Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 Review: Fermi Arrives

Okay I am going to do it, why I am not sure but I am. SiliconDoc your posts are extremely bias and quite inaccurate/misleading whatever you want to call it. It’s clear for whatever reason you hate ATI and would do anything for Nvidia, including taking time out of your day to make silly posts on forums to try and deter potential ATI buyers. I think we need to sit down and work out what it is that ATI did to hurt you but before you do that here is my 2c worth on your comments.

First of all no one is “whining” or “crying” they are simply stating facts and their own personal opinions which they are entitled to and you are as well. Unless of course that opinion is to attack other reads without first being provoked which you weren’t.

The PCI Express bus specification is irrelevant and I am sure most readers do not care if it is 300 watts to 3000 watts. The fact is a single GPU graphics card that uses as much power as the GeForce GTX 480 is ridiculous.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a 600 watt power supply and gamers will have no problem with a Core i5 750 platform and a Radeon HD 5850 with a 600 watt power supply. Both components are extremely power efficient as they should be.

“Next, some person cried about "melted cables" - gee - the cards have heatsinks and plastic shrouds - not like you can stick your tongue on 95C die substrate (ALTHOUGH it looks like some whiners might, just so they could wail an nvidia card burned them).”

I ask you, have you tried to remove a GeForce GTX 480 from a system just after it has been doing some 3D work? Have you touched the metal plate on the graphics card while it is in operation? If not then you have no right to make the above comments, this product can very easily burn you if not carful. We are not talking serious burns but it is bloody hard to handle after being used.

“Enough of the crybabying, the 4870X2 uses as much and more power, and you same people never had a big fat piglet over that. In fact you couldn't stop screaming how wonderful it was- and still cream about how good it is.”

The Radeon HD 4870 X2 is an obsolete product that is well over a year old so no one would expect it to proved the same efficiency as today’s graphics cards. Why on god’s green earth are you comparing old tech? Why not the Radeon HD 5970 which we admit is a power pig anyway? Not to mention the Radeon HD 4870 X2 is a dual-GPU graphics card and should only be compared to a GeForce GTX 480 SLI configuration if you were to make such an obscure comparison.

“You can't afford the 480, nor the 470, your crybaby eyes can't pay the extra buck or two a month to burn a 100 watt lightbulb 24/7.”

Well enough said really, that immature comment needs no rebuttal.

Moving on to your comments about the Radeon HD 5770 Crossfire configuration … Now I do totally agree that Crossfire and all multi-GPU configurations for that matter are far from perfect. However if you look at how well the Radeon HD 5770 Crossfire cards scaled in the review it is hard to argue with those results.

However you are completely wrong about your power and thermal comments. The Radeon HD 5770 Crossfire setup is not only far more power friendly when compared to the GeForce GTX 470 it is also much cooler and easier to manage. Not to mention a pair of Radeon HD 5770 Crossfire cards will crush the GeForce GTX 470.

That’s about all I have to say about your comments really. As for all the gibberish about the crashing and drivers well I am leaving that. Over the past year we have found the ATI Catalyst drivers to be very good and certainly comparable to Nvidia’s. Both companies have their fair share of problems and nothing will change here. As for cards dying both companies will suffer from defects and nothing will change their either.

Since the release of the Radeon HD 5000 series I have owned over a dozen cards while several friends own Radeon HD 5870 cards and have never had any problems with reliability. Again not all cards are going to be perfect as there are always a certain percentage of defective products that do ship and this is the same whether it is a Radeon or GeForce graphics card.

Hahahaha!!! I LAUGH AT YOU FERMI LOVERS!

All that time reading "Wait till Fermi comes" "Oh yes AMD enjoy it while you can!"... it took a long time for it to come and... wait! AMD still has the lead!

Loving it!

Hi, This card is bleeding edge since it will use and incorporate 3d stereo, 3d surround and ultra high def high framerates. Nvidia can control the watts and heat from their drivers making games run faster and stable with less than the 250 max watts www.nvida.com says it only needs.

Wait a minute thats not actually true, this is the single fastest graphics card out, how is AMD still in the lead?

No idea about that one either

"GTX 480 is about 10% faster than the HD 5870 in average framerates but gets 20% better minimums framerates."

The above was a quote from various review sites on this card. Even techspot bench marks prove the above quote true as well.

Now I have usually used Nvidia cards, I have owned ATI's in the past. to me, this card does seemed to be the most powerful out there?

I have read the posts from "SiliconDoc" and he makes a point about the 4870 X2 taking the same if not more power than the GTX480.

I did some googling into this and infact he is right yet when you go looking into reviews about that graphics card it was put as "taking a lot of power" but never really dismissed as a "stupid" power hogging graphics card like the GTX480 has been.

I know its old tech but same holds true to PSU in those days. PSU's could not sustain the power as well in those days as they can today.

So what i'm trying to say is, YES, this is a power hog but when you take everything into account, its not really, it just hasn't kept up with the efficiency of ATI's cards, but again, its more of users choice. would you prefer a card which takes less power but suffers in FPS or would that extra £10 a year on your electric bill really hurt?

The price difference for the slim performance improvement in SOME games, for the power***** it is and how heat non-efficient... AMD still has the lead!

*edited by LNCPapa

Well, -Steve- said most of what I was thinking, but this one I've got to take issue with. Unless you are talking about the old discontinued and unsupported PhysX processor cards, that statement makes absolutely no sense. nVidia owns PhysX outright, and all of the PhysX code is embedded in the nVidia driver architecture. Last I heard (and there were plenty of discussions regarding this little gem) it was nVidia who is blocking PhysX from working on anything but a pure nVidia graphics system. They had removed any option of running PhysX on a mixed nVidia/ATi GPU configuration, to help protect their marketshare by keeping their proprietary PhysX code from working on systems that don't fill their coffers. Completely understandable and smart (if a tad slimy) business tactics... But last I heard, it was ALL on nVidia there, SiliconDoc...

Unless this changed somewhere down the line and I completely missed it? Corrections anyone?

I'm not thinking you are a blind fanboy, Burty... But you are falling into the lovely little logic trap that fanboys love to throw into the mix. Fact is, the "power hungry" debate was being lost by nVidia fanatics, so they throw out that the 5870x2 is a power hog too. Classic misdirection, defend yourself by trying to throw the competition under the bus. But, you see, this argument is completely irrelevant. You are comparing a single GPU card to a dual GPU card. Of COURSE the dual GPU card runs hot and pulls more power - it is expected to, and if it can run at something under twice the power and heat specs of the single GPU variant of the same card, it's considered a qualified success. So, tell me, what would a dual GPU version of that 480 run? Based on the specs of the single GPU unit now, it would probably melt down all but the liquid cooled PCs. But, until a dual GPU version of this new nVidia line is released and benchmarked, there is no real validity to using a comparative argument against the ATi dual GPU product - other than in relative performance benchmarks. Apples and Oranges until that point.

Not really....last I heard, you couldn't plug a monitor, PSU and a hdd straight into a graphics accelerator and expect to use it. The only real issue is total system power draw (note 1)
As I noted earlier, performance is largely power dependant. Case in point; If you were to buy a HD5830/50/70 with a view to an Eyefinity (3 x 1920x1080 for sake of argument) setup-since this technology is front-and-centre in AMD's 5xxx series sales drive.
What percentage of current release games (I'm assuming that the theoretical user is not likely to want to revisit Far Cry for example) are playable for a HD 5830/50/70 at 5760 x 1080 ( or 7680 x 1600) ?- That is to say 25-35fps for an RTS, or 50-60fps for FPS. And how many DX11 games ?, Afterall this subset of qualities are the only tangible benefit over the series that preceded it. I think you'll find that this is why AMD enabled Crossfire use in Eyefinity.
If anyone can find an Eyefinity review on a single stock retail card that delivers playable framerates in current AAA titles (not cherry-picked individual benches) please post.
We could also do the apples-to-apples thing....
How about what is possibly to be similar priced and performing setups at the enthusiast end of the scale:

Core i7 870................(95w TDP) + GTX 480 (250w TDP) = 345w
Phenom II X6 1075T..(125w TDP)+ HD 5870 (188w TDP) = 313w

If we are not going to take the whole system as an homogeneous unit then surely the 33% penalty in power draw that the GTX 480 accrues over it's closest rival (HD 5870) then becomes analogous to say, AMD's current CPU lineup versus Core i5/i3.....I can't say I remember seeing too much reactionary witch-burning from the same posters, or for that matter much introspection from AMD champions.

