Got my GTS 250 today

[postmortemIA]

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.

Yeah, from you too. This is 3 yrs old design, just increased clocks. Would you get far with just improving clocks on GF4MX today? Well guess what- nvidia is just doing that now, and you are being fool in doing free (or paid) marketing for them.

This is anti-innovation card. They were lazy to make real product, so they just overclocked previous one.

Great job from you to support a buyer who replaced card A with card A+. "Awesome value!"

 

[BenSkywalker]

Scroll down to 19x12. 9800GT, 33FPS- 9800GTX+ 41FPS. That would be 124% just to the 512MB variant. In benches it may not show up, but in actual gameplay the extra RAM can help out enormously in certain situations(this is true for most remotely powerful boards, even if it is rather rare).

Nothing really to add, just pointing out the OP could very easily notice a performance increase(even ignoring the additional RAM) and Key's numbers certainly were not out of line.

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: 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

How do you know? Have you personally sat behind his keyboard with both cards to see if there was little or no difference in performance? Saying an 8800 GT and 9800 GTX+ 512mb is "almost the same card" would be bad enough but saying it about a 1GB higher clocked next gen version of the 9800 GTX+ (renamed or not) would be a little stupid. He's most likely getting 25% better performance on average over his old 8800 GT at that resolution and eye candy for $150. Whether that's a waste of money is for him to decide.

"I played Fallout 3 for a few minutes after installing it and the difference is noticeable at 1920x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF and HDR."

That sentence pretty much sums it up.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
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.

:thumbsup: You got the upgrade you were looking for, so kudos.

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
Yup, this place (video forum in particular) is a snake pit, you need thick skin or their fangs will sting you hard

Yeah, Video mods are the most underpaid of all the volunteer mods around here.

Originally posted by: Modular
This thread is the reason why the naming scheme is bad for consumers.

For a consumer who doesn't know anything at all about video cards, what is better?

9800 versus 260?

250 versus 260?

 

[n7]

Obviously the 9800, it's the highest number.

Fact of the matter is, nVidia's naming scheme has been an utter joke for years now.
It's great for getting customers confused though.

AMD's isn't much better actually, but they improved on ATi's at least somewhat.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

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.

Yeah, from you too. This is 3 yrs old design, just increased clocks. Would you get far with just improving clocks on GF4MX today? Well guess what- nvidia is just doing that now, and you are being fool in doing free (or paid) marketing for them.

This is anti-innovation card. They were lazy to make real product, so they just overclocked previous one.

Great job from you to support a buyer who replaced card A with card A+. "Awesome value!"

It seems it was worth it to him. The buyer. He seems happy with it. But you're as far from happy with his happiness as you can possibly be. And lashing out at me on top of it. Did you want the buyer to be unhappy with his purchase? Would that make everything better? I could ask him to post that he changed his mind and regrets his purchase, though I don't think he'll do it. Maybe he might for the benefit of your emotional well being.

Hold on, I'll ask. I'll shoot him a PM.

I don't "want" to get snippy here dude, but you are taking this a bit too far, emotionally.
They're just pieces of plastic, metal, and silicon. And you place this above people.

 

[crazylegs]

postmortemIA = learn to use some tact, then your argument will hold a greater gravitas and more ppl will listen

I'm not one to rain on anyone's parade, but he did have a faily legitimate point: in the majority of circumstances going from a 8800GT 512mb to a GTS 250 1gb will not be much of a performance upgrade.

Think one of the greatest uses of this forum is that it is an educational tool where ppl can sift through the marketing bs that ALL the gpx companies throw at us. Hopefully lots of people can then make a better informed choice and end up buying the good value, decent upgrades.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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

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.

So when intel updates their IGP and it goes from getting 1 FPS in crysis to to 5 we should praise them for a 500% increase instead of pointing out the difference is only 4 frames per sec?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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

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.

So when intel updates their IGP and it goes from getting 1 FPS in crysis to to 5 we should praise them for a 500% increase instead of pointing out the difference is only 4 frames per sec?

I really don't want to waste time answering this question that you already know the answer to. And how it really doesn't apply. If you can make it apply though, have at it.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Here is an application:

A claim of a significant improvement at high resolutions was made for the 1 gig card versus the 512 meg.
When the increase was only 3 frames per second (when the card was already hovering around 30) you referred to this as a percentage to make it seem more significant than 3 frames.
If you asked someone if they would notice a 10% gain they would say "hell yes", however if you asked them to spot a 3 fps difference they would more than likely say no.
Don't try to make this out to be anything other than it is, I'm not saying you're marketing, I'm not saying you're a moron, I'm saying you know better and wholly understand the situations in which this card is a good buy.
For someone who already owns an 8800gt this is a pretty horrid buy (paying more for what they already have).
Please don't give the villagers anything to throw another rollo style witch hunt over man.
Now, what I would like to see is a comparison of minimum frames per second at these high resolutions on the 1 gig card.
This is where those 3 frames may actually be noticeable.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Here is an application:

A claim of a significant improvement at high resolutions was made for the 1 gig card versus the 512 meg.
When the increase was only 3 frames per second (when the card was already hovering around 30) you referred to this as a percentage to make it seem more significant than 3 frames.
If you asked someone if they would notice a 10% gain they would say "hell yes", however if you asked them to spot a 3 fps difference they would more than likely say no.
Don't try to make this out to be anything other than it is, I'm not saying you're marketing, I'm not saying you're a moron, I'm saying you know better and wholly understand the situations in which this card is a good buy.
For someone who already owns an 8800gt this is a pretty horrid buy (paying more for what they already have).
Please don't give the villagers anything to throw another rollo style witch hunt over man.
Now, what I would like to see is a comparison of minimum frames per second at these high resolutions on the 1 gig card.
This is where those 3 frames may actually be noticeable.

What in the ever loving F... are you talking about? You turn a conversation about percentages and framerates into "marketing" and "Rollo style witch hunt"??? Dude, get a grip!

I repeated myself 5 times in this thread. Not doing it again. Go back and look.

At these "just" playable framerates of around 30, every frame counts. And 3.8 fps does equate to a 10% improvement no matter how you frost it or throw crap on it. Like you say, it is what it is.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Learn to read man,
"Don't try to make this out to be anything other than it is, I'm not saying you're marketing, I'm not saying you're a moron, I'm saying you know better and wholly understand the situations in which this card is a good buy. "
I just said, for the sake of the board don't give the members who would say this any ammo at all.
What in the ever loving F are you talking about...
If you feel dropping over 100 bucks for 3 frames per second is worth it, I'd like to have your wallet.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Learn to read man,
"Don't try to make this out to be anything other than it is, I'm not saying you're marketing, I'm not saying you're a moron, I'm saying you know better and wholly understand the situations in which this card is a good buy. "
I just said, for the sake of the board don't give the members who would say this any ammo at all.
What in the ever loving F are you talking about...
If you feel dropping over 100 bucks for 3 frames per second is worth it, I'd like to have your wallet.

Tsk tsk tsk. I told you to go back and read.

First of all, the OP's comments:
"I played Fallout 3 for a few minutes after installing it and the difference is noticeable at 1920x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF and HDR."

"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.

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

Apparently, we are talking something more than 3.8 fps here. It would seem the OP has higher minimums that are noticeable.

My comments:
"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."

"Yes, I agreed that the OP could have done better with a 260. What he has now is still a step up from an 8800GT. Worth it? Depends on the OP and if he is satisfied with it."

"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."

"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."

LOL I cannot believe I actually have to do this crap.
So do not continue with your line of posting. There is no reasoning behind it as my previous 5 time admission renders it beyond moot. Let it soak in.

And feel free to NOT post this crap again.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

OP YOU BOUGHT THE SAME THING! haha you just paid some big bucks to a company who has just successfully marketed the same product with some shine for you.

the 8800gt, 8800gts are the same chip with higher clocks, the 9800 and 8800 are the same chip with higher clocks, the gts250 is the exact same as 9800; making it the same as a higher clocked 8800gt + all the consequences of higher clocks which are more heat and more power draw. you could've achieved similar performance with overclocking your 8800gt for free.

2/10 purchase; how does it feel to be pwned by Nvidia?

 

[LOUISSSSS]

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

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.

iirc, doesn't the ati cards perform better in fallout 3 than nvidia does?

 

[F1shF4t]

1 gig card would sertainly help in Fallout 3.

As far as 4870s go:
512mb < CrossFire 512 < 1 gig < crossfire 1gig (although crossfire does cause some graphics anomalies)
For me there is no comparison, a single 1gig card was miles smoother than even crossfire 512s, especially the initial few seconds after loading or fast traveling to a new area. Crossfire 1gig cards are on a whole new level of performance, but there are some graphics glitches with newer drivers.

To each their own. If the OP is happy with the upgrade thats all the matters.
I've upgraded two 4870s 512mb versions to 1 gig ones a couple of month ago. Sure waste of money and probably a stupid move getting two 512s in the first place, but overall I'm happy with it. (On the positive side no need to buy a card for my media center or christmas present for my brother )

 

[Jeff7181]

Hehe... this has become rather comical... I'm kinda glad I posted it now.

LOUISSSSS, did you even look at AT's review? Go... look... you don't even have to read... just look at the pictures.

Honestly, I don't care because every other card AT tested uses more power than the GTS 250. Considering Fallout 3 is the only modern game I play, as I said before, and my PC's main function is not gaming, power consumption and heat dissipation was a larger factor in my decision, not just how many frames per second I can get and how many dollars I have to spend to get that frame rate.

And for the record, the GTS 250's GPU may be architecturally the same as the 8800GT I replaced... however, the 250 is clocked higher, has more stream processors, has more RAM and uses less power. Similar comparisons can be made between the GTX 280 and GTX 260... does that make them the same card? No.

 

[Keysplayr]

How is the card for noise levels Jeff?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
OP YOU BOUGHT THE SAME THING! haha you just paid some big bucks to a company who has just successfully marketed the same product with some shine for you.

the 8800gt, 8800gts are the same chip with higher clocks, the 9800 and 8800 are the same chip with higher clocks, the gts250 is the exact same as 9800; making it the same as a higher clocked 8800gt + all the consequences of higher clocks which are more heat and more power draw. you could've achieved similar performance with overclocking your 8800gt for free.

2/10 purchase; how does it feel to be pwned by Nvidia?

Wow LOUISSSS, what's up with the mock/troll?
Not to worry though, Jeff handled you.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS

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

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.

iirc, doesn't the ati cards perform better in fallout 3 than nvidia does?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3523&p=5

GTS250 edges out 4850 at 1680x1050, edges a little more at 1920x1080, and just a bit more at 25x16, all with 4xAA and 16xAF in Fallout 3. For the most part, they are pretty close in performance.

 

[MarcVenice]

Problem being; he paid as much for the gts250 1GB that he could have bought a HD4870 512mb, which even with less vram = 20% faster then the GTS250 1GB.

Really, no matter how you put it, it was a horrible buy. I haven't seen powerdraw numbers btw, but i doubt there will be a really big differencen between the GTS250 and the HD4870.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
OP YOU BOUGHT THE SAME THING! haha you just paid some big bucks to a company who has just successfully marketed the same product with some shine for you.

the 8800gt, 8800gts are the same chip with higher clocks, the 9800 and 8800 are the same chip with higher clocks, the gts250 is the exact same as 9800; making it the same as a higher clocked 8800gt + all the consequences of higher clocks which are more heat and more power draw. you could've achieved similar performance with overclocking your 8800gt for free.

2/10 purchase; how does it feel to be pwned by Nvidia?

Yea, these are the kind of posts we need :roll:

Look at some benchmarks.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Problem being; he paid as much for the gts250 1GB that he could have bought a HD4870 512mb, which even with less vram = 20% faster then the GTS250 1GB.

Really, no matter how you put it, it was a horrible buy. I haven't seen powerdraw numbers btw, but i doubt there will be a really big differencen between the GTS250 and the HD4870.

The difference in power usage is quite significant. At idle, the 4870 uses about 30% more power and about 15% more power under load. I said it before and I'll say it again... my machine is NOT primarily a gaming machine, so power usage was a big factor in my decision as my video card will be idle around 90% of the time the PC is on.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
How is the card for noise levels Jeff?

The noise level is what's to be expected from a reference design cooler. It's audible in a quiet case like mine, especially when the fan speed increases... I've yet to see the temperature go above 60 C using EVGA's utility that monitors & graphs temperatures, fan speeds and clock speeds.

My CPU tends to stay cooler though since this card has a rear exhaust... my previous 8800GT was made by Asus and has a big copper cooler, but no exhaust so all the heat from the card was being circulated through the case.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Problem being; he paid as much for the gts250 1GB that he could have bought a HD4870 512mb, which even with less vram = 20% faster then the GTS250 1GB.

Really, no matter how you put it, it was a horrible buy. I haven't seen powerdraw numbers btw, but i doubt there will be a really big differencen between the GTS250 and the HD4870.

Newegg has it's cheapest 4870 512 at 154.99 AR.
And it's cheapest GTS250 1GB at 134.99 AR.
And it's cheapest GTX260 at 164.99 AR.

Really Marc, it's not that horrible. Could have done better for more money, sure.
Looking at numbers from various review sites, both cards are playable at just about all resolutions in just about all games tested, with Crysis as the exception of course.

1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF:
Far Cry 2
GTS250: 32.5
4870 512: 35.4
GTX260: 42.2
Both playable

Left 4 Dead
GTS250: 92.6
4870 512: 107.5
GTX260: 111.7
Both fantastic

Call of Duty WaW
GTS250: 49.5
4870 512:50.4
GTX260: 59.3
Both excellent

Crysis Warhead Enthusiast no AA
GTS250: 21.8
4870 512: 26.2
GTX260: 27
Might get away with the 4870 in this one, but both are still under 30 and should be played at lower res. I'd add here, that testing Crysis Warhead with an 8800GTS 512 vs. a 8800GTS 640, I noticed faster framerates on the 8800GTS 512, but smoother gameplay (no hitching) with the 640. So, reviews don't often report these kinds of things. Even the small extra bit of memory (128MB more) on the 640 offered a better gameplay experience even though it had less horsepower in the core. So can something be said for more memory? I wouldn't buy a card today with 512MB just for smoother gameplay when the framebuffer needs to swap textures from the HDD's. IMHO. I'm sure others opinions will differ, but I can't see why.

Fallout 3 Ultra settings
GTS250: 39.3
4870 512:49.3
GTX260:40.5
4870 does better, but both still more than playable.
Fallout 3 25x16: 4x 16x (role reversal above 19x12 in this particular game)
GTS250: 30.4
4870 512: 25.9
GTX260: 33.7

Race Driver Grid
GTS250: 54.5
4870 512: 72.8
GTX260: 57.7
Both excellent and well above playable.

So how horrible is it really? What game can you play comfortably on a 4870 512 that you can't on a GTS250? None.


Here are some Power Consumption #'s
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16504/10
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3523

Hope this helps out a bit. I just don't understand when people can't get their minds around something like this, when the buyer is happy with his purchase.

All these cards are more than capable of playing the latest and greatest out there at respectable settings and resolutions. What's the prob?

 

[MarcVenice]

Well, 50w difference in idle is actually pretty significant, knowing your pc idles most of the time.

Those benchmarks don't exactly match up to anandtech's review btw, where the hd4870 512mb looks 20% faster most of time. Well, good thing is, I will be doing my own benchmarks soon, with a gts250 (not sure if it's 1gb), a 9800gtx+, a hd4870, a GTX260, and of course the HD4890, and the GTX275, if it actually comes out (been awfully quiet when it comes to the GTX275). And I will be getting powerdraw numbers as well, with a voltcraft. So I can see with my own eyes