For a GTX 275 owner, a GTX 460 or 470 is *not* attractive

[flexy]

When i bought the 275 a year ago, i bought knowing that it's a "good mid range card".

Looking at the 460 or even 470 specs, those are a BIG disappointment!!

The new cards losing in terms of texture fill rate, bus width, memory bandwidth. (With the exception of the 270 marginal better mem bandwith, which is +5MB/s)

What the heck???

So DX11 is the only "selling point" of those cards with other theoretical values worse than a 275.

Now i know that some games (eg. BF2:BC) are having problems with DX11 and people run them in DX10 to avoid those problems, like long loading times etc.

So what would be the point in upgrading if the only selling point (DX11) causes problems?

Edit: According to benchmarks, doesnt a 460 or 470 significantly outperform a 275? How come if all the theoretical specs like mem b/w, texture fill etc. are actually worse?

 

[brybir]

I think one of the things that Fermi was designed to do was compete in the compute market and so in some games and applications, the 470 is not a major upgrade from the 270's and 280's from Nvidia. But, in some areas like tesselation, GPGPU, and other areas that they are focused on, the differences can be substantial. So, perhaps now in terms of raw performance and visuals on games, the difference is not substantial, but in a year from now you should notice some significant differences.

 

[Lonyo]

A year ago, the GTX275 was still a high end card. There were only pretty much 2 truly faster cards, the GTX295 and the HD4870X2.

If you have a high end card, then the mid range of the next gen typically isn't going to be much of a performance upgrade if at all. This is nothing new.

The GTX470 at $350 wasn't really a value prospect either, but now it's started to come down in price it becomes more attractive, but to consider the GTX275 last-gens midrange is silly, when it was basically the equivalent of the GTX470 or thereabouts.

 

[netxzero64]

GTX 275 is still a good card and i don't see any reasons yet for an upgrade to DX11 bandwagon...

maybe if games get more of the DX11 features maybe its time for a step up move...

 

[Keysplayr]

Flexy, upgrading isn't for everyone and depends highly on what they already have. You, having a GTX275, which is a very capable card, may not see a need for an upgrade.
However if you were to go for two GTX460's, that would be quite an upgrade. It all depends on the person and what they feel they are happy or satisfied with. If you're GTX275 is serving you well, then don't upgrade. If you are just asking this because you see others upgrading and don't want to be left behind, then that's unimportant. GTX275 is a very capable card. My friend has one and loves it, but he is upgrading to two GTX460 1GB cards at the next two weeks. He is building a whole new system though. CPU, RAM, Mobo, PSU.

 

[Scali]

Edit: According to benchmarks, doesnt a 460 or 470 significantly outperform a 275? How come if all the theoretical specs like mem b/w, texture fill etc. are actually worse?

Simple: the architecture is more efficient (especially in the case of the 460, which improves on the original Fermi architecture).
nVidia has made a few major architectural changes from their DX10 hardware to Fermi.

 

[toyota]

a gtx460 would be slower than gtx275 in some cases. if anything the GT200 cards had much better architecture for gaming than the Fermi cards especially GF100.

 

[Scali]

a gtx460 would be slower than gtx275 in some cases. if anything the gtx200 cards had much better architecture for gaming than the Fermi cards especially GF100.

I think at this point it's difficult to say whether it's the architecture or the poor yields of TSMC's 40 nm process.
I think GF104 demonstrates for the most part that the die-size is an important factor in the overall equation. The architecture isn't that much different, yet we get a much more favourable power/performance ratio, and by the looks of it, very decent overclockability aswell. I think for a large part that is due to the much smaller die size, which allows much better yields on TSMC's flaky production process (while the GF100 certainly isn't small, the original GT200 at 65 nm was even larger... but TSMC's 65 nm process was more reliable).

 

[Kenmitch]

Flexy, upgrading isn't for everyone and depends highly on what they already have. You, having a GTX275, which is a very capable card, may not see a need for an upgrade.
However if you were to go for two GTX460's, that would be quite an upgrade. It all depends on the person and what they feel they are happy or satisfied with. If you're GTX275 is serving you well, then don't upgrade. If you are just asking this because you see others upgrading and don't want to be left behind, then that's unimportant. GTX275 is a very capable card. My friend has one and loves it, but he is upgrading to two GTX460 1GB cards at the next two weeks. He is building a whole new system though. CPU, RAM, Mobo, PSU.

Guess that pretty much sums it up nicely

The GTX 460 is one of those SLI sleeper cards....But is also a good bang for buck card for those building a system from scratch at the same time!

