Who says they signed an NDA?
With the GTX470/480 their review was out a while after the official launch, so it's entirely possible that there was no NDA to break.
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.
Did it explode yet.
Those numbers look really low. 59FPS for a 5870 at 1920x1080, its usually in the high 60s for the or low 70s in other reviews
EDIT: Just checked anandtech's reviews of the OC'd 5870s. the 5850 gets 62FPS at 1920x1200 vs 51FPS at 1920x1080. Will have to wait for other reviews I guess
Comparing across review sites is never the best idea.
Unfortunately since it's only a preview it misses a lot, especially when it comes to comparisons with other cards (things like the HD5830, HD5770 and HD5770 Crossfire, and maybe some lower end SLI setups) would be nice. HD5770 1GB is about the same $300 as an HD5850.
One important thing to consider is that it's not always as bad as it looks, as I already noted.
While it gets soundly beaten by the HD5850 at 2560x1600, at lower resolutions it competes without too much issue for the most part, and given that it's (arguably) overpriced at $280, when the price (hopefully) becomes more reasonable, then for a medium end user (i.e. 20~22" monitor), it might not actually be that bad (especially at somewhere around $250), since an extra $50 for an HD5850 won't get you much at 16x10/9, if anything.
The further down you go, the less you need to realistically look at higher end resolutions, because this sort of solution, or the HD5830 or HD5770 aren't as likely to be used at the higher end.
How do you go from a 279 card to a 699 card in your evaluation process?
Nope, but I am thinking of clocking it back down some for now. However, I am trying to sell the 4870x2 and put in a 5850 instead. I like having the option of a backup machine I can game on or to take to a lan party. Still, basically being used as an HTPC right now. You can see pictures of it in my for sale thread.
I'm always looking for options (though not I said like hell it'll happen, at least not on a GF100 chip). I'm throwing my current rig in an SG05 come next week, all on a 300W SFX PSU , so anything with a great "bang-for-your-watt" factor gets my inspection :thumbsup:.Fermi...HTPC??!!
*head explodes* (much like people's HTPCs would explode with Fermi in it)
Why would Nvidia let them break the NDA? Think about it.
Nvidia likes to control the message and they probably have a good relationship with xbit.
What is their pr plan? Hard to say. Maybe launch with 15% faster will now look good.
as long as the rest of a system is up to snuff then theres nothing wrong with getting the fastest card you can afford. at the same time I would rather have a larger 1920x1080/1200 monitor then having a smaller res and turning up the AA.I do not understand the reasoning behind someone saying that a card is meant for a specific resolution. Everyone told me when I purchased my GTX 280 that it was 'overkill' for my resolution (1680x1050) and would be a complete waste. I don't really feel that way... I mean, I love AA, AF and Transparency SS. All of those put a heavier load on the ROPs than running 2560x1600 with no AA.
I guess if people don't like buttery smooth FPS, AA, AF, then maybe a card like that would have been a waste - But last I checked, we buy fast graphics cards to turn up the eye candy, right? Or do people buy a 480 GTX to just set the game to 'minimum' and play away? Seriously?
As it stands now, I don't believe a 5870 or a 480 GTX is overkill for my resolution and I could make good use it, bringing it to it's knees with some eye candy and filtering settings turned up high enough. Not to mention that 'tomorrows' games will run great, and today's games can run stellar with some super high settings. To each their own, I guess.
even at $199 it would be a shitty upgrade for anybody with decent last gen card as its no faster than a gtx275.
Ahhh, nvidia's very own 5830...only it seems even worse.
And the "well it's good at lower resolutions" thing doesn't fly, sorry. If you are using low rez with an expensive card, you're going to want to be able to crank the AA way way up, or use super sampling if possible, etc...
This would be a fantastic card at $199. But the price point is just all wrong. Who knows, maybe some will be unlockable to a 470 or something?
Ahhh, nvidia's very own 5830...only it seems even worse.
And the "well it's good at lower resolutions" thing doesn't fly, sorry. If you are using low rez with an expensive card, you're going to want to be able to crank the AA way way up, or use super sampling if possible, etc...
This would be a fantastic card at $199. But the price point is just all wrong. Who knows, maybe some will be unlockable to a 470 or something?
Most of the tests in the review are run with AA/AF.
In some it does compete at 1920x1080 (and below) even with an HD5850.
Specifically in Mass Effect 2 it's a better buy than the HD5850 for 1600x900 and equal at 1920x1080. Same story in Dirt 2 at those resolutions (and for Dirt 2 the GTX275 can be discounted since it's running a different codepath).
In Crysis and Resident Evil 5 it is pretty horrible at all resolutions compared to both the GTX275 and HD5850 given its price point, but as you say, at a cheaper price it might be quite nice.
And considering the tests were run with high AA/AF, that's already taken into consideration when using this review.
It is overpriced a bit, but it's not all that far off in many cases (although not all) to something like the HD5850 at the resolutions it's likely to be used for.
A $200~$250 pricepoint would make it a lot more appealing though, so it is still a bit too expensive.
275 GTX @ 55nm vs 465 GTX @ 40nm: Which one has more heat/energy usage per FPS?
Could 40nm actually be worse than 55nm in this case?