Hands-On with Nvidia's New GeForce GTX 280!
Posted 06/16/08 at 08:00:00 AM by Michael Brown
The Details Disclosed
The whole truth and nothing but the truth (as far as we know it)
Watching the ongoing race between AMD and Nvidia to build the ultimate graphics processor reminds us of the tale of the tortoise and the hare. AMD has played the hare, aggressively bounding ahead of Nvidia in terms of process size, number of stream processors, frame buffer size, memory interface, die size, and even memory type. Yet Nvidia always manages to snag the performance crown. The GeForce 200 series is but the latest example.
We convinced Nvidia to provide us with an early engineering sample of its high-end reference design (the GeForce GTX 280), with very immature drivers, for a first look at the GPU’s performance potential. At the time of this writing [Ed note: late May], the company was still a full month away from shipping this product, and its lesser cousin, the GeForce GTX 260, so we won’t issue a formal verdict in this issue (our full hands-on review should be online by the time this issue reaches you).
As interesting as the benchmark numbers are, the story behind this new architecture is even more fascinating. We’ll give you all the juicy details, but first, let’s explain the new naming scheme: Nvidia has sowed a lot of brand confusion in the recent past, especially with the 512MB 8800 GTS. That card was based on a completely different GPU architecture than the 8800 GTS models with 320MB and 640MB frame buffers. The Green Team hopes to change that with this generation.
The letters GTX now represent Nvidia’s “performance” brand, and the three digits following those letters will indicate the degree of performance scaling: The higher the number, the more performance you should expect. Using 260 as a starting line should give the company plenty of headroom for future products (as well as leave a few slots open below for budget parts).
Manufacturing Process
AMD jumped ahead to a 55nm manufacturing process with the RV670 (the foundation for the company’s flagship Radeon HD 3870), but Nvidia stuck with the tried-and-true 65nm process for the GeForce 200 series. Nvidia cites the new part’s long development cycle and sensible risk management as justification.
The GTX 280 is an absolute beast of a GPU: Packing 1.4 billion transistors (the 8800 GTX got by with a mere 681 million, and a quad-core Penryn has 820 million), it’s capable of bringing a staggering 930 gigaFLOPs of processing power to any given application (a Radeon HD 3870 delivers 496 gigaFLOPs, while the quad-core Penryn musters just 96).
Considering the transistor count and the 65nm process size, the GeForce 200 die must be absolutely huge (and Nvidia’s manufacturing yields hideously low). Although Nvidia declined to provide numbers on either of those fronts, those two questions will remain academic in the absence of fresh and considerable competition from AMD. (And for the record, all AMD would tell us about its new part is that we can expect it “real soon.”)
You're Staring at 1.4 Billion Transistors
You could fit nearly six Penryns onto a single GeForce GTX 280 die, although a portion of the latter part’s massive size can be attributed to the fact that it’s manufactured using a 65nm process, compared to the Penryn’s more advanced 45nm process.
Nvidia packs 240 tiny processing cores into this space, plus 32 raster-operation processors, a host of memory controllers, and a set of texture processors. Thread schedulers, the host interface, and other components reside in the center of the die.
With technologies like CUDA, Nvidia is increasingly targeting general-purpose computing as a primary application for its hardware, reducing its reliance on PC gaming as the raison d’être for such high-end GPUs.
Processor Cores
The GeForce GTX 280 has 240 stream processors onboard (Nvidia has taken to calling them “processing cores”). This being Nvidia’s second-generation unified architecture, each core can handle vertex-shader, pixel-shader, or geometry-shader instructions as needed. The cores can handle other types of highly parallel, data-intensive computations, too—including physics, a topic we’ll explore in more depth shortly. The GeForce GTX 260 is equipped with 192 stream processors.
Although the GeForce 280 has nearly twice as many stream processors as Nvidia’s previous best GPU, it’s still 80 shy of the 320 in AMD’s Radeon HD 3870. But Nvidia’s asymmetric clock trick, which enables its stream processors to run at clock speeds more than double that of the core, has so far obliterated AMD’s numerical advantage. In fact, a single GeForce GTX 280 proved to be an average of 28 percent faster than the dual-GPU Radeon HD 3870 X2 with real-world games running on Windows XP, and it was 24 percent faster running Vista.
We didn’t have an opportunity to benchmark the GTX 280 in SLI mode (or the GTX 260 at all), but a single GTX 280 beat two GeForce 9800 GTX cards running in SLI by a 9-percent margin, thanks in large measure to significantly improved performance with Crysis. (Turn to page 60 for complete benchmark results.)
A significant increase in the number of raster-operation processors (ROPs) and the speed at which they operate likely contributes to the new chip’s impressive performance. The 8800 GTX has 24 ROPs and the 9800 GTX has 16, but if the resulting pixels need to be blended as they’re written to the frame buffer, those two GPUs require two clock cycles to complete the operation. The 9800 GTX, therefore, is capable of blending only eight pixels per clock cycle.
The GTX 280 not only has 32 ROPs but is also capable of blending pixels at full speed—so its 32 ROPs can blend 32 pixels per clock cycle. The GTX 260, which is also capable of full-speed blending, is outfitted with 28 ROPs.
Memory and Clock Speeds
GeForce GTX 280 cards will feature a 1GB frame buffer, and the GPU will access that memory over an interface that’s a full 512 bits wide. AMD’s Radeon 2900 XT, you might recall, also had a 512-bit memory interface, but the company dialed back to a 256-bit interface for the Radeon 3800-series, claiming that the wider alternative didn’t offer much of a performance advantage. That was before Crysis hit the market.
Cards based on the GTX 260 will have 896MB of memory with a 448-bit interface. Despite the news that AMD will move to GDDR5 with its next-generation GPUs, Nvidia is sticking with GDDR3, claiming that the technology “still has plenty of life in it.” Judging by the performance of the GTX 280 compared to the Radeon 3870 X2, which uses GDDR4 memory (albeit half as much and with an interface half as wide as the GTX 280’s), we’d have to agree. Nvidia is taking a similar approach to Direct3D 10.1 and Shader Model 4.1: The GTX 280 and GTX 260 don’t support either.
A stock GTX 280 will run its core at 602MHz while its stream processors hum along at 1.296GHz. Memory will be clocked at 1.107GHz. The GTX 260 will have stock core, stream processor, and memory clock speeds of 576MHz, 1.242GHz, and 999MHz, respectively (what, they couldn’t squeeze out an extra MHz to reach an even gig?).
Next: The PhysX Connection
280 vs 260
Submitted by Mathewpb on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 4:25pm
When comparing clock speeds and mhz's it seems that a 260 would be the better choice. Bonus is that 260 is at least $100 to $200 cheaper.
i have one question about
Submitted by Devo85x on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 9:36am
i have one question about these... why would you buy a GTX 280... you can get 2 260s for the same price... btw JUST ORDERED A GXT 260 FROM EVGA W00t!!!@@@ CANT WAIT!!!@#@#@
to the apple fanboi.....
Submitted by gatorXXX on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 7:10am
Change your name to Johnny Appleseed and pick the seeds out your a$$....yup nvidia still beats ati/amd in benchmarks, but at least you don't have to sell your house, dog, and pimp out the wife to great gameplay...so...NAH!!!!!
What are you talking about?
Submitted by Sparx10 on Wed, 06/18/2008 - 8:54pm
This card isn't coming out a month later. It's been released today in Canada, and Alienware is now using it in thier PCs, so it must be out in the states too.
its out on newegg right now.
Submitted by -it- on Wed, 06/18/2008 - 7:12pm
its out on newegg right now. i would know. i bought one
The Big Question
Submitted by Devo85x on Tue, 06/17/2008 - 3:42pm
Does anyone know about how much this card will cost? I am going to buy a new graphics card and I dont know if i should get a 9800 GTX or a GTX 260... i will only have about $300 to spend
maybe a 8800 gtx or 9800gtx.
Submitted by -it- on Wed, 06/18/2008 - 7:13pm
maybe a 8800 gtx or 9800gtx. some people are saying the 8800 gtx is faster than the 9800, but im not really sure.
you have to remember that it
Submitted by dovid on Tue, 06/17/2008 - 9:26am
you have to remember that it is just a prototype.
The final product will be better or more revised. This is also using early drivers as well so they too are a factor. and why would nVidia release a prodeuct that is worse than their previous models???**************************************************
macbook pro 2.6ghz 512 mb of vram 8600m gt 17" w/24" 1920x1200 hdcp monitor, mac pro 2.8ghz 8 core w/8800gt w/2 24"1920x1200 hdcp monitor, iPod touch 16gb. iPod classic 80gb. yes i am an apple fan! :)
have fun paying $650 for
Submitted by forcifer on Tue, 06/17/2008 - 12:25am
have fun paying $650 for something that barely beats a $429 product...nvidia loses this round =/ 2x 4850s is going to be cheaper, and maybe even 2x 4870s
Really? because I've seen
Submitted by Strongbad536 on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 10:11pm
(about SLI comments above)
Really? because I've seen numerous reviews of hardware and systems alike where SLI systems will get way more frames per second in Crysis. Interesting... could it have been that when it came out, there were the bugs that you speak of, but with updates, it started utilizing SLI.
but that still doesn't explain how the benchmarks for the same card are different across the same issue, and between the web and mag. See my comment in the July issue feedback thread for more information.
Geforce goodness
Submitted by Keith E. Whisman on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 7:36pm
Move over Vaseline and make room for the GTX280. mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm Sweet. Looks good, smells good and freaking turns me on. God where is my Economic Stimulus check?
so whats special
Submitted by astera on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 7:04pm
im very anxious to see this on a real bench mark program or to see what new technology it brings to the gaming industries. the 9000 series brought about direct X 10 and that was a huge revolution to nerds everywhere, with crysis showing it off. so what does the gtx 200 series bring with it besides power?
280 v previous releases
Submitted by greds04 on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 10:25am
Meh...no comparison against the GX2 wonder why, could it be that the 280 cannot beat it (apparently true on other review sites)?
And no mention of price either, I'll buy the GX2 for $150 less and get better performance thanks all the same nVidia...Oh and well done on bringing the cost down on the previous models now the GX2, GTX, and 8800 Ultras are more competitively (and realistically) priced against the alternatives (ATi 3870 and 3870x2).
Benchmark Problems?
Submitted by Strongbad536 on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 9:43am
I think there has to be a problem here Michael. First of all, how is it that two 9800GTXs in SLI can only get 12.8 fps in Crysis? (yet in the July issue of the mag you said a single 9800GTX got 31.9; you're benchmarks for the 8800GTS were also different, even when they were in the same issue: look at the deathmatch page, then the review for the 9800GTX)
Benchmarking irregularities aside, how is it that the GX2 gets about 40 fps in Crysis, yet two 9800GTX's in SLI can't beat out SLI on a single card? So I think you got some 'splainin' to do...
about your sli quote
Submitted by astera on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 7:02pm
i did my own series of tests when crysis first came out. for some reason the game does not like sli. it will keep running worse when you go to sli. it makes it very bad to bench mark based on that game. but it is true, a single card will out perform sli on crysis just because the game has to many bugs.
wow. i want. now.
Submitted by dovid on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 8:41am
amazing. *shock* and it is with iffy drivers too.... ha ha ha!!! ati/amd still trails behind nVidia! :)
macbook pro 2.6ghz 512 mb of vram 8600m gt 17" w/24" 1920x1200 hdcp monitor, mac pro 2.8ghz 8 core w/8800gt w/2 24"1920x1200 hdcp monitor, iPod touch 16gb. iPod classic 80gb. yes i am an apple fanboi.
In the words of the great Peter Griffin...
Submitted by Talcum X on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 8:25am
Freakin' Sweet!
**********
Every morning is the dawn of a new error.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature







