Nvidia launches GeForce GTX 465, Fermi gets closer to mainstream pricing

By on May 31, 2010, 7:18 AM
Nvidia released today the most affordable entry so far in the GeForce GTX 400 graphics card family. The new GTX 465 is based on the same Fermi 40nm architecture we know from the GTX 480 and GTX 470 GPUs with certain cut-down specifications like the number of stream processors, texture units, and memory bus width (256-bit). The core clock speed remains identical to the GTX 470, while the memory clock speed has been just slightly lowered. This is all to be expected from a less expensive part. Nvidia has set pricing of the GTX 465 at $280 with cards already available from Newegg and a few other retailers.

It's usually the case that a lower performing graphics card comes with the advantage of lower power consumption and as a result lower heat generation. I mention this in particular because it's been one of our biggest complaints about GTX 400 GPUs. Unfortunately, the GTX 465 doesn't see much in the way of improvements in this area. Anandtech has published a review on a GTX 465 card from Zotac and the conclusion is clear-cut: "The GTX 465 is much louder and much more power hungry than the Radeon 5850 all while being slower and all you save is $20."


Later this week we will be publishing a full update in the current rivarly between the GeForce GTX 480 and 470 boards versus the ATI Radeon HD 5870 and 5850. Besides our usual round-up of testing with the most updated drivers (Nvidia recently claimed big performance improvements) we will be looking at other specifics like minimum frames per second, which many gamers assert is the biggest strength of the latest GeForce cards.




User Comments: 33

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Dammit why can't they bring any decent cards out so ATI **** themselves and lower their prices. Thanks to wastes of money like this, ATI cards will never drop in price.

Guest said:

Because ATI is and will be superior in price/performance

Prosercunus said:

Loving my 5850 I got on Newegg in February for $230 (coupon+sale). I have always bought Nvidia, but I gotta hand it to ATI.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

nVidia still getting it's rear-end kicked by ATI. Until they deal with the power, heat and pricing issues of these new Dx11 generation cards, no one with a lick of sense (other than hard-core nVidia fanbois) are going to be buying nVidia.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

Because ATI is and will be superior in price/performance

Untrue. Many sites have said and this is a fact that because of the better minimum framerates,better tesselation performance and better performance the gtx 470 is better than the hd 5850. Just face it. Although the GTX 265 looks like a joke the 470 is alot better than the 5850

Guest said:

The reason a lot of people think that the new nvidia cards fail is not just because of the performance. We know that they generally perform better (aside from the 465) but at the cost of power heat and a higher price. Most people would prefer a good reliable, cool and power efficient card they can overclock to teh max than something that does the opposite. It might make sense if they 480 and 470 were cheaper, but they're not, so the price does not justify the small performance increase coupled with power, heat issues etc. It's not right man.

Guest said:

Kibaruk@Work: I didn't say Ati outperformed Nvidia in any way, I just said price/performance is and has been way better on Ati's end.

Nvidia's framerate could be better when compairing certain cards BUT, in the end you don't pay a bit more, but a lot more than maybe a bit slower ati.

Timonius Timonius said:

Well, if Nvidia spent ALL of their attention, r&d, etc. on video cards for desktops they probably would have something out there that's twice the performance of any top card that ATI can put out. They have a whole lot of other projects out there.

Guest said:

So what? Fact is, they do do more than graphics and it bears very little to this argument. AMD doesn't just do graphics either. You're just saying that because you are a fanboy and can't figure out any relevant and factual evidence for Nvidia being better. You're only posting flame bait right now.

Timonius Timonius said:

flaming/flamebait- nope. Fanboy - maybe, but really prefering the best regardless of who's product it is.

Nvidia focuses on:

Tegra revolutionizes mobile computing. A complex system-on-a-chip with eight specialized processors, it consumes 50 times less power than the average PC notebook chip. It fuels the new generation of tablets, smartphones, portable media players and in-car driver safety/assist/infotainment systems.

ION supercharges a netbook. It delivers rich HD media in games, movies, and Web-based video, as well as provides full support for Windows Home Premium. ION is complemented by NVIDIA Optimus technology, described below.

