# Zotac GeForce GTX 280 Amp! Edition



## W1zzard (Jun 12, 2008)

Today NVIDIA launches their new GTX 280 graphics cards. Zotac as one of NVIDIA's premier partners has engineered a factory overclocked version of the GTX 280 which offers additional performance. Overall the Zotac GTX 280 Amp Edition is the fastest graphics card on the planet today, but also the most expensive.

*Show full review*


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2008)

A damn nice card, but WAY to expensive for my tastes.  I think I'll stick with my 9800GTX for a while, maybe pick another up when the price hits $200.

I think do what I did with the 8800 series and wait for a die shrink.


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 16, 2008)

The price should come down a bit when AMD's offerings come out...hopefully .


Excellent detailed review, as always W1zz


----------



## Neohazard (Jun 16, 2008)

Expensive too, for a new card prices need to go down to sell more


----------



## Megasty (Jun 16, 2008)

The performance per dollar chart says it all. It'll probably be an awesome card to buy in a few years when the price falls back down to earth.


----------



## FilipM (Jun 16, 2008)

God that is one fast thing...I bought my 9800GTX several days ago, and I am not frustrated from it at all after seeing this...


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 16, 2008)

I don't see why everyone is complaining about price...9800gx2 was $599 at launch, and is still over $500 now, gtx280 beats it in almost all tests, so yeah its gonna be more expensive. If you remember what the prices of the 8800gtx/ultra/gts were at launch, then this should be no surprise. (in fact I'm pretty sure the 8800gtx was over $700 at launch)


----------



## Temps_Riising (Jun 16, 2008)

Would I be right in saying thats the GX2 appears to beat it in more than half but the GX2 is cheaper?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 16, 2008)

Temps_Riising said:


> Would I be right in saying thats the GX2 appears to beat it in more than half but the GX2 is cheaper?



No, you would be wrong.  In overall performance, at least in this review, the GX2 was 8% slower.


----------



## Neohazard (Jun 16, 2008)

8% its not too much could be 20% or more but the tech aplied to this card is very high compared to others


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Jun 16, 2008)

I would still buy a lower end card and not pay an insane price.  This card is worth more than my current computer is worth!  I would consider a 9800gtx, but not a really expensive card like this.  The price per perf ratio is poor (say that 5 times fast).


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 16, 2008)

Doesn't look worth it atm, As usual it was over hyped and it didn't deliver as much as everyone expected, I'l just pick up another 8800GT.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 16, 2008)

I expected performance way beyond a 9800GX2. I guess I was wrong. Considering how a HD4870 itself is faster than the 9800GTX, and how the new dual core config on the HD4870X2 SHOULD be efficient, this GTX280 doesn't look that good in my eyes. 

Then again, results may have been CPU limited.


----------



## Megasty (Jun 16, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> I expected performance way beyond a 9800GX2. I guess I was wrong. Considering how a HD4870 itself is faster than the 9800GTX, and how the new dual core config on the HD4870X2 SHOULD be efficient, this GTX280 doesn't look that good in my eyes.
> 
> Then again, results may have been CPU limited.



The only thing about it is that's a real world system. I have a e8400 that I crank up to 4Ghz once in a while but I won't even think about gaming at that speed. By the time the X2 comes out the 280 should have some faster drivers, but that won't make a difference if the X2 beats it in raw power which is a real possibility. The 280 can have that ridiculous price ATM but it definitely needs to come down by the time the X2 shows up.


----------



## Juic3 (Jun 16, 2008)

Im wondering about Crysis numbers, is that a MAX FPS graph ? Doesnt look like AVG.


----------



## Neohazard (Jun 16, 2008)

Crysys to me its a buged game, and have something wrong with this game something in the scriptcode, i had a CF of 2900xt 1GB DDR4  cards when Crysis launches and im disapointed about this games but with new games likes Grid, COD4, front lines only 1 card played all of this in very high mode soo Crysis to me in a buged game. 

This new GTX 280 , and other brands could be better if them implement more cores to GPU processors but i dont know if this thing could be possible.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 16, 2008)

Neohazard said:


> Crysys to me its a buged game, and have something wrong with this game something in the scriptcode, i had a CF of 2900xt 1GB DDR4  cards when Crysis launches and im disapointed about this games but with new games likes Grid, COD4, front lines only 1 card played all of this in very high mode soo Crysis to me in a buged game.
> 
> This new GTX 280 , and other brands could be better if them implement more cores to GPU processors but i dont know if this thing could be possible.



It's not bugged its just more advanced than current hardware


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 16, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> It's not bugged its just more advanced than current hardware



Lol its just poorly coded.

But back on topic.


Werent these cards MEANT to be affordable?


----------



## HTC (Jun 16, 2008)

Pinchy said:


> Lol its just poorly coded.
> 
> But back on topic.
> 
> ...



They are ... to the wealthy ...


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 16, 2008)

this is sooo good news......since they have their cuda drivers out now and this card isnt under NDA anymore...that means that hopefully 


The awsome drivers that this card uses should come out and officially support the 8/9 series in physx calculations.

this also means that since these drivers are out and when the 8/9 series ones are supported by cuda that the nvidia F@H client will come out soon!!!!!


im really impressed because as soon as those drivers come out im really anxious to compare my physx card with people enabling hardware physx on their cards.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 16, 2008)

So these cards are the next wave huh? wow i thought my new(ish) 3850 would future proof me for a little longer than a year. Damn technology moving so quickly.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 16, 2008)

This card is as fast as TWO G92 cores. This to me is the first fresh new core for the past few years. The price tag is where it should be for a card this fast.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 16, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> This card is as fast as TWO G92 cores. This to me is the first fresh new core for the past few years. The price tag is where it should be for a card this fast.



i agree 100% its totally diff than the revamps theyve been doing on the older cores..that and this is cheaper than a couple years ago when the ultras came out...and this card has the same affect on the old generations that the ultra did so i dont see a problem...something that coasts this much to make and performs this well isnt going to coast 2-$300


----------



## HTC (Jun 16, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> This card is as fast as TWO G92 cores. This to me is the first fresh new core for the past few years. *The price tag is where it should be for a card this fast*.



I have to disagree, here: IMO, the difference in price (percentage wise) over the GX2 should be in relation to the GTX (+ a tad bit more, maybe) because you should be comparing 2 single GPU cards and not a single VS dual GPU card (in price).


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 16, 2008)

HTC said:


> I have to disagree, here: IMO, the difference in price (percentage wise) over the GX2 should be in relation to the GTX (+ a tad bit more, maybe) because you should be comparing 2 single GPU cards and not a single VS dual GPU card (in price).



its a bigger die wich uses mroe wafers per set and is a completely different arch i dont see where that compairs at all to the coast of 2 cores because this one is bigger better and totally diff.


----------



## Castiel (Jun 16, 2008)

Its kinda of fun to watch when a post comes up and if it has the letters GTX, or #'s 280/260 its like a flock of birds storm in to get it.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 16, 2008)

How many cores on a card doesn't matter at all. All that matters is how it performs.

 I'm sorry, but the Video card market has changed in the past year (thank you ATI). I feel it's no longer acceptable to charge this much for a video card. When ATI drops the HD4k series, I have a feeling NV will be left with no choice but to lower prices.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> How many cores on a card doesn't matter at all. All that matters is how it performs.
> 
> I'm sorry, but the Video card market has changed in the past year (thank you ATI). I feel it's no longer acceptable to charge this much for a video card. When ATI drops the HD4k series, I have a feeling NV will be left with no choice but to lower prices.



and the onyl reason ATI does it is because their previous cards didnt perform as well..it had nothing to do with how cheap they could make them or how little they wanted to mark them up..they needed money and fast. im not bashing ATI its just fact.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 16, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> and the onyl reason ATI does it is because their previous cards didnt perform as well..it had nothing to do with how cheap they could make them or how little they wanted to mark them up..they needed money and fast. im not bashing ATI its just fact.



"Why" does not matter. All that matters is how much we pay as consumers. I see no reason why ATI won't undercut NV again, and force more price drops. Besides, you can't convince me that this card is actually this expensive to make. Expensive, yes. This expensive, no way.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 16, 2008)

I agree with peoples assessment about the 4870 X2, if the scaling is nearly as good (not even counting if its better), then wouldnt it be faster then the 280? Also although people compare multi GPU cards to single ones saying they arnt in the same league for comparison, but does it matter since the 280 wont be able to be multi? Since its too big I mean.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> "Why" does not matter. All that matters is how much we pay as consumers. I see no reason why ATI won't undercut NV again, and force more price drops. Besides, you can't convince me that this card is actually this expensive to make. Expensive, yes. This expensive, no way.



I can't remember a time when we didn't have a card that cost this much.

How much was the 1800XT, 7900GTX, 8800GTX, 8800Ultra, 2900XT, 9800GX2, 3870X2(on release day)


----------



## v-zero (Jun 16, 2008)

They're quick, but not that quick - I have a sneaking suspicion I can get GTX 280 performance for 180 pounds, so I'm not going to pay the 400+ nVidia are asking.
Therein lies the problem, nVidia have priced themselves out of the UK market, at 400 pounds for a GTX 280 and 270+ pounds for a GTX 260 these cards are terrible value.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 16, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> I can't remember a time when we didn't have a card that cost this much.
> 
> How much was the 1800XT, 7900GTX, 8800GTX, 8800Ultra, 2900XT, 9800XT, 3870X2(on release day)


But if you notice, the past year hasn't been that way. My point is the gfx market has changed. The way I see it, and judging by the reactions of people on the price, this price just isn't acceptable anymore, regardless of how the market may have been in the past.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 16, 2008)

The only reason why it was cheaper was because of rehashing everything IMO. 

AMD 2900=38xx cards

Nvidia has been running the same cores more or less for 3 years now.  Of course those prices are going to be cheaper. To top it off the size of that die is huge, and there is no doubt in my mind that that didn't rise the cost of them.


I also don't remember a time when people didn't bitch about the price.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 16, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> The only reason why it was cheaper was because of rehashing everything IMO.
> 
> AMD 2900=38xx cards
> 
> ...



Again, to consumers it doesn't matter why they are priced this high. The only thing that matters is that they are. Regardless of the reasons why, I just don't see people wanting to pay this much anymore. They've been spoiled by the past year's events.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 16, 2008)

It's the top model

They will have other cards that are cheaper, and slower just like Intel has with their CPUs. The 260, 9800GX2, 9800GTX, 9800GT, and the 9600GT will still be around for some time to come.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 16, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> It's the top model
> 
> They will have other cards that are cheaper, and slower just like Intel has with their CPUs. The 260, 9800GX2, 9800GTX, 9800GT, and the 9600GT will still be around for some time to come.


Regardless, it doesn't make the price acceptable in the consumers eyes. The GX2 is $100 less, and is either only a few fps behind, or a dead match for it. The price is just too much, and not justifiable on a price to performance ratio.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Regardless, it doesn't make the price acceptable in the consumers eyes. The GX2 is $100 less, and is either only a few fps behind, or a dead match for it. The price is just too much, and not justifiable on a price to performance ratio.



and though i totally agree people you need the 2 fps increase will buy this card just so they can say they have it so unfortunately the price for future high end cards probably wont come down any time soon.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 16, 2008)

No one that isn't hardcore will buy one, or that doesn't want the best of the best. Most of the time.

 When I do sell video cards in the PC Shop I normally do buy the best one. I tell them if you wan it to last for 3 or 4 years this is what you have to do, and yes it does cost more because of that reason. If you want one just for the year well put in the lowest card that will be cheaper, you just wont be really happy with it..


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 16, 2008)

the point of price is kind of insane here. W1zz pointed it out in the POV Assassins Creed review...They change of design and the, perhaps unnecessary, adding of the NVIO2 to the PCB has caused costs to skyrocket. I believe it was Anandtech in a previews news story, citing that the huge transistors, less dies per wafer, etc were going to lead to higher prices. Granted, this may be the fastest card out, but NV really priced their ass out on this one. The PCB layout and design, the amount of transistors and the cost of production are probably really high. I dont know if its high enough to justify such a huge price on a release, but it has to be pretty high up. 

 On a good note, Im kind of happy with the noise, cooling and even at times, the power consumption of this massive card.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 16, 2008)

anyone who buys this card for 700+ is flat stupid the 9800 gx2 is a  better deal or even a regular 9800 gtx at near 200.00. The best deal of all is a 3870x2. Heck you could buy 3 9800gtx cards for price that and kill that card and anyone who does that is a moron. ATI is gonna blow them away sales wise and anyone who owns a 9800gtx and 3870x2 just had the value of there cards hold steady.


----------



## msgclb (Jun 17, 2008)

*OCZ GameXStream 700W: Is it enough to power one GTX 280?*

I'm wondering If I will have an expensive paper weight (although temporarily) if I use my OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU with a GTX 280? I noticed that you used one of these PSUs in your tests. Did you use the supplied PCI-E power adapter? Is this a temporary or can it be a permanent solution running a single GTX 280? I've notice almost all reviewers are using 1000W to 1200W PSUs.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

msgclb said:


> I'm wondering If I will have an expensive paper weight (although temporarily) if I use my OCZ GameXStream 700W PSU with a GTX 280? I noticed that you used one of these PSUs in your tests. Did you use the supplied PCI-E power adapter? Is this a temporary or can it be a permanent solution running a single GTX 280? I've notice almost all reviewers are using 1000W to 1200W PSUs.



id actually like to know to as i have the same psu.


----------



## Temps_Riising (Jun 17, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> No, you would be wrong.  In overall performance, at least in this review, the GX2 was 8% slower.



OK, I'll re-phrase that....in most of the games I play....have played the GX2 is a match and a fair bit cheaper now.....although I appreciate these prices are likely to reduce fairly quick (well here's hoping at least!)......ohhhh and TBH.....in most things, 8% is pretty much un-noticable in any case unless of course tou are border line playable frames anyways.

Ohhh and one other thing, this being the Amp overclocked model might well actually suggest that the reference model would possibly be SLOWER than the GX2.


----------



## OnBoard (Jun 17, 2008)

Nice it comes with GRID = more players online for me to beat  (well if they use assists they'll beat me). Anyways if the owner has a big screen, 1920x1200 (throw in 16xQSAA+16xAF) will run silky smooth with this card and look droolable.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 17, 2008)

If you already have a highe end card,be it ati or nvidia,and you are itching for a new card.I think its wise to sit on it and wait till the 48xx cards come along rather than pay this ridiculous price(its really sick in the uk) Let the fanboys,the must haves buy 'em.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 18, 2008)

any half decent psu will work fine .. the whole system draws around 300w peak power so a 600w psu will be perfectly fine handling it


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Jun 18, 2008)

I can't believe that things sux more juice than a 3879x2!!!!   

Wicked powerful card though.  can't wait to see if ati can keep up with this one..


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 18, 2008)

well why not test it in DX10 who cares about old DX9 the card will do better in DX10


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 18, 2008)

Live OR Die said:


> well why not test it in DX10 who cares about old DX9 the card will do better in DX10



75% of gamers care. the remaining 25% use vista with dx9 games that were rushed to have some dx10 features


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 18, 2008)

Most of the games I play are DX9 and not DX10. Plus I don't have Vista installed at this moment.
----


So does the card eat a ton of juice overclocked? How big of a PSU would you say you need for TRi SLi with the 280s W1zzard?


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 19, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> 75% of gamers care. the remaining 25% use vista with dx9 games that were rushed to have some dx10 features



yer ture but always good to see what a high end card can really handle and bioshock was DX10 and i didnt have any problem, but crysis was a mess


----------



## senninex (Jun 19, 2008)

I'll stick on my Zotac 8800GT AMP..   for a few year..


----------



## hat (Jun 19, 2008)

> The core clock can not be higher than shader clock / 2. If the core clock goes beyond that it will be set to 1/10th of what is requested. For example if you set 600 MHz with a shader clock of 1200 MHz it will work. But if you set 601 MHz with 1200 MHz Shader, the actual operating core frequency will be a mere 60 MHz.
> I also noticed that if the shader frequency is too high in relation to the core frequency, the card will instantly render artifacts.
> Last but not least, changing the PCI-Express clock frequency, causes the card to change clocks as outlined in this article.


Wow that's gay. If you try to squeeze the most out of one part the other pretty much commits suicide...


----------



## cdawall (Jun 19, 2008)

im thinking that at least for me 4850s will be a better shot...i do have reasons and i can list them

1. my dual PSU set up gives me 3x6pin connectors with 4850s i don't need new psus to get new cards.
2. i have an xfire mobo so 3x4850s is plenty doable
3. 3x4850 will destroy 1 GTX280 very easily and from the looks of the wattage numbers maybe the equivalent of 1.5x GTX280s in power

i'm seeing straight up loose on these unless NV figures out shoving more shit onto the same die is the wrong way to do things. they need a new architecture the one there using hasn't changed in years. right now i see a blunder very similar to AMD's cpu blunder quite simply they have gotten cocky A64 was great C2D knocked it flat on its ass. now lets apply that here g92 is great GT200 is better R700 will knock it flat on its ass. a 4870X2 should destroy this card easily sure just like the Intel argument its not a "true" single card setup but who the fuck cares its better performing and if its priced like i have heard from some suppliers i know good bye GT200


----------



## profzerg (Jul 8, 2008)

Good horsepower comparison. In fact this thread means to me the GT200 series delivers barely twice the performance my 8800 has. The only "complain" about this review is the lack of "Physx inside" feature test. None of the games supports physx engine as hard as i can remember and in my oppionion this is the most valuable improvement on Nvidia cores.

Thanks for the review and comments.


----------

