Sparkle GeForce GTX 260 Plus 1792MB Video Card Review

Testing – Futuremark
I compared the Sparkle GTX 260 Plus with my other GTX 260, the Asus ENGTX260 Matrix, which has only 896MB of memory. Since all other specs between the two cards are equal, I will credit any higher performance numbers on the Sparkle card to the extra memory. That is the real question here anyway, it is worth paying $20-$40 more dollars for the extra memory?

3dmark06

Not a lot of difference in 3DMark06. Keep in mind that 3DMark06 is three years old and was released about the same time as the geForce 7900 was, so though it is still a relevant test, maybe it isn’t the best one.

3dmarkv

Now here is some difference! Just to note, the Asus card with a 20% overclock only got a score of 9088.

[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 *