But isn't it NVIDIA that touts GTS 450 as a direct upgrade as GTS 250? I thought I saw a Powerpoint slide. That slide should be then considered misleading at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Printable View
But isn't it NVIDIA that touts GTS 450 as a direct upgrade as GTS 250? I thought I saw a Powerpoint slide. That slide should be then considered misleading at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I mean, for an unsuspecting customer it surely sounds like an upgrade going from GTS 250 to GTS 450. I hope reviewers will point out this branding madness from both vendors. I hear rumors that AMD will release Bart (which is the 2nd tier compared to Cayman) as 6870, and I would only consider that legit if its performance is significantly better than 5870. Otherwise, that would also be a shady naming tactic to confuse consumers. Reviewers should make things like these clear for consumers.
Even with the arq change 450 seems more like a rebranded 250. As a previous post said, a better name would've been 440 o 435.
450
128bit*3600Mhz GDDR5 / 8 --> 57.6GB/s
HD5750
128bit*4600Mhz GDDR5 / 8 --> 73.6GB/s
HD5770
128bit*4800Mhz GDDR5 / 8 --> 76.8GB/s
I'd buy it, if it was under 100 bucks, for a physX replacement card.
It is an upgrade. Just not much in performance but in features. They sure spent a whole lot of transistors on it though. Should have more reviews comparing it to the 250/260 by Monday.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopri
I would if had the money for it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
I'm still sitting on my HD3850 with 256MB VRAM. :rofl:
Holy crap... :eek:
This chip is not that far off double the size of Juniper yet can't match a 5770's performance!
That is just ludicrous, not to worry though, atleast it's a whole new architecture. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSN
Just when I thought their stock wouldn't get any lower, they go and release this, Nvidia should of just cancelled it, what were they thinking? what's the point in making a product that can't economically compete, this is a large volume part! If AMD squeeze this card into a loss making product it could cost Nv huge sums of cash with only slight negative margins.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSN
Waste of R&D resources and silicon IMHO.
Edit:
Forgot to add the link...
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...-revealed.aspx
The reason this isn't more of an upgrade over the gts 250 I can imagine is drivers. The gts 250 driver are as wrung out for performance as you can get. I think if the gts 450 drivers were as mature, I think you could expect 10% more performance because during the gts 250 lifetime, the drivers have had multiple big jumps such as when big bang II drivers were released.
But still this card should be performing better than it is, especially considering the die size. The biggest flaw in the gf1xx architecture it appears is that the shader clock is not at a higher ratio than 1:2. 1:2.5 would have done wonders for this architecture.
Tweaktown's Galaxy GTS 450 Review..
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8537/351127.png
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2131/351128.png
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/33/351129.png
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2259/351130.png
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6553/351131.png
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6270/351132.png
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4548/351133.png
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/553/351134.png
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/509/351135o.png
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/438/351136.png
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6885/351140.png
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5140/351141.png
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7534/351142.png
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8280/351150.png
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/479/351151.png
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5067/351120.png
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/632/351121.png
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8089/351122.png
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/604/351123.png
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5601/351124.png
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5359/351125.png
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/311/351126.png
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9740/351101.gif
260.52 driver version shows really good gains in this review. We will see more tomorrow.
Anyway, thanks for sharing Man from Atlantis ;)
Nice improvement from the earlier leaks. So it can give an HD 5770 a run for it's money after all.
Did you notice the clock speeds of the Galaxy card by any chance? That's no stock-clocked card... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
So an overclocked version is about even with a 5770, performance per dollar seems ok, but it uses something like 50% more power than a 5770? (65W under load). Not very efficient IMO.
Not only that, for that power consumption it is a much better buy a vanilla 460Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodin
Who cares, if it's still cheaper than it's competition?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
...but draws more power than has hardly any overclocking potential? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
Nice to compare some OVERCLOCKED EDITION card against a SILENT EDITION card. Talk about apples to oranges comparisons.
Is it? Notice that the 5770 tested is a passively cooled version that is easily 15-20% more expensive than a regular 5770 (140-150 $ on Newegg).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
I'm pretty sure it is. Maybe not this exact model, but it seems some OC versions cost the same as the regular thing.
http://gpudesign.bafree.net/wp-conte...450Newegg1.jpg
very odd that the power consumption graph shows gts 450 == gtx 460.
the average price for both gts 450 and 5750 appears to be around $135 on newegg. the average 5770 price is maybe 10-20 bucks more.
Thanks OlivonQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
i think i can discover more pictures thanks to my firefox caches :D
Here that's all i've got
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5182/35111234.png
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9265/351106.th.jpghttp://img830.imageshack.us/img830/2665/351107.th.jpghttp://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1182/351108.th.jpghttp://img337.imageshack.us/img337/734/351109.th.jpg
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4982/351110.th.jpghttp://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4537/351102.th.jpghttp://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8774/351103.th.jpghttp://img836.imageshack.us/img836/3858/351104.th.jpghttp://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7061/351105.th.jpg
I had that card too. What's wrong with a 5770? More than 6 months ago they could have been had for as low as 130.Quote:
Originally Posted by sutyi
http://www.shopbot.ca/m/?m=radeon+5770Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
They are benching a OC EDITION 450 against a SILENT EDITION 5770 regarding performance. Lol really?
Well, according to their graph the passive 5770 is only 4 degrees hotter than the fanned 450; perhaps it overclocks really well?:p: But yeah, strange comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
don't be stupid. that 5770 is the same speed as a normal one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle