EVGA's GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked

In North America there are only two vendors launching a Core 216 today: EVGA and BFG. We're not sure what this will mean for street pricing and availability but it is what it is.

EVGA sent us one of their Core 216 cards, the GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked. As the name implies, the Superclocked version will ship overclocked:

  GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 (stock) EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked
Core Clock 576MHz 626MHz
Shader Clock 1242MHz 1350MHz
Memory Clock 999MHz 1053MHz
Price Point $279 $299

 

The factory overclocked nature of the card means that EVGA will charge a bit more for it, $299 to be specific. For this comparison we've tested the Core 216 at its stock clock speed, but the chart below shows the sort of performance advantage EVGA's overclock gives it:

We're looking at a 7% increase in performance here for an extra $20. Chances are that you'll be able to pull off something close to this overclock on your own so we'd recommend sticking with a stock card especially given how close the Core 216 vs. 4870 is, as you'll soon see.

The Test

Test Setup
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 @ 3.20GHz
Motherboard EVGA nForce 790i SLI
Video Cards ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
ATI Radeon HD 4870
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216
Video Drivers Catalyst 8.7
ForceWare 177.34
Hard Drive Seagate 7200.9 120GB 8MB 7200RPM
RAM 4 x 1GB Corsair DDR3-1333 7-7-7-20
Operating System Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1
PSU PC Power & Cooling Turbo Cool 1200W
Index Age of Conan
POST A COMMENT

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hrel - Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - link

    If it's just a matter of enabling a TPC can't you just buy a GTX260 and enable the two off TPC's yourself to make it a GTX280??? Reply
  • gtotheb1 - Saturday, October 18, 2008 - link

    If this core 216 one replaces the old one what happens if i want to get sli with the old gtx 260 later on, would i just be screwed or, is this product just going to supplement the old gtx 260. Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - link

    Good grief why didnt they just name the product based on the number of stream processors. GTX216, GTX192, etc. No wonder they are losing so much money... Can you imagine how much money they spend coming up with these model numbers? That's who they should be firing... Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Saturday, September 20, 2008 - link

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_conte...">http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?optio...amp;task... Reply
  • MadBoris - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link

    I think this card was a knee jerk reaction that NVIDIA should have passed on. It was a waste of resources, they had plenty of time to blow AMD out of the water since the 8800 but fell asleep at the wheel. This move seems like a petty attempt to put their card on equal footing at best. How about HDMI, display port, DDR4, something significant, etc.

    I like NVIDIA but they have to step up, not waste resources or shelf space with something that can only even the playing field, and not even at a price point.
    I think this product was a poor decision and a waste of resources when all focus could have been getting put into proper future products.

    This review was decent enough, I don't think much more effort was necessary to spend reviewing a product that didn't bring much to the table.

    Maybe someone will find a way to hack the card to enable that last TPC, maybe a bios or HW hack.
    Reply
  • yyrkoon - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link

    "I think this card was a knee jerk reaction that NVIDIA should have passed on. It was a waste of resources, they had plenty of time to blow AMD out of the water since the 8800 but fell asleep at the wheel. This move seems like a petty attempt to put their card on equal footing at best. How about HDMI, display port, DDR4, something significant, etc. "

    You're kidding right ? So what you're saying is that nVidia should just toss out their defective 280 GPUs to "not waste resources" ? Of course I am guessing that this is what is actually going on, but it makes perfect sense to me that NV try and recover what they can cost wise.

    "think this card was a knee jerk reaction that NVIDIA should have passed on. It was a waste of resources, they had plenty of time to blow AMD out of the water since the 8800 but fell asleep at the wheel. This move seems like a petty attempt to put their card on equal footing at best. How about HDMI, display port, DDR4, something significant, etc. "

    Like I said above: if my assumption is correct nVidia is doing the right thing by them and their stock holders.
    Reply
  • a1yet - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link

    Why is there no longer video reviews on these cards ?
    Like a subjective review on how they do playing video, and cpu usage and such ?
    I miss seeing this info !
    Please start including it again, as it is a factor in my purchases.

    Peace

    .
    Reply
  • geok1ng - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link

    the 260 core 216 (OMG what long and senseless name!)competes with the 1GB version of the 4870.
    I am really inclined to believe that ATI is paying sites to review the 1GB version of 4870 at 1920x1200 or lower resolutions to avoid losing 4870X2 sales.
    Congratulations on AT for another great card review, but it is a shame that no 1GB 4870 numbers at 2560x1600 were in the roundup.
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link

    Bottom of page 1 of the comments - Anand says they have not received 1GB test parts yet Reply
  • 7Enigma - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link

    Guys, I know you want to stay short and sweet with the summaries before each game but please try to actually summarize the data accurately. The Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a glaring example. For the summary you say:

    "With our ET:QW bench, at 2560x1600, the Core 216 adds enough horse power to pull the NVIDIA card up to a tie with the 4870. Yes, there is a tenth of a frame difference here, but that's well within margin of error."

    But at both previous resolutions of 1680X1050 and 1920X1200 the 216 falls to the 3870 by 13% and 9% respectively. Yes once you get to the ungodly resolution of 2560X1600 (which I may ask why? since these are not high-end parts?!?) they pull even, but up until that point it's a pretty sound beating for the 216.

    I would ask that you change the summary to the effect of:

    "With our ET:QW bench, the 216 falls by double-digits to the 3870 at lower resolutions, but at 2560x1600, the Core 216 adds enough horse power to pull the NVIDIA card up to a tie with the 4870."

    That is a fully accurate summary that allows someone to get the gist of the data without having to trace all the broken-line graphs.

    One other little favor to ask. Could you please, PLEASE, keep the colors consistent between the line and bar graphs? On several occasions I was following the wrong line because the green bar is a different card than the green line. I'm sure it would take only a couple minutes, but it would really help the reader quickly go from chart to chart to see how a particular card fares at the reader's native resolution.

    Thanks again!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now