Early GTX 280 Benchmarks

D

DisgustipatedEvAv

n00b
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
6
Hey guys,

I've been sitting on some GTX 280 benchmarks for a few days and recently posted them on Evil Avatar.com and Immortal Machines.

If you're interested in the (very brief, not very detailed) benchmarks, head on over to ImmortalMachines.com. Specifically, this link: http://immortalmachines.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=266

Hope this sates some of the tech-lust for the GTX 280. If you have any questions, feel free to post them here and I'll do my best to answer them.
 
This was already posted in another thread linked to another site before it went to immortalmachines...
 
some what weak if u ask me especially considering hes using 280 sli setup $1100, only to get 38fps in Crysis 1440x900 4xaa v.high, even an oced 9800 gtx SLi might come near that, if this is rly what nVidia have, ATi can say GG
 
MrWizard6600 said:
how are you not under an NDA?

and uhh I'd love some World In Conflict numbers.
Click to expand...

My employer is under NDA, I am not.

WiLLiSTER said:
This was already posted in another thread linked to another site before it went to immortalmachines...
Click to expand...

The only other place they would have been is Evil Avatar, considering I posted both there and Immortal Machines.

SX2233 said:
some what weak if u ask me especially considering hes using 280 sli setup $1100, only to get 38fps in Crysis 1440x900 4xaa v.high, even an oced 9800 gtx SLi might come near that, if this is rly what nVidia have, ATi can say GG
Click to expand...

You should read it again, the Crysis benchmarks were done with the processor at 3.2 Ghz. If it was clocked at 4.2 Ghz they probably would have been much higher. Hard to say though with the early drivers.
 
I stand by ol Digustipated, a good man! I remember eagerly wanting to see some benchies after you said you got some GTX 280s in and then promptly forgot, haha.

Should be interesting how this compares to reviews when Nvidia lifts the NDA, to see if the drivers get any better.
 
popowrx said:
I stand by ol Digustipated, a good man! I remember eagerly wanting to see some benchies after you said you got some GTX 280s in and then promptly forgot, haha.

Should be interesting how this compares to reviews when Nvidia lifts the NDA, to see if the drivers get any better.
Click to expand...

Hey Popo, didn't expect to see any EvAv'ers around here. Thanks for the "forum cred" boost. :D

I think the drivers will improve substantially. Either that or NVidia's going to have a huge battle on their hands when ATI's assuredly awesome 48xx series comes out.
 
I don't think it can get THAT much better if it had higher CPU speed, 3.2ghz is already pretty fast, and I do remember people saying the same "let's wait for better drivers" talk when the radeon 2900/3800 was released, but we'll see

DisgustipatedEvAv said:
You should read it again, the Crysis benchmarks were done with the processor at 3.2 Ghz. If it was clocked at 4.2 Ghz they probably would have been much higher. Hard to say though with the early drivers.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not buying this CPU bottlenecking Crysis theory. QX9770 should be plentiful for a game, it is the fastest CPU available after all.
Seen plenty of benchmarks where a a 3.6ghz isnt that much better (if any) than a 2.4ghz when high resolutions and IQ settings are applied.
 
ihira said:
I'm not buying this CPU bottlenecking Crysis theory. QX9770 should be plentiful for a game, it is the fastest CPU available after all.
Seen plenty of benchmarks where a a 3.6ghz isnt that much better (if any) than a 2.4ghz when high resolutions and IQ settings are applied.
Click to expand...

the only games right now that are bottlenecked by the CPU are RTS games, crysis has been shown time and time again that once you get past 2.0-2.2 ghz on a C2D/C2Q, the cpu scaling starts to suck and improvements are at a minimum (i believe this was discussed in VR-Zone's original crysis review and benchmarks), they scaled all the way down from 1.6ghz all the way up to i believe 3 or 3.2 or around there, and the framerates didn't really scale after the low to mid 2ghz range.

people can agree/disagree all they want with my statement here, but i stand behind it, i would put money on it in fact, that crysis's framerates won't increase much if at all beyond 3ghz on a C2D/C2Q
 
Reality said:
the only games right now that are bottlenecked by the CPU are RTS games, crysis has been shown time and time again that once you get past 2.0-2.2 ghz on a C2D/C2Q, the cpu scaling starts to suck and improvements are at a minimum (i believe this was discussed in VR-Zone's original crysis review and benchmarks), they scaled all the way down from 1.6ghz all the way up to i believe 3 or 3.2 or around there, and the framerates didn't really scale after the low to mid 2ghz range.

people can agree/disagree all they want with my statement here, but i stand behind it, i would put money on it in fact, that crysis's framerates won't increase much if at all beyond 3ghz on a C2D/C2Q
Click to expand...

its the GPU thats being bottlenecked by the cpu not the game
 
Wow, 2 of these cards are fast, but not fast enough unfortunately if it takes 2 of them to get around 35fps at only 1440x900...what will it take to get those frames at 1920x1200? Another GTX and 3 waterblocks?

But on the bright side...2 GTX 280's are more than 2x faster than 2 8800GTX's at that resolution (I get around 15 or so with PC in sig) and with the same settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top