yup. since when was a GTX280 faster than a 275 anyway? more bandwidth/memory indeed, but the 275 is actually faster most of the time up to the highest resolutions because it has much faster shader and core clocks.

I am the reviewer of this article, I would like to say thanks for pointing out the Crysis charts. I took the max FPS recorded instead of the average. Sorry.

The charts are fixed though.

are crying because the card can't consistently beat the old GTX chips they declared junk.

Man up Nancy's, it's still a couple bucks cheaper than the Nvidia card. That's what you do when you have a second place card, charge less. That's the same reason why a Lotus costs less than a Lamborghini.

I know it's tough since Nvidia wiped your fave vendor's clock for a couple years, but ATI smacked Nvidia around pretty hard with some of the 9x00 chips.

Fanboi's are soooo funny.

Those crysis readings makes no sense. What did nvidia pay for that reviewer. Actually, who cares. This article sucks.

Those Crysis benchmarks are totally out of whack. Go take a look at benchmarks from reputable sites, Tom's, Anand's, etc. those numbers are wrong. They screwed up one way or the other.

Dear Mr. Paul Taylor: You Suck.

76fps in crysis on a gtx280??? I think he must have forgotten to take out his other two gtx280's from his tri-sli mobo yes?

That reviewer must be on some real serious crack if he thinks those benchmarks are close to reality.

20-30fps more from a 280gtx in some games? I'd love to know how the hell he came up with those scores.

Why don't you go back, re-read the 4890 review, and then come back and fix your headline and specify core or mem on the clock speed. Seriously, you based the headline off of an article you've obviously barely read or understood.

The 1050Mhz is the memory clock, not GPU clock. The card is overclocked to 925MHz GPU Core. And they don't even hit the now common 1Ghz in the review.