 

[tincart]

For a new build, the 460 looks like a pretty convincing buy. If I were building a new system now, there would be a 460 in it for sure.

Upgrading brings in different considerations.

 

[Scali]

Upgrading brings in different considerations.

Yea, I'm upgrading from a Radeon 5770... Not so much for the performance, but for nVidia's better OpenCL/OpenGL/linux support, and I'd love to get my hands on the new C++ stuff and Visual Studio tools for GPGPU aswell.
I guess most people wouldn't care about that sort of thing though, it's mainly for developers. Most people probably see Radeons and GeForces as equals if the gaming performance is the same.

 

[Genx87]

a gtx460 would be slower than gtx275 in some cases. if anything the GT200 cards had much better architecture for gaming than the Fermi cards especially GF100.

Might also be better driver optimizations. I was hoping BFK would run benchmarks on ATI cards in older games to see if it had the same issue. I am really curious if these archs have become so dependent on driver optimizations that new archs dont see an increase in performance without them.

 

[Lonyo]

Might also be better driver optimizations. I was hoping BFK would run benchmarks on ATI cards in older games to see if it had the same issue. I am really curious if these archs have become so dependent on driver optimizations that new archs dont see an increase in performance without them.

What do you mean? Everyone knows that the HD5xxx series is outperformed by equally clocked/shadered HD4xxx series cards even in modern games (at least with the right settings).
The new arch is slower than the old one, e.g. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2931 where the higher clocked HD5450 loses to the HD4550.
The HD5850 would certainly beat the HD4870, because the changes don't affect fillrate, while the HD5770 is slower than the HD4870 in at least some modern games anyway, and has a memory bandwidth deficit.
When it comes to fillrate, we already know the cut ROPS on the HD5830 kill it.

Testing older games wouldn't make any difference IMO.

 

[v8envy]

Already covered. Getting a current generation mainstream card is not an upgrade over the previous generation high end -- at best it's a wash.

The problem is, last generation high end toward the end of its life was priced like the current generation low end. It's not that the new generation is lacking in performance, the issue is much higher prices for video hardware as a result of terrible yields at TSMC and resultant zero availability.

 

[toyota]

when you see gtx460 though you would think it would have to be much faster than a two generation old gtx275 and gtx260. lol

 

[Tempered81]

When i bought the 275 a year ago, i bought knowing that it's a "good mid range card".

Looking at the 460 or even 470 specs, those are a BIG disappointment!!

The new cards losing in terms of texture fill rate, bus width, memory bandwidth. (With the exception of the 270 marginal better mem bandwith, which is +5MB/s)

What the heck???

So DX11 is the only "selling point" of those cards with other theoretical values worse than a 275.

Now i know that some games (eg. BF2:BC) are having problems with DX11 and people run them in DX10 to avoid those problems, like long loading times etc.

So what would be the point in upgrading if the only selling point (DX11) causes problems?

Edit: According to benchmarks, doesnt a 460 or 470 significantly outperform a 275? How come if all the theoretical specs like mem b/w, texture fill etc. are actually worse?

If you want to use DX11 (which I don't see the point, personally) or if you really want to stress the card (furmark, folding, cuda apps) you can see an advantage of the 480 over a 275. If you take your favorite modern game and really crank the filter quality, game settings, and resolution - then you would see a performance difference between the 480 and the 275.

I get by just fine on a 4890 - same as you on your 275, and plenty of others get by just fine on a 5670, gts250, or an intel IGP. If you want Stalker clearsky to run at max settings with 4xAA on a 20" or greater screen, you would probably see a 480 running 50-60% faster than a 275. For most other all practical & common PC gaming scenarios you aren't gonna notice a big difference. You have to really stress the card and you have to know how to look for the difference. Does anyone really need a 480 or 5970?

 

[RussianSensation]

When i bought the 275 a year ago, i bought knowing that it's a "good mid range card".

I am with Lonyo. I also wouldn't consider GTX275 mid-range when you purchased it. Until 5850/70 came out, GTX275 was high-end in 2009 imo. The only other cards significantly faster were 295 and 4870x2, which is Ultra-High end.

Videocard specifications on paper are not always indicative of performance. 5850 and GTX275 have significantly more texture fill-rate over 470 and 4890, respectively, but that doesn't make either of them faster compared to their competitors. Similarly, it doesn't tell us anything about AA efficiency between architectures (the % drop off in performance moving from 0AA-->4AA-->8AA).

