[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
NVIDIA is launching today a new version of GeForce GTX 260 with 216 processors instead of 192 to better compete with Radeon HD 4870. In fact NVIDIA is pitching to reviewing websites that this new GeForce GTX 260 is faster than Radeon HD 4870 for the top latest games released (FarCry 2, Fallout 3, Dead Space, Call of Duty World at War and Left 4 Dead). Let’s see the performance increase brought by this new model and how it is compared to other NVIDIA products and competitors – including Radeon HD 4870, of course.
In our Radeon HD 4870 review we saw that the original GeForce GTX 260 and this ATI video card had the same performance level on most scenarios, with an advantage to Radeon HD 4870 in the games that where a difference between the two cards (the only scenario were GeForce GTX 260 was faster was on Call of Duty 4 at 2560×1600 with image quality settings maxed out). What NVIDIA wants now is to move this advantage to the new GeForce GTX 260.
This new GeForce GTX 260 is identical to its older brother, with the only difference being the number of internal processors (known by several different names, such as “streaming processors,” “SP” or “cores”). Both run at the same clock rates. That is why we are not posting any pictures, as both cards are physically identical.
To make the comparison between the new GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores and the other video cards we included in this review easier, we compiled the table below comparing the main specs from these cards. If you want to compare the specs of the reviewed video card to any other video card not included in the table below, just take a look at our NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table and on our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table.
| GPU | Core Clock | Shader Clock | Processors | Memory Clock | Memory Interface | Memory Transfer Rate | Memory | Price |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 602 MHz | 1,296 MHz | 240 | 1,107 MHz | 512-bit | 141.7 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 405 – 460 |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 cores) | 576 MHz | 1,242 MHz | 192 | 1,000 MHz | 448-bit | 112 GB/s | 896 MB GDDR3 | USD 215 – 220 |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 cores) | 576 MHz | 1,242 MHz | 216 | 1,000 MHz | 448-bit | 112 GB/s | 896 MB GDDR3 | USD 250 – 295 |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 600 MHz | 1,500 MHz | 128 | 1,000 MHz | 256-bit | 64 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 285 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 738 MHz | 1,836 MHz | 128 | 1,100 MHz | 256-bit | 70.4 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 175 – 210 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 675 MHz | 1,688 MHz | 128 | 1,100 MHz | 256-bit | 70.4 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 178 |
| Palit GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB | 600 MHz | 1.5 GHz | 112 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 57.6 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | N/A |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 750 MHz | 750 MHz | 800 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | USD 480 – 530 |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 750 MHz | 750 MHz | 800 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR5 | USD 190 – 290 |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 625 MHz | 625 MHz | 800 | 993 MHz | 256-bit | 63.5 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 410 |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 625 MHz | 625 MHz | 800 | 993 MHz | 256-bit | 63.5 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 150 – 200 |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 575 MHz | 575 MHz | 640 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 57.6 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 120 – 130 |
| Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 | 857 MHz | 857 MHz | 320 | 927 MHz | 256-bit | 59.3 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | N/A |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 776 MHz | 776 MHz | 320 | 1,125 MHz | 256-bit | 72 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR4 | USD 95 – 200 |
It is important to note that this table reflects the current prices for the listed video cards at Newegg.com, which are lower than the prices we published in other reviews, since prices tend to drop every day.
Some important observations regarding this table:
- All NVIDIA chips are DirectX 10 (Shader 4.0), while all AMD/ATI chips are DirectX 10.1 (Shader 4.1).
- The memory clocks listed are the real memory clock. Memory clocks are often advertised as double the figures presented, numbers known as “DDR clock.” Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 use GDDR5 chips, which transfer four data per clock cycle and thus the “DDR clock” for these video cards is four times the value presented on this table (i.e., 3.6 GHz).
- GeForce 9800 GX2, Radeon HD 3870 X2, Radeon HD 4850 X2 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 have two GPU’s. The numbers on the table represent only one of the chips.
- All video cards included on our review were running at the chip manufacturer default clock configuration (i.e., no overclocking), except Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2. The official core clock for Radeon HD 3870 X2 is 825 MHz, while the official memory clock is 900 MHz. So this card was a little bit overclocked. We couldn’t reduce these clocks to their reference values and since we hadn’t any other Radeon HD 3870 X2 available we included this video card anyway.
- Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
- We couldn’t find Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 for sale. This model will be more expensive than cards from other vendors based on the same GPU because it features water cooling. Just for you to have an idea, prices on the regular Radeon 3870 X2 are quoted between USD 190 and USD 350.
- We couldn’t find Palit GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB for sale. The model with 512 MB from the same manufacturer is quoted at USD 130.
Before going to our tests let’s recap the main features from GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores main features are:
- Graphics chip: GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores, running at 576 MHz.
- Memory: 896 MB GDDR3 memory (448-bit interface) running at 1 GHz (“2 GHz”).
- Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
- Connectors: Two DVI and one S-Video output (with component video support).
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Cables and adapters that come with this board: Will depend on the manufacturer (we reviewed the reference model).
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: Will depend on the manufacturer (we reviewed the reference model).
- Games that come with this board: Will depend on the manufacturer (we reviewed the reference model).
- Programs that come with this board: Will depend on the manufacturer (we reviewed the reference model).
- Minimum Required Power Supply: 500 W.
- More information: https://www.nvidia.com
- Average price in the US*: USD 272.50
* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage
title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz, 1,600 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 memory cache).
- Motherboard: EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI (P05 BIOS)
- Memories: Crucial Ballistix PC3-16000 2 GB kit (BL2KIT12864BE2009), running at 2,000 MHz with 9-9-9-28 timings.
- Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache).
- Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560×1600).
- Power supply: OCZ EliteXStream 1,000 W.
- CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
- Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
- Desktop video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
- Service Pack 1
Driver Versions
- nForce driver version: 15.17
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.5
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.6 + hotfix (8.501.1.0, 6/21/2008) (Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.520.0.0 (Radeon HD 4870 X2)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.10 (Radeon HD 4830)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.542.0.0 (Radeon HD 4850 X2)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.11 (FarCry 2, Fallout 3)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 175.16
- NVIDIA video driver version: 177.34 (GeForce GTX 260, GTX 280)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 177.79 (GeForce 9800 GT, 9800 GTX+)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 178.24 (FarCry 2, Fallout 3)
Software Used
- 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 + October 2007 Hotfix
- 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
- Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.6
- Crysis – Patch 1.2.1 + HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.3.0.0
- Half-Life 2: Episode Two – Patch June 9th 2008 + HardwareOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
- Unreal Tournament 3 – Patch 1.2 + HardwareOC UT3 Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
- FarCry 2
- Fallout 3 – Patch 1.0.0.1.5
Resolutions and Image Quality Settings
Since we were comparing very high-end video cards, we ran all our tests under three 16:10 widescreen high resolutions: 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. We always tried to run the programs and games in two scenarios for each resolution, one with low image quality settings and then maxing out the image quality settings. The exact configuration we used will be described together with the results of each individual test.
Error Margin
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark06 Professional”]
3DMark06 measures Shader 3.0 (i.e., DirectX 9.0c) performance. We run this software under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, first with no image quality enhancements enabled – results we call “low” on the charts and tables below –, then setting 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. See the results below.
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17557 | 20.34% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 16729 | 14.67% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 11.45% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15623 | 7.09% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 14904 | 2.16% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 14589 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 14215 | 2.63% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 13701 | 6.48% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 13355 | 9.24% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 12759 | 14.34% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 11842 | 23.20% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 11471 | 27.18% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 10898 | 33.87% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 10694 | 36.42% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17414 | 31.26% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 16294 | 22.82% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15547 | 17.19% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 16.75% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 14215 | 7.15% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 13267 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 13017 | 1.92% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 12668 | 4.73% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 12206 | 8.69% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 11631 | 14.07% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 10691 | 24.10% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 10253 | 29.40% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 9787 | 35.56% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 9454 | 40.33% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15920 | 50.64% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 14140 | 33.80% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13015 | 23.15% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 16.53% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 11766 | 11.34% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 10568 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 10159 | 4.03% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 9894 | 6.81% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9365 | 12.85% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 8743 | 20.87% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 8077 | 30.84% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 7679 | 37.62% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 7308 | 44.61% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 6823 | 54.89% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 46.65% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 16134 | 45.51% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 14997 | 35.25% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13900 | 25.36% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 12157 | 9.64% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 11088 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 11063 | 0.23% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 10617 | 4.44% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9391 | 18.07% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 8981 | 23.46% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 8881 | 24.85% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 7943 | 39.59% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 7899 | 40.37% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 6915 | 60.35% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 56.39% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15313 | 54.61% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 13809 | 39.43% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 12213 | 23.31% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 10991 | 10.98% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 10014 | 1.11% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 9904 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 9450 | 4.80% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 8144 | 21.61% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 7972 | 24.23% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 7811 | 26.80% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 7109 | 39.32% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 6826 | 45.09% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 6114 | 61.99% |
| 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 12479 | 61.92% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 59.79% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 10854 | 40.83% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 9829 | 27.53% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 8704 | 12.94% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 7707 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 7550 | 2.08% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 7285 | 5.79% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 6065 | 27.07% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 5896 | 30.72% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 5774 | 33.48% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 5213 | 47.84% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 5045 | 52.77% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 4319 | 78.44% |
[nextpage title=”3DMark Vantage Professional”]
3DMark Vantage is the latest addition to the 3DMark series, measuring Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supporting PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Notice that we didn’t upgrade the PhysX to the latest version, which would make the physics calculations for CPU Test 2 to be made by the GPU instead of the CPU on NVIDIA video cards (since we aren’t considering CPU or 3DMark scores this change wouldn’t produce any increase in our results anyway).
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” value. The combination of 2560×1600 resolution with extreme settings didn’t produce reliable results according to the program, so we aren’t going to add them here. The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Performance | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 11697 | 80.87% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 8050 | 24.48% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 7695 | 18.99% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 6990 | 8.09% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 6467 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 6193 | 4.42% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 5898 | 9.65% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 5651 | 14.44% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 4797 | 34.81% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 4499 | 43.74% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 4220 | 53.25% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 3805 | 69.96% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 3691 | 75.21% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 2977 | 117.23% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Performance | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 9472 | 86.31% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 6355 | 25.00% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 6106 | 20.10% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 5379 | 5.80% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 5084 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 4880 | 4.18% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 4582 | 10.96% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 4336 | 17.25% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 3725 | 36.48% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3370 | 50.86% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 3301 | 54.01% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 2951 | 72.28% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 2891 | 75.86% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 2269 | 124.06% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 2560×1600 – Performance | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 5542 | 89.34% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 4197 | 43.39% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 3549 | 21.25% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 2927 | |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 2910 | 0.58% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 2728 | 7.29% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 2640 | 10.87% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2382 | 22.88% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 2050 | 42.78% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 1837 | 59.34% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 1815 | 61.27% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 1638 | 78.69% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 1557 | 87.99% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 1244 | 135.29% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 8405 | 66.27% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 6859 | 35.69% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 6005 | 18.79% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 5055 | |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 4858 | 4.06% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 4531 | 11.56% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 4360 | 15.94% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 3567 | 41.72% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 3445 | 46.73% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3201 | 57.92% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 2982 | 69.52% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 2741 | 84.42% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 2703 | 87.01% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 1855 | 172.51% |