GeForce accelerates consumer desktop PCs and notebooks. Our best-known product line, it delivers crisp performance for those who play games, watch movies, or use the PC for other forms of digital entertainment.

Quadro is the driving force behind powerful workstations. It's used by animators, broadcasters, visual effects artists and industrial designers to help create and visualize their largest, most complex projects. The majority of the world's cars and planes, as well as an array of consumer products, are designed using Quadro professional graphics solutions.

Tesla is transforming the world of supercomputing. By using the GPU's parallel processing capabilities, it delivers massive performance for scientists and researchers needing the power of a supercomputer, but at a fraction of its cost and power consumption.

*from http://www.nvidia.com/page/companyinfo.html

I'll let the AMD/ATI 'fans' tell us what they focus on besides desktop gpu and cpu stuff.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Either way Nvidia is trying to get out of a bad spot. I dont prefer green over red or vise versa, I buy the best that's available at the time of purchase. Unless you have stock or work for one of the companies mentioned above you have no real reason to be a fanboy of either. Maybe its time to step away from the computer and get an idol, like an actual person.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Its true that Nvidia do lots of other projects, but it doesn't excuse them for fermi, they have worked on projects in the past and still released good cards?

I am kind of a Fan boy, but mainly because every time i did get an ati it either was outperformed by my mates cheaper nvidia card or it blew up on me (litterally).

I refuse to move from my GTX 260 until nvidia sort this out though, Fermi is good but the fact that they naturally reach 92'C is absolutely mental! and the power requirements (if worked out right) if you play a game such as crysis which makes the GPU sweat a bit, and play for 4 hours a day every day for the year then your power bill will be $130 (roughly) extra to run it! thats like buying an expensive car that isn't really much faster than its lower cibling but costing 3 times more to run! Why would you do that?

Although the plus side to their other Projects are even though Fermi is perfect, they have invented optimus which is kind of a break through, they made netbooks run games! and now our mobiles & Tablets are able to render items in the Unreal Engine 3! (can't remember link to where i read and watched that but will dig it out if needed)

So its not all bad, plus in most games Fermi has highest FPS and definately highest Minimum FPS so i guess is some ways, Nvidia has delivered.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

BTW i meant the Fermi "isn't" perfect

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

Kibaruk@Work: I didn't say Ati outperformed Nvidia in any way, I just said price/performance is and has been way better on Ati's end.

Nvidia's framerate could be better when compairing certain cards BUT, in the end you don't pay a bit more, but a lot more than maybe a bit slower ati.

No it isn't. Price to OVERALL performance the gtx 470 is better than the 5850. It's around a 50 dollar increase for better average framerates,better tesselation performance,better driver support(ati once a month is pathetic. Waiting a month for multi gpu profiles is a joke),better minimum framerates. My friend has a gtx 470 and when he forces the fan at 70% in his antec 1200 the card never goes above 75. When it comes to the gtx 480 it is also better than the 5870. Infact in gpu intensive games like crysis and far cry 2 it beats the hd 5970. And in those games every frame counts. If the GTX 400 are a failure series then I'm an asian granny.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Dammit why can't they bring any decent cards out so ATI **** themselves and lower their prices. Thanks to wastes of money like this, ATI cards will never drop in price.

To pick one quote out of many.

You, and a few others seem to think there is some major competition between AMD and nVidia....well, there is..of sorts.

They both want your money.

This way they both get it.

From the business perspective...

Starting a price war benefits neither company. AMD has started to turn a profit for the first time since Adam got out of diapers and nVidia are looking to maximise their R&D investment on the GF100 arch.

Either AMD could drop the MSRP of the HD 5850 (and then would need to compress every card pricing under it to realign pricing/performance ratio's), or nVidia could realign the GTX 465 pricing midway between the 5850 and 5830 and lower their profit line. Neither of these scenario's are likely to pass because both are quite happy with the status quo at the moment.

1.AMD isn't likely to gain any significant market share over what they presently enjoy. While the HD5xxx series are excellent cards in general, their main selling point was DirectX 11 and tesselation, which turned out to be somewhat of a damp squib in light of what DX11 in released games has given us so far and the superior tesselation offered by the GTX 480 in particular.

