AT's latest video card testing results

[imaheadcase]

I thought the general consensus was the 460 was better because it overlocks like a mother fracker and makes it faster for less price. No reason not to overclock the card, off the shelf GTX 460 are overclocking 800core.

 

[Rifter]

Just as a friendly reminder guys, don't forget about our brand-new GPU Bench section of the site. You'll always find our latest data in there.

If you are responsable in part or whole for that tool then thank you. It really is a great way to figure out whats better at what games. And is super easy to use.

 

[Will Robinson]

I agree,a nice new tool to refer to...well done AT.:thumbsup:

 

[dug777]

The fact is, most of us bought out 5850s back when they were hands-down the best value you could find. It's still interesting, a year later, that they're still competitive. The GTX 460 is a better value, and AMD needs to drop their pricing. If the 5850 had an MSRP is $250, like it should be, then they'd be taking a much bigger bite out of nV's ass. As it is, they're still selling a lot of cards and there hasn't been much economic incentive to do anything.

TBH, I don't believe we'll see much of a drop at all until SI.

It may well be that AMD/ATi is selling every 5850 they make, in which case there's no reason for them to drop the price

That would just hit its bottom line, not increase market share.

Anyway, amen to buying the 5850 is it was the best value and there was nothing else in sight. Comparisons between what you paid previously for a 5850 and what a GTX 460 or 470 costs you now are utterly irrelevant. Particularly when the GTX 460 wasn't around and wasn't even on the horizon as far as consumers were aware for a very, very long time while the 5850 was out

FWIW my 5850 is a pretty excellent overclocker, since I did some very basic research and checked what you could and could not overclock. If you didn't do that, it's your own fault, not AMD/ATi's fault :ninja:

Most people I have seen on here and in reviews had no problems getting in the mid 800mhz range without the voltage control in any event, and if you got just 800 mhz that was 10% oc from stock, 850 was a 17% oc from stock, and 875 got you ~21% over stock. I never heard of anyone getting less than 800 on here or in reviews, although I didn't specifically look...

With voltage control I can do 925 (~28% over stock) all day with furmark, much more than that and the voltage required makes my VRMs cook for furmark.

 

[MrK6]

Just as a friendly reminder guys, don't forget about our brand-new GPU Bench section of the site. You'll always find our latest data in there.

Awesome! I hadn't noticed GPU's had been added. This is a great resource, thanks to you guys for your hard work putting it together.

In regard to the thread, the other thing you'll notice is that the 5850 really stretches it's legs when you start cranking the resolution, which is a good complement to Eyefinity I suppose.

 

[nemesismk2]

If something costs more it better had be faster or I am not happy!

The 5850 is faster than the GTX 460 which is true but the GTX 460 is cheaper than the 5850 which is also true. If you can't afford the 5850 then the GTX 460 would be a very good alternative!

 

[nemesismk2]

Just as a friendly reminder guys, don't forget about our brand-new GPU Bench section of the site. You'll always find our latest data in there.

I've used the GPU benchmark and found it to be very useful.

 

[SlowSpyder]

470 wins 17 benches, 5850 wins 4 benches.

470 best price on the Egg, $270 AMIR(w/Mafia II); 5850 best price on the Egg, $270 AMIR.

Yea, I think from the consumer stand point the 5850 would make a lot more sense somewhere around $240-$250. It's faster than the cheaper 460, slower than the equal priced 470.

But, rumor has it that AMD sells every part they make, so I wouldn't bet on 5850 prices dropping much.

 

[evolucion8]

As noted by several people the 470 is at the same price point and is faster.

Also if you are looking at SLI, DX11, PhysX, CUDA, 3D, Ambient Occlusion, etc. The value of the 5850 is severely diminished.

Maybe at $200 it would be a more attractive offering.