| 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 6916 | 74.91% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 5554 | 40.47% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 4732 | 19.68% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 3954 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 3576 | 10.57% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 3508 | 12.71% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 3490 | 13.30% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 2753 | 43.63% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2669 | 48.15% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 2399 | 64.82% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 2349 | 68.33% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 2136 | 85.11% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 2038 | 94.01% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 1439 | 174.77% |
[nextpage title=”Call of Duty 4″]
Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will hapen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was put on the maximum values on the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the game internal benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo for downloading here if you want to run your own benchmarks. The game was updated to version 1.6. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Call of Duty 4 – 1680×1050 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 134.6 | 46.62% |
| Radeon H D 4850 X2 |
120.0 | 30.72% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106.2 | 15.69% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 105.3 | 14.71% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 93.4 | 1.74% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 91.8 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 91.0 | 0.88% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 75.7 | 21.27% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 72.4 | 26.80% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 72.2 | 27.15% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 69.1 | 32.85% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 65.8 | 39.51% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 61.3 | 49.76% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 43.0 | 113.49% |
| Call of Duty 4 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120.6 | 49.44% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 105.7 | 30.98% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 94.5 | 17.10% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 91.7 | 13.63% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 80.7 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 77.1 | 4.67% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 76.4 | 5.63% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 61.3 | 31.65% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 59.5 | 35.63% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 59.1 | 36.55% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 57.7 | 39.86% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 52.6 | 53.42% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 50.8 | 58.86% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 35.4 | 127.97% |
| Call of Duty 4 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 83.8 | 51.54% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 70.5 | 27.49% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 64.8 | 17.18% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 64.8 | 17.18% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 55.3 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 53.5 | 3.36% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 48.1 | 14.97% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 40.6 | 36.21% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.7 | 39.29% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 38.3 | 44.39% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 36.7 | 50.68% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 33.4 | 65.57% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 33.3 | 66.07% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 22.4 | 146.88% |
[nextpage title=”Crysis”]
Crysis is a very heavy DirectX 10 game. We updated this game to version 1.2.1 and used the HOC Crysis Benchmarking Utility to help us collecting data. Since we don’t think the default demo based on the island map stresses the video card the way we want, we used the HOC core demo available with the abovementioned utility. We ran this demo under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, first with image quality set to “low” and then with image quality set to “high.” Since all video cards achieved a number of frames per second below 10 at 2560×1600 with image details set to “high,” we are not including this test as the results aren’t reliable. We ran each test twice and discarded the first result, as usually the first run achieves a lower score compared to the subsequent runs since the game loses time loading files. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 125 | 16.82% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 125 | 16.82% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120 | 12.15% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 115 | 7.48% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 107 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 101 | 5.94% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 99 | 8.08% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 91 | 17.58% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 84 | 27.38% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 84 | 27.38% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 75 | 42.67% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 75 | 42.67% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 74 | 44.59% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 71 | 50.70% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 119 | 30.77% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 115 | 26.37% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 115 | 26.37% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 108 | 18.68% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 91 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 84 | 8.33% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 83 | 9.64% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 76 | 19.74% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 69 | 31.88% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 67 | 35.82% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 63 | 44.44% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 61 | 49.18% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 61 | 49.18% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 58 | 56.90% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 103 | 71.67% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 95 | 58.33% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 86 | 43.33% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 71 | 18.33% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 60 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 53 | 13.21% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 52 | 15.38% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 49 | 22.45% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 44 | 36.36% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 43 | 39.53% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 42 | 42.86% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 39 | 53.85% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 38 | 57.89% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 35 | 71.43% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 57 | 54.05% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 47 | 27.03% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 42 | 13.51% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 37 | 0.00% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 37 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 32 | 15.63% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 29 | 27.59% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 29 | 27.59% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 29 | 27.59% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 26 | 42.31% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 25 | 48.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 25 | 48.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 25 | 48.00% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 19 | 94.74% |
| Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 47 | 56.67% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 39 | 30.00% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 34 | 13.33% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 30 | 0.00% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 30 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 26 | 15.38% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 23 | 30.43% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 23 | 30.43% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 22 | 36.36% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 21 | 42.86% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 20 | 50.00% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 20 | 50.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 20 | 50.00% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 16 | 87.50% |
[nextpage title=”Unreal Tournament 3″]
Unreal Tournament 3 is the latest installment from this famous first person shooter franchise, supporting DirectX 10 graphics when installed on Windows Vista with a DX10 compatible card. We upgraded Unreal Tournament 3 to version 1.2 and benchmarked it with the help of HOC UT3 benchmarking utility using the “Containment” demo, maxing out image quality settings (image quality at “high” and anisotropic filtering at x16). It is important to note that we haven’t applied the PhysX mod to this game, which would transfer PhysX processing from the CPU to the GPU on NVIDIA cards. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Unreal Tournament 3 – 1680×1050 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 112 | 2.75% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 109 | |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 108 | 0.93% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 106 | 2.83% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 104 | 4.81% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 104 | 4.81% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 104 | 4.81% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 98 | 11.22% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 96 | 13.54% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 96 | 13.54% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 95 | 14.74% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 89 | 22.47% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 84 | 29.76% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 83 | 31.33% |
| Unreal Tournament 3 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 108 | 1.89% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 106 | |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106 | 0.00% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 103 | 2.91% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 98 | 8.16% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 97 | 9.28% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 95 | 11.58% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94 | 12.77% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 91 | 16.48% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 89 | 19.10% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 82 | 29.27% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 80 | 32.50% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 78 | 35.90% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 75 | 41.33% |
| Unreal Tournament 3 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 92 | 13.58% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 92 | 13.58% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 91 | 12.35% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 89 | 9.88% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 P roc.) |
81 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 78 | 3.85% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 76 | 6.58% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 63 | 28.57% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 62 | 30.65% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 60 | 35.00% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 53 | 52.83% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 52 | 55.77% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 51 | 58.82% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 47 | 72.34% |
[nextpage title=”Half-Life 2: Episode Two”]
Half-Life 2 is a popular franchise and we benchmark the video cards using Episode Two with the aid of HOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two benchmarking utility using the “HOC Demo 1” provided by this program. We ran the game in three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, with quality set to maximum, x16 anisotropic filtering and 16xQCS anti-aliasing. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
| Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 158.0 | 26.40% |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 25.60% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 144.0 | 15.20% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 137.9 | 10.32% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 126.1 | 0.88% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 125.4 | 0.32% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 125.0 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 121.0 | 3.31% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 116.2 | 7.57% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 101.0 | 23.76% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94.0 | 32.98% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 89.3 | 39.98% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 80.0 | 56.25% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 68.3 | 83.02% |
| Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 49.52% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 152.0 | 44.76% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 124.0 | 18.10% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 116.3 | 10.76% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 111.1 | 5.81% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 106.5 | 1.43% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 105.0 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 101.0 | 3.96% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 97.2 | 8.02% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 85.0 | 23.53% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 74.0 | 41.89% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 70.3 | 49.36% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 63.0 | 66.67% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 56.8 | 84.86% |
| Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 130.0 | 103.13% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 108.0 | 68.75% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 75.0 | 17.19% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX | 71.3 | 11.41% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 64.0 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 61.0 | 4.92% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 58.4 | 9.59% |
| Radeon HD 4830 | 51.0 | 25.49% |
| Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 50.6 | 26.48% |
| GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.0 | 64.10% |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 | 37.5 | 70.67% |
| GeForce 9800 GT | 36.0 | 77.78% |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 35.5 | 80.28% |
| Radeon HD 3870 | 34.9 | 83.38% |
[nextpage title=”Far Cry 2″]
Far Cry 2 is based on an entirely new game engine called Dunia, which is DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10-compatible video card. We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to “high,” no anti-aliasing and running the demo “Ranch Small” three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.
Unfortunately we had already returned to the manufacturer several of the video cards included in the previous comparisons and that is why you are seeing less video cards being included on this bechmarking.
| FarCry 2 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 71.7 | 4.94% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 68.4 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 66.9 | 2.26% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 63.1 | 8.27% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 54.3 | 25.85% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 53.6 | 27.61% |
| FarCry 2 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 68.8 | 9.57% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 62.8 | |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 61.9 | 1.44% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 61.0 | 3.00% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 53.6 | 17.14% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 51.1 | 22.97% |
| FarCry 2 – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 52.0 | 13.38% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 45.9 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 43.3 | 5.93% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 40.4 | 13.64% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 38.1 | 20.41% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 34.4 | 33.35% |
[nextpage title=”Fallout 3″]
Fallout 3 is based on the same engine used by The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and it is a DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) game. We configured the game with “ultra” image quality settings, 4x anti-aliasing and 15x anisotropic filtering. To measure performance, we used the FRAPS running an outdoor scene at God mode, running through enemy fire, triggering post processing effects, and ending with a big explosion in front of Dupont Circle.
Unfortunately we had already returned to the manufacturer several of the video cards included in the previous comparisons and that is why you are seeing less video cards being included on this bechmarking.
| Fallout 3 – 1680×1050 – Ultra | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 76.2 | 3.53% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 74.1 | 0.68% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 73.6 | |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 73.5 | 0.11% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 69.5 | 5.84% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 61.1 | 20.42% |
| Fallout 3 – 1920×1200 – Ultra | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 76.1 | 3.82% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 73.3 | |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 72.4 | 1.26% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 71.7 | 2.20% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 64.6 | 13.56% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 53.0 | 38.30% |
| Fallout 3 – 2560×1600 – Ultra | Score | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 280 | 68.1 | 11.46% |
| Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 61.6 | 0.77% |
| GeForce GTX 260 (216 Proc.) | 61.1 | |
| GeForce GTX 260 (192 Proc.) | 60.9 | 0.41% |
| Radeon HD 4870 | 47.4 | 28.96% |
| Radeon HD 4850 | 35.6 | 71.58% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
On the previous pages you can see a comparison between the new GeForce GTX 260 with 216 processors and a myriad of video cards. We’d like make here a summary comparing this new release to the “old” GeForce GTX 260 with 192 processors and to its main competitor, Radeon HD 4870.
The addition of 24 processing engines made the new GeForce GTX 260 to be a slight faster than the older model on several scenarios – but not on all of them. On Fallout 3 both cards achieved the same performance, on Unreal Tournament 3 the new card was faster (7%) than the old model only at 2560×1600, and on Call of Duty 4 and FarCry 2 both cards achieved the same performance level at 1680×1050, with the new model being 3% faster at 1920×1200 and 5% (CoD 4) or 6% (FC 2) faster at 2560×1600.
The new GTX 260 was up to 7% faster on 3DMark06, up to 12% faster on 3DMark Vantage, up to 16% faster on Crysis and up to 5% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two than its older version.
Radeon HD 4870 had the advantage compared to the old GeForce GTX 260, but now the new GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores is the one that has the advantage. Radeon HD 4870 was faster than GeForce GTX 260 with 216 processors at only one game, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, where it was between 15% and 18% faster.
GeForce GTX 260 with 216 processors was between 6% and 29% faster on Fallout 3, up to 14% faster on Far Cry 2, between 4% and 8% faster on Unreal Tournament 3, up to 15% faster on Call of Duty 4, between 4% and 16% faster on 3DMark Vantage and up to 4% faster on 3DMark06. On Crysis it was between 6% and 13% faster with no image quality enhancements enabled, but when we maxed out image quality both video cards achieved the same performance.
Then comes pricing. Both cards can be found on the same price range (USD 250-290), but some Radeon HD 4870 can be found a little bit lower at USD 230, but probably it is just a matter of time for the prices of this new release to drop a little bit as well.
Unless you can find a Radeon HD 4870 being sold today below USD 230 the new GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores is certainly our recommendation if you have between USD 250 and USD 290 to spend on a video card.
Of course if you are looking for at more affordable price range there are several other options on the market that will give you a better cost/benefit ratio, like Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon HD 4830, depending on your budget.
In summary, it is clear to us that NVIDIA successfully “fixed” the GeForce GTX 260 to correctly compete with Radeon HD 4870.
The only question now is how they and their partners will promote this new product, since it has the exact same name of an older and slower product. We simply hate when manufacturers release different products using the same name. It wouldn’t be easy to consumers if they released this product as GeForce GTX 261 or something like that?
Leave a Reply