GeForce GTS 250: Nvidia's G92 Strikes Again

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t understand the argument about NVIDIAS fault if an uninformed buyer buys a GTS 250 to replace a GTX9800+, the buyer should have researched a bit before choosing a card, and if an average joe consumer doesn’t has the knowledge to make a good purchase then he should look for help, if he doesn´t he will very likely make a poor choice with or without the GTS 250.
One thing is for sure, the 4830 is an awesome card for its price. And the G92 architecture was great for being competitive for so long.
 
I understand perfectly this article is comparing on price points when it comes to ATI vs nVidia. When it is comparing nVidia against nVidia is more a product comparison. The 1GB version of the ATI's would completely change the conclusion and most likely the 4850 1GB would look like a waste of money and look overpriced the way most people said the GTX 280's looked.

One thing I think works against nVidia's claim at naming convention restructure is that the GTX 260, GTX 280, GTX 285, and GTX 295 all have a chip code named GT200! That makes sense to be a GT(X or S or ?) 200 series card. Of course the G92 was named in 8800 flavors to and not just 9800 ones previous to its promotion up to this new naming. It could be said this didn't make much sense either.
 
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Deuschbag! Were you around a few days ago when right on the home page of tom's, There was a tigerdirect ad about gtx280 at $349.[/citation]

dude, he said when they launched - not what the prices were a few days ago? reading comprehension anyone?
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]A fool and his money are soon parted. Feel sorry for that guy because he'll waste a lot more money in his lifetime than just $150 bucks on a graphics card ;-)[/citation]
True that, but I still don't like anti-consumer marketing... which is unfortunately the epitome of marketing... 🙁
 
[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]I dont start the rumors, douchebag. But that doesnt even answer the questions about legitiment and trusted hardware sites hinting at (And in HardwareOPC's case, outright saying it)the rumor. Oh, and perhaps you missed the part of the article, and every single article on the web reviewing only overclocked 250's? Or is it too apparent you ran your mouth without thinking?[/citation]
No, but you could use your brain. If someone told you Ford Fusion drives better with only one front wheel are you going to believe them and think Ford is charging you 4 wheels when 3 are fine?

Clearly the reason everyone has an overclock 250 instead of stock is because manufactures are trying to differentiate their product from basic 250 and 9800+ now that 9800+ is going to be cheaper. 750MHz is only 12MHz over 738 and I would think Nvidia
 
[citation][nom]TheBlade[/nom]I don’t understand the argument about NVIDIAS fault if an uninformed buyer buys a GTS 250 to replace a GTX9800+, the buyer should have researched a bit before choosing a card, and if an average joe consumer doesn’t has the knowledge to make a good purchase then he should look for help, if he doesn´t he will very likely make a poor choice with or without the GTS 250.One thing is for sure, the 4830 is an awesome card for its price. And the G92 architecture was great for being competitive for so long.[/citation]


Since I'm mentioned so much in this article (I'm joking), I thought I should respond. I'm not buying a card until Direct X 11 hardware comes out. Most casual gamers don't buy new video cards unless they actually can't play a game or they're building a whole new computer.

I'm probably not going to but a GX250 to replace my 8800gt 512mb. I just don't think the extra ~5 FPS is worth it. I understand the advertising is misleading and will lead to some problems down the road. Nvidia should realizes this and is pulling the 9800's out before the 250's are released. It's interesting that while the gx280 is faster than my 8800gt its not enough faster to make something playable that isn't playable for me. If I can't play Crysis with one 8800gt I cannot play Crysis with one gx280. 2 9800gt's would easily beat a gx280 in Crysis.

Imagine if they took the 9800gt which is a low cost little miracle at $99 and made a power efficient 9800gt x2 instead. They could sell it for ~$180 and it would blow away everything short of other dual GPU setups.

I wish they would use the die shrink to drop power requirements instead pushing the clock a little higher. Faster hardware is already for sale if I really want it. I don't need faster hardware right now because it doesn't make enough of a difference in performance. Give me a 9800gt x2 card that will only use 300 watts or less. Maybe a 9600 x2 would work even. If it could run on a retail PC like a sony, gateway, or dell without needing a new PSU I bet they would sell them so fast they couldn't even make enough of them.
 
