Editorial: Where NVIDIA went wrong with the GTX 280
 

Now, before I get into this I’m going to let you know that I understand as far as specifications and features go, the GTX 280 is a bit of a technical masterpiece. We should also begin to see the card shine in the next few weeks as drivers are available that can make use of these technologies. With that said though, we probably won’t see that much of an increase in raw performance numbers in most games over what the card is already capable of. Personally I feel that NVIDIA has made a few missteps on the way to the GTX 280, and today I’m going to let you know what I think they are.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/14...280/index.html

what is he going on about, if he had tested 8800 GT in SLI he would have already understood that NVIDIA screwed up on the price point. SLI is now more interesting than a single card solution. How wrong can you go? A pair of 8800 GT SLI in EU will cost you €260-300. That's cheaper than 9800GTX and 9800GX2 and these two cards perform on par with the GTX 280 it all but the most demanding high resolution/AA settings.

We're talking 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF being playable on GTX 280; while G92 cards with only 512Mb ram will lag behind noticeable here. If you have the money to buy 24"+ gaming LCD, you might as well set aside a GFX to match.

On lower budget minded LCD and systems at 1600x1200/1680x1050 the 8800 GT cards will do very nicely and cost half the price of the GTX 280... NVIDIA's own 9800GX2 is cheaper and faster too. What's the point of making a card that's so expensive but not fast enough to beat their cheaper previous generation?

What's worse about the 280's price is that they plan on dropping it to something reasonable in a few weeks to combat the 48x0 series. You wouldn't think that Nvidia had that kind of contempt for early adopters and enthusiasts, but apparently so.

I do agree with the editorial that the 9 series was a joke and probably shouldn't have existed.

HD 4850 would be even cheaper though, no? Better point he made is that MOST users have Intel chipsets... no SLI even if they wanted it. I will never buy an NVIDIA chipset motherboard, especially just because SLI is better than a single GTX 260/280. <$400 for two 4850's that perform better than a $650 GTX 280 or $450 9800GX2 sounds like a good point to me.... if true.

Secondly, my 8800GTS 320mb games just dandy at 1920x1200 with AA/AF, if using XP. Don't need GTX 280 for that. Also 24" monitors are $300+ now, not expensive if already looking at 22" sizes that are $200+

Phlegm, that sort of thing has been happening for a long time, just not as obvious. You were reading about the QX9770 before the QX9650 even launched last year... most GPU card manufacturers also wait 1-2 weeks before they begin dropping prices slightly and offering large rebates.

let me know how Mass Effect, Race Driver Grid and Rainbow Six LV2 run at high settings at 1920x1200 with AA/AF ;)
somehow the fact that a 8800 GTX struggles at 1600x1200 without AA/AF makes me wonder;)

@Phlegm: early adaptors have always been "screwed"

Dunno, I've used Supreme Commander and Company of Heroes, presently TF2. All work lag free IF using XP at 1920x1200 with AA+AF, settings on high. SupCom may be more heavily CPU limited, but it is still demanding.

There's usually a nice bit of gouging done by the retailers to early adopters, but Nvidia's new uniform pricing BS combined with the lackluster price-performance of these cards just makes me uneasy.

SupCom is easy on the GFX, so is TF2, COH I have no experience with. GTX 280 with Race Driver Grid 1920x1200 max detail 4xAA/16xAF is ~50FPS average. Crysis at those settings (high , not very high) averaged 25-30FPS;)

Am I the only one who is more curious about the implented physix chip? :P

as long as game developers have to add it as a "effect" feature rather than "gameplay" feature it will not become very interesting in my humble opinion