wow, i guess i just lost all respect i ever had in you, and dont tell me your not a 260 fanboy, because you are rohan, dont be ignorant, you are ok
1. You are always talking about it
2. You are always defending it
3. You know everything about the dang thing
sorry but thats called being a fanboy, watch i bet you 70% he will go with a 295, i know grant, i know what he wants.
Congratulations! You have just won the award of the least competent person on Computer Forums!
So, when someone comes and asks for an Nvidia card that performs well for it's price range, I'm not going to recommend the Core 216 which costs so much less than a GTX 280 and performs just as well? The GTX 295 is only a card required at extremely high resolutions. The minimum resolution they run it at in benchmarks is 1900x1200. So, why do you recommend this card again? Not only will a Core 216 pretty much match the 295 at the resolution he is running, it might actually just beat it.
Pricing isn't really an issue, I just don't want to spend more than I should really need to. So I figured I'd get some opinions from others.
I can tell you really know this guy really well.
Core 216 SLI Specs
Shader Clock: 1445 MHz
Memory Clock: 994 MHz (1988 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 222.6 GB/sec
FLOPS: 583.2 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 32256 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 82944 MTexels/sec
Single GTX 295 Setup
Shader Clock: 1242 MHz
Memory Clock: 999 MHz (1998 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 223.776 GB/sec
FLOPS: 1788.48 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 32256 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 92160 MTexels/sec
As you can see, a dual Core 216 setup doesn't trail all that much behind to begin with. With the new 55nm cards being able to overclock very well, he can easily hit a 670 Core Clock with a 1100 Memory Clock no problem.
Core 216 SLI OC
Shader Clock: 1445 MHz
Memory Clock: 1104 MHz (2208 DDR)
Memory Bandwidth: 247.2 GB/sec
FLOPS: 1872.72 GFLOPS
Pixel Fill Rate: 37576 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 96624 MTexels/sec
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3408&p=4
The Core 216 is 4.3 FPS away from the GTX 280 at 1900x1200.
Now check out the 280 from the 295.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-295,2107-4.html
Hmm, beginning to see where I'm coming from?
Even though it's a different test system, it won't trail all that much behind. As you can see Tech*Master*, I kind of know what I'm talking about.