GTX 480 and GTX 470 Reviews

[annihilat0r]

Man that review is weird. The charts and results are extremely in favour of the gtx 480, however the writing seems like its trying to say the opposite.

"The GeForce GTX 480 is indeed the fastest single-GPU graphics card, being an average 28-33% faster than the ex-leader Radeon HD 5870. In some games, the GF100 GPU enjoys a 50% and larger advantage over the RV870. However, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 comes from a higher price category, so the difference in performance should not be wondered at."

I think the 100 dollar price difference is well worth it if we ignore power, since your getting more than a 25% performance improvement on average meaning the gtx 480 is greater bang for your buck, if just barely.

"If we don’t separate gaming graphics cards into single- and multi-GPU ones, the Radeon HD 5970 still remains the king of the hill. The GeForce GTX 480 cannot match it, especially at 2560x1600. Here are the numbers: the GeForce GTX 480 is an average 3% slower at 1600x900, 9% slower at 1920x1080 and as much as 22% slower at 2560x1600."

It strange they don't make the same price comparison with the 5970 really. When you consider most people game on 1920*1080 monitors and the 9% sacrifice seems pretty small when you consider you save a hundred dollars(more so because even they admit the 5870 cost more than 599) and you don't need to deal with dual card problems.

It looks like the gtx 480 is the best card in that review in terms of bang for your buck and performance.

I was about to post the same thing. In that review the 480 is nearly equal to 5970 on avg fps in 1680 and 1920 res, and much faster than it in min FPS, all the while being $200 cheaper, yet the guy always talks about the 2560 resolution and how bad Fermi's do at that res.

That review puts the 480 at 30% faster than the 5870 in avg. FPS (in min FPS it's ridiculously better) at only a $100 price premium. It also makes the 470 faster than 5870 in everything but 2560x while being $50 cheaper.

I don't really find this review to be very believable, I'm sure they screwed something up with their numbers. And it looks as if they tried to "balance" these ridiculous numbers with being biased in favor of ATI in their commentary.

[RSC]

These 197.41 drivers are already pushing the GTX470 to the level of the 5870... In little time the GTX470 will have passed the 5870. Now all we have to do is wait for non reference coolers...

[cegras]

Man that review is weird. The charts and results are extremely in favour of the gtx 480, however the writing seems like its trying to say the opposite.

"The GeForce GTX 480 is indeed the fastest single-GPU graphics card, being an average 28-33% faster than the ex-leader Radeon HD 5870. In some games, the GF100 GPU enjoys a 50% and larger advantage over the RV870. However, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 comes from a higher price category, so the difference in performance should not be wondered at."

I think the 100 dollar price difference is well worth it if we ignore power, since your getting more than a 25% performance improvement on average meaning the gtx 480 is greater bang for your buck, if just barely.

"If we don’t separate gaming graphics cards into single- and multi-GPU ones, the Radeon HD 5970 still remains the king of the hill. The GeForce GTX 480 cannot match it, especially at 2560x1600. Here are the numbers: the GeForce GTX 480 is an average 3% slower at 1600x900, 9% slower at 1920x1080 and as much as 22% slower at 2560x1600."

It strange they don't make the same price comparison with the 5970 really. When you consider most people game on 1920*1080 monitors and the 9% sacrifice seems pretty small when you consider you save a hundred dollars(more so because even they admit the 5870 cost more than 599) and you don't need to deal with dual card problems.

It looks like the gtx 480 is the best card in that review in terms of bang for your buck and performance.

So what you're doing is taking the price metric, applying it where it's convenient for you, ignoring power (let's ignore everything that it's not good at), then you say it's the best for performance (erroneous).

Massaging data is great.

[tajoh111]

So what you're doing is taking the price metric, applying it where it's convenient for you, ignoring power (let's ignore everything that it's not good at), then you say it's the best for performance (erroneous).

Massaging data is great.

I am not even close to doing that, I have made it pretty clear in the past, the power consumption the gtx 480 is attrocious and piss poor and a serious draw back.

I think its rather the article itself that taking in account the price/performance ratio and applying it when it convenient. Compared to the 5970 in this case, it seems like the superior value as it offers 90 percent of the performance at 1920*1080 but at being 200 dollars cheaper and being a single chip, seems like the better card.

The writing in the article is simply poor if you look at the results in the graphs of the article.

[trinibwoy]

Xbitlabs' writing is usually poor. They usually throw out random explanations for results like "poor drivers", "insufficient texture units" at whim when all they're doing is wildly guessing. I wouldn't take it on too much, just look at the graphs.

[cegras]

I am not even close to doing that, I have made it pretty clear in the past, the power consumption the gtx 480 is attrocious and piss poor and a serious draw back.

I think its rather the article itself that taking in account the price/performance ratio and applying it when it convenient. Compared to the 5970 in this case, it seems like the superior value as it offers 90 percent of the performance at 1920*1080 but at being 200 dollars cheaper and being a single chip, seems like the better card.

The writing in the article is simply poor if you look at the results in the graphs of the article.

Yeah, but ignoring metrics is not very helpful to the discussion, you need to consider things as a whole. Although technically 100 extra watts isn't a lot over the course of time, that's still not an excuse.

