8800 ultra vs 250 GTS 1GB

[Vhlad]

Hi GPUReview.

I have been comparing the 8800 ultra and the GTS 250:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....515&card2=606#

I was hoping to hear your opinion on the performance of these cards.

I hold the opinion that the 8800 ultra provides superior performance at 1920x1200 with AA/AF enabled. This is due to the higher memory bandwidth, and the higher pixel fill rate.

This opinion is also supported with benchmarks:

Sum of fps benchmarks at 1920x1200 with 4AA + high quality:
8800 ultra = 252.60
GTS 250 1GB = 247.70
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1200,1199.html

When AA is increased further, so is the difference. Sum of fps benchmarks at 1920x1200 with 8AA + high quality:
8800 ultra = 121.70
GTS 250 1GB = 110.30
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1200,1200.html

Looking at specific games instead of an average of all games, we see:
Fallout 3 at 1920x1200 8 AA 15AF very high quality:
8800 ultra = 44.90
GTS 250 1GB = 38.10 FPS
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ut-3,1173.html

Left for dead at 1920x1200 8AA 16AF very high quality:
8800 ultra = 48.70
GTS 250 1GB = 43.80
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...Dead,1184.html

Strictly speaking, if a 8800 ultra replacement was required to be of equal or better performance, would the GTS 250 1GB suffice? Based on these benchmarks, and based on the superior memory bandwidth & pixel fill rates of the ultra, I believe that a GTX 260 would be required to meet the "equal or better" performance standard. What do you think?

[Radiator]

A GTS 250 is more or less equal to it at lower res , worse at higher res .
Now I wouldn't suggest a GTX260 to replace it , because the difference wouldn't be that MASSIVE . If you're going to replace it , replace it with a highend card , rather than a mid-end card .

[Vhlad]

Originally Posted by Radiator

A GTS 250 is more or less equal to it at lower res , worse at higher res .
Now I wouldn't suggest a GTX260 to replace it , because the difference wouldn't be that MASSIVE . If you're going to replace it , replace it with a highend card , rather than a mid-end card .

I had to RMA a 8800 ultra. I kept it in pristine condition, always clean, cool, with no modification or overclocking, but it died on me after 2 years 4 months.

XFX mailed me a GTS 250 as a replacement after I asked them not to.

Their RMA policy states: if the same model card is not in stock a replacement of equal or better performance will be used as the replacement. They claim the GTS 250 is equal performance.

I'm curious how many people agree with that claim, and if so, what evidence they have to support it.

EVGA has been replacing RMA'd 8800 ultras with GTX 260s (i.e. http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=129748). So I'm a little bummed with XFX right now.

[Radiator]

Well thing is the GTS 250 IS more or less equal to it , it's the closest thing to a 8800 Ultra that's still on the retail market . The GTX260 is a notch upwards from the 8800U .
Don't fret , you can always sell the GTS 250 and buy a better card if it's not enough .

[Vhlad]

Originally Posted by Radiator

Well thing is the GTS 250 IS more or less equal to it , it's the closest thing to a 8800 Ultra that's still on the retail market . The GTX260 is a notch upwards from the 8800U .
Don't fret , you can always sell the GTS 250 and buy a better card if it's not enough .

If the XFX RMA policy was written and advertised as: lifetime warranty, repair or replacement using the most equivalent card, sure. Because that would leave room for the replacement to be the closest thing, even if it were slightly lower performing.

But when they state: lifetime warranty, repair or replacement with equal or better performance, then they can't justify giving you the closest thing. It must be equal or better.

What I got was lower.
[at 1920x1200 with AA]

A slight performance difference is what separated the 8800 ultra and 8800 GTX at release. That slight performance gain came with a $200-$399 price premium.

Old prices are in this review: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=2

Old benchmarks are in this review: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=403&pgno=7

To quote the benchmark review: "the GeForce 8800 Ultra registered a 7.5% gain in frame rate over the GTX. This increased to 10% at 4x AA and 8xQ AA. The greatest amount of improvement was at 16xQ AA, where it was 12.6% faster than the GeForce 8800 GTX."

If it was a 8800 GTX being RMAd, then I would still be getting the GTS 250 from XFX. With the ultra being RMAd, I'm getting the same GTS 250 back, and I'm losing that slight performance gain that I payed so much for. i.e. GTS 250 1GB vs 8800 ultra, we're looking at 10.3% for sum of FPS benchmarks with 8AA; 17.8% for fallout 3]. It's like I never purchased the Ultra.

[Radiator]

Well go there and demand a better card then .
At 1920x1200 or w/e the 8800 Ultra is indeed faster , but the GTX260 is way beyond the 8800 Ultra .
And I know what the 8800 Ultra cost when it was released .

[-RK]

The GTS250 is slightly (very slightly) better.

[Vhlad]

Originally Posted by -RK

The GTS250 is slightly (very slightly) better.

I'd love to see benchmarks or other evidence to support this.

At stock speeds and resolution below 1920x1200, and no or little AA, I may agree. But on average, when ramping up the resolution and AA, the ultra outperforms.

I recently sent a support ticket in to EVGA to ask their opinion:
An EVGA support member wrote back, replying: The GTS 250 is a rebranding of the 9800 GTX super clocked. But the performance of the ultra cards are clocked a little faster than the GTX super clocked.

Aggravatingly, XFX didn't even send me the 1GB version of the 250 GTS to replace my 8800 ultra. According to the packing slip, it's a 250 GTS 512.

I'm not sure if I should bend over or just lay flat while they have their way with me.

[-RK]

That is incorrect, the 8800Ultra has much better memory bandwidth due to a 384 bit bus, but the 9800GTX+/GTS250 has a significantly more efficient and powerful core.

It's technicalities, I know, but it remains that the 9800GTX+/GTS250 is to the 9800GTX what the 8800Ultra was to the 8800GTX. The ultra wins by a very slight margin at higher resolutions, the GTX+/GTS250 wins by a very slight margin at lower resolutions.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1050,1197.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ut-3,1171.html

The operative words here are "very slight margin". The two cards are essentially equivalent in performance. No two card designs are going to perform in exactly the same way.

You can (and for your own sake probably should) raise a stink about it, but their logic is sound in sending you a GTS250.

Hey, the GTS250 should get you a better overclock too if you're into it.

[ultima]

question

do you play at those resolutions ?

what size monitor ?