I'm going with the GTX280

If heat is your concern you could get an Accelero heatsink. Would still be cheaper than the 280 I think. It would be a little work to install it though.
 
MrE said:
Then it sounds like you were doing it wrong. :)

I'm running an HD4870 with 790 GPU/ 1090 MEM overclock on a D-Tek block. I see 33c idle and 38c load using ATI's CCC to monitor temps. Load was taken after running Age of Conan for 2 hours.

I'll wager you can hit similar temps on the GTX 280 on water with a good setup.
Click to expand...

And how much farther will you overclock for that time/investment compared to good air? Extra performance is the point, right, not just pissing matches over temps?

I had high-end water and high-end air is just about better in every possible way. The performance increases, not just temp decreases, just didn't justify the expense of water. It was fun as hell to tweak but it became a chore. This can't be the first time you've heard this.

BTW, my setup was: Homemade Res->Mag 3->Little River Cascade->MCW60->Dual 120mm External Radiator->1/2" ID Tubing. Big $$$ at the time.

I wasn't "doing it wrong" at all.
 
TalonMan said:
I would have liked to see your water cooling rig... :)
Click to expand...

I used a thermaltake big water and then a corsair WC; both had a pump that was as loud as my air cooling and didn't cool it any better than my air cooling. I was as surprised as you, but I've installed thermaltake 2x and the corsair nautilus.
 
At $450 the GTX 280 is an interesting option but...
The HD 4870 can be found for $300, thus the GTX 280 is 50% more expensive for a mere 15% additional performance.
IMO, it is a matter of weeks (4870X2 release!) before the GTX 280 goes down to $400 (and maybe even cheaper).
 
RadXge said:
At $450 the GTX 280 is an interesting option but...
The HD 4870 can be found for $300, thus the GTX 280 is 50% more expensive for a mere 15% additional performance.
IMO, it is a matter of weeks (4870X2 release!) before the GTX 280 goes down to $400 (and maybe even cheaper).
Click to expand...

But that can go both ways. If GTX drops to $400, 4870x2 is not going to look that attractive as it is now. I know it's better card, but money is the bottom line to many people, and $150 bucks difference would sway many people towards Nvidia. I would personally get GTX if it goes down to that price, even though i was waiting for 4870x2.
 
My 280 has never gone above 71c. Of course i bought an 1100watt psu to go with it too.
 
SkullE said:
My 280 has never gone above 71c. Of course i bought an 1100watt psu to go with it too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not exactly sure what the relationship is between the PSU and the GPU temps. Plus, you haven't pushed the card that hard. Play Crysis for 20 minutes at very high or something else stressful. The temp will go above 71C if you on the stock air cooler guaranteed.
 
SkullE said:
My 280 has never gone above 71c. Of course i bought an 1100watt psu to go with it too.
Click to expand...

a 280 that has never gone above 71? are you on water? if not, try this:

click on start, then games, then pick anything not 2D.
 
I couldnt resist, picked one up with the $30 evga rebate yesterday as well. Its going to be better than my 8800
 
vengence said:
My bad, 8800 GTS 640 < 9600 GT < 8800 GT < 8800 GTS 512.

Who can remember with that clear and effective naming scheme.
Click to expand...

That's pretty close. I've had them all. However there is more to the 8800GT vs. 9600GT. The 9600 is a bit quicker in shader intensive apps. (though you'd be correct in saying that the 8800 is faster in the majority) Not by a ton either. I actually prefer the 9600s because they're cooler, quieter, and aren't slower by a large enough margin for me to care. I had a pair of them working quite happily in a small case with a 380W PSU. Probably not optimal, but it worked great without a hiccup. The CPU was even OCed quite a bit. (though I was only running a single hard drive, and one optical drive)

Anyway, they're all great cards, though I'd take any in the above list over the GTS 640/320.

Oh, and to be on topic, I love the 280. It's the nicest card I've run in a while. It's quiet for the most part, hot but not extremely so by newer card standards, and it's had the best single card performance that I've seen. (I don't count dual GPU cards.) I ran a pair of 4850s for a few days, and while they were fast (even one by itself is fast,) I couldn't wait for a proper solution to the heat. I tried sticking Zalman 900s on them, and it was an improvement, but when the 280 price hit 499 I couldn't resist. I don't regret it at all. The Nvidia drivers really are quite a bit better. I watch a lot of demo-scene demos, and most of them work a lot better on NV hardware (for better or worse.) I love the new ATI cards, and actually kept one of the 4850s for future use, but until the drivers are a bit better, I have to give the nod to NV. (only after the reduced prices, premium or not, $650 is ridiculous)
 
J3RK said:
That's pretty close. I've had them all. However there is more to the 8800GT vs. 9600GT. The 9600 is a bit quicker in shader intensive apps. (though you'd be correct in saying that the 8800 is faster in the majority) Not by a ton either. I actually prefer the 9600s because they're cooler, quieter, and aren't slower by a large enough margin for me to care. I had a pair of them working quite happily in a small case with a 380W PSU. Probably not optimal, but it worked great without a hiccup. The CPU was even OCed quite a bit. (though I was only running a single hard drive, and one optical drive)

Anyway, they're all great cards, though I'd take any in the above list over the GTS 640/320.
Click to expand...
there is NO game where the 9600gt is faster than the 8800gt and certainly not shader intensive ones.
 
i agree with poster above. 9600gt has almost half the shaders of the 8800gt. shader intensive games will be better on the 8800gt.
 
I noticed that it was faster in a couple of instances. I don't know if it was how the shaders were clocked, or if it was because I was comparing a slightly (read factory) OCed 9600 to a stock (reference) 8800, but there were definitely a couple of instances where they seemed to perform a little better. Maybe it was the compression tech they implemented or something as well? Anyway, I'd call them comparable, giving the nod to the 8800 in overall performance. However, I still think the 9600 is a bit better as a whole. (good performance, quiet, cool, etc.)

Edit: Looking into it a bit further, I notice that they all share the same basic tech, so maybe it was just the clocks. Who knows. Maybe psychological? :D Anyway, having owned both cards, I'd still go 9600GT, unless I replaced the cooling on the 8800GT at least. :) Anyway, enough OT from me. :)
 
J3RK said:
I noticed that it was faster in a couple of instances. I don't know if it was how the shaders were clocked, or if it was because I was comparing a slightly (read factory) OCed 9600 to a stock (reference) 8800, but there were definitely a couple of instances where they seemed to perform a little better. Maybe it was the compression tech they implemented or something as well? Anyway, I'd call them comparable, giving the nod to the 8800 in overall performance. However, I still think the 9600 is a bit better as a whole. (good performance, quiet, cool, etc.)

Edit: Looking into it a bit further, I notice that they all share the same basic tech, so maybe it was just the clocks. Who knows. Maybe psychological? :D Anyway, having owned both cards, I'd still go 9600, unless I replaced the cooling on the 8800 at least. :) Anyway, enough OT from me. :)
Click to expand...
there is no compression difference between the 9600gt and 8800gt. both the G92 and G94 use the same technology when comes to that. all those rumors that came out when the 9600gt were just that...rumors. anyway I will probably pick up a 9600gt when and if it makes the shrink to 55nm.
 
cannondale06 said:
there is no compression difference between the 9600gt and 8800gt. both the G92 and G94 use the same technology when comes to that. all those rumors that came out when the 9600gt were just that...rumors. anyway I will probably pick up a 9600gt when and if it makes the shrink to 55nm.
Click to expand...

Hence my edit. :) I think we're pretty much in agreement at this point. However, between the exact 8800GT and 9600GT models I had, it felt like the 9600GT ran COD4 a little better, plus had the power/heat/noise advantage.
 
I'm making the move to an EVGA GTX 280 (reference clocked) through the step-up program from the EVGA GTX 260 SSC. I'll probably OC it to EVGA's SSC or FTW levels & hope for the best.

Has anyone used this specific model from EVGA & can you confirm success with OCing it? Thanks.
 
Also steeping up to the 280 (from a 8800GTS 512). Watching the tracking of this thing is like waiting for your first born to pop out. Ive seen some decent overclocks of the 200 series. Not spectacular but decent.
 
I admit that I am very tempted by the GTX 280
Well, I have planned to upgrade in August and we are almost there...
 
You won't regret getting one, I've only had my EVGA GTX 280 for about two weeks now, (step-up from a GX2) but it has been trouble-free.
There really is a big difference in smoothness, even with Crysis. And no more stuttering. Not in any hurry to overclock it yet because it performs so well at stock clocks. Maybe next week:D
 
BigCactus said:
Hopefuly you don't get one that overheats to 105c like some are reporting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had to RMA one of my GTX 280's but I don't think it was an overheating problem. At any rate, since I bought three, having a bad one isn't like a huge shock. They've been kicking for a couple weeks now no problem.
 
Did you try reapplying the thermal paste before you rma'd ? My guess is that some of these overheating issues might me the casue pf bad contact between the heat sink too.
 
Darkatom said:
Did you try reapplying the thermal paste before you rma'd ? My guess is that some of these overheating issues might me the casue pf bad contact between the heat sink too.
Click to expand...

Heck no, brand new card newly launched $650 card, it better work out of the box!;)
 
Spoonie_G said:
Not that anyone cares but I'm choosing the GTX280 over the ATI 4870 (even with the price difference). The reason is because the 4870 runs so bloody hot. I'm not sure if the GTX280 run as hot as the ATI but I haven't read about any complaints about the GTX280's heat. And the GTX280 is also faster. Am I a fool for paying more for the GTX280 over the ATI 4870?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say your a fool. If you have an SLI board already and don't want the hassle of selling it, and buying a crossfire x38/x48 board then go for it I suppose. At least wait for the 4870x2 to come out for price drops.

4870 will run cooler than a gtx280 at load...this is something you should consider. Load temps on a gtx280 is around 80-90c normally...so if you have bad ambient temps or bad air flow in your case, you may run into issues.
 
BigCactus said:
4870 will run cooler than a gtx280 at load...this is something you should consider. Load temps on a gtx280 is around 80-90c normally...so if you have bad ambient temps or bad air flow in your case, you may run into issues.
Click to expand...

From the reviews I've seen, the 4870 and GTX 280 thermals are very close. In my experience with the GTX 280, they cam hit 90C when playing Crysis at very high and 4xAA, they tend not to get that warm in other games, and yes three cards around 90C blows out a lot of heat for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top