GTX 470 vs GTX 480 vs 5870 vs 5850

[builderbobftw]

See you're proble, is comparing the Eletric use of the GTX 470 to the 5870, instead of the 5850, the card it performs most like.

 

[builderbobftw]

oh, and .17C per Kw.

 

[AMW1011]

See you're proble, is comparing the Eletric use of the GTX 470 to the 5870, instead of the 5850, the card it performs most like.

No, given more mature drivers and its advantage in heavy tessellation, it is closer to the 5870 than the 5850. Right now, it is right between, but it will gain on the 5870 in time.

 

[sabot00]

Well you yourself said FurMark doesn't matter, since it's not a game.
So here's Crysis:

You pegged the delta between the GTX 470 and 5870 at 40W, while it's actually 89W.

 

[sabot00]

No, given more mature drivers and its advantage in heavy tessellation, it is closer to the 5870 than the 5850. Right now, it is right between, but it will gain on the 5870 in time.

Objective arguments are based on what IS happening, not what CAN happen, as you saw with the release of Cat 10.3 even 6 months after the release there were still huge gains to be had, so I could argue the 5870's driver potential is just as great.

 

[AMW1011]

Objective arguments are based on what IS happening, not what CAN happen, as you saw with the release of Cat 10.3 even 6 months after the release there were still huge gains to be had, so I could argue the 5870's driver potential is just as great.

I could argue that the GTX 480 will play Crysis 2 at twice the framerates that a 5970 will, but thats just as useless.

If you want to paint everything in a light that just reflects your bias, then fine.

It is generally accepted that release day cards gain performance from better drivers, up to 5-10% within a few months of release. ATI has had 6 months.

Your right I'm guessing, but it is an educated guess based on history. It is extremely likely that the GTX 4xx cards that just came out will gain 5-10% more performance than the 5xxx series with driver updates, there are no reasons to think otherwise while all evidence supports it as does history. I know this, you know this, so what is the problem?

 

[sabot00]

I could argue that the GTX 480 will play Crysis 2 at twice the framerates that a 5970 will, but thats just as useless.

If you want to paint everything in a light that just reflects your bias, then fine.

It is generally accepted that release day cards gain performance from better drivers, up to 5-10% within a few months of release. ATI has had 6 months.

Your right I'm guessing, but it is an educated guess based on history. It is extremely likely that the GTX 4xx cards that just came out will gain 5-10% more performance than the 5xxx series with driver updates, there are no reasons to think otherwise while all evidence supports it as does history. I know this, you know this, so what is the problem?

Everyone expected the 5830 to have huge performance/price, I was one of the few who said don't recommend cards that aren't here yet.
As it turns out the 5830 failed, so did the 8600GT when everyone expected 64 cores.

The only thing that history confirms is that the future is unpredictable.

 

[AMW1011]

Well you yourself said FurMark doesn't matter, since it's not a game.
So here's Crysis:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/nvidiageforcegtx480launch_032610115215/22204.png
You pegged the delta between the GTX 470 and 5870 at 40W, while it's actually 89W.

Mathfail, 366-319 = 47 so Delta 47w in Crysis.

Delta is 30w here. Using the 3dmark benchmark

Delta is 50w here using the Furmark benchmark that squeezes the most out of a video card.

30+50+47 = 127 / 3 = 42.33

Happy now?

 

[AMW1011]

Everyone expected the 5830 to have huge performance/price, I was one of the few who said don't recommend cards that aren't here yet.
As it turns out the 5830 failed, so did the 8600GT when everyone expected 64 cores.

The only thing that history confirms is that the future is unpredictable.

That has nothing to do with the progressive nature of drivers, stop deflecting.

Everyone thought the Persians would defeat the Athenians at the battle of Marathon, but that didn't happen. Does that have any reflection on the progression of drivers?

 

[eyefinity]

nVidia has had cards to work on drivers for over six months - these aren't new cards in those terms.

 

[AMW1011]

nVidia has had cards to work on drivers for over six months - these aren't new cards in those terms.

If nVidia was lucky, they had since November. They likely had even less time, that's 4 months max. It took 6 months for ATI to release the 10.3 drivers.

 

[notty22]

nVidia has had cards to work on drivers for over six months - these aren't new cards in those terms.

