GTS 250 or GTX 260 worth the difference

[Who is it]

Here I am to take me even a news graphics card and there is something that I do not understand at all. Why the GTS 250 has the performance you need more than the GTX 260? The Gtx just a bit more memory but it has the stronger running Gts why ? why is it more expensive? or is the difference and the blow is not it more interesting to see a 250 a 250. So me not understand ... This difference would be that level of quantity and frequency of memory. Any idea?

[PeterAGASSI]

I pay a GTX 260 + home Gainward version 216sp engraved in 55nm and overclocked and 3D Mark Vantage ben on I'm barely 40 points , however on GTA 4 with the same settings I am moving from 41fps to On average 57 ... need for speed shift of 33-70 and a few. Not to mention the noise at the beginning of 4890 I heard it because it warmed enough but made it come to 90 degree fan goes to 100 % and the temp reaches 105 degrees easily on certain game and it mad a mess oO monster , the GTX 260 I can hardly see the difference in charge or not and it barely exceed 75 degrees. In short all that to say that if ATI Catalyst occupied most of their fan and their crappy bin Nvidia would be far behind.

[Baltazar]

The manufacturer had launched its GeForce GTX 260 and 280 who, despite their 6 -month delay, pushing unified architecture introduced with the GeForce 8 maximum that the fine engraving of 65 nm and an enormous number of transistors could afford. The gain in performance compared to the old and now rather old generation was certainly not very engaging (59 % on average over a 9800 GTX) , but the arrival of applications and NVIDIA CUDA was interesting was that as a competitor himself . Instead , AMD always seemed more into the red with its graphics division acknowledged the impossibility of being able to fight like before the high-end segment.

[Sebastian.j]

The usual marketing speech to optimize efficiency and performance of the architecture , which sounded rather hollow until then suddenly a new significance given the results of the Radeon HD 4850, and gives us hope even better. Having his own successful surprise to assemble as many multiprocessor 320-800 despite a quota of transistors additional 43 % and a finesse burning unchanged , AMD does not want to just play the working poor , with good reason. A Radeon HD 4870, based on the same architecture but with performance ( and of course price) increase has indeed been announced and is slowly beginning to be available, although the latter remains a matter of uncertainty. On paper, it could therefore directly tickling new high-end cards from NVIDIA.

[SecRecy]

Without haste , but it is finally here. The DirectX 11 GPU from Nvidia , the new architecture that we've been waiting so long. Nvidia was left alone on the ground AMD DirectX 10.1 Radeon HD 4000 with fast and cheap (and who above all served to overshadow the disappointing HD 2000 and 3000 ) . AMD was so hammered last September by launching simultaneous with Windows 7, its first DirectX 11 graphics card , HD 5870 , followed by HD 5850 and many even too many variations.

[MattyBoy]

Which proposes a test based on PhysX to determine how high-end solution for about $ 500 is the most viable to take advantage of its effects API under the best conditions.So we have one side, a single GTX 480 , to handle the graphics and the game Cuda necessary for the proper use of PhysX. On the other , a GTX 470 for these effects relieved by a GTX 260. This solution may particularly interest those who already own a GTX 200 to be recycled without having to invest in a GTX 480. The evidence in these tables show that the GTX 480 is so often behind.