[H]ard Does New Heat / Noise Test (real world) for 480

[BenSkywalker]

I find it kind of strange that you would dismiss the 8800GTS 512 as an upgrade over a 640 yet praise the 480's performance over the 5870 when the former actually seems to have a larger percentage lead.

I can see why both statements are valid. When cross shopping two parts one that is ~15%ish faster then the other is a reasonable difference. When upgrading from one part to another, not so much.

 

[apoppin]

I don't doubt that there are cases where it was slower than the 640 just like there are games where the 480 is slower than the 5870 (i.e. stalker). However I've read a lot of reviews for the gts 512 before buying one, and it seemed to win by a substantial amount (20% or more sometimes about 35%) in almost all of the games tested at the time (Crysis, FEAR, Stalker).
I find it kind of strange that you would dismiss the 8800GTS 512 as an upgrade over a 640 yet praise the 480's performance over the 5870 when the former actually seems to have a larger percentage lead.

http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/page4.html

You forget that i had a 8800-GTS 640 and on this very same forum we warned everyone about the "upgrade" - that it was more of a side grade. i also had 8800GTX and we knew about 9800GTX also.

That TechSpot review was an early one and their own FEAR results contradicted itself. i hope you did not 'upgrade' based on one chart.

Re: my "recommendations" - In my own review, here is what i *actually said* in conclusion:

If you currently game on a GTX 280/GTX 260/GTX 275/HD 4870/HD 4890 class of card, you will do yourself a big favor by upgrading. If you have a HD 4870-X2 or GTX 260 or GTX 275 SLI or even perhaps a GTX 295, the move to a GTX 480 will give you better visuals on the DX11 pathway and you are no doubt thinking of GTX 480 SLI. If you have a Radeon HD 5870 and are satisfied with the drivers and performance, you are not so likely to consider any change unless the many exclusive features of the new GTX 480 appeal to you. Very likely you are considering overclocking as an alternative to getting more performance.

 

[ZimZum]

Yes. TDP according to Nvidia, GTX 480 is "250 W ***in games*** .. i saw my own card apparently draw near 300W.

What was it drawing at Idle?

 

[apoppin]

What was it drawing at Idle?

My total system draw with HD 5870 was 211W at idle, 389W maxed under FurMark
My total system draw with GTX 480 was 232W at idle, 504W maxed under FurMark

 

[BFG10K]

apoppin!...welcome to the NV Focus Group. Your cheerleading for the GTX480 is most welcome.....forget what those pesky Internet Tech sites are saying about it....there will be further hardware coming your way...as soon as we can manufacture some. best wishes. Rollo, Wreckage,Prime1, Silicon Doc, Keys etc,etc....

Um, you do know Apoppin is a reviewer for alienbabeltech.com, right? If he’s a focus group member then so is every other reviewer.

Also back in the day he was really fond of the 2900XT while almost everyone else slammed it, including myself.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Um, you do know Apoppin is a reviewer for alienbabeltech.com, right? If he’s a focus group member then so is every other reviewer.

Also back in the day he was really fond of the 2900XT while almost everyone else slammed it, including myself.

Man the 2900XT was a pile... But back to the topic at hand... Yes Apop is no focus group member... He runs ABT He loves RED (COMMIE!) and loves GREEN (TREE HUGGER). He likes both sides. I do too, well, their products for the most part, but not the companies.

 

[apoppin]

Um, you do know Apoppin is a reviewer for alienbabeltech.com, right? If he’s a focus group member then so is every other reviewer.

Also back in the day he was really fond of the 2900XT while almost everyone else slammed it, including myself.

Yes, i liked it for what it was - a midrange GPU with performance/price to equal the 8800 GTS 640; it did not really compete with the GTX except for a few rare games.

Keysplayr & i bought 1 "pair" each - a 2900XT and a GTX 640 and tested the hell out of them both for about 3 weeks and reported our individual results on this forum. For me, the XT was $60 cheaper than the GTS and it came with Orange Box and since it offered similar performance, i kept it and returned the GTS. Keys kept his GTS and sold his 2900XT.

As i said many times and i will reaffirm - i really like both AMD and Nvidia and i generally like their products and their respective vision.

i can like both and still talk about each product's strengths and weaknesses, can't i?

 

[happy medium]

Yes, i liked it for what it was - a midrange GPU with performance/price to equal the 8800 GTS 640; it did not really compete with the GTX except for a few rare games.

Keysplayr & i bought 1 "pair" each - a 2900XT and a GTX 640 and tested the hell out of them both for about 3 weeks and reported our individual results on this forum. For me, the XT was $60 cheaper than the GTS and it came with Orange Box and since it offered similar performance, i kept it and returned the GTS. Keys kept his GTS and sold his 2900XT.

As i said many times and i will reaffirm - i really like both AMD and Nvidia and i generally like their products and their respective vision.

i can like both and still talk about each product's strengths and weaknesses, can't i?

I can't help but picture you in a fishtank with a bunch of ATI fanbois fishing.
It's tough in here ha?:hmm:

I remember when you had your frankenfire system also.

 

[blanketyblank]

You forget that i had a 8800-GTS 640 and on this very same forum we warned everyone about the "upgrade" - that it was more of a side grade. i also had 8800GTX and we knew about 9800GTX also.

That TechSpot review was an early one and their own FEAR results contradicted itself. i hope you did not 'upgrade' based on one chart.

Re: my "recommendations" - In my own review, here is what i *actually said* in conclusion:

I did not decide based on one review though I posted the TechSpot one since it compares the two cards in question, and I actually "upgraded" from the 320 version which is the same speed as the 640 when not VRAM limited.
I can see your point if you're just looking at it as an upgrade it's hard to justify the price for a 20% boost ( to be fair it also had lower power consumption then the g80s too). However even Anand's review puts it as
8800 Ultra > 8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GTX > 8800 GT > 8800 GTS 640 > 8800 GTS 320
in terms of speed.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2396

I'll get off of this now since it's off topic since I just wanted to correct what I saw as an inaccuracy in your statement which suggested the 640 was a faster card.
I also look forward to some retail reviews of the 480 since it seems strange how the benchmarks can vary so much for certain games/benches in different reviews considering they should all be using the same driver right now. For example Stalker: CoP is one of the few games where the 5870 clearly comes out ahead at TechSpot, but it loses in all resolutions in your review. I'm not too familiar with the game so perhaps the "sun shafts" benchmark is different or they are using the game scripted?

http://www.techspot.com/review/263-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480/page11.html

If you have time would you benchmark some of these discrepancy games again with either card perhaps with different settings? AA or AF shouldn't be a factor so I'd just like to know what could cause the same card to have different scores in the same game in similar systems.

Although I'm doubtful, I wonder if the difference could possibly be due to an i5 vs i7 ?

 

[apoppin]

dp

 

[apoppin]

I can't help but picture you in a fishtank with a bunch of ATI fanbois fishing.
It's tough in here ha?:hmm:

I remember when you had your frankenfire system also.

What is SO cool is that since then i have got to know some of the guys at both companies. And i get an inside look at the hard work and dedication these employees have for their respective companies; they *care* about their respective products and how they are perceived. Each company has a different vision (which is not really so different) and each simply wants to be the best.

This communicates to their fans. Nvidia did not bring a crappy product to market with GTX 480 any more than AMD did with 2900XT a few years ago. In that case AMD aimed for the midrange and got criticized for it; in this case, Nvidia aimed for the top and is getting criticized for it now. But both companies have continued to mature and this GTX is no overclocked DustBuster. It is new Fermi architecture that is powerful and forward-looking but makes you pay a penalty in thermals now.

I'll get off of this now since it's off topic since I just wanted to correct what I saw as an inaccuracy in your statement which suggested the 640 was a faster card.

In some benches. It was not a great upgrade at the time.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100405/infrared-pictures-of-the-geforce-gtx-480/

The most telling thing, I think, is that on the 5870 at idle the rest of the card is blue, but on the 480 you can't even see the backplate show up through the glow of the rest of the card. And same with at load.

 

[apoppin]

I also look forward to some retail reviews of the 480 since it seems strange how the benchmarks can vary so much for certain games/benches in different reviews considering they should all be using the same driver right now. For example Stalker: CoP is one of the few games where the 5870 clearly comes out ahead at TechSpot, but it loses in all resolutions in your review. I'm not too familiar with the game so perhaps the "sun shafts" benchmark is different or they are using the game scripted?

http://www.techspot.com/review/263-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480/page11.html

If you have time would you benchmark some of these discrepancy games again with either card perhaps with different settings? AA or AF shouldn't be a factor so I'd just like to know what could cause the same card to have different scores in the same game in similar systems.

Although I'm doubtful, I wonder if the difference could possibly be due to an i5 vs i7 ?

OK, i rebenched with GTX 480 and HD 5870 just this morning, this time with each one overclocked (and i reran my benches with the stock GTX 480 again) and there was no change in the relative positions when both were overclocked

My i7 was at 3.8 GHz with Turbo on (3.97 GHz auto OC for a core

Sun shafts is the last of the 4 tests that the CoP bench runs. It is the most demanding because of the Sun's rays and the increased shader usage to render it.
ALSO, if you will note, i used 4xAA - they used none - that makes a difference .. and it was not like a Night and Day difference
(pun intended; two of the STALKER benches are actually named "night" & "day" )

 

[Will Robinson]

 

[blanketyblank]

OK, i rebenched with GTX 480 and HD 5870 just this morning, this time with each one overclocked (and i reran my benches with the stock GTX 480 again) and there was no change in the relative positions when both were overclocked

My i7 was at 3.8 GHz with Turbo on (3.97 GHz auto OC for a core

Sun shafts is the last of the 4 tests that the CoP bench runs. It is the most demanding because of the Sun's rays and the increased shader usage to render it.
ALSO, if you will note, i used 4xAA - they used none - that makes a difference .. and it was not like a Night and Day difference
(pun intended; two of the STALKER benches are actually named "night" & "day" )

Thanks. I guess the 4xAA could be the reason for the difference. This seems to match Anand's results with 4xMsAA. Perhaps that means 480 does AA faster than a 5870 so it takes a much smaller performance hit assuming the difference isn't due to a different test altogether.
I think it would be interesting to see exactly what functions circumstances the 480 excels beyond tesselation. It seems AA might be one of them.

 

[apoppin]

Thanks. I guess the 4xAA could be the reason for the difference. This seems to match Anand's results with 4xMsAA. Perhaps that means 480 does AA faster than a 5870 so it takes a much smaller performance hit assuming the difference isn't due to a different test altogether.
I think it would be interesting to see exactly what functions circumstances the 480 excels beyond tesselation. It seems AA might be one of them.

Agreed on the possible differences.

And i think you read my mind .. or my posts

.. i am going to test the 8xAA performance hit over 4xAA on HD 5870 vs. GTX 480 (at stock clocks) next. i am finishing up my overclocking benches tonight - i should be done with GTX 480 (825/1100) vs. HD 5870 (975/1300) in a few hours.

By then my house and neighborhood will be dead silent and i will rerun the GTX 480 for *at least* AN HOUR looping Crysis at 25x16, all 'very high' and with 8xMSAA in the same position as yesterday's testing - that way you can read my case and ambient temps as i will record the video of the last minute so you can also hear it. i will add that to my HD 4870-X2 and HD 5870 runs also.

At least my house will be warm in the morning. i shut off the gas because i could hear the gas pilot hissing it was so quiet with everything off (before i turned on my PC)

 

[konakona]

apoppin, did you already publish some of the test results? I am very interested to see how they match up when both are overclocked. Thx!

 

[apoppin]

apoppin, did you already publish some of the test results? I am very interested to see how they match up when both are overclocked. Thx!

Only the first set of tests, Part 1 - 5870 vs GTX 480 each at stock - have already been published the day after the NDA expired..
Part Two gets finished this week (with Overclocked and then 8xMSAA results) and it is usually written up at the weekend and published by Monday.

i am trying to finish writing a ECS MB review right now and i'm running GTX O/C'd benches at the same time
- i also have the noise video to finish (one more take to record and then final) editing and then i will post it to YouTube. Hopefully tomorrow.

All i am missing is sleep

 

[MrK6]

And what is your 8800 GTS 640 > 8800 GTS 500 ?
- i hope it wasn't an "upgrade" .. no wonder you are disappointed and bitter

Wow, that about says it right there. You really have no clue about hardware, at all. It's a shame that you actually have a website; and people complain about Charlie.

 

[apoppin]

Wow, that about says it right there. You really have no clue about hardware, at all. It's a shame that you actually have a website; and people complain about Charlie.

Are we even talking about the same cards? There were a bunch of versions of the old G80 and new G92 out at that time. There was the g80 8800 GTS 640 with 112 SPs which beat the old GTX. i also remember that the new g92 512MB version has a difficult time beating the old GTX at higher resolutions as it was constrained by its 256-bit bus.

What i post i my site in my reviews is double checked; what i post from memory here is not the same standard, nor should it be.

otoh, you don't seem to have much clue about anything

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...sk=view&id=137&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=10

Looking back over our battery of benchmark tests, there were several times when one card seemed to win out over the competition, only to be badly beaten in the next round. One thing is certain: the GeForce 8800 GTS is a no-win product at this point. Made only worse by the recent update to a 512MB and 1GB version, the price for a 256-bit memory interface is hardly worth the small performance gain. Put plainly, the old 8800 GTS was a good price point in the days where you had to choose between either a 7900 GTX/7950 GTX at the low end or an 8800 GTX/Ultra at the high end. Now there are far more graphic cards that put out better performance for less cost, and the new 8800 GTS isn't fitting in quite as well.

 

[cbn]

Are we even talking about the same cards? There were a bunch of versions of the old G80 and new G92 out at that time.


http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...sk=view&id=137&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=10

8800 GTS (G92) had 128 Cores running at faster speeds than the 96 cores of 8800 GTS (G80).

P.S. Nvidia's naming scheme has always confused me. The older 8800 GTS (based on G80) is slower than the G92 8800 GT, but the G92 8800 GTS is 2nd fastest falling short only to G80 8800 GTX right?

 

[apoppin]

What about the G80 8800 GTS 640 with 112 SPs ?
- it beat the old GTX and was being sold at the same time as the 128 SP G92 8800-GTS 512MB

And the G92 got a cut down bus that held it back performance-wise at the highest resolutions. i remember there were a lot of complaints here from people who made that change from G80.

 

[blanketyblank]

8800 GTS (G92) had 128 Cores running at faster speeds than the 96 cores of 8800 GTS (G80).

P.S. Nvidia's naming scheme has always confused me. The older 8800 GTS (based on G80) is slower than the G92 8800 GT, but the G92 8800 GTS is 2nd fastest falling short only to G80 8800 GTX right?

I already posted this, but Anand ranks them as such:
8800 Ultra > 8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GTX > 8800 GT > 8800 GTS 640 > 8800 GTS 320

So actually it's supposed to be slightly faster than a GTX (they trade blows in review), but slower than an Ultra. Hard to say though, but it was cheaper, cooler (had lower power requirements) than a GTX and pretty consistently had better performance than the other cards as well.

I personally dislike conclusions based on pricing since that changes over time. These cards may have been horribly priced at launch, but at some point they became a pretty good deal almost the same price as an 8800 GT.

What about the G80 8800 GTS 640 with 112 SPs ?
- it beat the old GTX and was being sold at the same time as the 128 SP G92 8800-GTS 512MB

And the G92 got a cut down bus that held it back performance-wise at the highest resolutions. i remember there were a lot of complaints here from people who made that change from G80.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? When did and how could a G80 GTS 640 ever beat a 768 G80 in anything besides cost? I know you probably have fond memories of the card, but I've never seen a review where the 640 beat the GTX in anything which makes sense considering it's the same chip and the GTX is clocked higher and has more memory.

 

[cbn]

What about the G80 8800 GTS 640 with 112 SPs ?
- it beat the old GTX and was being sold at the same time as the 128 SP G92 8800-GTS 512MB

And the G92 got a cut down bus that held it back performance-wise at the highest resolutions. i remember there were a lot of complaints here from people who made that change from G80.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_8800_GTS_512_MB

Here are the specs I found.

Notice the Core count and core clocks on 8800 GTS 512 vs 8800 GTS 640. (128 Cores @ 650 Mhz vs 96 cores @ 500 Mhz)

 

[apoppin]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_8800_GTS_512_MB

Here are the specs I found.

Notice the Core count and core clocks on 8800 GTS 512 vs 8800 GTS 640. (128 Cores @ 650 Mhz vs 96 cores @ 500 Mhz)

i think you are right and i was confusing the G80 GTX with the GTS
- as i recall (now) the 8800 GTX (which i also still have) was faster than the G92 512 MB 256-bit GTS at the highest resolutions. That is the one i believe i was thinking about as more of a side grade than an upgrade.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? When did and how could a G80 GTS 640 ever beat a 768 G80 in anything besides cost? I know you probably have fond memories of the card, but I've never seen a review where the 640 beat the GTX in anything which makes sense considering it's the same chip and the GTX is clocked higher and has more memory.

This one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series

Around the same release date as the 8800 GT, NVIDIA released a new 640 MB of the 8800 GTS. While still based on the 90 nm G80 core, this version has 7 out of the 8 clusters of 16 stream processors enabled (as opposed to 6 out 8 on the older GTSs), giving it a total of 112 stream processors instead of 96. Most other aspects of the card remain unchanged. However, because the only 2 add-in partners who are making this card (BFG and EVGA) have decided to overclock it, this version of the 8800 GTS actually runs slightly faster than a stock GTX in most scenarios, especially at higher resolutions, due to the increased clock speeds

it was pretty confusing back then
There was G80 and G92 and many versions of each one including GTX, GTS and GT - some overclocked and some with "extra" shaders enabled.