MSI N450GTS Cyclone Video Card Review @ [H]

SpeedyVV said:
Wow, too bad for NVidia.

However, as a new folder, I have to say that if I was in the market for a mainstream card right now, I would take the GTS 450 hands down.

Would love to see anyone post some f@h data for the GTS 450 and HD5770.
Click to expand...

You may want to see if you're better off with a GTX460 for f@h; I don't fold but some people have been grumbling that the GTX460 is far better than a GTS450 at folding even if you factor in price/performance. The price drops on the GTX 460 768MB versions have been stunning, and you don't need a 1GB version for folding, anyway.

Also, if all you want to do is to fold, you're almost always better off with NV so long as Stanford continues to optimize for NV cards with CUDA.
 
Man- I'm very much interested in seeing how the GTS450 SLI compares to 5750/5770 Crossfire. I'm curious to see how it would perform compared to my current setup... though I'm waiting on a new PSU since my thermaltake decided to just quit on me last week.
 
Great review. Not for me, but maybe I could buy this, or the 5770, or wait for a 6770 if there is such a thing to put into Grandma's computer when I visit so I play games.
Typo in article (1st page) NVIDIA also has high hopes for the GTS 250 to become a budget overclocking enthusiast’s preferred video card.
I think you meant GTS 450.
 
I don't see a reason why would anyone consider this card over GTS250 for example. 8-10% performance difference, big price difference. For any 8800GTS 512MB/9800GTX+/GTS250 owner, GTS450 is not a good idea for upgrade.
 
faugusztin said:
I don't see a reason why would anyone consider this card over GTS250 for example. 8-10% performance difference, big price difference. For any 8800GTS 512MB/9800GTX+/GTS250 owner, GTS450 is not a good idea for upgrade.
Click to expand...

its not. where this card might be relevant is for a physx card. I can't see it for anything else really.
 
  • When idling, the MSI N450GTS Cyclone uses five to seven Watts less power than the Radeon HD 5770
  • Under full load, the N450GTS Cyclone actually uses 15 Watts more than the Radeon HD 5770
  • the fan on the MSI N450GTS Cyclone is virtually silent under idle conditions, and under load conditions.
  • The cooling fans on the ATI video cards weren’t what we would call loud, but they weren’t silent either.
Click to expand...

  1. In ArmA II, the MSI N450GTS Cyclone simply dominated the Radeon HD 5770
  2. In Battlefield: Bad Company 2, the MSI N450GTS Cyclone was outclassed by the aging Radeon HD 5770.
  3. Right now, none of these three video cards can be said to dominate the others in Mafia II.
  4. In Metro 2033, the MSI N450GTS Cyclone and the Radeon HD 5770 traded even blows
Click to expand...

As a competitor to the Radeon HD 5770, the GeForce GTS 450 just falls flat
Click to expand...

......
 
bAMtan2 said:
......
Click to expand...

News flash: 5770s are good overclockers, and comparing highly overclocked GTS450 to a stock-clocked 5770 is pointless. Would you compare a highly overclocked 5870 to a stock-clocked GTX480, point to some benches where the oc'd 5870 did better, and then conclude that the 5870 is a faster card? :rolleyes:
 
blastingcap said:
News flash: 5770s are good overclockers, and comparing highly overclocked GTS450 to a stock-clocked 5770 is pointless. Would you compare a highly overclocked 5870 to a stock-clocked GTX480, point to some benches where the oc'd 5870 did better, and then conclude that the 5870 is a faster card? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

May I? I might include a custom PCB, too. It might even have lower power draw (more phases + voltage regulator) and cherry pick the GPU, too....
 
i will call it with in 5 years or less nvidia will be = to s3/powervr/matrox in graphics relevance
 
maxius said:
i will call it with in 5 years or less nvidia will be = to s3/powervr/matrox in graphics relevance
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't buy that, they are a strong company, and if they can overcome NV30, they can overcome this. They've been in this position before, and so has ATI, both have managed to pull themselves out of it given time.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Eh, I don't buy that, they are a strong company, and if they can overcome NV30, they can overcome this. They've been in this position before, and so has ATI, both have managed to pull themselves out of it given time.
Click to expand...

nVidia spawned TWIMTBP and got the xbox console deal to help support themselves.

ATi got bought off by AMD.

...I think.
 
You totally miss the bigger picture Brent. Save for your review, most show the GTS 450 sitting squarely between the HD 5750 and HD 5770 with the GTX 460 768MB trumping all of them. In the $100-$200 range its GTX 460 > HD 5770 > GTS 450 > HD 5750. Basically, Nvidia has found its price and performance point with the two cards and filled the holes. How this can be a disappointment is beyond me. Yeah, the rumor mill is grinding about AMD's future plans. That doesn't feed the bulldog right now if you need a card. And yeah, the HD 5000 series came out in October 09. That doesn't diminish Nvidia's new offerings since those same ATI cards are still competing with them. I guess its a glass half full or half empty view a person takes.
 
jeremyshaw said:
nVidia spawned TWIMTBP and got the xbox console deal to help support themselves.

ATi got bought off by AMD.

...I think.
Click to expand...

ATi came up with the 48xx series to pull themselves out of the gutter, and that card was probably in the works by the time AMD bought ATi in late 2006. (48xx series came out in mid-2008.) Each company has had some dogs. It's not the end of the world if one of them has a bad series.
 
Nice review Brent. Should make a decent F@H card if you can crank the shaders. Radeons might be good gamers but their F@H sucks. I have both a 9800GT and a GTS250 and they both blow away a HD4850 I have folding. The HD4850 also is loud and throws off ALOT of heat while it folds, so i had to put a 120mm exhaust fan on the side panel to blow all the heat out so my system temps weren't boosted. Let's get some [H]orde members folding on these 450's and let us know how they do.
 
blastingcap said:
ATi came up with the 48xx series to pull themselves out of the gutter, and that card was probably in the works by the time AMD bought ATi in late 2006. (48xx series came out in mid-2008.) Each company has had some dogs. It's not the end of the world if one of them has a bad series.
Click to expand...

this, although it would be more correct to say a couple of bad series. ATI was sucking wind on the 2000 and 3000 series, Nvidia is sucking wind on the 200 and 300/400 series. (we can almost discount the 300 as nvidia is jacking joe consumer around on names here)

Nvidia just needs to do some management readjustments and they should be back on track. even if they get pushed out of the lower end and chipset biz they still have plenty of other irons in the fire here
 
Jeffredo said:
You totally miss the bigger picture Brent. Save for your review, most show the GTS 450 sitting squarely between the HD 5750 and HD 5770 with the GTX 460 768MB trumping all of them. In the $100-$200 range its GTX 460 > HD 5770 > GTS 450 > HD 5750. Basically, Nvidia has found its price and performance point with the two cards and filled the holes. How this can be a disappointment is beyond me. Yeah, the rumor mill is grinding about AMD's future plans. That doesn't feed the bulldog right now if you need a card. And yeah, the HD 5000 series came out in October 09. That doesn't diminish Nvidia's new offerings since those same ATI cards are still competing with them. I guess its a glass half full or half empty view a person takes.
Click to expand...
Saying the $100 to $200 range doesn't work - that's a 100% increase between low and mid. Most people are either looking for a $100-140 or so video card or are in the upper 100s range. The lower priced cards don't compete with the $199 cards.

That said, the GTS450 trades blows with the 5770 in some games while being outclassed with others, has negligible differences in power consumption, and is priced higher. Why would you recommend it over a 5770? And in a card of this power class, the triple monitor usage is going to be more worthwhile than PhysX.
 
jeremyshaw said:
nVidia spawned TWIMTBP and got the xbox console deal to help support themselves.

ATi got bought off by AMD.

...I think.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely wrong. The Xbox deal happened long before the nVidia FX series came out, and ATI's financial troubles were largely caused by the AMD buyout, not solved by it. ATI's only performance flop in recent years was the HD 2000 series which was released after they were bought by AMD.
 
Jeffredo said:
You totally miss the bigger picture Brent. Save for your review, most show the GTS 450 sitting squarely between the HD 5750 and HD 5770 with the GTX 460 768MB trumping all of them. In the $100-$200 range its GTX 460 > HD 5770 > GTS 450 > HD 5750. Basically, Nvidia has found its price and performance point with the two cards and filled the holes. How this can be a disappointment is beyond me. Yeah, the rumor mill is grinding about AMD's future plans. That doesn't feed the bulldog right now if you need a card. And yeah, the HD 5000 series came out in October 09. That doesn't diminish Nvidia's new offerings since those same ATI cards are still competing with them. I guess its a glass half full or half empty view a person takes.
Click to expand...

Problem is that 5770s are just as cheap as GTS450s or cheaper, after rebate. Worse for NV, AMD has told one reviewer already that it will drop prices on the 5770s to match the GTS450 prices. So if GTS450s cost just as much as 5770s, there IS no hole to fill, there is no place for the GTS450 until it gets priced less. I get the feeling that in the near future the pricing will be something like $105 for 5750, $115 for GTS450, $125 for 5770, $150 for GTX460-768MB, $175 for GTX460-1MB, and $180 for HD6770 (which is rumored to perform faster than a GTX460 1GB).
 