From Hexus' GTX 480 SLI review...93C single card, 95C in SLI
Chemistry not your strong suit ? Might I suggest a little less hyperbole....although it serves as a red rag to a bull (pun intended) in my case.
BTW, since you mentioned the SLI aspect, I'll add that the GTX 480 SLI (and tri-SLI) now appears to be set as the undisputed performance setup...till the next best thing turns up.

Note 1: The other considerations are obviously noise and chassis tempreture control concerns, which of course are major factors for the majority of users, and has been outlined earlier, the GTX 470/480 hardly cover themselves in glory in stock form.
Note 2: SiliconDoc,You should consider leaving the nVidia Fanboy club and joining the Teletubbies...you could conceivably raise the I.Q. of both groups by doing so.

Dude, I think you got what i was trying to say all wrong here, i know i was unsure on how to explain myself but yeah, i'll try again.

What i'm saying is at the end of the day, a ATI 4870X2 is a graphics card that takes 2 slots and 1 PCI express imput. I know the technology behind it is 2 chips put together but at the end of the day, its just 1 graphics card.

I'm then saying that the GTX 480 in comparison is also a graphics card that takes 2 slots and 1 PCI express input. The tech behind it is different in that respect that it has only 1 chip inside.

What i was trying to explain is that 4870X2 took more and/or equal power than the GTX480.

Now that thats out the way the next bit which is really my point about the heat and power usage:-

- It gets as hot as a 4870X2
- It takes the same amount of power as a 4870X2

yet when that graphics card came out i don't remember as big an outroar as the GTX480 power and heat problems?

And even so in those days higher wattage PSU's were less common and more expensive but still no outroar?

So at the end of the day, the Fermi is not a fail, they improved performance to one of the fastest graphics cards of all time, they just haven't improved on the power consumption or heat isues.

Yet like the 4870X2 it is the most powerful graphics card out? surely its not a complete fail considering they didn't improve heat or power consumption but also made a lot more bang for your buck?It may not be as efficient in those areas but most high end computer components are not anyway?

I've NEVER read a sound card review that complained that an x-fi one took twice as much power as the Asus Xonar sound card? Even though the bench mark shows that it takes twice as much the reviewer only mentions it a couple of times but then gets in on what it can do and a user buys which ever one they decide to go, Make sure they have enough power for the better one or not?

If your buying this graphics card (just to note i won't be for a while) then you most probably have the computer capable of it anyway.

And Vrmithrax:-

your sounding like an ATI fanboy =P

Sorry Burty117 but I am failing to see your points. Actually I fail to see why anyone would compare the GeForce GTX 480 to the Radeon HD 4870 X2 in the first place to try and make any point.

First the power requirements of the Radeon HD 4870 X2 were not surprising though in some ways we were impressed by them. At the time a pair of Radeon HD 4870 Crossfire graphics cards would consume slightly more than the Radeon HD 4870 X2 under load and considerably more when idling. In fact when at idle we found the Radeon HD 4870 X2 to use slightly less power than a pair of Radeon HD 4850 Crossfire graphics cards.

At the time the Radeon HD 4870 X2 was a hot powerful graphics card but it was not a failure for the simple reason that it was efficient in terms of price and performance.

Now over a year later the Radeon HD 4870 X2 has been replaced by the Radeon HD 5970, another hot and hungry dual-GPU graphics card which as it so happens uses about the same amount of power as the GeForce GTX 480 under load, slightly less in fact and considerably less at idle. Still this is a dual-GPU solution so the comparison is not that important.

The Radeon HD 5870 which is slightly slower, on average 16% at 2560x1600 used 110 watts less than the GeForce GTX 480. This made the GeForce GTX 480 around 22% more power hungry than the Radeon HD 5870 so as you can see in terms of efficiency this new product is not that great.

Upon further testing I have found that the GeForce GTX 480 only uses 70 watts less than a pair of Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire graphics cards which is shocking. However the idle results indicated that the GeForce GTX 480 uses almost 50 watts more at idle when compared to the Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire graphics cards.

This all aside the problems that we felt the GeForce GTX 480 were currently facing not only included power and temperatures, they were far from the be all and end all. At the moment with an MSRP of $499 the GeForce GTX 480 is a poor product in terms of value which was our greatest concern. Couple that with the fact that it was on average just 16% faster than the Radeon HD 5870 and the situation started to look very rough for Nvidia.

I just look at the facts, nothing more. I still think Nvidia might be able to resurrect the GeForce GTX 480 over the next few months so we will see.

@dividedbyzero - I never once mentioned SLI, somehow you read that into my simplified explanation. Didn't want to get into a big long drawn out thing, but my point was that Burty was pointing at a dual GPU card and saying nobody complained about it running hot and needing power. Nothing about SLI in there at all, I said the only true comparison would be to a dual GPU nVidia card (not 2 separate cards, see?)

@Burty117 - Yes, I get what you are saying, but again, it's apples and oranges. You generally expect dual GPU cards to run hotter and suck more power. When the x2 units arrive, there is no surprise that they need juice, and it's after the single GPU versions have already been established in the market. For nVidia to throw its first single GPU card of this new generation into the fray and immediately be compared to the requirements of dual GPU units from the previous generation just makes no sense to me. That is the kind of tactic I was referring to that fanboys like to use to suck the wind out of opposing opinions - yes, there is data behind it, but it's a rather shady comparison that really lacks teeth. They don't want you to see the truth: that their side's single GPU entrant sucks as much juice as the highest level dual GPU from the previous generation. That's definitely not anything you could consider a win on optimization or refinement at all, that's moving backwards - because (again) you have to consider what level of hell their x2 GPU version of this generation's card will require. See my point on this yet?

And, for the record, I use a lot of ATi and nVidia cards both, and had (and still have) high hopes for the possibilities of the FERMI architecture. Their current implementation after this long of a wait is just a little disappointing.

Ok so why is everyone overlooking the obvious.Sure this card only beats the 5870 by a small margin.However it also gives better image quality in games with way better PhysX and distant objects look noticeably better on the 480.So the truth is that to get close to identical quality most people pair a 5870 with a gts250(for dedicated physX)at this point the 5870 setup becomes more expensive and draws more power and this still doesn't change the fact that distant object still look better on the 480.FPS benchmarks don't do this card justice.

OK, i give up. Fermi is still a little dissapointing but I don't think its a failure. I guess thats why i'm waiting a year or 2 before buying one.

Burty117 you are correct the GeForce GTX 480 is certainly not a failure. At launch it is a bit slower than we were hoping for and its not great in terms of value either. The weaker performance than anticipate has also hurt the operating efficiency.

Despite the fact that Nvidia should have had a lot of time to optimize their drivers already, given how delayed Fermi has been lets just assume that for some reason they have not. If this is the case then improved drivers in the coming months could really improve the Fermi situation. If performance increases by around 10% then efficiency will improve and so will value making it a more desirable product.

That said you might not want to wait 2 years before buying one. Hell in 1 year they will be old news.

Heh... Just cause I'm critical, doesn't mean I'm not cautiously optimistic. I think the 4xx platform could have maybe been done a little better in terms of efficiency, for sure. But me, I'm always disappointed when new products come out seem less efficient than the previous generation (the engineer in me peeking out there).

There is something many anti-nVidia rants are conveniently leaving completely out of the equation - the actual FERMI coding. In short, there isn't anything out right now that truly utilizes the strengths of the FERMI architecture... Yet. When/if some software that uses these new nVidia GPUs to their fullest, exploiting all of the untapped graphics power that is just coiled up and waiting for a release, I believe that nVidia could jump far ahead of ATi. That is, if the FERMI stuff can really perform as advertised (which I really hope is true).

Ugh... this is so disappointing...

Look at the reference cooler... it has all those heatpipes and it STILL gets that hot. How are the companies going to bring their own coolers out for it if it already gets so hot with a beefy cooler like that?

I'm sorry nvidia, but this is one heck of a failure card.

NEXT!

LOL! yeah i'm thinking of building a new rig this year as i'm running an old athlon X2 from 2.7Ghz overclocked to 3.30Ghz, and it still struggles with intense moments in crysis! but again its 5 years old now!

Do you really think Fermi will be old in 1-2 years time? If so i might wait a few months and save a few pennies for it then get one and possibly opt for water cooling? if they bring out a water cooled heatsink for it by then.