much happier with a GTX260.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Keys, just because Nvidia put 47 different sku's between an 8800GT and GTS250, that doesn't change the fact that it's a marginal upgrade. I think the 1GB may help a bit since he games at 1920 res more than anything.

Marginal is a relative term and would depend on the resolution he plays at.

A superclocked 1GB GTS 250 would be superior to a 512MB 8800GT at 1920x1200

In fact it could be the difference between a game being playable at that resolution and a game NOT being playable at that resolution.

Since the OP expects to recover 1/3 of the cost by selling his 8800GT, I would say it is a pretty darn good upgrade....and the upgrade would likely cost him about half of what he spent on an 8800GT if he bought within several months of it coming out.

 

[AzN]

People keep mentioning a game will not be able to play at the resolution with 512mb of vram but that's not quite true. You can easily turn off AA or run it 2xAA to lower vram usage at that resolution. in reality the difference is nothing more than AA settings. 512mb of Nvidia card might not be good with 4xAA in 1 or 2 games.

2xAA with 8800gt while GTS 250 1gig might pull 4xAA. That's what it comes down to.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, there are a good number of products, in between 8800GT and GTS250.
Here we go:

8800GT < 8800GTS512 (+/-10%) < 9800GTX (+/-10%) < 9800GTX+ (+/-5%) < GTS250 (=/> 9800GTX+). Each one faster than the next with the GTS250 being equal or greater than 9800GTX+, with several enhancements.
1GB, smaller PCB, lower power consumption.

So, from an 8800GT, I think the OP did ok with his choice. GTX260 would have been my choice, but If the OP is happy, that is all that matters.

Keys, just because Nvidia put 47 different sku's between an 8800GT and GTS250, that doesn't change the fact that it's a marginal upgrade. I think the 1GB may help a bit since he games at 1920 res more than anything.

People worry too much about power supplies. I ran a overclocked (beyond 800MHz) 2900Pro which is a huge power hungry chip as well as an overclocked/overvolted 65nm Phenom (another pretty big power user - TDP of 125 watts at stock voltage and speeds) quite happily on an Antec Neo Power 500 watt unit. Doesn't EVGA allow for step up? See how you like the GTS250, but I think you'd be much happier with a GTX260.

And just because you probably missed it judging from your post here, I'll show it a 4th time. Let me know if anyone needs a 5th posting.

"But I agree, for the 4th time now, if you already own a 8800GT, the next logical step up would be either a second 8800GT (if able), or a GTX260. There's just not enough improvement over a 8800GT to a 9800GTX+/GTS250 to merit the expense of the upgrade.
But like you said, if the OP is happy, all is good."

Just in case...

"But I agree, for the 5th time now, if you already own a 8800GT, the next logical step up would be either a second 8800GT (if able), or a GTX260. There's just not enough improvement over a 8800GT to a 9800GTX+/GTS250 to merit the expense of the upgrade.
But like you said, if the OP is happy, all is good."

It's like I'm saying it, but nobody believes it could come from me, so it must not be.?
All good.

Emoticon added so you don't think I'm razzing you. ---> :beer::thumbsup:

 

[nyker96]

i see the ecga superclocked 1gb is about $160AR. I would have gotten a 4870/512mb for $155AR at this price point. or better yet add another $15 get a 260-216.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Keys, just because Nvidia put 47 different sku's between an 8800GT and GTS250, that doesn't change the fact that it's a marginal upgrade. I think the 1GB may help a bit since he games at 1920 res more than anything.

Marginal is a relative term and would depend on the resolution he plays at.

A superclocked 1GB GTS 250 would be superior to a 512MB 8800GT at 1920x1200

In fact it could be the difference between a game being playable at that resolution and a game NOT being playable at that resolution.

Since the OP expects to recover 1/3 of the cost by selling his 8800GT, I would say it is a pretty darn good upgrade....and the upgrade would likely cost him about half of what he spent on an 8800GT if he bought within several months of it coming out.

It is an idiotic upgrade when the 260 is available for nearly the same price and he already has the same damn card in his machine. These boards are pointless if we just say congrats! to everyone regardless of what they bought.

 

[roid450]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Keys, just because Nvidia put 47 different sku's between an 8800GT and GTS250, that doesn't change the fact that it's a marginal upgrade. I think the 1GB may help a bit since he games at 1920 res more than anything.

Marginal is a relative term and would depend on the resolution he plays at.

A superclocked 1GB GTS 250 would be superior to a 512MB 8800GT at 1920x1200

In fact it could be the difference between a game being playable at that resolution and a game NOT being playable at that resolution.

Since the OP expects to recover 1/3 of the cost by selling his 8800GT, I would say it is a pretty darn good upgrade....and the upgrade would likely cost him about half of what he spent on an 8800GT if he bought within several months of it coming out.

It is an idiotic upgrade when the 260 is available for nearly the same price and he already has the same damn card in his machine. These boards are pointless if we just say congrats! to everyone regardless of what they bought.

Congrats :thumbsup: :beer:

 

[Jeff7181]

Man... after 7 years and 16,000 posts, one would think I should have seen this coming.

For the record, the difference in quite noticeable in Fallout 3. Frame rates would drop quite significantly with the 8800GT in certain areas, especially when there was more than a couple light sources or distortion effects from heat, and I wasn't using any AA. Now I'm using 4xAA and getting better frame rates without the significant drops I noticed with the 8800GT.

Fallout 3 is one of the few modern games I play, so I don't care how it runs Crysis or whatever else. It runs Fallout 3 just about as well as the GTX 260 216 while using less power.

:thumbsup: to those that realize there's more to an upgrade decision than frame rates and dollars.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Man... after 7 years and 16,000 posts, one would think I should have seen this coming.

Yup, this place (video forum in particular) is a snake pit, you need thick skin or their fangs will sting you hard

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Man... after 7 years and 16,000 posts, one would think I should have seen this coming.

For the record, the difference in quite noticeable in Fallout 3. Frame rates would drop quite significantly with the 8800GT in certain areas, especially when there was more than a couple light sources or distortion effects from heat, and I wasn't using any AA. Now I'm using 4xAA and getting better frame rates without the significant drops I noticed with the 8800GT.

Fallout 3 is one of the few modern games I play, so I don't care how it runs Crysis or whatever else. It runs Fallout 3 just about as well as the GTX 260 216 while using less power.

:thumbsup: to those that realize there's more to an upgrade decision than frame rates and dollars.

Without AA you shouldn't have any problems with 8800gt in fallout. I don't see how GTS 250 is faster with 4xAA when it averages 38fps @ 1920x1200 4xAA.

That's just one of those 1 or 2 games that benefit. But once you finish it it's useless like Crysis.

I ran ultra settings on my g92 gts with no AA @ 1080p and it runs alright. It hovers around 50-60fps but it does dip below 40fps but I'm sure your GTS 250 does too. It doesn't dip lower than 30fps though.

 

[Modular]

This thread is the reason why the naming scheme is bad for consumers.

*dons flamesuit*

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin

Originally posted by: TidusZ

Originally posted by: Leyawiin

Originally posted by: toattett
Just FYI, you Antec 500w can handle one GTX 260 with ease.

Kind of a moot point.

It's true though.

I know, but it doesn't matter now. Once the money is spent I try not to be the turd in the punchbowl. I limit my comments to "congrats, you have a great whatever!". Some people never learn that diplomatic skill.

BTW O.P., no B.S, I think you made a great choice. I'd be happy to own one of those.

Turd in the punchbowl maybe, but that tad of information could always prove useful

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, there are a good number of products, in between 8800GT and GTS250.
Here we go:

8800GT < 8800GTS512 (+/-10%) < 9800GTX (+/-10%) < 9800GTX+ (+/-5%) < GTS250 (=/> 9800GTX+). Each one faster than the next with the GTS250 being equal or greater than 9800GTX+, with several enhancements.
1GB, smaller PCB, lower power consumption.

So, from an 8800GT, I think the OP did ok with his choice. GTX260 would have been my choice, but If the OP is happy, that is all that matters.

each one of them is same sh!t, just slightly differently clocked and named. They don't deserve different name to confuse us.

Thanks for doing free marketing for nvidia.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, there are a good number of products, in between 8800GT and GTS250.
Here we go:

8800GT < 8800GTS512 (+/-10%) < 9800GTX (+/-10%) < 9800GTX+ (+/-5%) < GTS250 (=/> 9800GTX+). Each one faster than the next with the GTS250 being equal or greater than 9800GTX+, with several enhancements.
1GB, smaller PCB, lower power consumption.

So, from an 8800GT, I think the OP did ok with his choice. GTX260 would have been my choice, but If the OP is happy, that is all that matters.

each one of them is same sh!t, just slightly differently clocked and named. They don't deserve different name to confuse us.