I think Tempered81 hit the nail on the head with this one. If you are playing older/less intensive games, there is not going to be much difference in performance. This would include COD:MW2, Hawx, Street Fighter 4, Resident Evil 5, Dirt 2, Mass Effect 2. But if you take a look at the most intensive games, then the difference is there. This would include games like Battleforge, STALKER: CoP, Metro 2033, Just Cause 2 and BF:BC2.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx-465_8.html

For example, my 4890 is plenty fast in the first list of games above, but a 5850/GTX470 whip it hard in the last 3 games I mentioned.

GTX470 vs. 4890 (1920x1080 4AA)
BF:BC2 = 47.6 vs. 30.5 (+56%)
STALKER: CoP = 37.1 vs. 21.3 (+74%)
Just Cause 2 = 38.8 vs. 25.4 (+53%)
Battleforce = 47 vs. 24 (+96%)
Metro 2033 = 29.4 vs. 20.9 (+53%) - both still slow!

But is it worth upgrading for $300? Probably not. If you can upgrade for $70, then it's not a bad deal

Look at it this way, if the games you play are still running smoothly, then unless you can score a sweet deal on newer cards, just keep using the 275 and be happy you are saving $$$.

 

[taltamir]

When i bought the 275 a year ago, i bought knowing that it's a "good mid range card".

Looking at the 460 or even 470 specs, those are a BIG disappointment!!

how much did you pay for the 275 a year ago?
what can you buy now with that kind of money?
how much more/less does the 460 cost?

all that being said, yea, there is some disappointment here... I don't think its worth upgrading at the moment.

 

[Nintendesert]

I'm looking at building a new system, had two GTX8800 SLI and getting 2x 460s in SLI.

Looking at the benchmarks and such the performance increase should be huge. And at the prices, it's hard to get anything other than a 460 right now. 465 is horrible and the 470 and 480 not a good buy when the price of 2 460s is so close and the performance so much better.

Maybe I'm misguided on this line of thinking though.

 

[flexy]

how much did you pay for the 275 a year ago?
what can you buy now with that kind of money?
how much more/less does the 460 cost?

all that being said, yea, there is some disappointment here... I don't think its worth upgrading at the moment.

I think it was barely over €200.

Let me check...GTX 260, cheapest on web is €170 and €200 for the 1GB version..and gtx 470 is €280 right now.

 

[taltamir]

that cheap? wow... very nice.

yea, this entire generation prices went waaaaay up.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Last year a lot of cards were being closed out, so cards were cheap if you managed to snag one.

Comparing a 4870 closeout at $100 to a current model 5770 isn't quite "fair" because there was only a short window at its end of life where you could by the 4870 at that price.

Back in mid-2008 when it was a new card I paid $300 for my 4870-512. I've gotten my money's worth though since I'm still using it.

What's been disappointing this year is nVidia's failure to compete until the GTX 460, giving ATI no reason to drop prices until now.

 

[Cerb]

So DX11 is the only "selling point" of those cards with other theoretical values worse than a 275.

You're looking at the wrong way.

Radeon HD 57xx cards haven't dropped much below MSRP, because the best thing nVidia could do was put another 8800 for $100 (lather, rinse, repeat through GTS 250). The 200 series never really did make much of a midrange (there's an awful gap from the GTX 260 to the GT 240), making things somewhat lackluster for awhile, until the 5xxx hit (the best time to buy was near Christmas, as if we'd all been stuck in alternate universe). Then, AMD was able to have high MSRPs, due to no competition, and supply problems; and lack of competition over time, coupled with new PCs with Windows 7, kept the prices rising. A good time to be in the market for a $50-100 card, but not so much a $200 card.

These revised Fermi chips (assuming the 240SP will be clocked a bit higher, and offer performance for their price and power similar to these 336SP models), and the ideal MSRP of the cards they are in, are an answer to that, not to any performance problems of previous generation high-end parts.

 

[BD231]

To the OP, right on for realizing this generation of video cards is crap if you already have a decent last gen card.

If you like throwing your money away bust a move, otherwise, wait for better tech as this roundup is not only disappointing but overpriced.

 

[RussianSensation]

Back in mid-2008 when it was a new card I paid $300 for my 4870-512. I've gotten my money's worth though since I'm still using it.

I know what you are saying. I purchased my Radeon 8500 for $500 CDN or something when it just came out. Then I realized in 3 years it's worth about $40. That's why now I pretend to buy the new generation right when it comes out....then end up buying it way later in its life cycle. (i.e., 4890 for $175, GTX470 for $200). So the total cost of upgrades after selling the older parts is reasonable.

I found out quickly that buying a $400/500 graphics card and keeping it for 3 years actually costs more than upgrading more often at $200 price levels and you get better performance too! Just something to think about next time. :awe: