overall not impressed going from gtx260 to gtx470

[ArchAngel777]

Unless you are trying to play a game rather then "bring your GPU to its knees"...
Trying to play means looking for a setting at which the game produces a playable FPS... you would find that if your GPU is too slow what do you do? you lower the resolution, the AA quality, lower the shader a bit... the game looks nearly as good...
what if your CPU is too slow? well, you buy a new CPU or don't play the game (OC can help here), thats the only thing you can do.

This is why it is so important that you have a fast CPU, because you can freely tweak the GPU requirement by doing the above...

just the other day I was playing just cause 2.. I have a C2Q 9400 and a GTX260... my GTX260 was not fast enough on the "optimal settings", so a tweaked it a bit, I then settled on using nearly max settings minus a few things (SSAO off, object quality low, shadow quality medium) and reduced the resolution from 1920x1200 to 1280x800... (I could benchmark 60fps at much higher quality settings, but the game will get extremely laggy at some points... there are some things that come on in the game which just ruin your FPS and are NOT encountered during the benchmarks)

Also... even on such intensive 3d stuff you need a monster CPU pushing those GPUs or they will NOT be any faster then a lower end GPU.
16x AF is a MUST and I will never EVER play a game with it again... I force it in the driver if I need to...
AA and shadows I can do without... I don't mind completely disabling shadows and AA if I have to (its not very realistic but the game still looks good; and my wallet thanks me for not having bought the super expensive rig needed for those).

While we are at it, lets go back to 16 bit color too... No one likes transparencies.

 

[Voo]

While we are at it, lets go back to 16 bit color too... No one likes transparencies.

Hey that's what I've been saying all the time, why should I get a new GPU if my X1950 can play Crysis at 800x600 almost with medium settings!

 

[RussianSensation]

Hey that's what I've been saying all the time, why should I get a new GPU if my X1950 can play Crysis at 800x600 almost with medium settings!

Wow is X1950 really that slow in Crysis? hehe I could only manage 800x600 with medium settings 0AA/0AF on Radeon 8500 64mb when Far Cry 1 came out!

 

[evolucion8]

I was able to play it at 1024x768 with everything on medium with my X1950XT and rarely dipped below 25fps, even with everything on high at the same resolution and no aa/af, it was barely playable, it was like, min: 4 Max: 29 Avg: 22

 

[BFG10K]

Buy a bigger case, upgrade your CPU and Motherboard and give her another go.

LMAO, so now his case is holding back performance?

Seriously, what a load of utter nonsense.

 

[toyota]

LMAO, so now his case is holding back performance?

Seriously, what a load of utter nonsense.

see there are people much worse than me. lol

you can lock this thread if you want to since its run its course.

 

[BFG10K]

Spending $350 for 30% performance improvement is very likely to leave one disappointed. However, the 30-40% difference is achieved with the fastest processors.

If I got a 30% increase across the board from my GTX470, I’d very happy. The problem is that I’m getting the same performance (or less) than my GTX285 in most cases.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU because I run GPU bound settings. I proved that by underclocking my E6850 down to 2 GHz and observing little to no impact in the very same situations that I’m now using the GTX470 in.

All those times when we try to tell you that Core i7 walks all over C2D systems in games at 1920x1080 with 4AA, and you refuse to accept it? Well, I think it's a real world example for some of the games listed (Far Cry 2). I understand that you play at 2560x1600 with highest AA where a single GTX470 is by far the greatest bottleneck. But toyota's scenario is not yours and he does not seem that eager to dial in 8AA modes.

In Far Cry 2 I don’t use 8xAA, I use 2xAA. With my i5 750 at my settings, my average and minimum are lower than Toyota’s dual-core results. I know my settings are playable because I’ve finished the game twice with an even lower average than I get now.

So tell me, how exactly would a faster CPU help in this situation, given Toyota’s CPU is more than capable of saturating a GTX470 at the settings I play the game at?

All those times I’ve stated that a 30” display with a high-end GPU has by far the biggest impact on gaming rings true yet again.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

see there are people much worse than me. lol

you can lock this thread if you want to since its run its course.

Didn't you say a couple games were crashing on the 470 due to heat? I think that's what the "better case" comment was about; more breathing room. Though luv2increase didn't read this whole thread so who knows...

 

[toyota]

Didn't you say a couple games were crashing on the 470 due to heat? I think that's what the "better case" comment was about; more breathing room. Though luv2increase didn't read this whole thread so who knows...

just Crysis froze up at 92 C one time. my case is certainly a very decent case when it comes to airflow and we are talking about an otherwise fairly mild system with a second from the top single gpu. if a case like mine cant handle it then that means craps for most other people too.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

just Crysis froze up at 92 C one time. my case is certainly a very decent case when it comes to airflow and we are talking about an otherwise fairly mild system with a second from the top single gpu. if a case like mine cant handle it then that means craps for most other people too.

True. It's a good example why heat is a factor when browsing GPU's. If the card fits, and the room temp is reasonable, the card shouldn't overheat. Though sometimes the factory TIM could use a re-do.

 

[bryanW1995]

well I replaced the old 192sp gtx260 with a gtx470 and was really expecting more. I am playing at 1920x1080 so I should see some big gains right? well not so much but first I want to go over some non gaming impressions.

now my old 65nm gtx260 had a tdp of 182 watts and the gtx470 has a tdp of 215 watts. there is no doubt that Nvidia is flat out lying or changed what they call tdp and reviews easly show this. as for me while using furmark the gtx470 uses OVER 100 watts MORE than the gtx260 which is insane for a card with a claimed 30 watt tdp difference from the same card maker.

as for noise yes the card is insanely loud during furmark but during actually gaming the fan does not ramp up that high. thank goodness because I would stick it right back in the box if it did. as for temps it will hit 94 during furmark but during games 85-90 seems to be the norm. at idle its quiet and fairly cool though.

now as for games this thing is hit or miss. some of it is probably due to my E8500 even though at 3.8 I was not really expecting too much cpu limitation.

Far Cry 2 only improved by FOUR fps at 1920 very high setting and 2x AA. on top of that the minimum is EXACTLY the same as when using my gtx260. so much for a 3.8 Core 2 Duo not limiting me in this game.

Avatar demo has a little higher average framerate but the minimums are almost exactly where they were with my gtx260. it uses the same engine as Far Cry 2 so that makes sense.

Bad Company 2 is actually SLOWER on the gtx470 because I guess DX11 is more demanding even though the settings are the same. turning down settings doesnt really help either so I guess I need to force DX10 if there is a way.

Cryostasis was one game that I was expecting a large improvement in but that didnt happen. framerates are only 3-5 higher on average and it still dips into the teens even though I am not even using advanced physx settings at all.

Batman AA is certainly smoother while using very high phsyx even though it was acceptable doing so even on the gtx260. framerates are up about 15 or so which means basically no more slow downs while using physx.

STALKER Clear Sky received a nice fps boost but still isnt where I would like to be. its still too sluggish at times and I dont even have everything maxed.

Just Cause 2 improved quite a bit but again I was expecting more in the benchmark. framerates went from 43 to 63 at the exact same max settings 4x AA with Bokeh filter and advanced water off.

Red Faction Guerrilla went up about 7-9 fps but the minimums were still exactly the same as with the gtx260.

Crysis is now playable on DX10 very high settings but its really only about 6-8 fps then I was getting on the gtx260.




all those tests were done with the gtx470 overclocked to 703/1405/3624 too so theres not really much left in that gpu. I sure thought going from 192sp to 448sp would be a much bigger improvement but sad to say its not.

if I had bought the card locally I would just return it but I am sure newegg will charge a restocking fee if I did that. I guess I just dont feel that I spent $329 very wisely.

you clearly need a faster cpu. probably a 6 core i7 cpu oc'd to 4.3 or more :;

sorry, couldn't resist. you know, for old times' sake

 

[Patrick Wolf]

If I got a 30% increase across the board from my GTX470, I’d very happy. The problem is that I’m getting the same performance (or less) than my GTX285 in most cases.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU because I run GPU bound settings. I proved that by underclocking my E6850 down to 2 GHz and observing little to no impact in the very same situations that I’m now using the GTX470 in.


In Far Cry 2 I don’t use 8xAA, I use 2xAA. With my i5 750 at my settings, my average and minimum are lower than Toyota’s dual-core results. I know my settings are playable because I’ve finished the game twice with an even lower average than I get now.

So tell me, how exactly would a faster CPU help in this situation, given Toyota’s CPU is more than capable of saturating a GTX470 at the settings I play the game at?

All those times I’ve stated that a 30” display with a high-end GPU has by far the biggest impact on gaming rings true yet again.

So what are you suggesting exactly?

No gamer should upgrade from a fast C2D to an i5/i7 quad?
No gamer with a 470 should upgrade the CPU until the drivers improve?
OR
Any gamer with a fast C2D and GPU should just buy a $1000+ 30" monitor instead of a CPU upgrade?

Other?

 

[luv2increase]

LMAO, so now his case is holding back performance?

Seriously, what a load of utter nonsense.

Way to go taking my post completely 100% out of context. That is about as low as one can get right there.

Why do I say this? Well, where at all do I say anything at all which would ellude to me claiming the case had even the slightest hint to do with this performance? There isn't anywhere for any of this supposed info to be found because it isn't true. The case was referred to due to airflow which is obvious to conclude from the posts in response to that post of which you had quoted of mine above.

So, I ask what truly was the point of your post right here BFG10K? What were you aiming for? Did you truly think that I was meaning the case had anything at all to do with performance, even after the following posts? I surely hope not. Or, were you just trying to cause problems after the thread was already back on a calm and collected course? I would happen to think the later, unfortunately.


Patrick Wolf hit the obvious lightbulb. What other explanation could there be besides airflow. How can the OP claim sufficient airflow when the OP was having games crash with only a single lonely 470 to boot? Hmmm... Yes, I'd say your case is a very good performer when it comes to airflow.

 

[taltamir]

LMAO, so now his case is holding back performance?

Seriously, what a load of utter nonsense.

hilarious isn't it? the type of convoluted excuses people would make for their favorite brand name...
It isn't his case that is holding him back...

 

[luv2increase]

hilarious isn't it? the type of convoluted excuses people would make for their favorite brand name...
It isn't his case that is holding him back...

 

[taserbro]

just Crysis froze up at 92 C one time. my case is certainly a very decent case when it comes to airflow and we are talking about an otherwise fairly mild system with a second from the top single gpu. if a case like mine cant handle it then that means craps for most other people too.

I run a 470 inside a case that'd be considered horrible by most everybody's standard here (a dell xps435mt which has barely half an inch of space between the bottom of the card and the chassis) and while my temps are unsurprisingly higher than yours, I've never come even close to any sort of glitch or freeze. In fact at very first, my noob self had even forgotten to remove a metallic bar that covers the slots behind the case which covered the airflow exit of the card and often yielded temperatures dangerously close to 105 at full load but the card still performed rock solid (albeit much louder) in long gaming sessions without any hit in performance or stability.

That kind of margin for error leads me to believe that your freeze wasn't related to the temperature of the card, especially if it happened only once. It could be another set of circumstances but if my ghetto case does the job, your case certainly isn't the culprit, imho.

 

[toyota]

I run a 470 inside a case that'd be considered horrible by most everybody's standard here (a dell xps435mt which has barely half an inch of space between the bottom of the card and the chassis) and while my temps are unsurprisingly higher than yours, I've never come even close to any sort of glitch or freeze. In fact at very first, my noob self had even forgotten to remove a metallic bar that covers the slots behind the case which covered the airflow exit of the card and often yielded temperatures dangerously close to 105 at full load but the card still performed rock solid (albeit much louder) in long gaming sessions without any hit in performance or stability.

That kind of margin for error leads me to believe that your freeze wasn't related to the temperature of the card, especially if it happened only once. It could be another set of circumstances but if my ghetto case does the job, your case certainly isn't the culprit, imho.

it most certainly could have been driver related and the fact that I was 92 C may not have may not have meant anything. those same drivers do work fine on the gtx260 in Crysis though and in fact I can now run the exact same settings as with the gtx470 albeit with a few fps lopped off.

 

[taltamir]

it most certainly could have been driver related and the fact that I was 92 C may not have may not have meant anything. those same drivers do work fine on the gtx260 in Crysis though and in fact I can now run the exact same settings as with the gtx470 albeit with a few fps lopped off.

92 C is very close to what anandtech got.

 

[ArchAngel777]

So what are you suggesting exactly?

No gamer should upgrade from a fast C2D to an i5/i7 quad?
No gamer with a 470 should upgrade the CPU until the drivers improve?
OR
Any gamer with a fast C2D and GPU should just buy a $1000+ 30" monitor instead of a CPU upgrade?

Other?

He is saying that if you have a limited amount of money, use it where it counts. His testing has proven that his E6850 at stock speed is more than sufficient to power his GTX. He did publish his results backing up his data and in my own testing, I found the same to be true. You don't need a heck of a lot of CPU power to run today's games. There is probably a few games that are an exception, but those would have to be taken as an anomaly.

If money is of no concern and it doesn't particularly bother that person to burn it, then certainly buy a new large case, the fastest cpu, two or three GPUs, a 30" display and enjoy life.

He is also saying that the 470 suffers from driver issues. If a 470 is going to be slower than my current GTX 280 in some games, then that is information that I would like to know... I would be extremely dissapointed if my game of choice was slower on my new $350 purchase... Like, sick in the gut type dissapointed.

 

[taltamir]

He is saying that if you have a limited amount of money, use it where it counts. His testing has proven that his E6850 at stock speed is more than sufficient to power his GTX. He did publish his results backing up his data and in my own testing, I found the same to be true. You don't need a heck of a lot of CPU power to run today's games.

Personal testing done by both me and toyota shows otherwise.

 

[SHAQ]

A 3.8 dual core was slow a year ago. I really don't know why anyone is surprised? He received boosts in Crysis, JC2 and Stalker which is what I would expect. All the rest are quad core games. Well, JC2 also supports quads but it is a really GPU limited game. It is in the top 5 for best graphics IMO.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Personal testing done by both me and toyota shows otherwise.

Did you publish your results? I'd be interested to see them. But then again, I am not sure I would put much stock in them, especially since you don't regard AA, AF and Shadows as important... If none of those things are enabled, the bottleneck is going to shift to the CPU... Common knowledge.

 

[luv2increase]

Did you publish your results? I'd be interested to see them. But then again, I am not sure I would put much stock in them, especially since you don't regard AA, AF and Shadows as important... If none of those things are enabled, the bottleneck is going to shift to the CPU... Common knowledge.

The OP has been a member here for quite some time. I just can't see how he would be so clueless on this one. It just seems like a "setup" deliberate put-down on Nvidia IMHO.

 

[v8envy]

Ok, let's look at this another way. Had he upgraded from a GTX260 to a GTX285 and said he didn't see a massive increase in performance, would you have said he's slamming nvidia?

How many people would have advised a move from a GTX260 to a GTX285 as an impressive, good value for the money upgrade?

And yet, a 470 performs roughly the same as a 285. Even if he had a 5 ghz i7 980 he'd be looking at 30% more frames/sec for $350. I know if I did this I wouldn't say I was overly impressed.

 

[toyota]

The OP has been a member here for quite some time. I just can't see how he would be so clueless on this one. It just seems like a "setup" deliberate put-down on Nvidia IMHO.

I still see you cant help being a fucking troll. I am sick of your shit and it needs to stop know. I am not clueless and I have already told you that I am well aware of the games that need more cpu power. you are about the only one in the thread that is too stupid to figure out that I preach cpu bottlenecks around here.

for the 100th fucking time all this thread was made for was just to show my real world experience upgrading from a gtx260 to a gtx470 on a fairly realistic pc and was not just about framerates either. it was not a thread about the gtx470 being slow or Nvidia sucking. again if you had a fucking clue you would also know that I prefer Nvidia.