Thanks for doing free marketing for nvidia.

Postmortem, read keys sig.

For the OP... if you mainly were concerned about power usage, I think you made a good choice. The GTS250 is more efficient. Whether it's appreciably different, is up to you to decide, and since you're happy with it, good stuff.

However, the implication that your 500w PSU wouldn't have handled a GTX260 is a little off base. In the future, you should research a little more I guess if you wanted bang/buck.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, there are a good number of products, in between 8800GT and GTS250.
Here we go:

8800GT < 8800GTS512 (+/-10%) < 9800GTX (+/-10%) < 9800GTX+ (+/-5%) < GTS250 (=/> 9800GTX+). Each one faster than the next with the GTS250 being equal or greater than 9800GTX+, with several enhancements.
1GB, smaller PCB, lower power consumption.

So, from an 8800GT, I think the OP did ok with his choice. GTX260 would have been my choice, but If the OP is happy, that is all that matters.

each one of them is same sh!t, just slightly differently clocked and named. They don't deserve different name to confuse us.

Thanks for doing free marketing for nvidia.

Very mature dude.

 

[MustangSVT]

conclusion :

truth : you wasted your money. try to make it better by selling 8800gt and psu excuse but it's almost the same card.

mother's conclusion : its a great card!. also you are the most handsome boy at school.


oh well, u've purchased it already. better purchase next time

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, there are a good number of products, in between 8800GT and GTS250.
Here we go:

8800GT < 8800GTS512 (+/-10%) < 9800GTX (+/-10%) < 9800GTX+ (+/-5%) < GTS250 (=/> 9800GTX+). Each one faster than the next with the GTS250 being equal or greater than 9800GTX+, with several enhancements.
1GB, smaller PCB, lower power consumption.

So, from an 8800GT, I think the OP did ok with his choice. GTX260 would have been my choice, but If the OP is happy, that is all that matters.

each one of them is same sh!t, just slightly differently clocked and named. They don't deserve different name to confuse us.

Thanks for doing free marketing for nvidia.

Very mature dude.

Callout is a bit immature, but the fact remains that there's little appreciable difference between these cards and that they are relatively the same thing in a different package.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Why did you think your Eartwatts couldn't handle the GTX260? Most reviews show only a 20W-30W difference between the two, and really that value can vary depending on the exact PCBs tested:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3523
http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...e_GTS_250_1_GB/27.html
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16504/10

The difference in the amount of "stress" the 260 would put on the PSU over the 250 would be completely negligible to the 500W Earthwatts.

If we're going by averages, while you are probably seeing a 20-25% performance increase with the GTS250 over the 8800GT, you could have spent ~15% more for a GTX260 and saw at least a 50% performance increase over the 8800GT.

 

[Denithor]

Guys, do your homework a little before trashing someone's choice.

AT GTS 250 review: FO3 @ 1920x1200

Select the 19x12 setting & you'll notice that the 1GB makes a significant difference on fps at higher resolutions. In this particular game the GTS 250 nearly matches the GTX 260 at the OP's chosen resolution.

Now, do I think the GTS is a good value across the board? Not really, no. The GTX 260/216 is available for $175AR with a free copy of Mirror's Edge (woohoo) or you can find a 260/192 for like $160AR. In many other games those cards will provide considerably higher performance for just a bit more cash.

But if the OP plays mainly FO3 he will be happy with his choice.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Guys, do your homework a little before trashing someone's choice.

AT GTS 250 review: FO3 @ 1920x1200

yeah whopping 3.8fps difference. If he wanted to play fallout he could have easily gone with 4870 512mb and be neck and neck with GTX 280.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Denithor
Guys, do your homework a little before trashing someone's choice.

AT GTS 250 review: FO3 @ 1920x1200

yeah whopping 3.8fps difference. If he wanted to play fallout he could have easily gone with 4870 512mb and be neck and neck with GTX 280.

When you say it that way, of course it doesn't look like a whopping difference. Way to go.
It is actually about 10% faster at 1920x1200. At 100+ fps ranges, one wouldn't think 3.8fps is very much at all. But we are talking 30's here.

And well, at 2560x1600, same review same game, There is a 9.9 fps difference. 50% higher framerate. And that's actually 4.5 fps faster than the 4870 512 in that chart as well.

Depends on how you choose to look at it. Eh Azn?

Looks to me the framebuffer might help performance a bit. But go ahead, argue it.