# Palit GeForce GTS 250 2048 MB



## W1zzard (Feb 28, 2009)

Today NVIDIA released their GeForce GTS 250 Series which is based on the G92 graphics processor that has already been used on a number of GeForce 8 and GeForce 9 designs. While NVIDIA's reference design comes with 1 GB of memory, Palit has chosen to create a card that comes with 2 GB of VRAM.

*Show full review*


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 3, 2009)

Is the MSRP really 200$? It barely beats the 4850/9800GTX and costs 50$ more? 
EDIT: Oh the 1gb is 150$. That's a decent price I guess. The card itself is still kinda fail. It still has two 6pin and doesn't really do any better compared to the 9800GTX/4850.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Mar 3, 2009)

are the prices for the ati cards the old prices or the new?


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 3, 2009)

I think a 1GB may well be competative in price terms, I wouldnt think the 2GB version would really offer any performance improvements over the 1GB which would be a fair bit cheaper and remains around 8-12% faster than the 4850/9800GTX+........ to me though, this card in 2GB guise would not get my hard earnt cash.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 3, 2009)

So is this G92 or G92b?  It is referred to as G92, but then you say it is 55nm, making it G92b.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 3, 2009)

Thank you for the thorough review. We can strike GTS 250 from the list of things worth considering.


----------



## BazookaJoe (Mar 3, 2009)

Specifically mentioned as a "Thumbs Up" is the fact that is has a RED PCB...

Can anyone explain to me how exactly this affects it's performance/value/power consumption/noise/compatibility or any other aspect that has anything to do with weather or not it is a good card?

Edit : I don't intend to sound arrogant or sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## largon (Mar 3, 2009)

> Here you can see the good old G92 GPU. It is made in a 55 nm process using 754M transistors. The G92 has been used on a large number of NVIDIA cards before, including the 8800 GS, 8800 GT, 8800 GTS, 9600 GSO, *9600 GT*, 9800 GT, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ and 9800 GX2.


I could be just confused here but I don't think any version of 9600_GT_ cards ever had G92, 65nm nor 55nm.


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 3, 2009)

BazookaJoe said:


> Specifically mentioned as a "Thumbs Up" is the fact that is has a RED PCB...
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how exactly this affects it's performance/value/power consumption/noise/compatibility or any other aspect that has anything to do with weather or not it is a good card?
> 
> Edit : I don't intend to sound arrogant or sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested.



It looks better.  Most NV cards use blue PCB, which most people find rather boring.
Also, a red PCB generally clock anywhere from 40-45% higher than blue PCBs.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 3, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> It looks better.  Most NV cards use blue PCB, which most people find rather boring.
> Also, a red PCB generally clock anywhere from 40-45% higher than blue PCBs.



You mean green or black, not blue.  ATi uses blue.


----------



## Castiel (Mar 3, 2009)

Are these being sold anywhere? I haven't seen them anywhere. And Nvidia just came out with the driver to support it.


----------



## Ketxxx (Mar 3, 2009)

Why bother reviewing a rebadged 9800GTX+ w1z? Seems kinda... pointless.


----------



## BazookaJoe (Mar 3, 2009)

"a red PCB generally clock anywhere from 40-45% higher than blue PCBs."

I thought this was the case.... 

I have heard of similar effects on cheap street cars suddenly turning into drag racers with the simple application of some spinning plastic wheel clip-on's...

Must be part of all of that awesome tech coming out of the Hadron Warp Core...


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 3, 2009)

Nice review Wizzard, as always.

I don't think the 2GB cards hold any value though. And I think that Palit did not a good job with this specific card: 2 pin connectors (one mre than reference), and power consumption is way above that of other GTS 250s, probably because of the extra memory. Looking at other reviews around the net I think it's not worth it at all. Check this review: http://techreport.com/articles.x/16504/10

Performance is inline with the one seen in this review, or close enough anyway, but power consumption is much better on the 1GB card. 
Overally I think that the GTS 250 is much more than a simple rebadge. It has improved on every front, it's faster (a fair 10% faster than 9800 GTX+ and HD4850, don't ask me how), quieter, consumes less, it's shorter and cheaper. Ati is price-cutting their lineup, well, it's clear they needed to.


----------



## wolf (Mar 3, 2009)

she would make a very cheap 2gb quadro fx card if you can get rivatuner to emulate one right.

there are quadro cards based on the G92 right?

also look at those top 3 L4D results, 182.06 FTW, im guessing its just the GTX285 and 295 and the card in the review that have been tested on the newest drivers, as i saw another review showing huge gains from this driver release in L4D. the GTX285 seemed to pick up a good 25% performance at any tested res, and the gains on the GTX295 were in the realm of 25-40%

from that review i deduce that any card equal to or above a 9800GTX made by nvidia (perhaps even lower cards) all get huge performance increases in L4D from 182.06, which means its not a GT200 specific improvement, damn good nvidia damn good.

25% is a masssive boost to see from one driver release (be it in one game) especially considering the cards were very competitive with ATi counterparts, but now just blow them away. just pointing out how its different from a game going from horrible performance up to acceptable, this is from acceptable to stellar.


----------



## justone (Mar 3, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> It looks better.  Most NV cards use blue PCB, which most people find rather boring.
> Also, a *red PCB generally clock anywhere from 40-45% higher than blue PCBs.*



are you being sarcastic or is that a fact ?


----------



## KainXS (Mar 3, 2009)

largon said:


> I could be just confused here but I don't think any version of 9600_GT_ cards ever had G92, 65nm nor 55nm.



the G94 is only a die strink of the full G92 minus 64 shaders so whats the problem with calling it a G92.

but yes no 9600GT uses a "G92"


lol, i hate that guy in 3870x2's avatar, hes always so annoying on the commercials


----------



## Random Murderer (Mar 4, 2009)

KainXS said:


> the G94 is only a die strink of the full G92 minus 64 shaders so whats the problem with calling it a G92.


the fact that it has less shaders by design rather than crippled shaders that are disabled means it is a different chip architecturally, thus warranting a different name. there are no G92 9600gt cards. period.



KainXS said:


> lol, i hate that guy in 3870x2's avatar, hes always so annoying on the commercials



shamWOW!


----------



## justone (Mar 4, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> It looks better.  Most NV cards use blue PCB, which most people find rather boring.
> Also, a *red PCB generally clock anywhere from 40-45% higher than blue PCBs.*







justone said:


> are you being sarcastic or is that a fact ?



anyone ?


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 4, 2009)

PCB color doesn't do anything performance wise.... Sorry but I'm laughing so hard on the inside lol


----------



## BazookaJoe (Mar 4, 2009)

Now I feel bad


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2009)

justone said:


> anyone ?



  No he was kidding...... although I have a Black PCB and it's guarenteed to clock worse than a Pink.


----------



## Methious (Mar 4, 2009)

Yea it's a 55nm shrink g92 so it's a g92b I've got a 1 GB model I didn't feel like it really brought anything new to the table but does perform better at uber resolutions if you want to drive that qualiy a card at that high a resolution (I don't).


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 4, 2009)

Methious said:


> Yea it's a 55nm shrink g92 so it's a g92b I've got a 1 GB model I didn't feel like it really brought anything new to the table but does perform better at uber resolutions if you want to drive that qualiy a card at that high a resolution (I don't).



Well yeah, one of the things that really surprised me a lot is the performance of the GTS 250 1GB at 2560x1600. In half the games that I have seen it tested, through various reviews the card was faster than HD4870 512 MB and close enough in many others. What is most surprising is that on most of those games, the card can provide playable framerates!!


----------



## Methious (Mar 4, 2009)

I tested it against 2 different models of 4870 and in some test's it was close. The 1 GB edition 4870 gives similar performance at the uber resolutions.


----------



## DonInKansas (Mar 5, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> I don't think the 2GB cards hold any value though.



People were saying the same thing 6 months ago about 1 GB cards.  

This is one loud juice-sucking monster though.  No thanks.


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 5, 2009)

DonInKansas said:


> People were saying the same thing 6 months ago about 1 GB cards.
> 
> This is one loud juice-sucking monster though.  No thanks.



And back then they didn't hold any added value...


----------



## iStink (Mar 5, 2009)

left4dead results are very interesting.  At 1650x1080 it beats out a GTX295! Could this somehow be a cpu limitation?

I'd like to see the test ran a few more times with those cards and see if the results are random, like the 250 comes in second, then third, then first, then back to third or something.  If that's the case, it might be cpu with random system stuff running in the background that's interfering.


----------



## El Fiendo (Mar 6, 2009)

The fact that you provide a Folding@Home benchmark, and a brief introduction to it in the review makes me exponentially happy. I hope more people adopt at least providing some numbers for new cards, as it really does make life easier. Awesome job.


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 6, 2009)

iStink said:


> left4dead results are very interesting.  At 1650x1080 it beats out a GTX295! Could this somehow be a cpu limitation?
> 
> I'd like to see the test ran a few more times with those cards and see if the results are random, like the 250 comes in second, then third, then first, then back to third or something.  If that's the case, it might be cpu with random system stuff running in the background that's interfering.



i think it's some kind of bug in l4d. the 3 cards that perform a lot faster are probably not known to the renderer of l4d. 

295 = 146.4 and 250 = 146.6 is definitely a cpu limitation. 0.2 fps (0.13 %) is well within any margin of error for benchmarking


----------



## Blacksniper87 (Mar 26, 2009)

hmm i agree W1zzard, an congrats on another awesome review. I recken the only car that would really benefit from more VRAM would be the GTX 285


----------