2. This isn't the season for buying hardware for most markets

3. Both these companys needs funds to pour into the next best things for the consumer...AMD's Southern Islands (attempting to match nVidia's tesselation performance) and nVidia's GF104 (attempting to match AMD's power consumption/performance point)

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

princeton said:

Guest said:

Kibaruk@Work: I didn't say Ati outperformed Nvidia in any way, I just said price/performance is and has been way better on Ati's end.

Nvidia's framerate could be better when compairing certain cards BUT, in the end you don't pay a bit more, but a lot more than maybe a bit slower ati.

No it isn't. Price to OVERALL performance the gtx 470 is better than the 5850. It's around a 50 dollar increase for better average framerates,better tesselation performance,better driver support(ati once a month is pathetic. Waiting a month for multi gpu profiles is a joke),better minimum framerates. My friend has a gtx 470 and when he forces the fan at 70% in his antec 1200 the card never goes above 75. When it comes to the gtx 480 it is also better than the 5870. Infact in gpu intensive games like crysis and far cry 2 it beats the hd 5970. And in those games every frame counts. If the GTX 400 are a failure series then I'm an asian granny.

Have you take into consideration power usage in the equation? They are quite the power hungry and you may not even realize it but you could be easily paying an extra 20 bucks a month for that power hungry hog nvidia puts as "better", as definition that by far is not price oriented but still adds a ton more.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

princeton said:

No it isn't. Price to OVERALL performance the gtx 470 is better than the 5850. It's around a 50 dollar increase for better average framerates,better tesselation performance,better driver support(ati once a month is pathetic. Waiting a month for multi gpu profiles is a joke),better minimum framerates. My friend has a gtx 470 and when he forces the fan at 70% in his antec 1200 the card never goes above 75. When it comes to the gtx 480 it is also better than the 5870. Infact in gpu intensive games like crysis and far cry 2 it beats the hd 5970. And in those games every frame counts. If the GTX 400 are a failure series then I'm an asian granny.

Not sure where you are getting that info but we believe the Radeon HD 5850 is not only cheaper, but faster as well (In most cases). We will be releasing a new article shortly using the latest drivers that supports this.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Have you take into consideration power usage in the equation? They are quite the power hungry and you may not even realize it but you could be easily paying an extra 20 bucks a month for that power hungry hog nvidia puts as "better", as definition that by far is not price oriented but still adds a ton more.

No one is arguing that it doesnt run hot, everyone and their mom knows this. The thread was about the 465, who cares about any other card. Maybe if you were bringing up nvidia's big brother cards for a reference. I just hear a bunch of circle jerking. The heat/performance issue has been discussed here before and also on numerous sites. Its just becoming a fanboy fest.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

, post: 890316"]Not sure where you are getting that info but we believe the Radeon HD 5850 is not only cheaper, but faster as well (In most cases). We will be releasing a new article shortly using the latest drivers that supports this.

I have a friend that bought a 5850 and he says its a great card, as far as maxing setting on a 24" monitor.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Have you take into consideration power usage in the equation? They are quite the power hungry and you may not even realize it but you could be easily paying an extra 20 bucks a month for that power hungry hog nvidia puts as "better", as definition that by far is not price oriented but still adds a ton more.

Are you married to your computer ? $20 a month ?

Some quick and dirty calculations.....

GTX 480 peak power usage (worst case scenario) = 257w

HD 5870 peak power usage (worst case scenario) = 144w (from the same chart)

Difference 257 - 144 = 113w

Multiplied by average gaming hours 13

= 1.469 kwH x 4 weeks = 5.876 kwH/month

Don't know about your electicity pricing but in my location 1 kwH = $NZ0.20 average

So......5.876 x 0.20 = $NZ 1.18 per month ($US 0.80)

I suppose that saving I could put towards running my car.....Gas here is $1.90/litre, so I could add an extra 621ml (about 22 ounces) to my fill.

Guest said:

^It's not just about costs though, some people's existing computer PSU may not be up to the job, meaning they may just buy an ATI. Or if they're dedicated, they may buy a PSU all together - not exactly cost friendly. :p

I totally agree with your post though, I dunno how many hours of gaming you'd need to make electricity costs an issue.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

^It's not just about costs though, some people's existing computer PSU may not be up to the job, meaning they may just buy an ATI.

Bit of a back-handed compliment if ever I heard one.

The PSU is the heart of the system, skimping on quality in this area is the last place you want to start penny-pinching. This $70 PSU is capable of running any single card on the market. If the user balks at $70 for a stable high quality PSU then maybe spending $200+ on a graphics solution isn't the best idea.

Or if they're dedicated, they may buy a PSU all together - not exactly cost friendly. :p

They come in handy. Systems without PSU's tend not to be very productive

For the record and getting back to the subject at hand, i.e the GTX 465...

To expensive. Knock 10-15% off the MSRP and it looks better, given they OC as well as the 470/480. It wont happen since SLI'ed GTX 465 at that price would kill GTX 480 sales.

Other than that its the same-old-same-old; the power consumption/noise/heat troika, with the added (non-) bonus of a superior card in the HD 5850 only marginally more expensive as competition.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

I'm wondering if they're gonna slap two of these 465's on one board for their next single solution sli.

I'll either get another 295 or buy the newer version of it, depending on the price. Some may think I dont need it, but I'm running a 30" samsung and at full resolution some games like flight simulator pulls a whopping 20fps.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Dont think GTX 465 SLi'ed on a PCB (GTX 930 ?!) is going to work. The power draw would put it waaaaaaay outside the PCI-E specification of 300 watts. No ATX/PCI certification = warranty problems and no OEM orders.

The GF104 (GTX 460) however is a candidate for SLI on a stick. If these specs are accurate-and a lot of the Chinese sites like IT168 have reliable info...who needs NDA's?- then a dual GTX 460 is a possibility at 250-260w TDP.

The downside is the reported 192-bit frame buffer- if accurate, it might suffer at resolutions above 1920x1080/1200. The upside is cooler GPU's will be able to be clocked faster so ballpark numbers are likely to be around the GTX 465 SLI mark.

It sounds like the GF104 isn't far away judging by the info "leaking" onto the net, so hopefully the answers aren't too far away. I was interested in the dualie card from a 3D Surround viewpoint- since SLI is required for three screens- Would an Dual GPU card support the three screens from one PCB ? If this is so then three monitors not requiring active DisplayPort dongles or DP connectivity (i.e. HDMI or DVI) makes for a relatively affordable 5760x1080 (or similar) setup.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

, post: 890316"]Not sure where you are getting that info but we believe the Radeon HD 5850 is not only cheaper, but faster as well (In most cases). We will be releasing a new article shortly using the latest drivers that supports this.

This promises to be one hell of an article.

As most of my business system upgrades generally centre around graphics I usually follow the ebb and flow of new cards and driver releases...your's sounds like it's going to put the cat amongst the pigeons!

A brief look around the tech-web regarding the GTX 470 and HD 5850 comparisons*.....

GTX 470

Aliens vs Predator (1680, 1920,2560)Xbit, HC, Toms

Battlefield BC2: (1680, 1920) Xbit, HC, Toms, Anand + 2560@8xMSAA (HC)

CoD:MW2 : (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit, Hexus, Toms

Far Cry 2: (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit, TPU, HC, HH

Metro 2033: (1680) Xbit, HC

STALKER:CoP : (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit, Anand

STALKER:SoC : (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

STALKER:CS : (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Just Cause 2: (1680, 1920) Xbit, HC, Toms

Resident Evil 5: (1680) Xbit

Street Fighter IV: (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit

Mass Effect 2: (1680) Xbit, Anand

DIRT 2: (1680, 1920)Xbit, Hexus, HC, Toms, Anand, TPU

HAWX : (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit, TPU, HH, Anand

Battleforge (DX10 and DX11) (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit, Anand, TPU

World in Conflict:Sov.Assault (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit

CoD 4:MW (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Call of Juarez 2 (1680) TPU

Company of Heroes (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Dawn of War 2 (1680) TPU

ET:QW : (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU, HH

Far Cry : (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

UT3 : (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

World in Conflict (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Left 4 Dead 2 : (1680, 1920) HH

split

Battlefield:BC2 @1920:Hexus (HD5850), Xbit, HC, Toms (GTX470)

Crysis Warhead @1680 & 2560: Hexus (HD5850), Xbit, Anand (GTX470)

Just Cause 2 (2560) : Xbit (HD5850), HC (GTX470)

Mass Effect 2: (1920) Xbit (GTX470), Anand (HD5850)

Call of Juarez 2 (1920) identical fps (TPU)

HD5850

Battlefield BC2 (2560) Xbit, Anand, HC

Crysis Warhead (1920) Xbit, Hexus, Anand

Metro 2033: (1920, 2560) Xbit, HC

Wolfenstein (1680, 1920, 2560) Xbit, Anand

Resident Evil 5 : (1920, 2560) Xbit

Mass Effect 2: (2560) Xbit, Anand

DIRT 2 (2560) Xbit, Hexus, HC, Toms, Anand, TPU

Left 4 Dead: (1680, 1920, 2560) Anand

Call of Juarez 2 (2560) TPU

Dawn of War 2 (1920, 2560) TPU

Crysis (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU, Toms, HH

Prey (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Quake 4 (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Riddick: Dark Athena (1680, 1920, 2560) TPU

Left 4 Dead 2 (2560) HH

From the wide range of games (and leaving out titles that heavily favour nVidia cards- Batman:AA, Mirror's Edge, Darkest of Days and Dark Void) the honours seem fairly well split-if anything the HD5850 tends to pick up wins at 2560x1600 that include benches of academic interest only as the framerates are too low for gameplay- so I'm keen to see how Techspots benches differ from what I've seen so far.

* As these are enthusiasts cards I did not look at a resolution below 1600, nor any game setting without antialiasing if it is supported in game or can be forced.

Reviews referenced used the latest nVidia beta driver and for the most part Catalyst 10.5. (10.3a most dated )

Reviews cited: TechPowerUp (TPU), Xbit, Anandtech, Hardware Canucks (HC), Tom's Hardware, Hot Hardware (HH), Hexus.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

@dividebyzero - Hmm that is hardly conclusive. Half the games listed as favoring the GeForce GTX 470 reappear in the Radeon HD 5850 list. Looking over our results they are quite similar to those from the Anand review though we tested with a few different games as well. It seems the setting play a significant role in which card comes out on top though that is hardly surprising. For our article we have tested using maximum in-game quality settings with AA/AF enabled. Anyway that is all I am going to say for now, the article should be live tomorrow.

Regenweald said:

[-Steve-] said:

princeton said:

No it isn't. Price to OVERALL performance the gtx 470 is better than the 5850. It's around a 50 dollar increase for better average framerates,better tesselation performance,better driver support(ati once a month is pathetic. Waiting a month for multi gpu profiles is a joke),better minimum framerates. My friend has a gtx 470 and when he forces the fan at 70% in his antec 1200 the card never goes above 75. When it comes to the gtx 480 it is also better than the 5870. Infact in gpu intensive games like crysis and far cry 2 it beats the hd 5970. And in those games every frame counts. If the GTX 400 are a failure series then I'm an asian granny.

Not sure where you are getting that info but we believe the Radeon HD 5850 is not only cheaper, but faster as well (In most cases). We will be releasing a new article shortly using the latest drivers that supports this.

I have no idea where the nvidia fans get their numbers to justify some of their claims, but "a buddy of mine" is not acceptable Fermi has made the gaming community look like ******, they keep arguing tessellation performance, but the only place you can enjoy that 'superior' tessellation is in a benchmark. When was the last time anyone 'played' a benchmark ? So for more money, more heat and more power draw, you get to sit and watch the Heaven benchmark in a loop ?

If the next Nvidia architecture is genuinely better than ATI, I'm there, because I'm a *performance* hound. Green lost this round boys, deal with it.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

, post: 890452"]@dividebyzero - Hmm that is hardly conclusive. Half the games listed as favoring the GeForce GTX 470 reappear in the Radeon HD 5850 list. .

Games are listed under the respective cards by resolution. So, for arguments sake, Game "A" might favour the GTX 470 at 1680 and 1920 resolutions, while the same Game "A" might favour the HD 5850 at 2560. Sorry for the confusion.

, post: 890452"]Looking over our results they are quite similar to those from the Anand review though we tested with a few different games as well.

I think you would need to add some other games since Anand had the GTX 470 "winning" 22 of the 30 benchmarks (average 6.99% faster framerate overall). Considering Anand decided to forego a lot of best selling game titles (CoD series, WoW:WotLK, GTA4) which favour nVidia arch/coding then it seems a fair comparison.

@Regenweald

A few points...

Without the hardware to make use of tesselation, there is little point releasing games that feature it.

Metro 2033 and AvP feature moderate amounts of tesselation- both of these new games favour nVidia's architecture by a fair margin. With Battlefield 1943, F1 2010 and Crysis 2 looming.

If tesselation is such a ho-hum non event why is AMD re-jigging it's architecture for Southern Islands to be more tessalation capable?

princeton princeton said:

[-Steve-] said:

princeton said:

No it isn't. Price to OVERALL performance the gtx 470 is better than the 5850. It's around a 50 dollar increase for better average framerates,better tesselation performance,better driver support(ati once a month is pathetic. Waiting a month for multi gpu profiles is a joke),better minimum framerates. My friend has a gtx 470 and when he forces the fan at 70% in his antec 1200 the card never goes above 75. When it comes to the gtx 480 it is also better than the 5870. Infact in gpu intensive games like crysis and far cry 2 it beats the hd 5970. And in those games every frame counts. If the GTX 400 are a failure series then I'm an asian granny.

Not sure where you are getting that info but we believe the Radeon HD 5850 is not only cheaper, but faster as well (In most cases). We will be releasing a new article shortly using the latest drivers that supports this.

Then you guys might want to rethink how you benchmark. Every review I have seen shows the nvidia cards as better. Heres some quotes from the guru3d benchmark.

"Even so, when we tally up the results out of all titles tested, the GeForce GTX 480 wins nearly everywhere"

"there are also scenarios where the GTX 480 completely and utterly kicks the Radeon HD 5870 in the proverbial nuts."

"The GeForce GTX 470 then -- obviously this card is lined up against ATI's Radeon HD 5850. It can compete with it quite well. Price wise it's definitely the more interesting of the two cards tested today."

Ill quote that again

"Price wise it's definitely the more interesting of the two cards tested today."

"Money versus performance wise I'd say the GTX 470 is the winner of the two really"

Yup the ati cards are sure cheaper and faster. Reviews on guru3d, hardwarecanucks,bit-tech among others say different.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

I'm wondering if they're gonna slap two of these 465's on one board for their next single solution sli..

Dont think GTX 465 SLi'ed on a PCB (GTX 930 ?!) is going to work. The power draw would put it waaaaaaay outside the PCI-E specification of 300 watts. No ATX/PCI certification = warranty problems and no OEM orders.

Well, so much for that idea. Looks like Galaxy have got a GTX470x2 on display at Computex. 2 x 8pin PCIe + PCI slot (375w) still seems a litle light on the power delivery side and not much in the way of case venting. More keen on finding out what kind of heatsink they're planning on using!

Staff
Steve Steve said:

@ princeton - you are right the GeForce GTX 480 is superior to the Radeon HD 5870. That was the conclusion in our NDA coverage anyway.

Guest said:

I had an ATI 5850 but had too many problems with cursor artifacts, black screens or lines in the screen requiring a hard re-boot that I decided to try the GTX470 instead. The ATI forums were filled with threads of similar problems with no solution. My 470 hasn't had any issues but it does run hot sometimes. I'll occasionaly use alt-tab to switch over to EVGA Precision to check the temps while gaming. You can easily set the fan speed higher to keep temps down.

princeton princeton said:

[-Steve-] said:

@ princeton - you are right the GeForce GTX 480 is superior to the Radeon HD 5870. That was the conclusion in our NDA coverage anyway.

you also posted earlier than the hd 5850 was better than the gtx 470. When in reality that is an absolute lie.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.