This is desperate. So Fermi is not a new card, its just a new card. Nvidia does internal testing, quality control , debugging,driver development and your saying ATI doe not. Maybe that explains the 2d situation , grey sreening, flickering etc.

 

[Rustyy117]

IMO the GTX470 isn't a bad buy depending on where you live.

If you live in the UK its terrible as its £320 where as a HD5850 is £220, not worth the 10% performance increase when you factor is the extra heat and power usage aswell

Same applies for the GTX480, just too expensive. Its a shame because people wanted a price war and now that looks unlikely.

 

[eyefinity]

This is desperate. So Fermi is not a new card, its just a new card. Nvidia does internal testing, quality control , debugging,driver development and your saying ATI doe not. Maybe that explains the 2d situation , grey sreening, flickering etc.

What I'm saying is don't expect miracles from future driver releases. nVidia will have been bursting their balls to get the very best result they could for Friday, that's why they released a new driver not so long ago.

 

[AMW1011]

What I'm saying is don't expect miracles from future driver releases. nVidia will have been bursting their balls to get the very best result they could for Friday, that's why they released a new driver not so long ago.

5-10% is far from a miracle.

 

[builderbobftw]

They need 10% to make the GTX 470 a good buy compare dto the 5850. (280$, or 310$ with a free 60$ game)

 

[majesticlizard]

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised with the GTX 480 and GTX 470. Sort of like being pleasantly surprised that a building hit by a tornado was at least not occupied. They did actually get released. They aren't actually slower than the earlier generation. So far the test units did not catch on fire and kill or irradiate anyone. The worst thing about them is that they run too hot. I read that 480 runs at around 95 C on a load. 100 C is the boiling point of water. There is no way a product can run at that temperature and have a decent lifespan. If I were to get a GTX480 I would also have to invest in a water cooling system, a hidden cost that would void the warranty. Not cool.

My GTX295 (which I purchased at less than $300 as it was an allegedly defective return) only runs at 66 to 70 on a load and around 41 to 44 Idle. Of course I have a ton of fans in my system and replaced the internal thermal compound with Arctic Silver. I've never had good experience with CPU's or GPU's that run hot. I like my parts to live a long time. So far, I have seen nothing to encourage me to invest in a GTX480 or GTX470. The silliest thing about them is that some are apparently designed to be overclocked. But that would raise the temperatures! I would imagine that if you have something in your PC that runs at the boiling point of water whenever you open a web browser or play a game, it would warp the PCB and cause caps to pop.

I think there is a little bit of bias against Nvidia, but it is understandable due to the consistently bad decisions the company has been making. Their CEO tends to attempt political solutions for technological problems. They successfully fought against the adoption of many of the DX11 standards that were originally part of DX10, and they didn't invest R&D into making sure they had mastered those technologies so that when DX11 came out they would have something ready.

 

[sabot00]

Personally, I was pleasantly surprised with the GTX 480 and GTX 470. Sort of like being pleasantly surprised that a building hit by a tornado was at least not occupied. They did actually get released. They aren't actually slower than the earlier generation. So far the test units did not catch on fire and kill or irradiate anyone. The worst thing about them is that they run too hot. I read that 480 runs at around 95 C on a load. 100 C is the boiling point of water. There is no way a product can run at that temperature and have a decent lifespan. If I were to get a GTX480 I would also have to invest in a water cooling system, a hidden cost that would void the warranty. Not cool.

My GTX295 (which I purchased at less than $300 as it was an allegedly defective return) only runs at 66 to 70 on a load and around 41 to 44 Idle. Of course I have a ton of fans in my system and replaced the internal thermal compound with Arctic Silver. I've never had good experience with CPU's or GPU's that run hot. I like my parts to live a long time. So far, I have seen nothing to encourage me to invest in a GTX480 or GTX470. The silliest thing about them is that some are apparently designed to be overclocked. But that would raise the temperatures! I would imagine that if you have something in your PC that runs at the boiling point of water whenever you open a web browser or play a game, it would warp the PCB and cause caps to pop.

I think there is a little bit of bias against Nvidia, but it is understandable due to the consistently bad decisions the company has been making. Their CEO tends to attempt political solutions for technological problems. They successfully fought against the adoption of many of the DX11 standards that were originally part of DX10, and they didn't invest R&D into making sure they had mastered those technologies so that when DX11 came out they would have something ready.

To me the GTX 470 is better, but the GTX 480 has a huge radiator that's exposed to the case at 95C, that's really going to affect the ambient even with something like 4 x 120mm fans.

 

[builderbobftw]

I think everybody here can agree that the GTX 470 has more poetential than the GTX 480, the 480 is just to close to the 5970 in price.

 

[AMW1011]

They need 10% to make the GTX 470 a good buy compare dto the 5850. (280$, or 310$ with a free 60$ game)

WTF...

10% would make it tied with the 5870, still having the extra 10-20% or more over the 5870 with heavy tessellation and it would cost $70 less. How the hell do you get that it can only compete at that point? At that point it is raping the 5870. It competes with the 5870 not the 5850, why don't you get that?

The 5850 is the best card for the money, nothing above that is worth it including the 5870, GTX 480, or 5970. However, if you can get 5870 performance plus an advantage with tessellation for only $50 (not counting a weekend special deal like you are), then I call that a decent value, but still not as good as a 5850 or dual 5770s.

 

[builderbobftw]

It uses a sh@tload of power, produces massive amounts of heat, and we don't k now pricing yet. If you want to call the GTX 470 350$, I want to call the 5850 250$.

And Fermi card are like factory overclocked, you can't overclock them any more withou turning the fan to 100%, and gettign 100C temps.

The Fermi cards are just factory overclocked 5850s 5870s with insane power draws and a high, high price.

 

[majesticlizard]

...we don't k now pricing yet. If you want to call the GTX 470 350$, I want to call the 5850 250$...

The cheapest price on most sites, like Newegg, for the GTX470 is $350. The cheapest price for the HD 5850 on newegg is is $280.

What I would like to see are some credible benchmarks that show that the 470 is faster than the 5850. I've just not see that. From what I've seen its actually slower. Maybe I missed something. Links would be nice though.

I don't think the Fermi cards are factory overclocked. I think their problem is that useless features of their architecture that were originally intended for non-consumer uses (ECC) require a bit more horsepower per clock cycle. There are some super-clocked versions already being put out that are significantly faster than the stock 480; a water cooled one by EVGA even.

 

[AMW1011]

It uses a sh@tload of power, produces massive amounts of heat, and we don't k now pricing yet. If you want to call the GTX 470 350$, I want to call the 5850 250$.

And Fermi card are like factory overclocked, you can't overclock them any more withou turning the fan to 100%, and gettign 100C temps.

The Fermi cards are just factory overclocked 5850s 5870s with insane power draws and a high, high price.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/30321-nvidia-geforce-gtx-470-review-31.html

Overclocking Results

In order to overclock our GTX 470, we used EVGA’s new GTX 400-series Precision tool while stress testing was done using the upcoming EVGA OC Scanner that provides an artifact scanner. If an overclock passed 30 minutes of artifact scanning, it was considered stable. Fan speed was set to 70% for the duration of these tests.

Also note that the fixed function stage clock (core clock) is directly linked to the speed of the processor clock (CUDA cores / shaders) and as such, you cannot overclock each one individually as you could do on the GT200 series. Basically, the fixed function clock is ½ that of the processor clock.

Final Overclocks:

Core: 721Mhz
Processors: 1442Mhz
Memory: 3974Mhz (QDR)

Our GTX 470 sample simply overclocked like the dickens and screamed its way past the clock speeds used on a stock GTX 480. The memory speeds also saw a significant increase with full stability. Considering the perceived limitations of the architecture, these clock speeds on a lower-end part are simply stunning in our opinion.

Try to base your points off of fact, it helps.

 

[successful_troll]

too many annoying fanboys here...

 

[builderbobftw]

...we don't k now pricing yet. If you want to call the GTX 470 350$, I want to call the 5850 250$...

The cheapest price on most sites, like Newegg, for the GTX470 is $350. The cheapest price for the HD 5850 on newegg is is $280.

What I would like to see are some credible benchmarks that show that the 470 is faster than the 5850. I've just not see that. From what I've seen its actually slower. Maybe I missed something. Links would be nice though.

I don't think the Fermi cards are factory overclocked. I think their problem is that useless features of their architecture that were originally intended for non-consumer uses (ECC) require a bit more horsepower per clock cycle. There are some super-clocked versions already being put out that are significantly faster than the stock 480; a water cooled one by EVGA even.

Can you show me any Fermi cards for reatil prices?

thought so....