• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GTX 465 review ... one more shoe from NV drops

just another shitty card from a price/performance perspective. I guess 352sp can barely even match 240sp from the previous gen as the the darn thing is really no better than the old gtx275. I cant see any real value in this or any other DX11 card above 5770 at the moment.
 
Need to see real world power consumption, temps, and OC to paint a more informed picture.


I get the feeling that this card should be another 20-40 cheaper and that would make it's value.
 
So this is one of the options I have been waiting on ? If driver improvements doesn't make it a little faster, then I'll be waiting on the GTX490.

And if that turns out mediocre, then Ill be getting a 5970.

I wish they would release a ATI 5890 though.

Come on NV....I know you can do better than this.
 
it's a preeeview not a re-view!

Looks like Nvidia's answer to the 5830, i.e., overhyped, overpriced, underperforming POS.
 
I'm thinking of both unoptimized drivers, but also at really weird results. Just looking at DiRT 2, I find the minima/avg fps way off from my own results, for both the GTX 480 (higher then I recorded) and the HD 5870 (lower then I recorded).
 
MarcVenice said:
I'm thinking of both unoptimized drivers, but also at really weird results. Just looking at DiRT 2, I find the minima/avg fps way off from my own results, for both the GTX 480 (higher then I recorded) and the HD 5870 (lower then I recorded).
Click to expand...

Why would drivers matter? This is part of the fermi family. Would not drivers optimized for the 480 and 470 be, by extension, optimized for the 465? Or are driver writers so advanced they can actually target the 465 performance separately?
 
Not a big surprise. Roughly the performance of the 275, 4890 and 5830, at a higher cost. And undoubtedly much higher power use and noise. I'd bite for around $160 or so, but at the expected $20 over the original MSRP of a 5850 I'm giving this one a big fat hairy pass.

Good thing the faithful will line up in droves to buy this card. NV will need the R&D $ to make Fermi II the product we all want.
 
So one year later and we get 4890 performance with probably the same power consumption but for almost $100 more.


Hrmph
 
Well, looks like dropping down to 1GB really killed minimums in some tests (e.g. Battlezone), and cutting everything back so much really hurt general performance (unsurprisingly).
Without temp/etc it's hard to say anything concrete, and the lack of comparison with the HD5830 is disappointing (even though it's only a preview), but overall the price is far too high for the majority performance, although for lower resolution monitors (e.g. 1600x900 or 1680x1050) it's not actually that bad compared to an HD5850.
 
If power consumption is really low (5770 levels), this might be a decent niche solution of HTPC enthusiasts, although extremely overpriced. Anyway, I seriously doubt it is, which means the card is wholly unimpressive. Evidently NVIDIA did not learn from the 5830 slip up (which is finally starting to sell below $200, so good luck competing with that).
 
Yet another move that won't have any decisive effect on pricing. This year in graphics has been excitingly disappointing.
 
Maybe this card will unlock into a GTX470? Otherwise, it's looking like another lackluster card from NV.

This about sums it up:

"At a recommended price of $279, it is but slightly cheaper than the Radeon HD 5850 but has a lower performance, comparable to that of the GeForce GTX 275. We guess a potential buyer is more likely to add $20 to buy the more expensive product from AMD instead of the new card from Nvidia."

This generation has become somewhat of a write-off for GTX275/285/4890 users. Any cards worth upgrading to (i.e., 5870/GTX480) are $400+ and GTX465 is $80-$100 overpriced in my book. Even if a person was building a brand new system today, buying GTX275's performance for $280 USD 12 months later (and 12 months ago GTX275's were $200-225) seems like a massive rip-off. Memory bandwidth at 103 GB/sec...
 
Last edited:
MentalIlness said:
So this is one of the options I have been waiting on ? If driver improvements doesn't make it a little faster, then I'll be waiting on the GTX490.

And if that turns out mediocre, then Ill be getting a 5970.

I wish they would release a ATI 5890 though.

Come on NV....I know you can do better than this.
Click to expand...

Most likely it would just be a higher clocked 5870 anyways. Why wait?
 
I am actually surprised it is performing as well as it is at the resolutions most people looking at this card would play. Outside of Crysis and Resident evil 5 this card at 1080p or lower is very competitive with or beats the 5850 and sometimes the 5870.
 
Last edited:
MentalIlness said:
So this is one of the options I have been waiting on ? If driver improvements doesn't make it a little faster, then I'll be waiting on the GTX490.

And if that turns out mediocre, then Ill be getting a 5970.

I wish they would release a ATI 5890 though.

Come on NV....I know you can do better than this.
Click to expand...

How do you go from a 279 card to a 699 card in your evaluation process?
 
Genx87 said:
I am actually surprised it is performing as well as it is at the resolutions most people looking at this card would play.
Click to expand...

That's not how I view it. In one of the few games where you actually need the graphics power (Crysis), it can't even beat a GTX275.

I am actually surprised how little performance advantage you get in those common resolutions with any of the current generation cards other than GTX480. If I am going to drop $400-500 on a graphics card, it better be 2x faster than GTX275/4890. Even a $500 GTX480 is not 2x faster than last generation high end.
 
RussianSensation said:
That's not how I view it. In one of the few games where you actually need the graphics power (Crysis), it can't even beat a GTX275.

I am actually surprised how little performance advantage you get in those common resolutions with any of the current generation cards other than GTX480. If I am going to drop $400-500 on a graphics card, it better be 2x faster than GTX275/4890. Even a $500 GTX480 is not 2x faster than last generation high end.
Click to expand...

True but to be honest none of those cards are performing that great in Crysis. The 5850 scores a whole 8 fps more than the GTX 275 and 465 at 1600x900. And the top performing card the 480 is approaching 60fps but still about 25% shy. 1080p is really iffy for any of the cards and the top resolution might as well be in a picture frame.

All I can conclude from this bench is Crysis is a hog for resources.

But once you get past that benchmark which makes them all look like shit. The picture imo gets a bit better looking for Nvidia. This card isnt targetted at people playing at 2560X1600. In the resolutions where it should be it performs rather well imo. I am seeing a few instances of it beating the 5850 and even once it beats the 5870. But overall I think it is interesting at those resolutions 1080p and 1600x900 the Nvidia cards as a whole are doing really well.
 
Last edited:
197.75 WHQL for Nvidia GeForce used = fail.

New drivers or possibly the 256 beta's released (for the gtx series) yesterday could have helped.

Why would Nvidia let them break the NDA? Think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top