GTX 260/192 1792MB vs. GTX 260/216 896MB

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Minus_i7

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
Apologies if topics like this have been exhausted already, but I couldn't find a discussion that compared these two video cards.

***
I'd like to know which card generally comes out ahead for higher resolution gaming: The faster 216 core GTX 260 with less memory, or the slower 192 core GTX 260 with more memory. That's all I need answered, in case I start rambling here.
***

Here's my rig so far:
Core i7 920 @ 2.66
Asus P6T Deluxe X58 mobo
3GB DDR3 RAM
750W power supply

The following is less important:

I have an opportunity to acquire either 1 ATI Radeon 4870x2 with 2GB GDDR5 memory, or a pair of GTX 260's (the 192 processor core) with 1792MB of GDDR3 memory for about the same price. I cannot get (right now) the same deal on a pair of GTX 260/216. The reason I'd like to know how the two different 260's compare is that all the comparisons vs. the 4870x2 I've found have been between 260/216's with 896MB and not 260/192's with 1792 MB.

So I'm using the 260/216 to compare two setups that I haven't seen compared yet.

The following is even less important:

In the future I'll upgrade my rig as so:
*Max the system RAM when 4GB triple channel DDR3 sticks come down in price.
*Solid state drive, also when they come down in price
*Overclock the i7 when the warranty is up.
*Video card upgrade will likely be a single card from the next generation, or maybe the next generation after that depending on their power requirements. I won't go 4870x2 Crossfire on a 750W power supply. The cards for this rig will probably be transferred to another mid-range rig(s) after said upgrade.


Thanks in advance.
 
Solution
Raidur
I can guess on how those 2 cards would stack up. If you are using a resolution of 1680x1050 and under the GTX 260/192 1792 would lose. 1920x1080-1900x1200 I could see it being evenly matched, possibility of either one pulling ahead at times (honestly I'd lean towards the GTX 260/216 896 even at this resolution). Anything over 1900x1200 would most likely see benefit from the GTX 260/192 1792.

High amounts of video memory only helps when using super high resolutions, and 896MB is already quite a bit. Unless you are using a super high resolution (higher than 1900x1200) I'd stick with the Core 216 (GTX 260/216 896).

+1 4870X2
Sort by date Sort by votes
ausch30

ausch30

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2007
2,210
0
19,790
I could be mistaken but I thought they both had 896MB memory. The Core 260 is about 10% faster than the 192. My suggestion would be to go with the 4870x2 because it's right around the same speed (sometimes slightly slower, sometimes much faster) than the Core 260 SLI. Also you would still have the option, if desired, in the future to add another 4870x2.

After writing that I realized you were talking about the 260 1792 (should have read the whole post)

Here's a review with the 260 896 against the 260 1792
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-n260gtx-lightning-1792-mb-review/1
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

Minus_i7

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
I think I gather from that article that the 1792MB card being reviewed also has 216 processor cores, so it's comparing 260/216 896MB vs. 260/216 1792MB and getting about a 5 fps improvement.

But I thought the card I'm looking to buy only had 192 cores. Maybe I got something wrong. Does there exist a GTX 260 with 192 processor cores and 1792 MB of memory?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

Minus_i7

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
I understand completely. However my situation is basically 'free cards', but not all of them. So I'm definitely jumping on it.

Looks like two votes for 4870x2. I'd still like to know how the GTX 260/192 1792 stacks up to the 260/216 896.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raidur

Raidur

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
2,365
0
19,960
I can guess on how those 2 cards would stack up. If you are using a resolution of 1680x1050 and under the GTX 260/192 1792 would lose. 1920x1080-1900x1200 I could see it being evenly matched, possibility of either one pulling ahead at times (honestly I'd lean towards the GTX 260/216 896 even at this resolution). Anything over 1900x1200 would most likely see benefit from the GTX 260/192 1792.

High amounts of video memory only helps when using super high resolutions, and 896MB is already quite a bit. Unless you are using a super high resolution (higher than 1900x1200) I'd stick with the Core 216 (GTX 260/216 896).

+1 4870X2
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
OvrClkr

OvrClkr

Splendid
Jul 2, 2009
8,565
0
31,160
Unless you can get dual 260's (core 216) I would get the 4870x2 in a heartbeat...

Make sure you get a flawless warranty... don't settle for a crummy 2 year good for nothing warranty.... if you live out-side the US then you have no choice =(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ausch30

ausch30

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2007
2,210
0
19,790
If you look at page 2 of the link I gave you you will see the GTX260 listed as 896 and the 260 Core 216 listed as 896/1792. As far as I know they haven't made the original 260 in some time so all the newer versions should be the 216 including the 1792. That said I would still vote for the ATI card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
boulard83

boulard83

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,250
0
19,290
They are basically the same card.

If you GOOGLE it, youll find that the 1792mb vs the 896mb give a very similar performance. Unless you are gaming at 25x16 ... get the 896mb version ( or 2 GTX275 )
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

Minus_i7

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
Good feedback, everybody. It looks like the 216 w/896 is better unless there's a massive chunk of data that'll choke it up, at which point a 192 w/1792 could pull ahead, assuming this card actually exists.

Here's what I'll probably do. I'm going to get myself one of the newer generation cards after they come down from their intro prices. In the meantime, if:
1.) The GTX are 192's, I'll grab the ATI Radeon.
2.) The GTX are 216's, I'll probably grab those. I'll be building some core i3/i5 mid level rigs maybe a year from now that they'd be a good fit for, and it'd be nice to have the option to split the cards into two machines. Just my thinking.

Thanks again,
-Minus
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

Minus_i7

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
Yes, the GTX275 is a quality card. But the problem with getting some 275's is that I would have to spend a lot more money on them. A virtually free pair of 260's can hold me over until the newer cards come down to the 275's current price, or at least near it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OvrClkr

OvrClkr

Splendid
Jul 2, 2009
8,565
0
31,160


Both cards are basically priced the same.... Maybe a 20 or 30 dollar difference.....

EVGA 896-P3-1255-AR GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896MB 448-bit GDDR3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130434

ASUS ENGTX275/HTDI/896MD3 GeForce GTX 275 896MB 448-bit GDDR3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121313&cm_re=GTX_275-_-14-121-313-_-Product

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

Minus_i7

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
Yes they are, generally. Specifically for me just this one time with everything else I'm getting and with various discounts, etc, it's going to be much cheaper than retail for these cards. Gotta' clear out the inventory, you know? But I wasn't offered any 275's.

Guess I could ask. But it's not like either of my current choices suck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ausch30

ausch30

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2007
2,210
0
19,790



Or if you were in that market you could spend $35 less for the same performance with this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102848

The OP was looking for a couple specific cards due to a deal he was able to get on those cards, he wasn't looking to buy retail.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OvrClkr

OvrClkr

Splendid
Jul 2, 2009
8,565
0
31,160


That Sapphire is not considered a good buy... look at the reviews, not only on the egg but on other websites.....

This would be a better choice :

XFX HD-489A-ZDFC Radeon HD 4890 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150359&cm_re=XFX_4890-_-14-150-359-_-Product

;) ;) ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ausch30

ausch30

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2007
2,210
0
19,790


Agreed, but my post was more to the point of the 4890 being a better deal than the GTX 275. If that's what I was looking for, I would pay the extra few bucks for the XFX over the Sapphire.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ausch30

ausch30

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2007
2,210
0
19,790


And by your chart; in most games and at most resolutions the 4890 is faster. Also being less expensive makes it a better buy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom