GTX 285 review

ElMoIsEviL said:
Umm they only tested two games which most people don't play.

Horrible review.
Click to expand...

Could've used more benchmarks, but did you want them to be benchmarking games like Solitaire with this card? What else is this for if not for the most graphically demanding games? :confused:
 
lol

the red camp says they are biased to green
the green camp says they are biased to red.

in the end, nothing new save for the typical whining. Move along.
 
It's no surprise that the 4870x2 dominates the gtx285. We
have to remember that the gtx285 is just a refresh though,
so this doesn't come as a surprise.
 
Originally Posted by AmongTheChosenX View Post
i dont like reading hard ocp reviews after kyle's last few nvidia biased reviews, along with how they majorly over rated i7
Click to expand...

Someone take a dump in your Cheerio's this morning?
 
hmhef said:
only downside for the 4870x2 is needing higher psu, it takes about 100 extra watts than the 285, which isnt a big deal i guess
Click to expand...

Just about every noob has over shot their power requirements by at least 300w on the PSU anyways.
 
hmhef said:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3501

the 4870x2 wins in every test against the 285
and both having the same price
price/performance ati is better

only downside for the 4870x2 is needing higher psu, it takes about 100 extra watts than the 285, which isnt a big deal i guess
Click to expand...

I would agree the 4870x2 being the better buy, but you didn't mention it's other shortcomings.. it's multi-gpu meaning more room for driver complications, microstutering in some instances, it's louder--hotter, does use more power as you said (6/8 pin vs 6/6 pin is also to take into account), and to note for those without monetary limits that the quadfire on the 4870x2 isn't as powerful as a tri-sli configuration of gtx 285's (or gtx 280's for that matter). That being said, ati cards do tend to have better image quality (iq) all settings held constant.

Also in response to the anandtech review, i like the fact that anand used the 2560x1600 resolution as his primary for crysis warhead assuming most enthusiast gamers will be gaming on a 30". Though i tend to defer and believe that many enthusiast still use 1920x1200 resolution as well and wouldn't it be intersting to atleast take the time to show what the graph looks like at that resolution at all enthusiast settings. Who knows might completely change the layout of the graph.
 
novadude said:
Just about every noob has over shot their power requirements by at least 300w on the PSU anyways.
Click to expand...

Just about every noobs "1337 PC" thats their first ever build that I've seen at LAN parties are running off the crap PSU that came with their case. They've also got no shortage of rats nests wiring skills. Just to be sure what noobs have you seen that buy good power supplies? Honest question here. ;)
 
Sherloc said:
Also in response to the anandtech review, i like the fact that anand used the 2560x1600 resolution as his primary for crysis warhead assuming most enthusiast gamers will be gaming on a 30". Though i tend to defer and believe that many enthusiast still use 1920x1200 resolution as well and wouldn't it be intersting to atleast take the time to show what the graph looks like at that resolution at all enthusiast settings. Who knows might completely change the layout of the graph.
Click to expand...

Not me.

Although it is great to see Crysis Warhead playing at 2560 x 1600 @ 35 FPS. That score is an average? Where are the highs and lows? Especially the lows! @ 35 fps, the lows should be thrown in as if the game slows to less than 20 fps. IMO it is unplayable regardless if it is for 5 seconds or 1.

That is why I enjoy the [H] review. I want to see trends not averages, also want to see how they relate to the REAL WORLD GAME PLAY. Averages only give a TEENY TINY picture into what is going on (Which Kyle and Brent, I remember when you guys went the gameplay route and I commend you on that choice!) Hell, I was a Q3 player that turned off all the pretty stuff to get the max FPS so I did not get fraged and had the upper hand on frame refresh. Same with UT. (This was only in online play btw).
 
Lol, i see so you don't wanna see what it looks like at 1920x1200? Well others might, your opinion has been noted.
 
I still game at 1680x1050! and you know what? I am gonna put a GTX295 in my comp soon! I can't stand low fps, anything below 60fps is unplayable to me.
 
Sherloc said:
Lol, i see so you don't wanna see what it looks like at 1920x1200? Well others might, your opinion has been noted.
Click to expand...


Based on what evidence or are you making an interpretation on something that I, myself never said?
 
Sherloc said:
...... microstutering in some instances................... That being said, ati cards do tend to have better image quality (iq) all settings held constant.

.
Click to expand...


microstuterring waa eliminated with the 8.11 or 8.12 i recall? or somewhere and the X2 dont suffer from it any more.

and the ATI has better IQ is a dead horse and has been changes ever since the NVIDIA 8 Series came out, unless you zoom in some %300 on a pixel, you cant tell any difference.
 
AciDeX said:
Just about every noobs "1337 PC" thats their first ever build that I've seen at LAN parties are running off the crap PSU that came with their case. They've also got no shortage of rats nests wiring skills. Just to be sure what noobs have you seen that buy good power supplies? Honest question here. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe not all noobs, but lots of noobs out there with 1000w or 1200w PSU's are running systems that wouldn't come close to stressing a Corsair 450w even if they doubled their hardware.
 
novadude said:
Maybe not all noobs, but lots of noobs out there with 1000w or 1200w PSU's are running systems that wouldn't come close to stressing a Corsair 450w even if they doubled their hardware.
Click to expand...

That really is a good thing, power to spare beats underpowering any day.
 
Sphere said:
That really is a good thing, power to spare beats underpowering any day.
Click to expand...

Says one of the aforementioned noobs. Hell, the hx620 would cover your system's needs by a long shot. As for power to spare, operating under 30% load isn't exactly the PSU's peak efficiency range.
 
There's three issues you both refuse to acknowledge, and I'm not about to spoon feed anyone. If you had recognized what they were, your posts would be different, as of now there are *variables* being *assumed.*
 
hmhef said:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3501

the 4870x2 wins in every test against the 285
and both having the same price
price/performance ati is better

only downside for the 4870x2 is needing higher psu, it takes about 100 extra watts than the 285, which isnt a big deal i guess
Click to expand...

Multi-GPU = BARF!!!!! Also the MINIMUMS are more important once the average/max framerates are playable, which that review shows NONE of at all. Reviews that DO such as techreport's show that the GTX 285 is actually extremely competitive and beats the 4870X2 on minimums in many cases, while maintaining playable averages, and avoiding the pitfalls of Multi-GPU setups (oh blech... BARFFFFF!!!!! again).
 
Ye, if you look at hardocp the gtx 285 really isn't that bad of a card when it comes down to it. When the pricing drops to 320's its gonna be absolutely necessary for 4870x2 to drop below the $400 mark to remain competitive if you ask me when speaking in value terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top