11 GTX480 vs. 5870 reviews in one chart (Updated with temps & OCs)

[reallyscrued]

Most don't play with AA anyways, so really a moot point. I think it was firingsquad or maybe some other site that had a poll that asked what level of AA you use, and little more than half did not use it, and rest was 1x 2x. Like %5 said "What is aa?". lol

That's actually pretty sad.

 

[XJustMeX21]

Most don't play with AA anyways, so really a moot point. I think it was firingsquad or maybe some other site that had a poll that asked what level of AA you use, and little more than half did not use it, and rest was 1x 2x. Like %5 said "What is aa?". lol

Those are some interesting results, I could not imagine playing a game without AA.

 

[Silverforce11]

Interestingly if you removed Far Cry 2 and Red Faction, the margins are quite low.. so really, TWIMTBP games kinda skew the numbers a lot. In the current dx11 games, the total % difference would be less than 5%.

 

[BFG10K]

I know reviewers love to all use the same new games always , but some older titles like that would be nice.

I agree completely, which is why I always test a mix of older and newer games. I know there are people like you and me that want to see older games running on modern hardware.

I think I’ll get a GTX470 this time around, so I’ll put up a review comparing it to my GTX285. I plan on testing about 35 games, give or take.

 

[Caveman]

I agree completely, which is why I always test a mix of older and newer games. I know there are people like you and me that want to see older games running on modern hardware.

I think I’ll get a GTX470 this time around, so I’ll put up a review comparing it to my GTX285. I plan on testing about 35 games, give or take.

Would be nice to se Flight Simulator X (FSX) compared... Most flying that sim have to date used the 285 as the card of choice although others are recently reporting great gains with the 10.3 ATI drivers...

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Oh man! This is awesome!

 

[Wreckage]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

 

[MagickMan]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

Unless I OC my 5850, and then it crushes a 470 rather easily. It's clear ATI and their partners are holding back on clocks and a 4870 running at it's full potential is faster than a 480 by a decent amount.

It's a shame really, the 400 series could have been so much more than an expensive leaf blower.

 

[thilanliyan]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

They don't have the fastest graphics card. ^_^

 

[konakona]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

hmm... one side opts for smaller, multi-card friendly approach that comes out some 6 months ahead and nearly matches another party's monolithic design that's supposed to stomp all over the competition in single-card scenario? If that's your definition of "on top" to keep yourself happy about it, then I guess I am fine with that

The fact it does well (better than ATi, that is) in Metro 2033 is a good sign, but performance of either card looks underwhelming atm. Let's hope they could improve on that with some driver/game optimization.

 

[YBS1]

Most don't play with AA anyways, so really a moot point. I think it was firingsquad or maybe some other site that had a poll that asked what level of AA you use, and little more than half did not use it, and rest was 1x 2x. Like %5 said "What is aa?". lol

The type of people who buy $300-500 video cards do. You know though I really get a kick out of benchmarks running crazy AA settings (8X, 16X, 32xQ, etc. etc. blah blah blah.) How pointless could a benchmark be? We have to assume someone buying a card capable of running such settings comfortably in the majority of new games also has at bare minimum a 1920x1080 monitor. How much AA do you really need at 1920x1080 and above, it's ridiculous. Anything over 4X is for e-peen purposes only, in actual game play no one will spot a difference IMO.

 

[Unkle_Tar]

The type of people who buy $300-500 video cards do. You know though I really get a kick out of benchmarks running crazy AA settings (8X, 16X, 32xQ, etc. etc. blah blah blah.) How pointless could a benchmark be? We have to assume someone buying a card capable of running such settings comfortably in the majority of new games also has at bare minimum a 1920x1080 monitor. How much AA do you really need at 1920x1080 and above, it's ridiculous. Anything over 4X is for e-peen purposes only, in actual game play no one will spot a difference IMO.

Why not in games that are running in excess of 100fps. I say turn up the quality as high as you can until you start to feel slow downs.

 

[error8]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

How can it dominate that long, when it runs at 95 C? Most of them will probably die after one year or so at that temp.

 

[Maximilian]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

lol

 

[n7]

Borderlands is great. I'm currently running at 1024x768 @ 70hz V-synced and maxed at 70fps on an overclocked 4890. N7, are you an avid Borderlands player? What level are you?

Not really avid, but i like playing with friends of mine.

And that's one game than my 4890 was struggling with; it's once of the reasons i got a 5870; allows me to turn up some settings, as i run @ 2045x1536 or 2560x1600.

My primary character is a level 46 Siren; playthrough 2.
Secondary is level 30 Berserker.

I agree completely, which is why I always test a mix of older and newer games. I know there are people like you and me that want to see older games running on modern hardware.

I think I’ll get a GTX470 this time around, so I’ll put up a review comparing it to my GTX285. I plan on testing about 35 games, give or take.

Yeah you definitely do great reviews w/ older games.
Fact is, lots of older games still have issue with performance when @ 2560x1600 w/ setting cranked.

