Sparkle GeForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card Review

A Closer Look
The white theme of the box is carried on with the card itself. The fan shroud is white, I guess the first white video card I’ve seen. It does look pretty sharp and will definitely stand out in a rig.

There is also a continuation of the graphics that are located on the box, an “S” shaped sword with etchings of creatures. It is very detailed and makes the card stand out even more.



Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card

There is one intake fan that blows air through the cooler and out of the rear of the shroud below the PCI bracket. The fan is an 80mm “hamster cage” type fan.

There are two 6-pin PCI-E power connectors on the side of the card. There is also a connector to connect a 2-pin wire from the card to your motherboard’s internal S/PDIF connector to accommodate HD Audio via HDMI cable. Neither the wire nor a DVI to HDMI adapter is included.


Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card

The GTX 260 Plus sports dual DVI connectors.


Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card

I was able to remove the cooler from the card, but I wasn’t able to remove the fan from the fan shroud, which prevented me from showing an overhead of the cooler. My extra small screwdriver was distorted a bit and I just couldn’t get a grip on the screws.

The card has a massive aluminum cooler that is “skived”. Skiving is a particular machining process that allows the fins to be much thinner than the normal milling process. It is much more time consuming and therefore more expensive, but makes a more efficient cooler, as thinner fins dissipate heat much more efficiently. The power supply cooler on the end is massive itself, having to cool 15 large MOSFETs. There is thermal padding on the cooler to accommodate the memory and the power supply.

The GPU die is HUGE, but I dunno.if it was small it would get lost in all those memory chips, 14 in all.


Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card

Included with the card is a pair of Molex/PCI-E adapters and a DVI/Sub-15 adapter.


Sparkle geForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card

[ad#review1068-bottom]

44 comments
  1. Good question and since technically it takes up 2-slots I wonder why Sparkle never used a traditional PCI bracket with exhaust holes.

  2. Good question and since technically it takes up 2-slots I wonder why Sparkle never used a traditional PCI bracket with exhaust holes.

  3. This is a pretty good graphics card for the price you're paying, plus i've always been a fan of nvidia =D. top notch

  4. This is a pretty good graphics card for the price you're paying, plus i've always been a fan of nvidia =D. top notch

  5. Why would you benchmark that card in only 1280×1024?

    Do you think that an additional 896 megs of GDDR3 (on top of the 260GTX's original 896mb) is going to make any appearance at resolution that low? Why would you even bother doing a benchmarking review if you weren't going to test this thing on more than 3 benchmarking utilities and on such a low resolution? You aren't going to need a card with more than 512mb of GDDR3 at that resolution. (Are we in 1998?) I know! How about 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, because we all know in 2009 everyone uses CRT monitors only capable of 1280×1024 resolution! How long did it take you to run these tests? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Man, put a little effort into the next review. ThinkComputers… I don't see a lot of work or think going on here.

  6. Why would you benchmark that card in only 1280×1024?

    Do you think that an additional 896 megs of GDDR3 (on top of the 260GTX's original 896mb) is going to make any appearance at resolution that low? Why would you even bother doing a benchmarking review if you weren't going to test this thing on more than 3 benchmarking utilities and on such a low resolution? You aren't going to need a card with more than 512mb of GDDR3 at that resolution. (Are we in 1998?) I know! How about 1680×1050 or 1920×1200, because we all know in 2009 everyone uses CRT monitors only capable of 1280×1024 resolution! How long did it take you to run these tests? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Man, put a little effort into the next review. ThinkComputers… I don't see a lot of work or think going on here.

  7. i agree, that testing on a larger resolution should have been included. Perhaps, you could have not been so harsh in your comments though.

  8. i agree, that testing on a larger resolution should have been included. Perhaps, you could have not been so harsh in your comments though.

  9. i agree, that testing on a larger resolution should have been included. Perhaps, you could have not been so harsh in your comments though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *