Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 113764	2010-11-03 02:26:00	New Video Card	dpDesignz (15919)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1150017	2010-11-04 01:47:00	The 5870 beats the GTX480 in single card performance and its cheaper, sure it has faster tesselation performance, but that only matters if you care about your 3dmarks, only one game supports tessalation at the moment (AFAIK) which is Metro 2033, I've tested it on my 5870, and it is playable with tessalation enabled. AMD has sub par drivers for crossfire, but the op asked about single card, AMD is simply better bang for your buck. the 6870 totally owns the GTX460 and its only $120 more. Sorry bud, cant agree with you there....the 6xxx series is the 5xxx done proper, less transistors as they got that wrong in the 1st place. Bart is 90% cypress and SLOWER than 5xxx series which are slower than GTX480 by a long long way... The GTX460 when OC is just as fast as the 6870 at stock which has possibly the worse OC headroom on any modem card, when OC'd however it is 5-7% faster than OC'd GTX460.. Here is your proof www.hardwarecanucks.com The full Fermi GTX580 w\all shaders (512) is apparently to be release 9th Nov for competition against cayman 69xx	SolMiester (139)
1150018	2010-11-04 01:52:00	AMD is simply better bang for your buck. the 6870 totally owns the GTX460 and its only $120 more. "only" $120 is about a 25% price jump, and it's not a 25% performance increase, its about 20%. Look to the 460 OC editions, and it becomes about a 15% price increase for a 5% performance increase. Yes, the 6870 outperforms the GTX460 in most situations, but it is quite significantly more expensive. If the price isn't so important to you, go for it. But it's the 6850 and GTX460 that are near direct price-point competitors, and at resolutions up to about 1920x1080 the GTX460 outperforms the 6850 in most games - and by a significant margin in any tesselation or PhysX-enhanced engines, of which there are a small but growing number. The GTX460 also is available in higher clocked editions which push it up to be competitive with the 6870 in the same res range, while being slightly cheaper than the 6870. And before you say it, the 6870 is TERRIBLE at overclocking - I don't expect much in the way of factory OC'd editions unless they diverge extensively from the reference board and incur a huge price increase as a result. Honestly, if you're using a res over 1920x1080, go for the 68xx. If you're using 1920x1080 or under, the GTX460 is, imo, your better option - more bang for less buck. They're all great cards, so you won't be disappointed with any option imo. The 5850 is still great, too - imo it is better than the 6850!	inphinity (7274)
1150019	2010-11-04 03:12:00	benchmark Results ?? Got shown This benchmark site (www.videocardbenchmark.net/) the other day. This is the tests (http:) - says daily results of thousands of cards and they are a well known test site/software ??? Someones busy. :D If its accurate, it really shows where in the performance what card is-and theres more cards then you care to really want to know. :eek:	wainuitech (129)
1150020	2010-11-04 03:16:00	benchmark Results ?? Got shown This benchmark site ( This is the tests (http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm" target="_blank">www.videocardbenchmark.net/) the other day. This is the tests (http:) - says daily results of thousands of cards, and they are a well known test site/software ??? Someones busy. :D If its accurate, it really shows where in the performance what card is-and theres more cards then you care to really want to know. :eek: Aye carumba! Bookmark that site..	wratterus (105)
1150021	2010-11-04 20:39:00	benchmark Results ?? Got shown This benchmark site ( This is the tests (http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm" target="_blank">www.videocardbenchmark.net/) the other day. This is the tests (http:) - says daily results of thousands of cards and they are a well known test site/software ??? Someones busy. :D If its accurate, it really shows where in the performance what card is-and theres more cards then you care to really want to know. :eek: It doesn't take into account variations in cards. In this specific instance, it doesn't differentiate between a 768MB GTX460 and a 1GB GTX460, and it is not just quantity of RAM difference, the 1GB cards have a different core config and higher bandwidth memory bus. They're about 25% faster. So clumping the two together in a benchmark, depending on how many of each config are there, can artificially deflate the score. The same holds true for other cards that are available in multiple configs with the same core. When I get home I'll run their benchmark and see what a real GTX460 gets ;)	inphinity (7274)
1150022	2010-11-05 01:03:00	It doesn't take into account variations in cards. In this specific instance, it doesn't differentiate between a 768MB GTX460 and a 1GB GTX460, and it is not just quantity of RAM difference, the 1GB cards have a different core config and higher bandwidth memory bus. They're about 25% faster. So clumping the two together in a benchmark, depending on how many of each config are there, can artificially deflate the score. The same holds true for other cards that are available in multiple configs with the same core. When I get home I'll run their benchmark and see what a real GTX460 gets ;) +1 yes the 1GB GTX460 is signification faster the the GTX460 768MB. Also this site is kinda rubbish as it shows the HD5870 slower than both the 6850 and 6870 (rubbish synthetic benchmarks), the HD5870 is faster than both. http: :badpc://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/)	Battleneter2 (9361)
1150023	2010-11-05 01:46:00	+1 yes the 1GB GTX460 is signification faster the the GTX460 768MB. Also this site is kinda rubbish as it shows the HD5870 slower than both the 6850 and 6870 (rubbish synthetic benchmarks), the HD5870 is faster than both. http: :badpc://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ ( http: //www.videocardbenchmark.net/) I really think AMD dropped the ball on these cards, they name them in the same manner as the previous generation, yet the are only revisions of the lower grade chips of previous generation, which explains why they are slower. They should of been labeled 6750 and 6770.....	SolMiester (139)
1150024	2010-11-05 01:55:00	agreed Sol, i couldnt believe they were cheaper than the 5800's, i smelt a rat	Gobe1 (6290)
1150025	2010-11-05 08:56:00	Well, having played around with that benchmark tool - it's rubbish. I got 2698 with my 1GB GTX460 - placing it below the 480, 470, and 6870 on the table (compared to the 2321 average it shows for the GTX460 as it is). But the benchmark is rubbish. It runs at 1024x768, and is HEAVILY CPU limited. It doesn't appear to even vaguely try and support multithreading, even the 64-bit edition, just pegging one core at 100% while the other 3 cores on my CPU are all under 3% utilisation. This suggests that the "3D" score could quite possibly go higher for this card if this CPU limitation were removed. Also, seriously, the "score" it gets is calculated from the FPS achieved on several tests - the simplest of which yields approximately 3200fps. WTF! 3DMark is a MUCH better benchmarking tool, and relates much more closely (albeit still not exactly) with "real world" performance. EDIT: Ok, so for reference I just did another run with the clock rates on both the CPU & GPU bumped up a bit - the GPU core up from 775MHz to 800MHz and the CPU from 3.2GHz to 3.5GHz and got a score of 2957. Ignoring the Quadros, that would place the GTX460 second only to the GTX480 on that benchmark site's list. That list is rubbish. Look how low the 5870 and 5970 are!	inphinity (7274)
1150026	2010-11-05 19:09:00	I really think AMD dropped the ball on these cards, they name them in the same manner as the previous generation, yet the are only revisions of the lower grade chips of previous generation, which explains why they are slower. They should of been labeled 6750 and 6770..... Yea have to agree, both very decent cards for there price but the naming convention seems wrong to everyone except AMD.	Battleneter2 (9361)
1 2 3 4