 

[mgon154]

What impresses me is that the 480 was faster then the dual flagship 5970 in some games. And the 480 is at an amature stage still!

 

[Will Robinson]

It's good to see NVIDIA on top again. I can see this core dominating for several years much like the G80.

lolz what a joke...unfortunately the rest of the Tech Internet doesn't agree with you.
This must be the benchmark you are using.

 

[Wreckage]

How can it dominate that long, when it runs at 95 C? Most of them will probably die after one year or so at that temp.

The 8800GTX ran pretty hot when it came out. We all know how well that core did. Seems a similar situation here.

lolz what a joke...unfortunately the rest of the Tech Internet doesn't agree with you.

I checked and they do seem to agree with me. :thumbsup:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/35

 

[dguy6789]

The 8800GTX ran pretty hot when it came out. We all know how well that core did. Seems a similar situation here.


I checked and they do seem to agree with me. :thumbsup:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/35

Guru3D is a laughable source. They've been an Nvidia biased fanboy site for a very long time. They were trying to tell people that the GTX 480 isn't loud. And you're trying to use them to make a point? How ridiculous.

Why don't you address my point from the other thread? Why is it that you say the GTX 480 has the crown today when you know for a fact(which is extremely easy to prove) that it does not? You conveniently ignore/hide the fact that the Radeon HD 5970 exists. Sure, the GTX 480 has the performance crown if you don't count all of the video cards that are faster than it. How convenient it is for you to do that. When the 5870 launched, you wouldn't shut up about how much better the GTX295 was than it. You said value didn't matter, DX11 didn't matter, the only thing that mattered was who held the crown. The difference between the 5970 and GTX 480 is a LOT bigger than the difference between the 5870 and GTX 295 too.

You make false statements, get proved wrong time and time again, but ignore it and keep posting your false statements in other threads. Why don't you go and get yourself banned again. Your trolling is retarded. This is a forum for people to discuss video cards in an intelligent and organized manner. This is not a forum for people like you to come in and say Nvidia is the best because I have an Nvidia card and I'm gonna argue with anyone who says Nvidia is not always the best.

 

[thilanliyan]

The 8800GTX ran pretty hot when it came out. We all know how well that core did. Seems a similar situation here.


I checked and they do seem to agree with me. :thumbsup:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/35

The 8800GTX destroyed everything that was out at the time and it took ATI a long time to come up with anything competitive which is why that card lasted as long as it did. This time around the 480 doesn't destroy everything...it loses pretty badly to the 5970 and is slightly faster than the 5870...how is that the same as the 8800GTX situation again?

Just out of curiosity, do you actually believe some of what you post or do you just say things to get a reaction from other people?

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Why don't you address my point from the other thread? Why is it that you say the GTX 480 has the crown today when you know for a fact(which is extremely easy to prove) that it does not? You conveniently ignore/hide the fact that the Radeon HD 5970 exists. Sure, the GTX 480 has the performance crown if you don't count all of the video cards that are faster than it. How convenient it is for you to do that. When the 5870 launched, you wouldn't shut up about how much better the GTX295 was than it. You said value didn't matter, DX11 didn't matter, the only thing that mattered was who held the crown. The difference between the 5970 and GTX 480 is a LOT bigger than the difference between the 5870 and GTX 295 too.

You make false statements, get proved wrong time and time again, but ignore it and keep posting your false statements in other threads. Why don't you go and get yourself banned again. Your trolling is retarded. This is a forum for people to discuss video cards in an intelligent and organized manner. This is not a forum for people like you to come in and say Nvidia is the best because I have an Nvidia card and I'm gonna argue with anyone who says Nvidia is not always the best.

+1, dont feed the troll

 

[bfdd]

aren't these extremely early drivers? maybe we will see a leap when some more mature drivers come out?

 

[blanketyblank]

aren't these extremely early drivers? maybe we will see a leap when some more mature drivers come out?

Yes, but maybe we'll also see ATI boost their driver performance in metro 2033 and other games as well so we'd still be in the same relative position. No reason to bring in what ifs at this point in the game. Both products are out so we can judge based on that. Nvidia has had a long time to develop drivers and they've delayed multiple times so I doubt there are going to be any miracles from driver improvements. Even if there were who knows how long it will take and what will be available in the market by then.

 

[Shmee]

it seems that when both oced to the max, a 5870 will beat the GTX 480 for sure. It should have roughly similar performance, cost less, and use less power. Honestly, fermi does not look good for OC enthusiasts. I bet even a 5850 could come close, once OCed.

 

[1h4x4s3x]

aren't these extremely early drivers? maybe we will see a leap when some more mature drivers come out?

Leap? Doubtful.
I don't know when they had their first silicon back but it must have been quite a few months ago. They'll certainly improve but so will ATI's.

Still, a comparison with ATI's and Nvidia's next driver update would be sweet, especially since ATI hasn't had a change to tweak their driver for Metro yet. You gotta love twimtbp..