I wanted them on xbitlabs
Printable View
I wanted them on xbitlabs
its possible with tessellation. on average 32 pixels cover a triangle and thats where evergreen runs most efficiently. if its less than that then you cant use the shading power of the gpu. at the lower res with tessellation a triangle might cover <10 pixels which kills performance. if we double the res we can increase the amount of work the pixel shaders can do instead of bogging the gpu down with culling/setting up triangles and whatnot. this is why the 480 has less advantage over 5870 at higher resolutions. that my theory at least. the data doesnt lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Their 1280x800 numbers are flawed. A 5870 will do 50fps on the preview build of the stone giant demo as I mentioned before.
Thanks. I was trying to figure that out myself but what you said does make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Probably politics... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
This one I would love to hear the reasoning behind. I was actually hoping for a review from them and XBit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
It was Homeland Security that got them for hashing a terror plot using an explosives vest filled with Fermis and running into ATI headquarters and setting them off. :rofl: Who knows, it might be true! :rofl: Did I mention Charles is my hero?!? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Okay, okay kidding aside.....It was aliens!
new review GTX 470 runs @ 775/1550/1000mhz http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1268/runaway.gif
http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_38810174/tm.htm
I mean, you and i both know that If nvidia's PR doesn't like you or what you're doing or thinks that you'll definitely without a doubt write a bad review they probably won't sample you. That kinda politics. I don't know what the situation was for TR, but it probably had something to do with their attitude towards Nvidia or Fermi. Pure speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
so a 28% oc on a 470 equals a stock 480 that you can barely oc, maybe two oc'ed 470's in sli shouldn't be that bad :pQuote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
Pretty much common knowledge. It's the reason why I came up with fantastical stories. Seriously though....It's aliens! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
That is unfortunately the same with every PR person I talk to in this industry. They all have the ability to cut you off on a whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
However, I don't think that's what happened since TR and XBit were front and center for the Deep Dive briefings. :up:
Updated Hitler review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If0Bkfnifi4 :p:
you guys should actually read TR before beginning with the crazy theoriesQuote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/18681
I don't know what guys are talking about, but TR confirmed some days ago that they have cards and have done testing, it's just a matter of getting the article done.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18681
Techreport Review
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18682
Great, they have FPS over time graphs (for CoD:MW2 @ 2560x1600 only, though)! And 2GB 5870! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
And the extra GB of VRAM only seems to improve the min FPS by 1-2, that's it...
And check the load noise levels of 2GB 5870! :eek:
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gt...noise-load.gif
Yeah, unfortunately i wasn't there... even though Nvidia said it was Chief Editors only there were still some sites that had more than one person go.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
As for the reviews...
Looks like a few sites were late to the Party.
I still find it funny that our review wasn't posted even though it was posted on Launch Day.
Another reviewer who doesn't know how to review. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18682/9
Look at the frametimes for the 5870 2GB vs the 5870. Clearly the 5870 2GB is at least 3-4FPS faster on average than the 1GB model, and I am being pessimistic. How they screwed this one up this badly I will never know.
Review gets :down:
Ah well, good thing we have no limits on garbage bins.
I only asked a question, no conspiracy theories, just a straight question.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
I just check the RSS feeds for reviews, I don't read every article, but thanks for the link :p:
edit:
Which site?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Quote:
Originally Posted by damha
"To test, we played through this scene for 60 seconds while recording frame rates with FRAPS. This firefight is chaotic enough that there's really no hope of playing through it exactly the same way each time, although we did try the best we could. We conducted five play-throughs on each card and then reported the median of the average and minimum frame rate values from all five runs. The frame-by-frame results come from a single, representative test session."
Consider reading the reviews.:down:
BSN* :DQuote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
I just don't want to site pimp so i refrain from posting any links in here.
so what 480 suck ?
depends on your definition of 'suck'Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty
Oh, will check that later :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
well, from what I've gathered it sucks more power, produces more heat and only beats 5870s by 10-15% ? is it so or am I missing something ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Helloworld_98
yeah, these little things called drivers and that not everything scales well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty
although saying that, the GTX 400 series scales ridiculously well in SLI.
nah you're not missing anything, but while power consumption and heat are important parameters in the "Should I buy this card" function f(x), they are not the only parameters. How much power it takes isn't the only thing that's important about a video card. If you are one of those guys who pay little consideration to how much power a card uses, you might find that the remaining parameters make 480 actually a pretty good buy, performance - feature - price wise.
But if you do find power usage important, which many people do, then the card's attractiveness gets less and less.
5850, 5870 and even 5970 were easily recommendable to anyone with a respective budget, but GF100 looks as if it's more of a personal preference issue.
hmm should I wait till mid summer and get some 480 then or whatever revision it will be then ?
I have made a few diagrams based on ComputerBase.de review to compare GTX285, HD5870 and GTX480 graphics cards.
Test setup
CPU: Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition (overclocked via multiplier to 3.87 GHz quad-core)
Motherboard: Asus Rampage 2 Extreme (Intel X58, BIOS-Version: 1639)
Hard Disk: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB, 32 MB cache
Memory: 3x 2.048 MB Corsair DDR3-1600 (8-8-8-24)
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64
PSU Coolermaster M850 Real Power Pro Modular (850 Watt)
URL http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...itt_testsystem
Nvidia Drivers: Nvidia GeForce 195.62
GTX 400 Drivers: Nvidia GeForce 197.17
ATI Drivers: ATi Catalyst 9.11 (Dirt-2-Hotfix)
HD5870 ATi Catalyst 10.3a Preview
HD5830 ATi Catalyst 8.703_RC2
HD5670 ATi Catalyst 8.69 RC3
The diagrams are based on average FPS with optimal - in game - settings for different combinations of screen resolution, AA and AF.
The charts have the same size and max scale at 120FPS. This way, the diagrams are comparable, but on the other hand, the 1920x1200 1xAA, 1XAF chart misses the World in Conflict SA 150,3FPS FPS value.
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...0x1050_1_1.png http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...x1050_4_16.png http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...x1050_8_16.png
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...0x1200_1_1.png http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...x1200_4_16.png http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...x1200_8_16.png
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...0x1600_1_1.png http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...x1600_4_16.png http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/f...x1600_8_16.png
Nice job :up:
Would love to see the same thing done with Donanimhaber review, because I believe they are the only one with OCed HD 5870, GTX 480 and GTX 470.
pretty much what i said higher res + 8aa fermi tanks
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=0Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Quite a decent review, actually. The only thing I'm missing a bit is testing in various resolutions, but that's it.
Yeah, Raven 2 is crap, riiiiight. No wonder I love mine so much, here's the proof! :D :up:Quote:
As you can see, the difference between ATI and nVidia is only seven degrees Celsius. When we loaded the boards, the situation changed radically - in case of 3-Way SLI GeForce GTX 285 and Cooler Master's Cosmos S, the temperature went from 102/98/95C to 84/85/79C. We expected the similar case with GTX 480 and especially GTX 480 SLI. However, the boards worked in nearly identical temperatures in both cases: in Cosmos S, a single GTX 480 would heat up to 101 Celsius, while two boards would result in GPU0 heating to 105C, with GPU1 [lower board] heating to 98C. In Raven RV01, single GTX 480 would heat up to 97C. When both boards were active, GPU0 showed 97C, and GPU1 showed 88C. If you're going with a multi-GPU setup and aren't considering liquid cooling, we seriously recommend getting a Raven RV01 or RV02. In case of buying a complete system, our recommendation would go solely to MAINGEAR and system integrators that utilize Raven RV01 or RV02 chassis
Yea I think that really shows it well. Kind of sucks really if you think about it. For me, it wouldn't matter too much, I'm limited to a 22" screen. But still, it should be the other way around with the 480 . Very strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
GeForce GTX 480 Gets a BIOS Update and Cooks an Egg
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1264/1/
I know this is the same old line but...drivers play a role here also, so the numbers may change. Not drastically enough to change the overall consensus though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...gg_cooking.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
LMAO! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
bit-tech: Fermi Testing Update
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...sting-update/1
Good on bit-tech for taking the time to do that. Pretty much validates a bunch of results. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
That's very contrary to what almost all the reviews say, as the more AA the better Fermi does. However it does have issues with high resolutions (ie. 25x16) but that is supposedly a driver issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
480 is meh, GTX470 is a much better choice. Better price/performance than a 5870 (and tied with a 5850), not much more power, and scales much better in SLI than Crossfire.Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty
TBH I think the only things that make Fermi worth buying are all of Nvidia's "extra's". PhysX and usually better drivers and all of that.
here cooking an egg on 480 while benching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
'This video contains content from Vevo, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.'Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty
:(
ok try this one thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Helloworld_98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5S...x=0&playnext=1
Re-quoted for emphasis. Been saying this all along....Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
it's not nice to rickroll peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by rusty
must be the fan is running quicker for that, to keep temperatures down as the 2 gig version is relatively cool, even compared to the 1gig version :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
i suppose if they whacked on the George Foreman grill onto it, they could lower the fan speed if ATI wanted, but the additional expense probably isn't worth it in their eyes.
http://techreport.com/r.x/geforce-gtx-480/gpu-temps.gif
The 2Gb one is a Asus Matrix Radeon HD 5870 2GB with 900 MHz core and 4900 Mhz vram if anyone did not know...
Hm, so are you saying that the reference board is going to operate with less noise? Interesting, possible I guess, although I thought Asus Matrix had a better heatsink.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Agreed, it's a nice article to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
This is from HEXUS's review of 5870 EF6:
"For those that enjoy a quieter computing experience, we found the fan on the Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition hit speeds of 1,998rpm and remained relatively quiet during a session of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 at 5,040x2,100.
The CrossFire configuration - with two Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition cards in close proximity - proved to be warmer, resulting in the fans spinning up to a noisy 2,425rpm."
and here is the chart from them in their GTX 470's review:
GeForce GTX 470 2,350rpm/3,290rpm 5/3
GeForce GTX 480 2,720rpm/3,785rpm 4/2
Radeon HD 5970 2,460rpm 5
Radeon HD 5870 TOXIC 1,950rpm 7
Radeon HD 5870 2,350rpm 6
Radeon HD 5850 1,650rpm 7
___________________________________________
Radeon HD 5870 EF6 1,998rpm 7
Infrared thermography from Hardware.fr :
GTX 480 Load
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/9d844f9...9cafd5408f.jpg
GTX 470 Load
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/ad202c0...0dbdf6c0d0.jpg
HD 5870 Load
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/4f022c7...57a440664a.jpg
ATi made some serious improvements in comparison with HD 48X0 series, a really nice job :
HD 4870 Load
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/dab5ea5...ed9ad8427b.jpg
The complete test protocol can be viewed Here
Wow. Look at those HD 4800-series cards burn. Excellent tests.
lol poor psu can't get enough juice for 480
yeah but problem is we are currently looking at 58xx series :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Wow that's quite an impressive improvement on ATI's side.
Yeah, that's right ! But it's funny to see that people have (really ?) short (selective ?) memory :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
In the same site:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/193/tempsou.png
Why do you act like such an ati fanboy/troll? Simply running hot isn't a problem. It isn't a problem for HD4000 cards and it isn't a problem for GTX400. Funny how many trolls bashed the GTX2x0 cards for the same reason, when the fact of the matter was most reviews recorded higher temperatures for the HD4000 cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
You never saw any Nvidia users bashing and trolling ATI for that though, did you?
You quoted yourself "representative". It is unfortunate, but I have more and more reason to believe nvidia has a bigger hand in these reviews than many would like to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
I checked the colors on the back of the 480 and the 4870, both are the same shade, exact same color code. The quality of the image might have something to do with that though.
You can clearly see from these images just how hot the area around the 480 is. The bottom of the case is already showing colors reaching 70°C :eek:
Not too surprising to be honest, but considering that while the 4870 maybe outputting the same kind of temps in certain areas it certainly does not match the overall heat output of the 480. In fact, nothing does. Aside from 2x5970 in crossfire maybe.
The 480 has two sources of awesome heat: VRMs and GPU.
Check out the motherboard area around the gtx480... well into the 80's there. Ouch.
Correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
And to put more light onto this, here is a quote from article (seems most of you just reads graphs and not words putted in pain by authors of these graphs :shakes:) explaining situation:
Who would thought that overcloking oriented part will be tuned for best temps and not noise level :PQuote:
The GF100 cards' higher power draw numbers translate pretty directly into higher noise level readings on our meter. In spite of some slick engineering in the GTX 480's cooler, the card is quite a bit noisier than a stock Radeon HD 5870. The only single-GPU solution that's louder is Asus' overclocking-oriented Matrix 5870 2GB, which is tuned to keep temperatures down.
i didn't like 4xxx series for that reason and i didn't buy em gtx 280 wasn't that different either and i remember it hitting 105 C. To sum up i don't like high temperatures already experienced god awfull 8800ultra and know how ugly it gets on summer nothing to do with me being fanboy or anything. Now currently we are comparing 58xx to fermi right ? why bringing 48xx series ? whats the point its already eoled 48xx series had great price/performance ratio and seems people ignored high temperatures for that but it didn't change the fact that they were hot and unclockable cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
thats psu :ROTF: it gets hot cause of 480 demanding too much power imhoQuote:
Originally Posted by damha
Don't think so buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/787-...x-480-470.html
Look at the images where the card is idling. You would see heat if the powersupply was at the bottom.
Good try, but the GTX480 will still almost set your case on fire :up:
all i know is that I want a 470 for the price performance in dx11 games and 3d features, BUT, I'll wait for better cooling solutions
I dont know if its some kind of techno fetish but I don't feel any comfortable with any 90+C components inside me case, simply makes me feel uncomfortable, A LOT
The issue is really MINIMUM frame rates.
I don't care if your maximum frame rate is 80 if your minimum is 12.
I just read an article summing up the reviews for GTX480 and although it is not that much faster than 5870 at maximum frame rate, the article said on average, minimum frame rates are 38% higher with GTX480.
The article said too that ATI/AMD has had 6 months to optimize their driver up to 10.3 and that we should see dramtaic performance gains as Nvidia is given the same chance to improve their drivers - giving as much as 10% additional boost.
I am still on the fence which card to buy, but AMD/ATI not lowering prices after 6 months makes me not so excited about them.
It seems for the same price Nvidia GTX480 gives more upside potential in the future.
I may also wait for 512sp version with better clocks and thermals GTX485 or whatever they will call it.
I would have bought ATI but no price drop = fail when you are in 2nd place.
The whole "hot" card thing is way overblown by fanboys, just put watercooling on it and its silent plus you get overclock and super cool temps.
Wouldn't you have to remove the backing cover on the 5870 to get a clear picture of the pcb thermals.
Well you are in a small minority. Now you might get a large bandwagon of ATI users who say they are in the same boat as you, but 90% of them clearly are not as they own or used to own HD4000 cards, and are just jumping on a chance for some hearty Nvidia bashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
What a huge difference :D looks like Unique 2.0 was essential for review point of view...Quote:
Originally Posted by Circaflex
that is an interesting point, around a cars exhaust theres a heat shield which prevents temperature sensitive things to not be affected by the 1000 degree heat along the exhaust. so that plate could be good at blocking heat from going into the case, by letting the card be a few degrees warmer. it could be a double edged sword and some people might prefer it, or take it off to let the card be a hair cooler if their case has good flow. or its really not that much of an effect on anything and your right it could hide true values.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
love those graphs :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Circaflex
lol i didnt notice it until just now. i thought it was 3x faster, i feel like such a fool, and its not even tomorrow yetQuote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
interesting wonder is it cause of high res or lower tess levelQuote:
Originally Posted by Circaflex
Lol, that's awesome (this is a joke, right?). 3x bigger bar for 0.1 FPS increase :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Circaflex
I've gotta admit, thats gotta be one of the most ridiculous and embarassing review graphs ever.
dama is correct here and I believe the tests are completely faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by damha
480 shows 97.6C with which heat also found at the bottom of the case close to 70C according to the graph
470 shows 92.9C with heat at the bottom of the case close to 60C
4870 shows 107.8C with little heat at the bottom of the case. This either shows that the test conducted is faulty or some fan (somewhere) wasn't working at the time the test was done. The same goes for the 4850 with their temps.
5870 shows 86.7C with some heat at the bottom of the case around 50C.
So what we have is completely useless results showing lower C temps making more of impact of the PC case then higher C temps. This makes the results invalid IMO.
That graph from ABT really makes one wonder how certain people get cards....
I really hope it's a joke... April 1rst review:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
SERIOUSLY. I was gonna say...Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Blowjobs? hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16475&page=19Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
"Look very carefully at the next graph and see if you can spot what is wrong:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-co...Heaven_251.jpg
Heaven 251 NVIDIAs GTX 480 Performance TestingWow! If you look at the
graph it looks like a lot, but there is only 0.1 FPS difference!! Beware of just
looking at the graph. Our HD 5870 can can keep up with the GTX 480 at the
maximum resolution in Heaven benchmark."
Context boys, context... :shakes:
Uh, i don't think it was there before.Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal_fantasy
Also... i think they could have easily changed that graph's scaling if they wanted to... but chose not to.
WHOA! BEWARE OF THE GRAPH!
Lets get real, how many people are going to link to that graph or just glance over it without reading the text? LOTS.
Also, notice how its bold and bigger than all of the other text? clearly looks like an edit and that they're trying to save face.
Anyone who uses Excel graphs knows perfectly well that they used a very very small scale when they could have used a scale of 1 or 5 they used a scale of .05 when talking about 25 FPS. Still sound fishy?
i think its just bad we were shown a graph with no context and had nothing telling us to be careful, but on their site that page was all about odd graphs, and honestly, thats damn fine cause it shows who reads, and who likes pretty colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Asus' Matrix is clocked at 894MHz/4800MHzQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I wonder why Asus left the memory at stock speed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Not defending them or anything... Just found the graph so ridiculous I had to take a look at the source myself, then found the quoted section. And to me it seem that the original graph quote was out of context, and the subsequent comments directed at said quote were misguided.
I don't really care if there was a disclaimer for that graph, its all types of funky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.p...=33591&catid=2Quote:
EVGA claims great temperatures for its watercooled GeForce GTX 4x0 cards
o hype up its GeForce GTX 480 and GTX 470 Hydro Copper cards, EVGA has provided some pictures of the waterblock they use and offered some temperature results that are really enticing. According to EVGA, the maximum recorded GPU temperature on the stock GTX 470 was of 83 degrees Celsius, while the Hydro Copper model only reached 38 degrees. As for the GTX 480, the reference model went up to 95 degrees but the watercooled card topped 49 degrees Celsius. No details were given out regarding the configuration used for testing but even so, the numbers look very good.
The GeForce GTX 470 Hydro Copper FTW features GPU/shader/memory clocks of 650/1300/3402 MHz and costs $500, while the GTX 480 Hydro Copper FTW comes with 750/1500/3800 MHz frequencies and a $650 price tag.
The configuration was a 3x120 rad with both the cpu and video card in the same loop. Vregs are not cooled by the block however, only have a heatsink on those...
Temperatures better be great for a watercooled card/ :rotf:
They did use a heatpipe to the block which should help to move the heat away and to the block.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
That GTX480 thermal pic kind of concerns me, notice the power connector temperatures?
and how about the benchies conducted at "1920x1600" and "1650x1080" :rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
On nVidia siteQuote:
We wanted to let you know that we’ve also heard your concerns about GTX 480 with respect to power and heat. When you build a high performance GPU like the GTX 480 it will consume a lot of power to enable the performance and features I listed above. It was a tradeoff for us, but we wanted it to be fast. The chip is designed to run at high temperature so there is no effect on quality or longevity. We think the tradeoff is right.
The GF100 architecture is great and we think the right one for the next generation of gaming. The GTX 480 is the performance leader with the GTX 470 being a great combination of performance and price.
As always, we hope that you enjoy our new products and let us know what you think. We built them for you.
I'm on the boat of wanting stuff that uses less & less power while still doing a good job, both nvidia & ati were doing an OK job at that but now....nvidia did the exact opposite. I also don't care that previous ati cards had the same problem. To me that's not relevant anymore because if ati can fix it, nvidia should be able to fix it, heck they had enough :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
To me it sounds like they went with a bad idea and are trying to sell it.
Cards use a lot more power than latest ati cards but the difference in performance isn't that big, not pleased, I was going to think about getting one for me and putting my card in gf's pc but i'll stick with one card.
Charts updated. Added HD5970 and dirt2-DX11 results.
Something around 50-60c? Not much at all. Unless I misunderstand your idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternal_fantasy
A graph shouldn't need context like that to explain why it is so out of wack.
I have a 4870, I can tell you that the VRMs boil with a mild OC. But the 4870 stock cooler is quite good at extracting removing the heat just not at the back of the card. And because there isn't a lot of it, the surface area of the heat is quite small, I do believe these results somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Thanks for those. Although a few results don't match what we have seen from other reviewers, still nice to look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marios
I think that is quite high when compared to other video cards. They are made of plastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
If you didn't have the same problem with the HD4000 cards then you have no room to talk, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahmer
So just because I never had an HD4000 card I can't complain about GTX470 & 480 sucking power?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
Double precision point of view is http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/s...&postcount=769