Nvidia misses GTX470/480 launch targets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

grey screen ati issue is mostly due to clock/voltage profiles I think.

i dont see 480's being percentage overclockable equal to 5870's? But honestly I havent watched too closely just yet, my 4870x2 is keeping me happy lately.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InCredible

@ snake..u call that OC? a stock xfx oc of 25mhz? knowing these cards can do 1000+....

---

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23079&page=7

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-23.html

1000+ mhz 5870 are rare. The toxic version of the vords have slightly higher volts and much much better cooling and they only reach 972 and 975 mhz, which is only a 47 and 50 mhz overclock respectively. The final frequency of these cards should be considered above average considering the cooling and additional voltage.

Most reviews for gtx 480 were hitting 800 mhz, which is a 14% overclock.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,7...views/?page=16

Heres among the best overclocks which they achieved a 825mhz or 125mhz OC

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-31.html

To among the worst they they achieve a 775mhz or 75mhz OC

This leads to a range between 10.7% overclock to 17.9% overclock. If we apply this to standard 5870 core speed we got get an overclocking range of 940mhz to 1002mhz. This is well within the range for the type of overclocks you will see with a 5870. You might be able to get more with additional voltage, but that hardly considered a fair overclock comparison. Especially when these cards have expensive cooling, more expensive PCB and higher voltage.

Heres an example that falls well below that range.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...D_5870/33.html

890mhz which is only a 5% OC. I don't even think this is the worst as I remember a 872mhz or 22mhz OC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by initialised

All the working cards are with the press!

I was expecting to get one yesterday but this happened: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3NK...=channel]Fermi Unboxing[/url]

---

well they didnt lie... you got a ferbi .... ;)

Let's go play some Bad Company 2? :cool:


Amorphous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jokester_wild

I full heartily agree. This whole forum has been a gong show of :banana::banana::banana::banana: throwing over this. Who cares ? you want card that plays your games and what not ? hey me too ! thats it. thats all that matters.

---

No way! GTX 470/480 free stock in the UK!

http://gallery.me.com/jeffrey_lee/10...12712383610001

And the 480 was ordered moments after the screenshot was taken... but proof is proof! :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23079&page=7
You might be able to get more with additional voltage, but that hardly considered a fair overclock comparison. Especially when these cards have expensive cooling, more expensive PCB and higher voltage.

---

How about this for a fair comparison: measure OC with the same amount of watts consumed. That's far more objective way to measure which one is better overclocker. Or was that just another way for you to say "Hey, I (pre)ordered Fermi!"? ;)

And it's on its way!

http://gallery.me.com/jeffrey_lee/10...livery/web.png

^ Ah damn you!
I'm just about to cancel my ASUS one from OCUK.. I don't think there going to get any, anytime soon as i haven't seen any ASUS ones available in Europe yet.

Scan's just released the Palit 480 GTX today for pre-order @ £410.. Think i'll jump on that instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fiskov

^ Ah damn you!
I'm just about to cancel my ASUS one from OCUK.. I don't think there going to get any, anytime soon as i haven't seen any ASUS ones available in Europe yet.

Scan's just released the Palit 480 GTX today for pre-order @ £410.. Think i'll jump on that instead.

---

Ordered an Asus too when they first allowed pre-order, but seems no one knows when the Asus stock will arrive... Late last night saw an OcUK employee post about a large batch of POV and Zotac arriving today, and had my order changed this morning in time for delivery tomorrow! :party:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eternal_fantasy

Ordered an Asus too when they first allowed pre-order, but seems no one knows when the Asus stock will arrive... Late last night saw an OcUK employee post about a large batch of POV and Zotac arriving today, and had my order changed this morning in time for delivery tomorrow! :party:

---

Thanks, just read that post about the POV stock.

I've now got, ahahaha:
Asus 480 GTX
POV 480 GTX - both on pre-order from OCUK
Palit 480 GTX from Scan.

I would cancel the ASUS one, but i'm no.1 in the Que, and thats just awesome..
I'm only after one bloody card, dammit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuthalu

How about this for a fair comparison: measure OC with the same amount of watts consumed. That's far more objective way to measure which one is better overclocker. Or was that just another way for you to say "Hey, I (pre)ordered Fermi!"? ;)

---

No it isn't. The fair way to measure over clocking is to see how high you can raise the clock speed and remain stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eternal_fantasy

No way! GTX 470/480 free stock in the UK!

http://gallery.me.com/jeffrey_lee/10...12712383610001

And the 480 was ordered moments after the screenshot was taken... but proof is proof! :p:

---

OMG Haxor !!!!!! mine is the same story, looky wotty we gotty here ;)
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2006/37298686.jpg

my dream of Sli GTX470 is a reality, two of these ordered just before screens taken, yeow mutha tucka.

they still have two left, UK e-tailer owned by BT need i say more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

There is a reason I enjoyed the xbitlabs review, they included all kinds of data. Your data isn't particularly reliable for the fact that you did not minimize the variables, therefore your review is meaningless. No offense, just an observation :)

For example, what were your CCC settings vs your nv panel settings? AI/Texture Quality/AA/AF/Adapative AA etc. Did you run a quick CPU bench before testing to make sure your running a level playing field? Was it a clean build now or before, or never?

I have more questions, but since you don't have that 5870 I'll wait for another member's review :) Also you made comments about the fan, the cooler on the GTX470 isn't the beast on the 480. 470 runs much cooler afaik.

---

I did minimize the variables pretty well, other than it being "real-world" style benching with FRAPS running:

If it wasn't clear in the post (again, it's not meant to be a comprehensive review :)): Catalyst AI = standard, nVidia equivalent enabled (Quality for texture filtering), AA was equal on each test, as was AF, and transparency MSAA enabled for nV (adaptive for ATI, as that is the equivalent). The ATI tests were off a clean Windows 7 install, while the nVidia tests were after removing the 5870 and uninstalling its drivers, then putting in the GTX 480 later (a 9800GT was used in the meantime), so no clean build for that part.

I didn't expect to cause such a ruckus with my tests... but I'm sure as others receive their cards they'll see similar results :). I was just giving a few quick #'s and impressions, mainly... and I was quite surprised at the performance. I'm now running 730core/1460shader/3520mem stable, as well.

$600 for a GTX480? Some people really do have a lot of money to burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fiskov

Thanks, just read that post about the POV stock.

I've now got, ahahaha:
Asus 480 GTX
POV 480 GTX - both on pre-order from OCUK
Palit 480 GTX from Scan.

I would cancel the ASUS one, but i'm no.1 in the Que, and thats just awesome..
I'm only after one bloody card, dammit.

---

Palit is in stock @ Scan (£410) now...

I'm holding for Asus though....

yep, just got the email from Scan, its coming tomorrow.. AHAHA, damn what luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

$600 for a GTX480? Some people really do have a lot of money to burn.

---

Wait, i've got a better deal for you :D

http://nsa14.casimages.com/img/2010/...4459951997.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luke997

Palit is in stock @ Scan (£410) now...

I'm holding for Asus though....

---

Confirmed and great deal imo... quick someone buy a few and ebay it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23079&page=7

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-23.html

1000+ mhz 5870 are rare. The toxic version of the vords have slightly higher volts and much much better cooling and they only reach 972 and 975 mhz, which is only a 47 and 50 mhz overclock respectively. The final frequency of these cards should be considered above average considering the cooling and additional voltage.

---

ok lets say 1000 mhz is rare..although on here there is more then a few ppl to hit 1000+...but for argument sake..its rare..

however u say 975mhz is only 50mhz overclock?? based off what? the stock original 5870? which is 850mhz...that looks to be a 125mhz over stock..which is still 100mhz more then what that review used as an "overclocked" 5870

now if they used at least a 950 as an overclocked version id say thats fair to say its overclocked but 25mhz isn't going to do much of anything as can be seen by the review....but we all know that 950-1000 vs 850 is quite a bit larger increase...at least from what ive seen floating around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

[url]
1000+ mhz 5870 are rare.

---

No they arent actually, I'm quite sure that every single HD 5000 card can reach 1000 Mhz, you just have to increase the voltage to somewhere between 1.2-1.3v.

Some new revisions of the cards, particularly Sapphire's have locked out voltage tweaking which is what prevents some of them from overclocking well, but for the original reference versions, 1000+ Mhz on the stock cooler is very easy to reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

No they arent actually, I'm quite sure that every single HD 5000 card can reach 1000 Mhz, you just have to increase the voltage to somewhere between 1.2-1.3v.

---

You mean 1.2-1.35V + higher fan speed to get it to pass Furmark extreme mode

The fan speeds dont really need to go much higher if you replace the stock paste with MX3. Doing so reduces temperatures greatly by around 5-10 degrees. Though I only have 5770s which dont produce as much heat, the 5870 does have a much better heatsink on it.

Ive found that leaving my fan profile on default with 1000 Mhz is completely fine with the MX3 while gaming, the temperatures max out at around 85 degrees. I can set the fan higher, but theres no need. I'd also reccomend doing the same for anyone who buys any graphics card. Take the heatsink off, clean off the rubbish stock goo, and apply some MX3 and it will make a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

You mean 1.2-1.35V + higher fan speed to get it to pass Furmark extreme mode

---

Fan on auto will do ;)

You can't include adding volts if we measure overclocking. If we do that its going to be impossible to get any real comparison done because we open a whole new can of variables. All the oc with fermi so far have been with stock volts so if we want to do a more objective comparison, we should compare stock volts OC with the 5870. If you look at any review, you don't see them adding additional volts to a card do you?

The toxic editions of the 5870s cards which have better than average cooling, higher volts still only hits a 975. In addition they are significantly more expensive than their plan jane counterparts.

If you look at reviews, 1000mhz OC on the 5870 are rare.

Honestly after 1.25V, the 5870s really heat up, become much louder ( assuming auto fan profile ) and lose any performance per watt advantage they had. Based on initial results I'm going to have to say the 480 is better in regards to overclocking. Wether they hold up is another question but I'm sure they will.

And yes 1000 on a 5870 stable is quite rare on reference cooling / boards. It is benchable yes, but 24/7 nope... They seem to top out at 950/975.

That said as a stock product, I feel the 5870 is more appealing but if you plan on highly clocking a 5870 you may as well get a 480 anyways given it will be just as loud and use nearly as much power ( the overclocked 5870 )

As far as the voltage argument, I'd say it is fair however I highly doubt the reference 480 cooling has the headroom for increased voltage at anything less than max fan speed and even then stability would be questionable I'd wager. But yes it seems that with stocks volts the 470/480s are clocking as high (proportionately) as the 5850/5870s *with* increased voltage. You can lend this to AMD being conservative with stock voltage or Nvidia being overly generous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

I did minimize the variables pretty well, other than it being "real-world" style benching with FRAPS running:

If it wasn't clear in the post (again, it's not meant to be a comprehensive review :))

---

We will be the judge of that, thanks :)

Quote:

---

Catalyst AI = standard, nVidia equivalent enabled (Quality for texture filtering)

---

Wrong. ATi CCC has a setting for Texture Quality just like nvidia. Nvidia defaults theirs to Normal, ATi to High Quality. Catalyst AI is for enabling/disabling optimizations and enhancements in the driver and for crossfire support. Typical mistake made by reviewers when comparing ATi to Nvidia.

Quote:

---

AA was equal on each test, as was AF, and transparency MSAA enabled for nV (adaptive for ATI, as that is the equivalent)

---

ATi has two settings for adaptive AA, standard and high quality. Another problem because you are not familiar with the settings.

Quote:

---

The ATI tests were off a clean Windows 7 install, while the nVidia tests were after removing the 5870 and uninstalling its drivers, then putting in the GTX 480 later (a 9800GT was used in the meantime), so no clean build for that part.

---

Another problem. Games were tested while the OS was in different states, and ATI tested with two different drivers where as nvidia tested with one.

Thanks for the information though, I know you are eager to share information but always expect criticism because our standards are very high.

Quote:

---

I didn't expect to cause such a ruckus with my tests... but I'm sure as others receive their cards they'll see similar results :). I was just giving a few quick #'s and impressions, mainly... and I was quite surprised at the performance. I'm now running 730core/1460shader/3520mem stable, as well.

---

No ruckus caused here, only information sharing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

You can't include adding volts if we measure overclocking.

---

Of course you can. How many people overclock CPUs by adjusting voltages? When overclocking, voltage is important for stability. Overclocking reviews on graphics cards which dont include voltage adjustment are completely ridiculous ever since MSI afterburner was released. If its so easy to increase the voltages when overclocking graphics cards these days then why bother ignoring it when writing reviews on overclocking potential of graphics cards?

I dont care for what any review says about overclocking if they only used stock voltage. They can also feel free to increase volts on the GTX 400s as well if they like, but those things wont have much headroom due to their temperatures.

Heres a good review which includes voltage adjustment for the 5870:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...tweak-review/9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

We will be the judge of that, thanks :)


Thanks for the information though, I know you are eager to share information but always expect criticism because our standards are very high.


No ruckus caused here, only information sharing.

---

No problem at all... and yes, I was just trying to share info since not many have them yet, is all :). Anyway, thanks for the info (I wasn't aware of those extra settings even existing), and hopefully that clarifies things some. Criticism's fine, and I'm glad to see it done in a constructive way here ;) rather than outright flames like at some other forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

You can't include adding volts if we measure overclocking. If we do that its going to be impossible to get any real comparison done because we open a whole new can of variables. All the oc with fermi so far have been with stock volts so if we want to do a more objective comparison, we should compare stock volts OC with the 5870. If you look at any review, you don't see them adding additional volts to a card do you?

The toxic editions of the 5870s cards which have better than average cooling, higher volts still only hits a 975. In addition they are significantly more expensive than their plan jane counterparts.

If you look at reviews, 1000mhz OC on the 5870 are rare.

---

You do realize stock voltage is variable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InCredible

ok lets say 1000 mhz is rare..although on here there is more then a few ppl to hit 1000+...but for argument sake..its rare..

however u say 975mhz is only 50mhz overclock?? based off what? the stock original 5870? which is 850mhz...that looks to be a 125mhz over stock..which is still 100mhz more then what that review used as an "overclocked" 5870

now if they used at least a 950 as an overclocked version id say thats fair to say its overclocked but 25mhz isn't going to do much of anything as can be seen by the review....but we all know that 950-1000 vs 850 is quite a bit larger increase...at least from what ive seen floating around here.

---

None the less the 480gtx at stock beated the 5870 and the gtx480 can OC as much as the 5870. It is a newer card with no revision driver for it and yet no voltage modification was done, it can also be cooled better on AIR and even with WC and there is 32 core disabled via bios while the remaining core are not wotking at full capacity.

To be honest i don't see why i would even think of arguying these fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

You do realize stock voltage is variable...

---

Yes this is a problem with 5870s given they can vary from 1.15 to 1.172 ( newest ATI reference bios ) Generally the vendors who shipped cards with lower stock voltages clock nicer but this isn't always true. An ASUS I used (1.15) did worse than my own card (1.168)

@ Damha

If I am not mistaken with current drivers and 5 series hardware there are only 3 AA settings (multi-sample AA, adaptive multi-sample AA, super-sample AA) I know the older Catalysts allowed picking standard and quality (drop down box) but I do believe the driver team mentioned this setting is now automatic based on application ( in otherwords they are making the decision at a driver level now not the user ) because they felt it was a confusing setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

Fan on auto will do ;)

---

That is the Max i got to pass 5 min of Furmark xtreme with fan at Auto and V on 1.35 , with fan @ 100% i could pass it at 1GHZ but with Auto = fail


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5868/11m6vww.th.jpg

92C with fan @ 62%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

That is the Max i got to pass 5 min of Furmark xtreme with fan at Auto and V on 1.35 , with fan @ 100% i could pass it at 1GHZ but with Auto = fail


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5868/11m6vww.th.jpg

92C with fan @ 62%

---

Upgrade the paste to MX3 and then try again. You will be surprised :). Also you really shouldnt need 1.35v for 960 Mhz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Upgrade the paste to MX3 and then try again. You will be surprised :). Also you really shouldnt need 1.35v for 960 Mhz.

---

Like many said before , benching is something and 24/7 is something else , i can bench 15 minute Far cry 2 with fan @ 60% and 1GHZ with 1.32V and temps never get past 75C , and for the MX3 i dont really care much about temps and i game at stock clocks anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

Like many said before , benching is something and 24/7 is something else , i can bench 15 minute Far cry 2 with fan @ 60% and 1GHZ with 1.32V and temps never get past 75C , and for the MX3 i dont really care much about temps and i game at stock clocks anyway

---

Definitely, I don't personally care if you can hobble a card to run at an insane speed for a short session: I care about what I can actually use it at in games, not just force it through a short 5-minute synthetic and pray it doesn't crash :).

Here's a quick Unigine bench... anyone got same-setting 5870/5970 ones they can show?

http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...ginegtx470.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Of course you can. How many people overclock CPUs by adjusting voltages? When overclocking, voltage is important for stability. Overclocking reviews on graphics cards which dont include voltage adjustment are completely ridiculous ever since MSI afterburner was released. If its so easy to increase the voltages when overclocking graphics cards these days then why bother ignoring it when writing reviews on overclocking potential of graphics cards?

I dont care for what any review says about overclocking if they only used stock voltage. They can also feel free to increase volts on the GTX 400s as well if they like, but those things wont have much headroom due to their temperatures.

Heres a good review which includes voltage adjustment for the 5870:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...tweak-review/9

---

The difference is volt changes in the GPU are not as easy to do. With some models that have the software added its easy(but these tend to be more expensive) but for the most part people don't want to do a bios videocard flash, so they can use other models software.

When you are talking about changing thermal paste on stock cooling, your not even talking about regular overclocking anymore because that will void the warranty with alot of companies. As see from the people in this thread, these 1000 mhz overclocks come at a cost. 1.35 volts is a tremendous jump in volts, in addition 100% fan is not pleasant and is only useful for benching.

Videocard overclocking has typically entailed using the stock softsoft, move up the clock and thats it. For benching you might move up the fan profile. However, it typically doesn't involve adding volts and changing thermal past or doing volt mods.

The gtx 470 are also decent clockers. Just look at golden tigers results, 20% overclock, likely stock volts.

I get 37 average with 7 min on my 5870 at those settings. I find it interesting that the 5 series drop so low ( especially in 2.0 ) It will be a more telling story once we see an actual game using uniengine.

Any chance you could run Vantage on the extreme preset with that OC (before/after)? Reviews didn't show much in the way of 470 overclocked numbers in much of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

I get 37 average with 7 min on my 5870 at those settings. I find it interesting that the 5 series drop so low ( especially in 2.0 ) It will be a more telling story once we see an actual game using uniengine.

Any chance you could run Vantage on the extreme preset with that OC? Reviews didn't show much in the way of 470 overclocked numbers in much of anything.

---

I think he was using satire when he posted that ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

The gtx 470 are also decent clockers. Just look at golden tigers results, 20% overclock, likely stock volts.

---

Yep, stock volts :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

I get 37 average with 7 min on my 5870 at those settings. I find it interesting that the 5 series drop so low ( especially in 2.0 ) It will be a more telling story once we see an actual game using uniengine.

Any chance you could run Vantage on the extreme preset with that OC? Reviews didn't show much in the way of 470 overclocked numbers in much of anything.

---

I can install Vantage and do so... I'll post back soon. Test was with 197.41 drivers, FYI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

I think he was using satire when he posted that ;)

---

:confused: ?

won't be home for a couple days... I have this one saved on photobucket, I know it is a ways off on settings, all stock on the 5870's, when I get home I can post same settings, with overclocks, cards are 1050, 1280 mem and have been using them for a while with no issues gaming. so settings seem good. :D
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...Capture909.png

3dmark Vantage Extreme preset (197.41 drivers, 720c/1440s/3520m), GPU physx DISABLED in the Nvidia control panel:

http://www.trizzeo.com/gtx470tiger.jpg

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=2092505

Heres a Vantage run on with a 5870 :

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4...9251275.th.jpg
(excuse my dual copy paste, paint fail lol )
@ Justin

How many 5870s are you running? I find it odd that the min is that much higher... unless its 3 or 4 of them it doesn't reflect what I remember seeing in the Heaven 2.0 thread :confused:

@GT

Thanks for doing that. Obviously the first feature test doesn't work yet with G100 but what I find interesting is how much better they do on the cloth and particle simulatiom (Feature 4/5). I'd like to know how it is coded ( I'm guessing compute shader? ) Really shows GF100 strengths in physics calculations. Its almost like ATI / Nvidia have a role reversal... back in the day Nvidia gpus were texture monsters where ATI tended to be stronger compute wise and now the tables have turned hehe. Personally though I feel the days of texture heavy designs are behind us ( I'll be shocked if ATI / Nvidias next cards are as texture heavy - ie tmus , fillrate ect )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~

None the less the 480gtx at stock beated the 5870 and the gtx480 can OC as much as the 5870. It is a newer card with no revision driver for it and yet no voltage modification was done, it can also be cooled better on AIR and even with WC and there is 32 core disabled via bios while the remaining core are not wotking at full capacity.

To be honest i don't see why i would even think of arguying these fact.

---

for one the gtx doesn't overclock as high
for two the OC 5870 was hardly that..why clock the 480 100mhz over but the 5870 only 25 when it can easily do 100mhz over with stock clocks

as far as it being beat and arguing the points...i mean we know the 480 is faster..thats for sure..all i was getting at is the over clock is hardly an overclock for the 5870..thats all i was getting at..

but your right u can quit arguing any points for the 480..it is faster then the 5870 while consuming 70+ watts or more doing so..we understand this much ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

@ Justin

How many 5870s are you running? I find it odd that the min is that much higher... unless its 3 or 4 of them it doesn't reflect what I remember seeing in the Heaven 2.0 thread :confused:

---

3 at stock on that run

Apologies if this is a repost, more overclocking results - 825/1100 GTX 480 vs 975/1300 HD 5870.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997

hmmm seems fermi arch is very responsive to oc btw love how review sites ignore 5970 lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Definitely, I don't personally care if you can hobble a card to run at an insane speed for a short session: I care about what I can actually use it at in games, not just force it through a short 5-minute synthetic and pray it doesn't crash :).

Here's a quick Unigine bench... anyone got same-setting 5870/5970 ones they can show?

http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...ginegtx470.png

---

Thanks for the heads up about 470, you got a nice overclocker there, congrats :up:

Here's one with 5970 OC 1000/5000

http://i42.tinypic.com/152c4t0.jpg

The min fps is quick hiccup, always at same place. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Apologies if this is a repost, more overclocking results - 825/1100 GTX 480 vs 975/1300 HD 5870.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997

---

I think they pushed memory too far, the results are very bad for that much gpu clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Apologies if this is a repost, more overclocking results - 825/1100 GTX 480 vs 975/1300 HD 5870.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997

---

The mention of asking Nvidia about the TDP is interesting but they are in fact right. TDP is not max power draw like people seem to think. That said though obviously Nvidia took a liberty testing as they did as it turned out to be misleading ( ie AMDs TDP claim is more grounded in reality ) It was a PR move if you ask me. 250watt looks better marketing wise than the more realistic 300watt when comparing to the 5970/295.

It is still impressive how well it scales with clock speeds. I could only imagine what how this would do with a node shrink and the full core amount... I'm sure it may even trade blows with the 5970. Thats said though, can Nvidia out a shrinked fully operational Fermi based consumer gpu before AMD refreshes their line ( even if it means holding the PR crown for a short while )

@japamd

Yeah most people are seeing similar dips like that... Im really curious how justin managed 31 with 3 5870s... i wouldnt think a 3rd would magically make the min go from sub 10 to 30 but perhaps? I do notice he didn't use af in that test so just perhaps... I'm interested to see now if AF somehow nukes performance in Unigine on 5 series hardware..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japamd

Thanks for the heads up about 470, you got a nice overclocker there, congrats :up:

Here's one with 5970 OC 1000/5000

[.IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/152c4t0.jpg[/IMG]

The min fps is quick hiccup, always at same place. :confused:

---

Yeah, my card had that too but rerunning the bench a second time fixed it :). Thanks for the result, was curious as to how it stacked up.

@Chickenfeed... Yeah, if they put out a shrink with full cores it would be nuts, these things seem to scale really well.

whats the avg overclock for 470 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Apologies if this is a repost, more overclocking results - 825/1100 GTX 480 vs 975/1300 HD 5870.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997

---

much better oc testing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

The difference is volt changes in the GPU are not as easy to do. With some models that have the software added its easy(but these tend to be more expensive) but for the most part people don't want to do a bios videocard flash, so they can use other models software.

---

They are very easy to do using MSI afterburner, you dont need to flash your bios. If you have a HD 5000 series card based on the reference design, it will work on any card with any bios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Yeah, my card had that too but rerunning the bench a second time fixed it :)

---

Yeah I confirmed this myself, it seems a good 3 runs in a row are needed to ensure a predictable result, the first 1 is a wash ( I should know better though as averaging is a good benchmarking practice :rolleyes: )

I'm still awaiting to see what prices settle at here in Canada when stock arrives. Right now preorder prices seem to be at 379/549 respectively for the 470/480. I just hesistent to change anything until I know the fate of my 4870x2 RMA ( still have my fingers crossed for a 2nd 5870 but HIS treat Canadians like members of the national socialist party... ) Theres a big shortage on 470 SLI reviews but I'd love to see what a pair of them does on water.

Yeah, you're right, what a lazy dude I'm .... :p:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2gw5k7m.jpg

@goldentiger, did you already ran Dirt 2 benchmark at 1920x1200 AA 8x Ultra High?

After reading HardwareCanucks 470SLI review, the idea isn't as appealing now. What Im dissapointed in is the fact the 8x AA numbers aren't better given this it is a practicle IQ level when using multi gpu configs ( have to do *something* with all that power ehh? ) In fairness overclocking wasn't in the picture however that still won't change the fact that the 5850s are a better bet. Single card though, the 470 still looks appealing, I just hope availability / distribution will pick up soon enough for it to be relavent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japamd

@goldentiger, did you already ran Dirt 2 benchmark at 1920x1200 AA 8x Ultra High?

---

No, I have these results but I will go run it at those settings:

2560x1600, Ultra High preset in-game, Dirt 2 on GTX 470 OC'd

No AA:
http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...dirt2gtx-2.jpg

2x AA:
http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...dirt2gtx-1.jpg

Here's the 8x MSAA result @ 1920x1200, Ultra High:

http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...dirt2gtx-3.jpg

Ran twice like the others to make sure results were even.

EDIT: Comparing to http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-480-review/21 I'm wondering why my results are so much lower... hmmmm...

EDIT2: Hm, I apparrently left multisampling transparency on for those runs, but still... gonna check into this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Here's the 8x MSAA result @ 1920x1200, Ultra High:

[mg]http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/goldentiger/dirt2gtx-3.jpg[/img]

---

Cheers!! But that result is a little weird, it's much lower than 5870 stock can do. :confused:

Do you have AF 16x forced at driver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japamd

Cheers!! But that result is a little weird, it's much lower than 5870 stock can do. :confused:

Do you have AF 16x forced at driver?

---

Yeah, I had 16x AF and transparency AA left on for that run (didn't realize the transparency was on, did know the AF was on though). Setting it all to application-controlled and re-doing it now.

Do benchmark results between quality and high quality texture filtering for Dirt 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Do benchmark results between quality and high quality texture filtering for Dirt 2.

---

I'll turn on High Quality and post back... all results are with "Quality" only above.

RE: the above result: I tried it twice again with the settings to Application-Controlled and had virtually the same result (1fps different)... thinking this newer driver version doesn't do well in Dirt 2 whereas the beta ones the reviewers used did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

I'll turn on High Quality and post back... all results are with "Quality" only above.

RE: the above result: I tried it twice again with the settings to Application-Controlled and had virtually the same result (1fps different)... thinking this newer driver version doesn't do well in Dirt 2 whereas the beta ones the reviewers used did?

---

That driver could be optimized for certain games and may lack a profile for Dirt 2. Not sure why it wasn't carried over to the newer drivers. It was said that demo for Dirt 2 was used but that's another quagmire.

Eastcoasthandle, that had an interesting effect on the framerate:

http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...dirt2gtx-4.jpg

Also worthy of note is that the application profile setting tab in the nV control panel has no Dirt 2 listing (something like Dirt Track Racing 2 is the only thing there with no exe specified like the others) when you go into it. I'm guessing it's missing a proper profile... EDIT: It is listed under Colin McRae Dirt 2, found it... still, hopefully another driver release will fix it up shortly.

Is that the same settings as before? AF/TrAA/ etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Is that the same settings as before? AF/TrAA/ etc?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Yes.

---

Then it appears that those drivers are borked for that game.

Hey guys i was just wondering is there someone here with MSI GTX480 ? I'm getting one by the end of this week and i was wondering if someone tested their MSI afterburner overvoltage GPU option ? Is it real ?

afterburner does not work for voltage on the 480 yet...maybe soon very soon

It says on the box of the card Overvoltage:

Quote:

---

Over voltage function of GPU
- Supports over voltage function of GPU by Afterburner, and performance can be up to 15%!

---

LINK

I wonder if there is some sort of throttle control. GT, have you tried running the 470 at stock frequencies to see if performance improves?

Use FRAPS in the in-game benchmark. The results given in the Test Summary screen are not accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

I wonder if there is some sort of throttle control. GT, have you tried running the 470 at stock frequencies to see if performance improves?

---

No, I haven't... but I'm going to try it right now for a minute on a quick run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Use FRAPS in the in-game benchmark. The results given in the Test Summary screen are not accurate.

---

I had FRAPS running, not logging but running, it seemed to be a little off but not drastically. I'll log with FRAPS and compare, later tonight probably... you would certainly know :).

EDIT: Just did a single run, leaving everything untouched from the prior run, and it is running worse by quite a bit at stock clocks, watching FRAPS' framerate as it did the run. So, I don't think it's hitting throttling, at least... I didn't log with FRAPS any of these times but I was watching it most of the bench.

Post a pic of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

The mention of asking Nvidia about the TDP is interesting but they are in fact right. TDP is not max power draw like people seem to think. That said though obviously Nvidia took a liberty testing as they did as it turned out to be misleading ( ie AMDs TDP claim is more grounded in reality ) It was a PR move if you ask me. 250watt looks better marketing wise than the more realistic 300watt when comparing to the 5970/295.

---

Uhoh... So basically Nvidia agrees with what I was saying about Furmark and OCCT back when Green fans were, to put it nicely, complaining about the HD4800 series high power consumption in aforementioned power virus apps.
:ROTF::rofl::clap:
Good times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Eastcoasthandle, that had an interesting effect on the framerate:

Also worthy of note is that the application profile setting tab in the nV control panel has no Dirt 2 listing (something like Dirt Track Racing 2 is the only thing there with no exe specified like the others) when you go into it. I'm guessing it's missing a proper profile... EDIT: It is listed under Colin McRae Dirt 2, found it... still, hopefully another driver release will fix it up shortly.

---

Yeah something is most certainly amiss there, even though the in game bench isn't the most consistent, the numbers don't sway by that much. With the same settings Im getting 58min 67avg (5900 something frames if i recall) and with that overclock you got going I'd guess you should be getting within 10% or so of that. On the topic of the Guru3d numbers, they are using a desert map, not the time demo map so its not directly comparable, don't you just love custom time demos... ( the desert maps are considered best case as they run better than others )

On my older W7 install ( the one I used when the game launched ) it did some bizzare things ( performance randomlly halving and thats without Vsync... ) but it seems they ( codemasters / ati ) have fixed that since then.

A friend of mine has 2 480s on order in Canada so Im curious to see when he will actually recieve them. Eddy said the blocks should start shipping for the 4xx series starting next week so I'm looking forwards to seeing what they do on water for people who manage to snag both.

Get a screenshot of Dirt2.exe vs whatever you're renaming it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurboDiv

It says on the box of the card Overvoltage:



LINK

---

its just in..... afterburner beta4 for 480 volt control 860(1720) np with just jersey fresh air in sli even.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread....19#post3539619

this is news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Use FRAPS in the in-game benchmark. The results given in the Test Summary screen are not accurate.

---

Uh oh. Bad news for built in benchmarks. They must all now be verified by FRAPs I suppose.

This means all of the Dirt2 figures we have are garbage.

Some GTX 470, Palit, Msi, Evga and GTX 480-Galaxy on stock on Newegg....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...20400%20series
GTX 480 dissapeared in 5 minutes from time i saw....:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

I wonder if there is some sort of throttle control. GT, have you tried running the 470 at stock frequencies to see if performance improves?

---

Seems that happened with stock voltage and upped core/shader/mem.
Will be testing wuth AFBurner beta 4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumo

Seems that happened with stock voltage and upped core/shader/mem.
Will be testing wuth AFBurner beta 4

---

Interesting...I look forward to your results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

Uh oh. Bad news for built in benchmarks. They must all now be verified by FRAPs I suppose.

This means all of the Dirt2 figures we have are garbage.

---

It depends. I am sure most reviewers (I hope) validate built-in benchmark results with FRAPS before putting them into reviews. Here is what I have seen regarding built-in benchmarks:


Dawn of War II: Inaccurate

DiRT 2: Inaccurate

Far Cry 2: Accurate

HawX: Accurate

Just Cause 2: Accurate but none of the built-in demos reflect gameplay conditions

By innacurate you mean that Fraps disagrees with the reported in-game result for the same demo sequence? Or inaccurate because it differs greatly from performance during actual gameplay?

Sorry for the late post...

Dirt 2 1920x1200 8x MSAA, maxed Ultra in-game settings stock GTX 470
http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...tockgtx470.jpg

Seems the overclocking is scaling properly.

Nice find on the Afterburner, hoping for a GTX 470 compatible version soon, since my card looks to have more room with volts :).

Hey GT quick question. Was Dirt 2 already installed when you put that 470 in your system? If it was check the hardware_settings_info.xml file and make sure it's reading your PC correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Hey GT quick question. Was Dirt 2 already installed when you put that 470 in your system? If it was check the hardware_settings_info.xml file and make sure it's reading your PC correctly.

---

Yes, it was... good catch, I will check into it.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardware settings info file

<graphics_card name="NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470" vendorId="0x10DE" deviceId="0x06CD" vs_shader="3_0" ps_shader="3_0" memory="4059" rating="3" dx11="true">

---

Wonder if that bolded part is causing an issue... gonna adjust it and run again.

EDIT: Set file to read-only after editing, with "1280" as the memory value, same results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

By innacurate you mean that Fraps disagrees with the reported in-game result for the same demo sequence? Or inaccurate because it differs greatly from performance during actual gameplay?

---

Innacurate means that the included, in-game benchmark results are out to lunch compared to what FRAPs reports. In the case of DiRT 2, it seems to be reading the loading screen and the "lead up" to the race as part of the benchmark sequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Innacurate means that the included, in-game benchmark results are out to lunch compared to what FRAPs reports. In the case of DiRT 2, it seems to be reading the loading screen and the "lead up" to the race as part of the benchmark sequence.

---

In that case it's not what fraps is reporting but when you decide to start fraps. So I would take what you say with a grain of salt. I just checked myself and there are no "...loading screen leading and the lead up to the race..." once the benchmark starts. There are however, "cutscreen(s)" just before the race begins. So I'm not sure what you going on about.

Therefore, regardless when Dirt 2 starts/ends their benchmark testing if it's the same for everyone those results reflect how CM wants their benchmark to run. Which should reflect any video card used. Making them valid from my point of view. This is because the benchmark is similar to what you see in game.
For example:
-game loads track
-cutscene(s)
-start race
with the exception of tweaking your car screen.

I tested that myself and as far as I can tell, the in game bench records starting from the moment it loads until the end of the race. I compared with FRAPS and in all honesty found the in game to FRAPS results to be pretty consistent. However the benchmark itself varries alot as your car seems to varry from last place ( highest strain due to having to render the other 7 cars and associated particle effects ) to a best case of 5th place ( this was after 25 runs ) What I've found is the average doesn't change much but the max / min can go up and down. For example after more extensive testing im getting 75-79 avg but the min can be from 55 on the low side ( trailing the race in 8th ) up to as high as 68 or so ( finishing 5th so a reduced rendering load ) I would start fraps the moment the map loaded and finish it once the player car goes across the finish line. Regardless of how you decide to bench this game, due to the AI element involved I'd disregard any results that aren't from a healthy average ( I'd consider a good 5 or so to be adequete, 3 however not so much in this case )

Anyways on the topic of the launch, a few cards trickled into Canada but they seemed to have been all preordered and were out of stock instantly. I find it odd how retailers here are asking only 10cnd more for the 470 but are asking 50 more for the 480... Most 5870s go for 440-460 here so at the actual msrp (which many seemed to have been able to preorder in the states ) that would have been a good deal. And our dollar is doing so good too!:p: Don't you just love free trade....

I feel like a noob... I was forced to reinstall drivers (which should have been a first course of action when I saw Dirt 2 was performing oddly) when I changed things around to use the Asus voltage tweak through SmartDoctor on my card. At 1.012v and 800core/3650mem stable, I re-ran the Dirt 2 bench (same settings as before):

http://www.trizzeo.com/assets/golden...irt2proper.jpg

Much more like you'd expect... my previous driver install clearly had something borked with it!

GTX 470 vanilla with voltage tweaked:
http://www.trizzeo.com/gtx470ocfinal.png
(Edited to add info to pic)

Much much better:up: Nearly exactly what im seeing on my 5870. Good stuff and good to see how much higher it got with a bit more voltage... That might still be enough of a game changer as It will most likely match or exceed the 5870 in places it was behind before hand. Any comment on noise / heat increases in doing so ( I find left 4 dead to be a great test for power consumption / noise levels )

how hot is a voltage tweaked 470?

Thanks Chicken... I'm quite pleased with the performance/overclock now :D.

I am running 73% fan which is the last step before it becomes "loud" in my opinion (75% and higher become noticeable). It's able to be heard @ 73% but not loud to me, and vanishes completely with music or a game on very low volume. Temps are peaking at about 86c after an hour+ of Battlefield Bad Company 2 (maxed, DX11, 2560x1600, 4x MSAA, 16x AF), having held steady at that once reaching it (800/3650 1.012v). Comparatively, @ the lower clocks (720/3520 @ stock volts), temperatures peaked at 82c and held mostly at 81, with a 71% fan setting. It's a minor tradeoff, but it is definitely worth it IMO :).

http://www.trizzeo.com/3dvgtx470-800...emPhysxOFF.jpg

New result for 3dmark with the higher clocks :).

Nice results GT. However, at over 70% fan speed that's just to much/to loud for me.

Thanks GoldenTiger. Definitely a great alternative to the 5850, but they gotta bring the price to match it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

Thanks GoldenTiger. Definitely a great alternative to the 5850, but they gotta bring the price to match it.

---

This card with these type of OC is more inline with a 5870 OC.

20% OC without volts 32% with volts. These cards are exactly what xtremesystems is about, that a high performing card that like to overclock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

Thanks GoldenTiger. Definitely a great alternative to the 5850, but they gotta bring the price to match it.

---

From users around the world it looks like Fermi's can be better overclockers than Cypresses lol, who would have thought.

I think $350/$500 are fair price points for GF100's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Thanks Chicken... I'm quite pleased with the performance/overclock now :D.

I am running 73% fan which is the last step before it becomes "loud" in my opinion (75% and higher become noticeable). It's able to be heard @ 73% but not loud to me, and vanishes completely with music or a game on very low volume. Temps are peaking at about 86c after an hour+ of Battlefield Bad Company 2 (maxed, DX11, 2560x1600, 4x MSAA, 16x AF), having held steady at that once reaching it (800/3650 1.012v). Comparatively, @ the lower clocks (720/3520 @ stock volts), temperatures peaked at 82c and held mostly at 81, with a 71% fan setting. It's a minor tradeoff, but it is definitely worth it IMO :).

---

whats the room temperature?

You mention the fan speed you are running but can you make any subjective comparison as to how loud the card was in reference to your experiance with a 5870? I find the 5870s cooler to become overly loud past 40% myself ( and I prefer 33% but once OCd the auto profile will often go to 37% ) so I'm just wondering how loud the 470 is with that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

You mention the fan speed you are running but can you make any subjective comparison as to how loud the card was in reference to your experiance with a 5870? I find the 5870s cooler to become overly loud past 40% myself ( and I prefer 33% but once OCd the auto profile will often go to 37% ) so I'm just wondering how loud the 470 is with that in mind.

---

may be you mean that you start hearing the sound of the fan over the other fans in the system coz at 40% you wont hear it while turning your speakers on while gaming