[SKYMTL]

These 197.41 drivers are already pushing the GTX470 to the level of the 5870... In little time the GTX470 will have passed the 5870. Now all we have to do is wait for non reference coolers...

The 197.41 drivers add no performance improvements in either single or SLI. They are simply the WHQL version of the original beta drivers.

[Marios]

197.17 and 197.41 are the same drivers (except WHQL)?

[SKYMTL]

197.17 and 197.41 are the same drivers (except WHQL)?

From what I can see, yes. Even the "new" PhysX software version (9.10.0129) in the WHQLs is the same version as the betas handed out to reviewers.

[onethreehill]

GeForce GTX 480 liquid cooling Danger Den review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...r-den-review/1

[insurgent]

Video card prices aren't going down yet.. WTF is happening? >_<

[Helloworld_98]

Video card prices aren't going down yet.. WTF is happening? >_<

using TSMC is costing them too much I guess

[insurgent]

using TSMC is costing them too much I guess

You mean ATI? The 5800s have been out for more than 6 months, I was thinking a refresh and price cuts are in order.. well maybe the 460/465 would be a better choice when new cards come out.

[xdan]

What price cut...., You see there are all the same Ati and Nvidia , when they have advantage none will cut the price.
Ati had and has advange on Nivida because they cover all segements with DX11, the have good competition for both GTX 470 and GTX 480, so why to cut prices.
I expect some small cuts from Nvidia when the yelds will raise, but this will be june/july.

[Helloworld_98]

You mean ATI? The 5800s have been out for more than 6 months, I was thinking a refresh and price cuts are in order.. well maybe the 460/465 would be a better choice when new cards come out.

I meant nvidia,

for ATi there's that the price is competitive as it is, so they'll only drop prices when GTX 470/80 does.

[annihilat0r]

GTX 470 and 480's prices are very good. They don't need to go down (from their current MSRP) further to be competitive.

[bamtan2]

GeForce GTX 480 liquid cooling Danger Den review
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...r-den-review/1

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-den-review/10

Why aren't these geniuses comparing overclocked 5870 to overclocked 480. Are they really that ignorant? Apples to pears.

[RSC]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-den-review/10

Why aren't these geniuses comparing overclocked 5870 to overclocked 480. Are they really that ignorant? Apples to pears.

They are comparing the GTX480 watercooled with OC to the regular GTX480 and to the 5870. What's wrong with that?

[japamd]

GTX 470 and 480's prices are very good. They don't need to go down (from their current MSRP) further to be competitive.

Unless the competition lower their prices, and they will, soon or later. I think they're just waiting to see if GTX 400 availability will remain good after a few weeks.

[damha]

They are comparing the GTX480 watercooled with OC to the regular GTX480 and to the 5870. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it at all, if you don't care about how an overclocked 5870 performs. Meaning, its annoying.

[annihilat0r]

Nothing wrong with it at all, if you don't care about how an overclocked 5870 performs. Meaning, its annoying.

and how much should they overclock the 5870? should they add a waterblock on it too to make the "apples to apples" comparison?

[eric66]

Man that review is weird. The charts and results are extremely in favour of the gtx 480, however the writing seems like its trying to say the opposite.

"The GeForce GTX 480 is indeed the fastest single-GPU graphics card, being an average 28-33% faster than the ex-leader Radeon HD 5870. In some games, the GF100 GPU enjoys a 50% and larger advantage over the RV870. However, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 comes from a higher price category, so the difference in performance should not be wondered at."

I think the 100 dollar price difference is well worth it if we ignore power, since your getting more than a 25% performance improvement on average meaning the gtx 480 is greater bang for your buck, if just barely.

"If we don’t separate gaming graphics cards into single- and multi-GPU ones, the Radeon HD 5970 still remains the king of the hill. The GeForce GTX 480 cannot match it, especially at 2560x1600. Here are the numbers: the GeForce GTX 480 is an average 3% slower at 1600x900, 9% slower at 1920x1080 and as much as 22% slower at 2560x1600."

It strange they don't make the same price comparison with the 5970 really. When you consider most people game on 1920*1080 monitors and the 9% sacrifice seems pretty small when you consider you save a hundred dollars(more so because even they admit the 5870 cost more than 599) and you don't need to deal with dual card problems.

It looks like the gtx 480 is the best card in that review in terms of bang for your buck and performance.

there is only 2 logical explanation to this f up review first nvidia paid well for rehash sec bit tech is one lame site cause there isn't any performance improvements with new drivers and seems they are pulling numbers from there bottocks and i love how nvidia fans got excited even they don't see those improvements in there own rig thats hilarious

[damha]

and how much should they overclock the 5870? should they add a waterblock on it too to make the "apples to apples" comparison?

No, I'd say put the 5870 under dry ice so we get a sense of how much faster a 5870 can be.

[annihilat0r]

No, I'd say put the 5870 under dry ice so we get a sense of how much faster a 5870 can be.

or maybe add another 5870 and failing to mention it

[tajoh111]

there is only 2 logical explanation to this f up review first nvidia paid well for rehash sec bit tech is one lame site cause there isn't any performance improvements with new drivers and seems they are pulling numbers from there bottocks and i love how nvidia fans got excited even they don't see those improvements in there own rig thats hilarious

I thought most people loved xbitlabs reviews. I don't think they paid anyone off with the tone of the writing in that review.