Home » News » PC Component News » nVidia GeForce GTX 295 Revealed » Comments

Comments for nVidia GeForce GTX 295 Revealed

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

Helmore

2:30 PM on 18 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Helmore. Show Details Hide Details

Just to stay consistent with the reported specs, it should state that the card has 56 ROPs. The card has 28 ROPs per GPU and thus 56 ROPs on the card in total.

The card better be quite a bit faster than the 4870X2, NVIDIA has had more than enough time to prepare a proper counterattack. As for pricing, rumors indicate that it has a MSRP of $499, which is lower than what the 4870X2 currently has. Although the price of a 4870X2 will probably be lowered upon the GTX295's launch, that's just my prediction though.

Score:

Name withheld

ilovethemonkeyhead

6:49 PM on 18 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ilovethemonkeyhead. Show Details Hide Details

*ati is unaffected by nvidia's attack*

*ati unleashes hd 4970/4870 x3/x4*

*nvidia fainted!*

Score:

Name withheld

basicasic

7:55 PM on 18 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore basicasic. Show Details Hide Details

289w TDP ! That'll take some cooling. Hope its not the Nvidia Dustbuster mk2.

Score:

Name withheld

Pbryanw

12:30 AM on 19 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Pbryanw. Show Details Hide Details

Frankly, at 289W TDP, that's a lot less then the 4870 X2, and may be even less then my single 4870 512MB. Considering it's two GPU's on one card, 289W is a worthy achievement.

Score:

Name withheld

basicasic

11:07 AM on 19 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore basicasic. Show Details Hide Details

Any graphics card guzzling the best part of 300w is no achievement in my eyes. The fact that the 4870 X2 sucks up 265w flat out (xbit labs) is bad enough but that it uses 80w idling is deplorable. Intel and AMD realised a while back that the 'CPU nuclear arms race' was reaching meltdown and have concentrated on efficiency as well as performance. Cool and quiet seems to have passed Nvidia and ATI by.

Score:

Name withheld

Keithe6e

2:37 PM on 19 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Keithe6e. Show Details Hide Details

>The fact that the 4870 X2 sucks up 265w flat out (xbit labs) is bad enough but that it

>uses 80w idling is deplorable

I think the 265w flat out isn't a big problem, but the 80w while idle I would agree.

If you don't want 265w flat out, then underclock the card, its horses for courses I suppose, do you want fast frame rate, or save the planet. Maybe Nvidia can borrow Intels 45nn manufacturing lab to bring the wattage down a tad.

Score:

Name withheld

Robovski

6:29 PM on 19 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Robovski. Show Details Hide Details

Indeed. What I am really waiting for is a decent passive card from the current generation for my living room machine.

Score:

Name withheld

Pbryanw

8:56 PM on 19 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Pbryanw. Show Details Hide Details

I know Gigabyte do a passively cooled 1GB 4850 (model no. GV-R485MC-1GH).

As far as the 4870X2's power consumption goes, I was going on Bit-tech's figures where it's load consumption was measured at a mind-boggling 483W, with the 4870 512MB coming in at 333W. That's why I thought Nvidia's 289W sounded so good. Must be different testing methodologies between Bit-tech and X-bit labs though.

Score:

Name withheld

ChaosDefinesOrder

11:09 PM on 22 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore ChaosDefinesOrder. Show Details Hide Details

were you factoring in the fact that Bit-Tech takes the power reading from the wall socket and reports that as-is? They do this deliberately as there's no sure-fire way of knowing what the power consumption without a graphics card is because you need a card of some sort to boot the machine enough to take a reading! You could do a relative measurement, but that wouldn't give you the total card output then!

Score:

Name withheld

Pbryanw

3:06 AM on 26 December, 2008

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Pbryanw. Show Details Hide Details

No, thanks for the explanation. Talking of Bit-tech, why no cheese-cake reviews on TR this Christmas? Where do I turn to for an alternative opinion? Ah well, I doubt anyone will read this now with this news-story being so old :)

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.