8800 ultra vs 250 GTS 1GB

[ultima]

also

did you LOOK at this comparison

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1199.html?prod[2464]=on&prod[2477]=on&prod[2465]=on&prod[2448]=on


yes some of the OLDER games it performs faster

however in NEWER games the 250 IS FASTER

look at fallout 3
far cry 2
HAWX

all beat the ultra

and to complain about a few frame rates
to me is ridiculous

when my video card of 3 yrs died
I HAD TO BUY A NEW ONE

getting lifetime warranty to me is silly for a company to do
its hows they go out of business


so are you going to be playing older games in the next year or two ?
or newer ones...

[Vhlad]

I'm using a 2407wfp (dell ultrasharp 24"; native 1920x1200). Further replies are in darkred.

Originally Posted by ultima

also

did you LOOK at this comparison

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1199.html?prod[2464]=on&prod[2477]=on&prod[2465]=on&prod[2448]=on

Yes, I have. Many of these comparisons are at low resolution (1680x1050) and/or without AA enabled, which means the inferior memory bandwidth of the GTS 250 1GB is not bottlenecking. If you look near the bottom of that link, you will see sum of FPS benchmarks 1920x1200, 8AA (high quality). Here you see the ultra beats the 250 GTS 1GB by 10.3%. This is not a single game or application, but the sum, yielding what can be interpreted as an average performance of each card. To say some things the GTS 250 wins and some things the 8800 ultra wins is technically correct, but to quantify that further you can look at the sum of FPS benchmarks.


yes some of the OLDER games it performs faster

however in NEWER games the 250 IS FASTER
On average, this is not correct (at 1920x1200 with AA).

look at fallout 3
I have. The 8800 ultra shows a 17.8% increase in performance over the GTS 250 1GB at 1920x1200 8AA 15AF
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ut-3,1511.html

far cry 2
1% performance gain for the GTS 250 (yes, just 1%); once again at 1920x1200 8AA 16AF (very high quality)
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ry-2,1515.html

HAWX
2% performance gain for the 8800 ultra
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g....W.X,1530.html

all beat the ultra
Not true. The GTS 250 beats it by 1% in far cry 2, but the ultra performs 17.8% better in fallout 3, and 2% better in hawx.

and to complain about a few frame rates
to me is ridiculous
The difference between a 8800 GTX and a 8800 ultra was a few frame rates (12.6%); but the price difference between these cards for that gain was $200-$399. To care about a performance difference as high as 17.8% for fallout 3 or 10.3% over the sum of FPS benchmarks is not ridiculous to someone who bought a 8800 ultra.

when my video card of 3 yrs died
I HAD TO BUY A NEW ONE

getting lifetime warranty to me is silly for a company to do
its hows they go out of business


so are you going to be playing older games in the next year or two ?
or newer ones...
I'm playing fallout 3 right now. Why should I lose 17.8% in performance at my settings when RMAing a lifetime warranty card that I bought for $748.88 when the terms of the lifetime warranty specifically state that the company will repair or replace with an equal or better performing card (losing 17.8% is not equal).

It should also be noted that these benchmarks have been comparing the 1GB version of the 250 GTS. I was only sent the 512mb version.

I also like that link Ultima put up. But it uses a different version of the ultra. This one is more fitting:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...d%5B2807%5D=on
It compares 8800 ultra SLI vs GTS 250 1GB SLI and 8800 ultra single vs GTS 250 1GB single.

It's interesting: the SLI efficiency of the ultra appears to be better than that of the 250. i.e. the ultra SLI wins in 25/31 results (250 SLI performs a maximum of 3% better in its highest winning result, ultra SLI performs a maximum of 25% better in its highest winning result) and ties in 2/31 results; this is even though many of the results are at low res and without AA, where the 250 should do better.

[Vhlad]

Thanks for the comments. I have a few quick replies in darkred.

Originally Posted by -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
Well, there's a 0.9% difference in performance here, but it is at 1680x1050 and only 4AA. This resolution is not relevant to me, as my native resolution is 1920x1200.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ut-3,1171.html
The resolution is right this time (1920x1200), but it has 0AA and 0AF. We're talking about a performance difference related to the superior memory bandwidth of the ultra, and to see that performance difference the bandwidth must be utilized. i.e. ramp up the AA & AF. I was running a 8800 ultra SLI system. This was an enthusiast system without a doubt. People with these cards don't game without AA/AF. To be fair, AA/AF must be included.

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.
If they base their performance equivalency on low resolutions without AA, sure. But that's a questionable stance to take when we're talking about a card that was marketed toward people who cared about higher resolutions and AA.