[citation][nom]SneakySnake[/nom]Nice to see that the ATI cards weren't allowed to pass 512 mb in the benchmarks.[/citation]
I think that the article should have included 1 gb versions on ati cards, or at least all of the cards (nvidia & ati) to 512 mb. some people think that the mem of a graphics card is the only thing that matters (the more mem the better). I remember once, a friend of mine who owns an amd 2400 pro said to me: "my card has 1 gb shared memory, a lot better than your 8800 gt 512 mb" He didn't know what HyperMemory is or anything for that matter! But that is only an example. I think at least 80% of consumers are exactly like him. Nvidia could have withdrawn the 9800s from the market so that the average-joe would know what to buy.
 
@the kid asking the stream processor question: It comes down to design philosophy, you should look at how many transistors vs. performance rather than how many stream processors vs. performance. If Nvidia put as many SPs on a piece of silicon as AMD, it would have 50billion transistors, be the size of a dinner plate and suck more power than a wall outlet can provide.
 
Excellent article. This is why I still read Tom's Hardware. The one unquantifiable thing I see that the 9800GTX+/GTS 250 has over the 4870 and 4850 is the cooler. I would gladly pay a little more or have a little less performance in order to have a sensible, quiet, and efficient cooling system. Where AMD cards just have fans blowing down on the GPU with air going everywhere including back into the case, modern nVidia cards seem to always have a blower system where air comes in one side and is exhausted out the back.

I don't mind the naming thing so much. It's easier for the average consumer to know that a GTS 250 is not as fast as a GTX 260 than for them to know that about the 9800 GTX(+). It's not like nVidia is doing this name change and not letting us know it's the same GPU.
 
P.S. I read on Anandtech that the 1GB model of the 250 is actually shorter than the 512MB model and the 9800 GTX +. Over there they say it's only 9 inches. It sure would be nice to see a trend of rebadged-old-high-end-as-new-midrange cards getting a PCB shrink. It would allow me to keep the 2nd hard drive cage in my mini p180.
 
So where is the mention of the GTS 250 being a full inch shorter than the 9800+, and only requiring 1, not 2, PCI-E 6-pin power connectors?

Both of those are significant details to me, and I picked them up from preview articles on "other" sites.

FAIL!
 
Small non performance (gaming) improvements about same price i'd take that card over a 9800+ any day so what's the bother. Had two choices i'd pay a little bit more for a smaller card that fits my case better i hated the 8800gtx's that needed to be like strapped to my HDD cage so the card wouldn't bend. Imo seems like a good rebrand it's a good card either way why else have they rebranded it time and time again.
 
What Nvidia really needed to do was compete with the 46x0 series, that was a truly innovative card, as it brought very excellent mid-range performance for well under $100 and can run without a 6pin PCIe connector. This card couldn't possibly compete on that level without much more of a die shrink, perhaps 40nm or 32nm.
 
[citation][nom]vim_commando[/nom]So where is the mention of the GTS 250 being a full inch shorter than the 9800+, and only requiring 1, not 2, PCI-E 6-pin power connectors?[/citation]

Good observation. I wrote about the latter earlier on and got thumbs down from you guys. 🙁
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Both cards are exactly the same length. Finkle is Einhorn.[/citation]

+1 for the Ace Ventura reference.
 
One more time guys. Both cards are right here, right in the lab, and they're both the same length. The comparisons I've seen were between the GTX 9800 and the GTS 250. We tested the GTX 9800+ and the GTS 250. That plus means the difference between 65nm and 55nm.
 
I bet it's cause it's a BFG OC version. AnandTech shows pictures of the reference 1GB model being clearly shorter than the other cards.
 
look
you don't upgrade from a high end designated card (at the time) to a lower designated card in comparison to the modern lineup.
do you see the 5 in 250? it means that this model is midrange. the 9800, with the 8, was designated high end. If you upgrade, you upgrade from high end to high end, or mid range to mid range, or midrange to high end. You *don't* go from high end to midrange.
For a more (exagerrate) example of how this works, consider the nvidia 7 and 8 series. A higher end designated 7950 and a mid range 8600. See the 9 in 7950 and 6 in 8600? We all know that the 7950 gpus are faster than the 8600, so anyone who "upgraded" from a 7950 GT to 8600 GT was really lazy to read reviews.
9800 to 250- that's going from high end to mid range. This card is just to occupy the gap between the 240 and 260 cards. If the performance is there from an older gpu, then why waste more money on research and development for a downgraded GT200 that won't have a increase in performance?
If you upgrade from the 9800 GTX+ to GTS 250 because
#1 You were uneducated about nvidia's naming scheme
#2 You didn't bother to read any reviews
then the fault is with customer stupidity.

second note:
BFG tends to release only factory overclocked video cards (at the same price as other companie's reference cards) , its hard for me to find nowadays as stock reference card from BFG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom