First Ever GeForce GTX 285 2 GB Card

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Despite the different memory helpings, both cards offer the usual Nvidia goodness gamers have come to know and love, including Nvidia's PhysX and CUDA technologies."

Wow kevin, the second article today that you spew this crap. Cuda and PhysX isnt the finest thing since sliced bread. Infact, PhysX divides your graphic card's computational cycles between PhysX and Graphics, slowing games down in most instances, while Nvidia cuts out the best PhysX option, the seperate PPU. And second, Cuda has hardly any compatable bug free programs, and they're all way way to expensive. Both things are just exuberant amounts of propaganda from Nvidia to get them to buy their overpriced GPUs.

Or have they threatened to black list you too, best of media?
 
I don't know about that, Curnel_D. I mean, both Mirror's Edge and Unreal Tournament 3 show rather nice eye candy with PhysX enabled. Sure, it cuts your frames, but it's better than running it on a CPU, and you could always get another card. In fact, if you already have one nVidia card, you could get a second nVidia card, that doesn't have to be the same mind you, and have that one focus on just PhysX, so you don't really see a drop.

As for CUDA, sure, it's not perfect yet. But if you use the Adobe CS4 suite, or you just transcode a lot of video, spending ~$20 more on an nVidia card for equal frames, but a significant boost in those other applications isn't that bad.
 
[citation][nom]Claimintru[/nom]How is it "Built" for vista. Using one right now (Not Palit mind you) on Win XP Pro and its butter.[/citation]

It's a DX10 card, and DX10 is available only in Vista. I'm guessing that's what they meant.

Of course your card works on XP, just like my 8800GTX works on XP, but we're losing some eye candy when running in DX9.
 
"According to the company, its GTX 285 2 GB graphics card is the first in the industry to offer such a heavy load of memory, however consumers who don't have that kind of cash to thrash can option to buy the neglected step-child, the Palit GTX 285 1 GB version."

Uh...neglected step-child? Where are the numbers to show how many of either of these cards are getting bought? And what the hell is "cash to thrash", anyways?

If your going to write about your opinions on things, then say so from the get go and don't try to make this look like a serious news article.
 
[citation][nom]aevm[/nom]It's a DX10 card, and DX10 is available only in Vista. I'm guessing that's what they meant.[/citation]
That's still a retarded thing to say, and not only makes multiple fallacious logical jumps, but then wraps it up with a false and misleading statement.
 
This is kind of funny.

Palit Microsystems said that the GeForce GTX 285 is (unfortunately) "built for Windows Vista,"
Click to expand...
Booo-hoo. Have you ever even used Windows Vista? or are you just trying to be "Cool"?

According to the product page, the card requires a PCI Express or PCI Express 2.0-compliant motherboard with one dual-width x 16 graphics slot
Click to expand...
Damn, I was gonna try to jam a PCI-E card into my old AGP system.

Is it a slow news day?
 
[citation][nom]Darkness Flame[/nom]I don't know about that, Curnel_D. I mean, both Mirror's Edge and Unreal Tournament 3 show rather nice eye candy with PhysX enabled. Sure, it cuts your frames, but it's better than running it on a CPU, and you could always get another card. In fact, if you already have one nVidia card, you could get a second nVidia card, that doesn't have to be the same mind you, and have that one focus on just PhysX, so you don't really see a drop.As for CUDA, sure, it's not perfect yet. But if you use the Adobe CS4 suite, or you just transcode a lot of video, spending ~$20 more on an nVidia card for equal frames, but a significant boost in those other applications isn't that bad.[/citation]
Sure, PhysX has redeaming qualities, and I wont argue that it doesnt. But killing the best thing it had going for it (The seperate physics processing unit), just to add it to their current lineup of cards (Effectively reducing frame rates in any PhysX enabled games because of the load on the GPU), AND block ATI users from using physX in vista (In XP, you can use an ATI for main graphics, and an Nvidia for physX), and all of this just to increase sales on their aging gaming card lineup (At the time, btw. I know they've updated.) isnt consumer friendly at all.

This combined with the fact that I cant stand most PhysX games 😛 makes trumpeting in PhysX just stupid.

CUDA "will" be an awesome Technology. But on the same hand, ATI is doing the same exact thing with OpenCL, which will either be just as good, if not better because of it's open nature. The funny thing is, OpenCL will run on Intel, ATI, and Nvidia hardware. So I'm guessing adoption rate will be through the roof compared to the proprietary CUDA.

But a HUGE thing to remember is the fact that Nvidia is currently black-listing anyone who doesnt comply with their propaganda.
http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/465934-inq-nvidia-s-big-dishonesty.html

And for firing Kevin Parrish, you have a third from me.
 
Tom'shas become a biased sh*tty site. This is complete garbage. Wow is all I can say. This aught to get me banned for life....
 
[citation][nom]lonno[/nom]Tom'shas become a biased sh*tty site. This is complete garbage. Wow is all I can say. This aught to get me banned for life....[/citation]
It won't.

If you want a ban, post sum cp.
 
[citation][nom]RiotSniperX[/nom]Wait, first to have 2gb?4870x2 has 2gb -.-[/citation]

It's the first single GPU to have 2GB. Radeon 4870x2 has 2x1GB, 1 GB for each GPU (same as the 4850x2). It's not the same as having 2 GB. Each GPU on the 4870x2 still has a 1 GB limit for textures, etc. where the 2GB GTX 285 has 2 GB of memory for textures. This will especially benefit at high resolutions (2560x1600) with AA and AF enabled.
 
[citation][nom]BaBa BoeY[/nom]What's the price tag?[/citation]
It is odd the make a statement about cash thrashing when no numbers have been quoted. I can't find any numbers, but I doubt the difference in price between the 1 and 2 gig version would be so large that the 2 gig version would be considered "cash thrashing" while the 1 gig version would not.
 
[citation][nom]Animebando[/nom]I enjoy the comments. Partly because they piss so many of you off for some reason. Yay for cynics.[/citation]
Wait, the comments piss so many people off?

I'd say, more often then not, the articles piss people off. Although, when the article pisses people off, people usually end up making stupid comments about it that piss other people off.

But I agree. Pissed off people are often hilarious. I'm sure you'd make a great Troll.
 
[citation][nom]Animebando[/nom]Well I've never tried trolling or anything of the sort before, but thanks... I guess?[/citation]
Go to /b/, test your skills.
 
[citation][nom]Darkness Flame[/nom]I don't know about that, Curnel_D. I mean, both Mirror's Edge and Unreal Tournament 3 show rather nice eye candy with PhysX enabled. Sure, it cuts your frames, but it's better than running it on a CPU, and you could always get another card. In fact, if you already have one nVidia card, you could get a second nVidia card, that doesn't have to be the same mind you, and have that one focus on just PhysX, so you don't really see a drop.As for CUDA, sure, it's not perfect yet. But if you use the Adobe CS4 suite, or you just transcode a lot of video, spending ~$20 more on an nVidia card for equal frames, but a significant boost in those other applications isn't that bad.[/citation]
Wrong Adobe CS4 and Cuda is a propaganda bullshit, since the GPU doesn`t help at all Premiere CS4 at any transcoding .. for that you`ll have to buy an Nvidia CX card that comes witha CUDA enabled codec to transcode HD material ... and that CX card costs 2000$ it won`t run on regual gaming cards. And for real time editing there are better alternatives and cheaper at 1500$ you can get a Matrox RT.X 2 card that does much more than Nvidia CX card.
 
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Wrong Adobe CS4 and Cuda is a propaganda bullshit, since the GPU doesn`t help at all Premiere CS4 at any transcoding .. for that you`ll have to buy an Nvidia CX card that comes witha CUDA enabled codec to transcode HD material ... and that CX card costs 2000$ it won`t run on regual gaming cards. And for real time editing there are better alternatives and cheaper at 1500$ you can get a Matrox RT.X 2 card that does much more than Nvidia CX card.[/citation]
Exactly. CUDA has nothing going for it, aside from Nvidia's mouth. And the mouths of either 'dedicated', or intimidated journalists like Mr. Kevin Parrish.

Both CUDA and PhysX are totally anti-consumer. And not only that, they'll both fail miserably on the same track they're on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom