Get your complete GTX280 scores here

Groo Wanderer writes:

"Since boredom is a dangerous thing on the weekends, I decided to alleviate mine by running 233 benchmarks on the new GT280. This includes 28 gaming related tests across up to nine resolutions, and 9800GTX numbers thrown in for good measure. Since there were no NDAs involved in getting you these numbers, we are not bound by the pesky NDA that lifts tomorrow. You can read all of the numbers here; enjoy."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GIJeff3837d ago

if your monitor happens to be ultra high res. Its really not that much of an improvement when running anything less than 2560x1600. My monitor (22") is 1650x1050. Making the 280 only 22% faster than the 9800gtx. If you already own a 8800GT 512 and above, it'd be smarter to buy another one for SLI rather than get a shiny new 280 for way more money. You can score just as high with 2 GTs in SLI.

Bolts3837d ago

CoD 4 full 1080p native, 8X AA (8X!) at 136 FPS!! LMAO!

To put things perspective the 360's CoD 4 can't get pass 640p native and can't even push 60 FPS. No less impressive is UT3 numbers with similar settings punching pass 153 FPS. PC power FTW.

What we have here is the GPU of the next generation of consoles three to four years down the road.

GIJeff3837d ago

itd be nice to have one of these in a ps3. (the intel quad core they're using isnt nearly as fast as CELL. Nor is the ram as fast as the ps3's XDDR.)

Lethal_Venom3837d ago

You actually believe that sony BS. The cell and xdr are nothing compared to modern pc technology. Why do you think it's so cheap.

Xi3837d ago

cod4 runs the exact same on the ps3, and it required a separate dev team.

stop hyping up the cell as being anything more then a modified cellphone chip designed to crunch numbers but to nothing else.

Lich1203837d ago

I can't believe people still think that anything inside the ps3 is faster than what you can get for a PC. Its not like that cell processor is magic technology. The ps3 doesn't come close to the power of a well built PC. I understand that a PC costs more, but you get more power for the extra cost. Bottom line, a gaming machine on a high resolution monitor running UT3 against the PS3 version makes the PS3 version look pretty poor.

Charmers3837d ago

I would give it up guys. I learnt long ago that you cannot say anything to Cell BE supporters that will change their mind. It was a similar situation last gen, the emotion engine was a super duper uber cpu and it was impossible to convince them of anything else. It didn't matter that the games ran in 640 x 480 res even though most pc gamers were getting use to 1024 x 768. The emotion engine was massively better than anything in existence.... NOT.

It is the same this generation. The PS3/360 struggle to do 720p natively (a res PC users were using EIGHT years ago) whereas the PC even with a modest 8800gt can do 1680 x 1050 without breaking a sweat. You will never convince a PS3 user or a Cell BE guy that their processor is far from the powerhouse that Sony make it out to be.

GIJeff3837d ago

PS3's cell = 218GFLOPS
Quad Core Intel ~ 40GFLOPS.

You guys keep mentioning resolutions and ported games to back your claims, well McFly, resolutions ARE NOT, I REPEAT, ARE NOT dependent on the CPU. If you were half the geeks you thought you were, you would know this. GO BACK TO SCHOOL. I'm getting tired of teaching you brainless children. There's a reason folding at home has increased dramatically since the PS3's release, the PS3 is capable of running math intensive applications MUCH FASTER than any PC on the market. The only thing a PC has over the PS3 right now is GPU power. Thats because in 2005-6 when the PS3 went into production, the 7 series was king. Its been almost 4 years. And the PS3 is still building momentum. In that 4 years, we've more than doubled PC CPU power. But the CELL is still >5 times faster than a quad core! I am too tired from PROGRAMMING all day to explain why XDDR is faster than DDR3 or DDR2. Goodnight and go to school.

RuffRyder3837d ago

Ha ha sorry but your a complete dumbass to even compare the cell processer to a mordern day PC CPU lol.

moses3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

WITH YOUR ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE, please oh please tell me why a quad extreme costs over $1000 while a cell in a PS3 costs much much less? Please also tell me why with the ULTIMATE POWER OF THE CELL, why couldn't the PS3 just ray-trace all of it's graphics with it's "218" theoretical Gflops at native 1080P at 120fps?

In all seriousness, Sony publishes BS numbers on paper, get it straight in your mind, a high-end quadcore CPU in a pc is much more powerful all around then a cell, got it? Just remember, you have no idea at all what you are talking about. K? Thx.

Yay GTX 280, I'll be getting you in a few weeks! :D

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3837d ago
bourner3837d ago

that is an impressive card . bit over the top i think unless you have a massive, high res screen and playing on full everything

ravenguard883837d ago



bednet3837d ago (Edited 3837d ago )

I would not change my 8800 GTX for this card (unless it was free of course), as I don't think the human eye can see the difference between 90 fps and 120 fps. Unless you're running on a 30in display this isn't needed right now.

I'll probably just buy another 8800 GTX when I need more juice later on.