Give me a break, don't you see that everyone here in this forum is ignoring you because of such posts? The HD 5850 is faster than the GTX 460 1GB, why it would have to drop to $200? The HD 5850 at its current price point is no match for the GTX 470, so it makes sense to drop to the same GTX 460 1GB price point, which isn't $200, is it? :biggrin:

 

[happy medium]

Give me a break, don't you see that everyone here in this forum is ignoring you because of such posts? The HD 5850 is faster than the GTX 460 1GB, why it would have to drop to $200? The HD 5850 at its current price point is no match for the GTX 470, so it makes sense to drop to the same GTX 460 1GB price point, which isn't $200, is it? :biggrin:

No actually it's at 198$ AR!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261075

A wopping $72 dollars cheaper then the 5850.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127500&cm_re=5850-_-14-127-500-_-Product

 

[Wreckage]

No actually it's at 198$ AR!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261075

A wopping $72 dollars cheaper then the 5850.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-500-_-Product

So using some of the same logic from this thread. The 5850 should be $72 less than the GTX470, which would make it $198. Wow, the math comes out perfect and matches almost exactly what I have been saying.

It's scary how right I am all the time.

 

[Elfear]

Agree with this post 100%, and the fact that the 460 OC's better than the 5850 on average makes the fact that the 5850 needs a price cut even more obvious.

Have the newer Cypress cards proven to be bad overclockers? I haven't kept up with it much but getting the clocks in my sig were easy and only required a modest voltage bump. Seems like 950Mhz+ was pretty common near the first of the year. I'd say that is awesome overclocking performance (31%+ OC).

 

[MrK6]

Well, you guys can argue what you think the cards should be priced at until you're blue in the face, but it means nothing since the market has already determined what the cards should be priced at. Currently, the 5850 is selling very well in the $270-300 range - if it wasn't, AMD would drop the price until it did. In contrast, the GTX 470 did not sell well at its launch MSRP of $350, and has since dropped until it settled in the $270 range. Although this is embarrassingly below what NVIDIA was hoping for (hence none of these prices are actually displayed, you have to see them "in cart"), it's what customers have decided the cards are worth. Until supply or demand changes, that's what they are.

Now some of you have argued that this makes the GTX 470 a better value from a price/performance perspective, and it does. According to this summary, the GTX 470 is a few percent faster than the 5850 at most resolutions, but they offer identical performance at 2560x1600 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_470_Dual/29.html . My guess is that people are still opting for the more expensive 5850 because the value it's strengths such as silence and power efficiency/less heat, over raw performance. I know I did.

 

[evolucion8]

No actually it's at 198$ AR!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261075

A wopping $72 dollars cheaper then the 5850.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-500-_-Product

I applaud your efforts to defend Wreckage, definitively you would be a good lawyer,

Definitively its a good price, the GTX 460 1GB is priced well, where it belongs, under the HD 5850 because is the slower card.

So using some of the same logic from this thread. The 5850 should be $72 less than the GTX470, which would make it $198. Wow, the math comes out perfect and matches almost exactly what I have been saying.

It's scary how right I am all the time.

You are right, the HD 5850 at such price would be the better since is the fastest card at such price point compared to the GTX 460 1GB. And one thing, you are not scary, I think that you are creepy with your loyalism. :biggrin:

 

[RussianSensation]

. So, if I want mainstream or high mainstream graphics card performance and 3 monitor support I have to decide, do I buy a new motherboard and 2x Nvidia 460's or higher, or do I buy 1x 5850 or 5870? Since I do not need game on 3 monitors, just the larger center 30" monitor, the cost issue is strongly in favor of AMD on this one.

You can't run 3 monitors on any ATI cards without an active displayport adapter which costs $100 last time I checked. So you either have to buy a $260 5850 + $100 DP adapter vs. GTX460 + $30 videocard to put into your other PCIe 4x slot for display purposes only. I don't understand why you think you need 2 GTX460s on a non-SLI mobo for 3 monitors. Unless of course your motherboard doesn't have an extra PCIe slot, then your argument makes sense.

Also, you mentioned you will be using a single 5850 to drive a 30 inch monitor. 5850 is not going to be adequate for 2560x1600. In most of the latest games, it won't be. So in that case you are better off getting 2x GTX460 SLI for $400 than a $260 + $100 displayport adapter for the 5850 anyway. So with your setup, NV will be either cheaper ($200 + $30 cheapo card) or way faster ($400 GTX460 1GB SLI = 5970).