Hey, the GTS250 should get you a better overclock too if you're into it.
I never overclocked my ultras. I thought with a SLI system I wouldn't risk it, due to the difficulty in finding a replacement that allows me to keep my SLI performance should anything happen. I was hoping something with a lifetime warranty kept at stock settings with stock cooler, air cleaned & well ventilated, would last long enough for keeping SLI performance to be a non-issue. i.e. I was hoping to have required an upgrade before one of the ultras died.

[-RK]

The cards are equivalent. Raise a stink if you want, but it's pointless to try to argue that they aren't roughly equal.

You were using a SLI system and a $600+ card failed? Yeah, I can see why you'd be pissed to get a card that you can no longer use in SLI. Being pissed doesn't justify your argument or invalidate XFX's. The 8800Ultra is still slightly better at high resolution, slightly worse at low resolution. It sucks, yeah, but their position is still valid.

To be fair, they really should have sent you the 1gb version.

[ultima]

yup should have been the 1gb version

unfortunately i wouldn't see them sending you a 260
cause it is a better card

maybe they'll send you a 4870

its faster than the 250 and a lot of the time the 260 too

and costs less than the 260..


maybe ??

[Radiator]

Highly doubt it... it's roughly equal to the GTX260 so I don't see why they should .

[branewalker]

I have to say, the people here who are agreeing with XFX are not helping what is technically a very strong case for Vhlad.

Look at the benchmarks, then look at his system and the games he's playing. Oh, and the fact that the benchmarks are the 1GB card.

In his situation, especially, those cards are not equal.

I once worked for Best Buy. A woman came in one day looking to use her service plan to replace a 2+ year-old Sony Vaio laptop. Expensive, $2k (or more) machine when she bought it. Her service plan said, "equal or better specs" and the manager (thinking only of his immediate bottom line, and NOT of customer service) attempted to give this woman a Compaq Presario, the lowest-end laptop we had, as a replacement. He might have been correct if "specs" had meant "CPU speed and RAM." However, the original laptop was only 2.2 pounds, had a high-dpi screen (1280x800 at only 11 inches or so) and a few other goodies, like built-in camera, fingerprint ID login, etc. I (and many of my fellow customer service reps) made her case: in her situation, specifically, there was only one "equal or better specs" laptop, and it was the newer model of the same Sony Vaio. We ended up giving her an open-box unit (all we had in stock) of that model, but I think it was fair.

If they offer the warranty that says "equal or better" they better not stiff you by trying to rule out "better" with "almost equal." Equal would be another 8800 Ultra. Better appears to be the GTX 260. They guaranteed your card for their warranty period. You bought the first card because of that guarantee. If I were them, I'd be pretty certain that I had already lost a customer. I'd be bending over backward to make sure I got your business in the future, ESPECIALLY because you sound like the sort who would gladly pay $600+ for a NEW card someday, if he knew it was the best, and he could trust the company's warranty.

You're obviously and understandably disappointed.

I wouldn't "raise a stink," nor would I sue, but I'd certainly get on the phone with them and explain, exactly as you did here,
1. You are disappointed in their customer service
2. the card DOES NOT EQUAL your old one, as promised.
3. Tell them what would.
4. Tell them why. (Your 1920x1200 setup, benchmarks, 512 vs 1GB, etc)
5. Tell them how this will affect your future purchases.
6. Ask to speak with supervisor if they won't listen.

If it sounds like your're just trying to milk them on a technicality, they understandably won't care. If, however, this really affects 1) your gaming, and 2) your opinion of the company, then they ought to listen. And if they don't, well, you've learned what a warranty means at XFX.

[Vhlad]

Thanks branewalker.

I wasn't originally planning to discuss my specific RMA issue on these forums. I was originally looking for general opinions on 8800 ultra vs GTS 250 performance.

I have a more detailed discussion of the RMA issue here:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...xperience.html

My final update in that thread (bottom of page 2) outlines the end results:
XFX still maintains: the GTS 250 is the replacement for the 8800 ultra, and that there is basically no difference between the 512 and 1GB versions of the GTS 250.

They did however take the 250 they sent me back, and yesterday I received a working 8800 ultra from them to conclude the RMA.

[Radiator]

Well , cheers then .

[-RK]

Ahh, it's good that you got another ultra. That lets you keep using your SLI setup, which should be better than even a GTX260.

I stand by my previous statements however. In general, the two are equivalent. The GTS250 is marginally faster at lower resolutions, the 8800Ultra marginally faster at high resolutions. In your case, the GTS250 is worse both because of the SLI setup and higher resolution you game at. Card manufacturers just can't realistically deal with things on a case by case basis though, which is why I recommended "raising a stink" (maybe that's an over-exaggerated euphemism).

However... it was wrong of them to imply that there isn't a difference between the 1gb and 512mb versions of the card, the fully enabled g92 core can easily make use of the extra RAM when it's needed.