gtx465 reviews are up

[tincart]

That being said, launch vs. launch is a perfectly resonable as first impressions tend to last long, and its a way to compare both products in an unbiased fashion. Besides that, there's a very reasonable chance that in a months time pricing for GTX 465 will look different and the product will be better positioned.

So, we can extrapolate from these claims that:

1) When buying a product, you look at what price it WAS at and not what price it is at NOW since the previous price made an "impression" on you (whatever we are to take this to mean...)

2) Comparing two products in an "unbiased fashion," for you, involves not considering the current features or status of those product, but rather the previous features or status.

3) In a months time, when the 465 prices fall, your opinion will not change AT ALL since your unbiased decision is still based on the launch price, which made an "impression" on you.

Tout court: Your position is inconsistent.

Economics professors are going to have a hell of a time figuring this out.

 

[HurleyBird]

3) In a months time, when the 465 prices fall, your opinion will not change AT ALL since your unbiased decision is still based on the launch price, which made an "impression" on you.

I didn't say anything about my own personal opinion --Obviously if someone was to buy a graphics card today I wouldn't reccomend a 465 on the good possibility that they will be cheaper when prices have had time to adjust-- I merely put forward that a *comparison* of launch to launch is an unbiased way to compare both products. In a month's (or even in a couple weeks time) an unbiased way to compare both products would be to compare current prices as both have had time to adjust.

Lets break it down, when attempting to judge the success of two products:

Launch vs. launch: Comparison that the first impression of both products made. Unbiased since it treats both products the same. Obviously not going to be used for an immediate purshasing decision.

Launch vs. been on the market: Comparison of current prices. Valid in order to make a pruchasing decision at launch, but has an inherit bias as you are not comparing both products on equal footing and launch prices tend to change quickly.

Been on the market vs. been on the market: Comparison of the products once both of them have settled into their respective price brackets. Unbiased and can be used for a purchasing decision.

Obviously option 3 is the best, but it is not available right now.

Get it now? You're making a mountain out of a molehill; creating a dumb argument where there should be none. This discussion is about GTX 465 reviews (eg. the 465 launch). Comparing to the 5830 launch is a valid comparison of relative sucess or failure of the launch.

 

[tincart]

Launch vs. launch: Comparison that the first impression of both products made. Unbiased since it treats both products the same. Obviously not going to be used for an immediate purshasing decision.

Launch vs. been on the market: Comparison of current prices. Valid in order to make a pruchasing decision at launch, but has an inherit bias as you are not comparing both products on equal footing and launch prices tend to change quickly.

Your claim that the first comparison is "unbiased" makes no sense and relies on the specious claim that a comparison between "launch vs. been on the market" involves bias. Such a comparison involves no such thing. Bias, as mentioned previously, is the tendency of a person to judge in a way that is not impartial. A comparison between two products on the market based on their current features and prices, regardless of their release dates, is completely impartial (if we exclude other factors, e.g. brand loyalty).

This couplet relies on a false dichotomy and a patently false understanding of what a "bias" is. If considering the time of release introduces bias, then which differences between the two compared products do not introduce bias? From your position it would seem to follow that any differences would introduce bias. On the other hand, if you want to say that time of release is the or one of the only differences that would introduce "bias" you've got quite the mountain to climb in order to explain why that is.

Been on the market vs. been on the market: Comparison of the products once both of them have settled into their respective price brackets. Unbiased and can be used for a purchasing decision.

This contradicts your previous statements. If we must compare launch to launch for an "unbiased" opinion then we should continue to compare in temporal succession so as to avoid introducing any imbalance. When the 465 is one month old, we should compare it to the 5830 at one month after release, and so on. In order to be consistent you must either maintain symmetry of comparison or admit that it is not a valid factor here.

Get it now? You're making a mountain out of a molehill; creating a dumb argument where there should be none.

Marginalizing and insulting the position or another person is a pretty reliable indicator of insecurity about your own position.

 

[Genx87]

but that goes back to my previous point. is someone with say an 8800gt willing to more than double their power usage and put up with all that noise in heat just to get a decent boost and pick up DX11 support? I just dont think there is much of a market for this card because it has all the negatives off an ultra high end card but delivers mid range performance.

What are people's options? 200 dollar 5830 or a 300 dollar 5850? If this thing settles at 250 people will buy it. The market doesnt just ignore that big of a price range.

If I owned an 8800 I would probably pick one up for 250 bucks. But I own a 4850 and have decided to sit this generation out and build an entirely new machine next Spring.

 

[RussianSensation]

This discussion is about GTX 465 reviews (eg. the 465 launch). Comparing to the 5830 launch is a valid comparison of relative sucess or failure of the launch.

That's not a logical comparison. We are not discussing how poor of a card 5830 was at launch; so it's irrelevant.

GTX465 currently slots between 5830 and 5850 in performance (closer to the 5830 based on most reviews such as Guru3D: http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-465-sli-review/11). However, the GTX465 is priced only $10 away from the 5850 and $80 away from the 5830. So it's neither as cheap as the 5830, nor as fast as the 5850 (with all the negatives of poor power consumption, noise, heat, etc.). It would be much more successful if it was priced at $200-$249 (max).

 

[v8envy]

I'm plodding along with an 8800GT and I wouldn't be interested in this card even at $150, never mind $250 or $279. Because it has all the drawbacks of the full-fledged Fermi with 4890 performance. I can still get a 4890 today for $175. Why would I want to cough up an extra $75 and upgrade my PSU to turn my computer case into a noisy kiln?

The release of this card changes nothing. For mainstream low end the clear choice is the 5770, and for the higher end it's 5850. GTX480 is the only competitive product from the entire Fermi lineup.

 

[HurleyBird]

That's not a logical comparison. We are not discussing how poor of a card 5830 was at launch; so it's irrelevant.

It's perfectly logical and appropriate. We're discussing the 465 launch (and not just in a general sense, we have been specifically since this train of thought began at post 56). Comparing to other launches to gauge the success or failure of this launch obviously on topic. Seeing as the 5830 draws many parralels with this card it is doubly on topic.

Marginalizing and insulting the position or another person is a pretty reliable indicator of insecurity about your own position.

I'm not marginalizing your position at all. What I am doing is pointing out how unimportant to the thread this discussion is. Pages of debate based off of one observation about this launch vs. that of the 5830 is in not constructive or a good use of time. It's arguing for the sake of arguing, pure and simple. I would hazard a guess that is why you're here, to create a debate; any deabte. I can recognize the signs, such as trying to drag this into a discussion about "temporal succession". You'll deny it, of course, but I can see the signs anywhere. I used to be the exact same kind of person myself.

And in the future, be aware that there is a broad definition of bias. There is bias in the personal sense, or bias can be entirely impersonal. For example, if you have a moderate understanding of computer science or math you know of the term "biased notation", and that term was not coined due to personal prejudices If you can accept this truth, you should be smart enough to go read my previous posts and see that there is no false dichotomy or poor reaonsing on my part.

Cheers

 

[MrK6]

Same can be said of Mrk6.

Please cry elsewhere. Doesn't NVIDIA have a support line for your type with a recording of how awesome they are?

Anyway, the HD 5830 and the GTX 465 are extremely similar and I think it's more than appropriate to compare the two. Basically, you have products that are sinks for each company's high end chip. The 5830 is overpriced at $240 MSRP and luckily there have been a few sales to bring it below $200. I think it still needs to be cheaper, but w/e, maybe there aren't that many 5830's being made, so no one cares how well they sell. However, the HD 5830 had the advantage of launching into a virtually untouched market segment, something the GTX 465 doesn't. Pricing the GTX 465 so close to the 5850 is, as others have discussed, laughable. If you want to sell makeshift parts then you need to price them at makeshift prices, and that goes for both companies.

I'm plodding along with an 8800GT and I wouldn't be interested in this card even at $150, never mind $250 or $279. Because it has all the drawbacks of the full-fledged Fermi with 4890 performance. I can still get a 4890 today for $175. Why would I want to cough up an extra $75 and upgrade my PSU to turn my computer case into a noisy kiln?

The release of this card changes nothing. For mainstream low end the clear choice is the 5770, and for the higher end it's 5850. GTX480 is the only competitive product from the entire Fermi lineup.

I completely agree. I have a couple of friends with 4890's that were looking for something, but are still holding on because there is nothing worthwhile out there. The upper segment is too close in performance to warrant the price differences, and beyond going for something insane like GTX 480 SLI, a 5850 is the card to get. Nothing else really compares at the moment.

 

[GaiaHunter]

When you look at reviews that don't include a 5830, the GTX 465 doesn't seem complete crap.

IMO the ATI features of less power, heat and silence and more performance of the 5850 beat the GTX 465 slightly cheaper, cuda and physX

But when you see the 465 compared to a card like the 5830 that is already considered a turd in the light of older GPUs and even the 5770, the only way you are going to consider a GTX 465 is if PhysX and CUDA are a can't live without feature or every time you see the NVIDIA logo you feel warm inside.

 

[tincart]

I'm not marginalizing your position at all. What I am doing is pointing out how unimportant to the thread this discussion is. Pages of debate based off of one observation about this launch vs. that of the 5830 is in not constructive or a good use of time.

Hmmm... arguing you're not trying to marginalize my points and then going on to do just that. Pure class. One might, of course question, why you are continuing to participate if this debate is a waste of time. I'll mark this down as one more inconsistent statement.

And in the future, be aware that there is a broad definition of bias. There is bias in the personal sense, or bias can be entirely impersonal. For example, if you have a moderate understanding of computer science or math you know of the term "biased notation", and that term was not coined due to personal prejudices If you can accept this truth, you should be smart enough to go read my previous posts and see that there is no false dichotomy or poor reaonsing on my part.

Pointing out univocal definitions of bias only matters if they are all applicable to the present issue. Not all the definitions are applicable. Only one is and it is the one I defined.

So much for higher debate on this topic...

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is evident when we consider a GPU a better buy than another we are being biased.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Bias can be total performance, price/performance, power consumption, brand, feature x, etc, or more than one factor.

What isn't that interesting is not recognizing the pros and cons of a certain product and not understand/state in which factors is your bias based.

 

[HurleyBird]

a final word for you, tincart:

On the contrary, I think you're doing a fine job in making your case. The issue is that it is a stupid debate that is going far off topic and threatens to derail or even kill the thread. God knows I've been guilty of doing this in the past, so I know what it looks like.

As far as which definitions apply, its obvious that *you* can't arbitrarily decide which definition of bias *I* was using when *I* used the example in the first place. And that's my final word on the matter. Back on topic.

 

[BFG10K]

I'm with you, but, just want to say...to be "fair" to Nvidia (and i'm NOT saying that this is the case here, just saying): imho gotta take into account the pitch and such of the noise, not necessarily just the decibels...It should be the same as the gtx470, right? In which case it can get loud...but fortunately it's not an annoying noise, just air moving...not like a delta (lol, good times!), or fx series card thank god!

With the right cooler and right price not so bad. Certainly was received the same way the 5830 was, poorly.

Some parts run hotter, use more power, and/or are louder than a GTX480, while offering less performance than a GTX470. There’s absolutely no way to justify such rubbish.

 

[HurleyBird]

Some parts run hotter, use more power, and/or are louder than a GTX480, while offering less performance than a GTX470. There’s absolutely no way to justify such rubbish.

And that's the rub. The way things are looking, if you buy a GTX 465 there is a very real chance that you get a complete turd. Nvidia appears to be aggressively voltage binning so they can sell parts that in any other situation would probably be scrap. Many people buy cut down parts looking for gems in the rough (eg. a card that just almost made certification as a higher end product), but in this seems to be the first time you also have a very significant chance of getting a turd in the punchbowl. A better solution would have been to introduce an even more castrated part or to offer two different versions of the 465, where you can get a discount but will have higher consumption. Hate to say it, but its beginning to look like Charlie was close to dead on about yields.

The last thing you want to do is make consumers afraid of your product...

 

[Attic]

GTX465 = Yuck!

I was expecting something a little bit exciting, but it appears nVidia is really having a harder time than I thought with the Fermi architecture.

I wonder if the 5830 set a low standard for nVidia to shoot for in their budget enthusiast goals for a card this generation. It looks like nVidia has been careful not to compete directly on price with any of AMD's offerings (likely because they cannot successfully compete there), but the GTX465 at $280 comes way to close to the price of the 5850 to be a card worth considering.

IMO there is still no worthwhile cards between the 5770 and 5850 price points, i'm surprised neither GPU maker filled the >$100 price gap with a capable DX11 part. SI should be interesting and hopefully we may see the price/performance of the 4850 (for it's time) matched in one of the new parts to come out of SI.

 

[MagickMan]

GTX465 = Yuck!

I was expecting something a little bit exciting, but it appears nVidia is really having a harder time than I thought with the Fermi architecture.

I wonder if the 5830 set a low standard for nVidia to shoot for in their budget enthusiast goals for a card this generation. It looks like nVidia has been careful not to compete directly on price with any of AMD's offerings (likely because they cannot successfully compete there), but the GTX465 at $280 comes way to close to the price of the 5850 to be a card worth considering.

IMO there is still no worthwhile cards between the 5770 and 5850 price points, i'm surprised neither GPU maker filled the >$100 price gap with a capable DX11 part. SI should be interesting and hopefully we may see the price/performance of the 4850 (for it's time) matched in one of the new parts to come out of SI.

I agree. The 5830 is such a turd at it's price point that nV likely screwed themselves when pricing the 465. It's a $230 card, not $280.

 

[Attic]

I agree. The 5830 is such a turd at it's price point that nV likely screwed themselves when pricing the 465. It's a $230 card, not $280.

Yes, that would make a lot more sense given the 465's characteristics. It will be interesting to see how well the 465 takes.