 

[happy medium]

but they offer identical performance at 2560x1600 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...0_Dual/29.html

To be fair you are using an article with release drivers.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_470_Dual/5.html

It we use more recent drivers, the 5850 loses in allmost every game @ 2500x1600.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3836/msis-geforce-n470gtx-gtx-470-sli

It gets worse with the minimums in Crysis.

Even a gtx 465 can handle this game, so this don't matter.

Even in ATI's best game its a tie.

But loses in the minimums catagory again.

Another loss...

Close!

 

[happy medium]

Another loss

Hey it won one!
WOlfenstien.

 

[hiddensniper11]

Hah, in that case, a typical AMD product marketing strategy, ATI should reduce the price of the 5850 to remain competitive.

 

[brybir]

So using some of the same logic from this thread. The 5850 should be $72 less than the GTX470, which would make it $198. Wow, the math comes out perfect and matches almost exactly what I have been saying.

It's scary how right I am all the time.

The 5850 should be priced at whatever price makes AMD and its partners the most money. That is how business works. The market dictates these prices and currently values the 5850 over the 460 for whatever reasons. All of the complaining in the world will not change that.

Not long ago the market was valuing Nvidia cards over ATI cards at similar performance levels.

All of these threads about price being too high or whatever seem just to be excuses to argue about things that have been beaten to death over and over, and as the mod stated, are appearing more and more like thinly designed attempts at trolling by everyone involved.

 

[RussianSensation]

brybir,

The argument of market dictating prices is sometimes irrelevant if you believe that markets can be inefficient (i.e., market participants lack all of the relevant and newest information - the fact that with latest drivers NV performance has improved a lot, but what if the average Joe just hears that Fermi is hot and slow based on reviews from 6 months ago?) According to your argument, say if Company A pays a premium for Company B, then the additional premium was justified because the market pricing dictated it. That's an argument with flawed logic written all over it, since it inherently assumes that the premium was justified and Company A did not overpay for Company B.

Market price and value do not have to be correlated. As far as I am concerned, irregardless of NV offerings, 5850 and 5870 still sell at or above their MSRP of September 2009. To anyone who has been building computers for a long time, this suggests that both are overpriced regardless of how many cards ATI still sells, or the performance NV offers. Tons of 4870/4890/GTX275/285 owners also felt that 58xx and 4xx series have been overpriced for a long time and have not upgraded as a result. As a consumer I know that production costs fall over time and I expect companies to pass at least some of those cost savings to us, instead of maintaining fat profit margins. Since ATI has not passed any of their cost savings to consumers in 11 months, this alone makes 5xxx series overpriced.

If the market participants are willing to buy a 5850 over a similarly performing GTX460 overclocked, or pay a $100 premium for a 5870 which barely outperforms a GTX470, good for AMD!!! More $ for R&D to produce faster cards for us. But as far as videocard forums are concerned, we are discussing price/performance ratio here, which is measurable and quantifiable. There is no subjectivity in price/performance. In this metric, GTX460 beats a 5850 and GTX470 beats a 5870, regardless if ATI sells 10x as many 5850s as GTX460/470s.

 

[brybir]

You can't run 3 monitors on any ATI cards without an active displayport adapter which costs $100 last time I checked. So you either have to buy a $260 5850 + $100 DP adapter vs. GTX460 + $30 videocard to put into your other PCIe 4x slot for display purposes only. I don't understand why you think you need 2 GTX460s on a non-SLI mobo for 3 monitors. Unless of course your motherboard doesn't have an extra PCIe slot, then your argument makes sense.

Also, you mentioned you will be using a single 5850 to drive a 30 inch monitor. 5850 is not going to be adequate for 2560x1600. In most of the latest games, it won't be. So in that case you are better off getting 2x GTX460 SLI for $400 than a $260 + $100 displayport adapter for the 5850 anyway. So with your setup, NV will be either cheaper ($200 + $30 cheapo card) or way faster ($400 GTX460 1GB SLI = 5970).

1. My understanding is that I would only need the adapter if I get a monitor that does not have a display port capability. If my only option for a 3rd monitor is that it has displayport connectors then I will buy one that has displayport connectors. So that rules out my need for a adapter, I think.

My other connector for PCI- Express is a 1x slot and occupied by my wireless card ATM.

I had not thought about using a cheap 2nd card for display capabilities, because I dont know how that would work in SLI (would the slow card make my primary card suck?) but my motherboard limitations are somewhat restricting (I have a microATX motherboard, 780G chipset). I won't make the mistake of getting a microATX board next time around.

2. I use my 4850 for my 2560x1600 monitor right now, and although I get stuck turning down a lot of options to medium settings, it works fine for the games I play (Team Fortress 2, Borderlands, Fallout 3). I am thinking of upgrading in anticipating of purchasing StarCraft II and Diablo 3 if it ever comes out. I figure that if my 4850 is okay now then a 5850 or 5870 would feel like a significant upgrade to me. Probably a function of the games I play not being very demanding graphically, but that's my situation. Most of my setup is used for work anyways which is why I am gravitating toward a 5850 or 5870 for my desired 3 monitor setup with just one card.

 

[GaiaHunter]

You forgot these ones happy

 

[Wreckage]

Maybe AMD can't afford to sell the cards cheaper, they did take another loss last quarter. Maybe the cards are expensive to make, they are a lot bigger than the 460. Maybe they are not getting enough product from TSMC. Maybe their fans like to be price gouged. In the end they are free to sell it for whatever they want, however it's a horrible recommendation at it's current price.

 

[happy medium]

You forgot these ones happy

They have nothing to do with the performance at 2500x1600 that MRK6 stated.
Read the quote.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Here’s the thing regarding those benches, while the GTX470 is certainly the faster part, those number show that you’re going to get no real life playability difference.

Crysis Warhead: 25.7 FPS vs. 22.8 FPS.. who cares? Do you want to play that game with either of those cards at that res with those settings?

Crysis Warhead Min FPS: 17.6 FPS vs. 12.1 FPS Certainly an advantage to Nvidia, but one is almost a slide show and the other is somewhat less of a slide show.

You’re not going to have a very different playing experience on either one.

BattleForge: I’ll give Nvidia an edge here, 32.1 FPS vs. 27 FPS. Neither one is ideal, but in that range any extra FPS you can get will probably be noticed.

HAWX: 75 FPS vs. 67 FPS. Both are above 60 FPS, so no real life difference.

L4D: The 5850 is faster at 88.1 FPS vs. 80.1 FPS, but again no real difference, both are well above 60 FPS.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Chase: The 5850 is faster again at 35.3 FPS vs. 34.7 FPS. In the mid 30’s any faster you can get will help, though I think it’d be pretty difficult to notice a difference between these two cards with less than 1 FPS separating them.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Waterfall: Another ‘who cares?’ situation. The 470 is faster at 17.7 FPS vs. 12.3 FPS. Both are way to slow to matter.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: In this one I’d say the 470 is better, though too slow to really consider for this game at this resolution. The 470 is probably playable, the 5850 is maybe playable but I wouldn’t want to. Both are too slow to make someone who is buying a 30” monitor to game on happy. 24.4 FPS for the 470 vs. 20.7 FPS for the 5850.

Dirt2: I’d say you have two even cards here, that’s under a 1.5% difference, probably within the margin of error. 45 FPS for the 470, and 44.4 FPS for the 5850.

Mass Effect 2: Again, not a whole lot of difference, though slightly better performance from the 470. 41 FPS vs. 38.9 FPS, barely more than 2 FPS difference. Both look playable, though the 470 is a little faster.

Wolfenstein: The 5850 is faster at 54.9 FPS vs. 51.9 FPS. While neither gets to the magical 60 FPS number, both would be quite playable and the 5850 even a little faster.

So while the 470 is the faster part, we're not talking about much of a real world difference here. I agree that the 5850 is over priced right now given the 470's current pricing. Even though it doesn't matter much to you or myself (assuming it's within reason) some people like the lower power draw and lower heat output of the 5850. Some people (again, not me) need CUDA for some apps they use, so they could care less if the 5850 was cheaper. Different people buy for different reasons, but going strictly by performance I agree that the 5850 should be priced closer to $240-$250. So for whatever it's worth, though the 470 offers the better performance of the two, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to see a real difference between the two.