Last edited:
Zero82z said:
You are absolutely wrong. The Xbox deal happened long before the nVidia FX series came out, and ATI's financial troubles were largely caused by the AMD buyout, not solved by it. ATI's only performance flop in recent years was the HD 2000 series which was released after they were bought by AMD.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. They had the money derived from those actions... not mindshare, not performance, not whatever else you're thinking of. If you want to believe ATi lost money due to the AMD buyout, and not the fact that it had no GPU to compete with the 8800 series for almost 6 months, and even so, it didn't compete in performance, much less power draw. Then when the HD3870 came out to save the day, it lost to the 8800gt.

Believe what you like.

On the other matter, nVidia started developing relations with game devs in a rather public way, and had procedes from the xbox GPU/chipset deal to lean upon. As much of a low seller the xbox was compared to the PS2, it still managed to sell some 20 million+ units in it's duration - which preceded, spanned, and exceded nVidia's GeForce FX product life.
 
Last edited:
jeremyshaw said:
You're missing the point. They had the money derived from those actions... not mindshare, not performance, not whatever else you're thinking of. If you want to believe ATi lost money due to the AMD buyout, and not the fact that it had no GPU to compete with the 8800 series for almost 6 months, and even so, it didn't compete in performance, much less power draw.

Believe what you like.
Click to expand...
AMD bought out ATI right before the Core 2 lineup was released and AMD lost a ton of market share and sales money. The combined market cap of AMD and ATI after the buyout was less than AMD paid for ATI in the first place. ATI was most certainly financially hurt by it.

In any case, I'm not missing the point at all. You're trying to argue that nVidia rebounded from a lackluster GPU generation with the money from the Xbox deal and that ATI did the same with the AMD buyout, both of which are incorrect assumptions. nVidia rebounded with the GeForce 6 series, and ATI rebounded with the HD 4000 series. That's what really happened.
 
Zero82z said:
AMD bought out ATI right before the Core 2 lineup was released and AMD lost a ton of market share and sales money. The combined market cap of AMD and ATI after the buyout was less than AMD paid for ATI in the first place. ATI was most certainly financially hurt by it.

In any case, I'm not missing the point at all. You're trying to argue that nVidia rebounded from a lackluster GPU generation with the money from the Xbox deal and that ATI did the same with the AMD buyout, both of which are incorrect assumptions. nVidia rebounded with the GeForce 6 series, and ATI rebounded with the HD 4000 series. That's what really happened.
Click to expand...

Now you are saying they rebounded?

I have been, and still am stating what kept them running during those time periods - not what brought them back to the cutting edge. Only real products could do that in a fast moving market.
 
Jeffredo said:
You totally miss the bigger picture Brent. Save for your review, most show the GTS 450 sitting squarely between the HD 5750 and HD 5770 with the GTX 460 768MB trumping all of them. In the $100-$200 range its GTX 460 > HD 5770 > GTS 450 > HD 5750.
Click to expand...

Problem is, why bother with GTS450 ? You have GTS250 for $20-30 cheaper, while having similar performance (about 8-10% difference). They made a new GPU from the Fermi, but cripled it so much that it drops pretty much to the G92 level of performance, with only bonus being DX10.1 and DX11 plus that 8-10% performance difference compared to GTS250 for 20-30$ extra. If it would have been aimed exactly at GTS250/HD5750 price (the $100 region), it would be OK. For extra, it is a stupid thing to buy these cards.
 
Let's see if I can sort this out...

Modred189 said:
I think Olle P was referring to a customer who is the market for such a card NOW. That customer does not care what has been out for how long, he just wants what works best for the price.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point!
Modred189 said:
And lets be honest here, most people in the market for this card will not worry about saving 5-7 watts at idle, or 15 watts at full load (rare situation in the real world anyway).
Click to expand...
Correct, but the lower power consumption at idle will most likely save some energy overall, and allow for less (and thus more quiet) cooling.

eldertru said:
I think most customers who buy at this price range will be more impressed with the ability to drive 3 monitors on one card compared to PhysX and Cuda programs.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Most customers will use a single monitor and run at least some games that benefit from PhysX.

Stoly said:
I really have a problem recommending ANY of these cards for gaming, seeing how the 460gtx 768mb give you so much more performance for an extra 40 bucks or less.
Click to expand...
According to the latest Steam survey most Steam customers (gamers) use native resolutions of 1680x1050 or less. At those resolutions the GTX460 doesn't add much experience, unless you also use GF3D Vision.
The extra $40 are better spent buying an additional game or getting a better CPU/PSU/whatever when you're on a tight budget.

blastingcap said:
Problem is that 5770s are just as cheap as GTS450s ... if GTS450s cost just as much as 5770s, there IS no hole to fill, there is no place for the GTS450 until it gets priced less.
Click to expand...
faugusztin said:
You have GTS250 for $20-30 cheaper, while having similar performance (about 8-10% difference). ... with only bonus being DX10.1 and DX11 ... it is a stupid thing to buy these cards.
Click to expand...
How I rate these, assuming use for gaming on a single monitor 1680x1050 or less (de facto mainstream gamer):
GTS450 vs GTS250:
- GTS250 is ~20% cheaper. Win this round.
- GTS450 is some 8+% faster in DX10 or lower games. Win this round.
- In the increasing number of DX11 games GTS450 is considerably faster. Big win this round.
* GTS450 is the overall winner.

GTS450 vs HD5770
- HD5770 is usually a little faster, but in most of those cases not enough to make a difference in experience. HD5770 win this round by a hair.
- HD5770 support three monitors off the bat. But the premises is that only one monitor is used, at least for gaming, and the GTS250 do support two monitors. HD5770 win this round only if three monitor support is required, else it's a tie.
- GTS450 do support PhysX, HD5770 doesn't. Tie if only no-PhysX games are played, but that's not likely. GTS450 win this round.
- GTS450 is supported by Folding at Home, HD5770 isn't. GTS450 win if F@H is an issue, else it's a tie.
- CFX/SLI setup: GTS450 scale exceptionally well, by 80+%, but requires a motherboard with SLI support which adds a premium price over "only" CFX support. The scaling of HD5770 is also very good, but I have yet to see some direct comparisons before deciding a winner in this round.
* GTS450 seems like the winner.

One just as interesting comparison, where it's impossible to define a winner right now, is the best card for gaming at 1280x1024 resolution, where HD5750 could be just as strong (or even stronger) a competitor as the GTS250. The problem is we don't know the near future pricing of the HD5750 yet.
 
Olle P said:
- CFX/SLI setup: GTS450 scale exceptionally well, by 80+%, but requires a motherboard with SLI support which adds a premium price over "only" CFX support. The scaling of HD5770 is also very good, but I have yet to see some direct comparisons before deciding a winner in this round.
* GTS450 seems like the winner.
Click to expand...

HardwareCanucks has a direct comparison with CFX/SLI. Looks like a win for the 5770 at 1920x1200, 4xAA over a stock GTS 450. (crossfire isn't working in Starcraft 2 but ATI is working on it)

Here's a link to the 1920x1200 SLI section:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...geforce-gts-450-1gb-single-sli-review-17.html

According to my calculations in the 5 games excluding Starcraft 2, at 1920x1200, 4xAA (except Metro 2033 with 0xAA):
the 5770 is 20.22 % faster then the GTS 450
The 5770 is 13.86 % faster then the GTS 450 in CFX vs. SLI.
 
Last edited:
Olle P said:
Let's see if I can sort this out...

That's exactly my point!
Correct, but the lower power consumption at idle will most likely save some energy overall, and allow for less (and thus more quiet) cooling.

I disagree. Most customers will use a single monitor and run at least some games that benefit from PhysX.

According to the latest Steam survey most Steam customers (gamers) use native resolutions of 1680x1050 or less. At those resolutions the GTX460 doesn't add much experience, unless you also use GF3D Vision.
The extra $40 are better spent buying an additional game or getting a better CPU/PSU/whatever when you're on a tight budget.

How I rate these, assuming use for gaming on a single monitor 1680x1050 or less (de facto mainstream gamer):
GTS450 vs GTS250:
- GTS250 is ~20% cheaper. Win this round.
- GTS450 is some 8+% faster in DX10 or lower games. Win this round.
- In the increasing number of DX11 games GTS450 is considerably faster. Big win this round.
* GTS450 is the overall winner.

GTS450 vs HD5770
- HD5770 is usually a little faster, but in most of those cases not enough to make a difference in experience. HD5770 win this round by a hair.
- HD5770 support three monitors off the bat. But the premises is that only one monitor is used, at least for gaming, and the GTS250 do support two monitors. HD5770 win this round only if three monitor support is required, else it's a tie.
- GTS450 do support PhysX, HD5770 doesn't. Tie if only no-PhysX games are played, but that's not likely. GTS450 win this round.
- GTS450 is supported by Folding at Home, HD5770 isn't. GTS450 win if F@H is an issue, else it's a tie.
- CFX/SLI setup: GTS450 scale exceptionally well, by 80+%, but requires a motherboard with SLI support which adds a premium price over "only" CFX support. The scaling of HD5770 is also very good, but I have yet to see some direct comparisons before deciding a winner in this round.
* GTS450 seems like the winner.

One just as interesting comparison, where it's impossible to define a winner right now, is the best card for gaming at 1280x1024 resolution, where HD5750 could be just as strong (or even stronger) a competitor as the GTS250. The problem is we don't know the near future pricing of the HD5750 yet.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous analysis. You need to weight by importance, not create a bunch of categories of equal weight in an attempt to rig the race. Considering garbage like PhysX to be the same weight as raw speed is asinine and laughable. You are on a board of gamers, not folders, so that category should be severely underweighted. Etc. It's unbelievable that you talk about f@h and physX but don't have any categories for power draw, heat, or noise.

Look, the 5770 is faster. Not a little faster, either, but significantly faster. A highly overclocked 450 might touch a stock 5770, but 5770s can oc too. And there are at least two boards selling for $125AR already--even before AMD's price drop on the part. Compare this to $130+ for GTS450s.

Blatant fanboyism won't save the GTS450. My condolences.

"GTS450 do support PhysX, HD5770 doesn't. Tie if only no-PhysX games are played, but that's not likely. GTS450 win this round." HAHA. PhysX doesn't make an appreciable difference in most games its used in (Batman and ME are the only exceptions and even then it's not a gamechanger), and most games don't even use it, so your statement about PhysX is so mockable that you better hope someone doesn't quote you and put it in his or her signature line to mock you.
 
Jeffredo said:
Save for your review, most show the GTS 450 sitting squarely between the HD 5750 and HD 5770 with the GTX 460 768MB trumping all of them.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that there are only a handful of video card review sites worth a damn, and [H] is one of them, and they have their own way of testing games that is different from almost everyone else, hence the reason why they can differ a bit from other review sites' conclusions. The other three review sites worth a damn are AnandTech, and to a lesser extent Bit-Tech and TechPowerUp. Why? Because the first three are both competent and independent, and TPU is a laggard but probably independent as well.

How can you tell if a review site is independent? For starters, if they reviewed the old and irrelevant game Far Cry 2 in their benchmark suite for GTS 450 cards, you know that they followed NV's reviewer's guide like good little boys, for fear that NV might not like them enough to send cards as quickly next time if they don't. AT/[H]/B-T review against relevant games like Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, etc., not crap like Far Cry 2, an old game and one of the most NV-skewed games in recent memory that nobody even plays anymore and should be thrown out as an outlier.

AnandTech - in-depth hardware deconstruction, thorough and consistent reviews, decent battery of games, thoughtful conclusions about the current marketplace and the future

[H] - actual gameplay results on a handful of hopefully relevant games, blunt conclusions

Bit-Tech - independent but a poor man's AT because they don't review as many games, nor do they deconstruct hardware like AT does

Techpowerup is like Tier 1.5 because while they do include Far Cry 2 they also include older games as well and they test enough of them that the outlier effect isn't as bad. That is, I don't think they included FC2 because of NV but rather out of inertia. Still, I think it's time to retire some of the older games they have in their suite, like UT3.

Everyone else is second tier or third tier.

Some sites are pretty much bribed Third Tier Trash, like Shane at TweakTown (who compared oc'd GTS450s to stock 5770s and without reason dismissed the relevance of oc'ing 5770s; his review is currently getting pilloried at XtremeSystems and other internet forums).

Other Third Tier sites are just plain incompetent, like TechReport comparing oc'd 480s to stock 5870s and having inconsistent testing (their SLI vs. CF review was horrible, testing only one setting at one resolution for some games, wtf? And while they used current prices for NV cards, they were still claiming a week or two ago that 5850s cost $300). (I don't think TR is intentionally NV skewed, as they didn't test Far Cry 2 in the same way that NV intended them to.. I just think they are incompetent and don't look up current prices and stuff like that.)

As for second tier sites (Hardwarecanucks, etc.), there are some sites that don't seem bought but are also not independent, either, as they dutifully kiss NV ass and include Far Cry 2 just because NV's reviewer guide told them to. You didn't see top-tier sites like AT, [H], or Bit-Tech kissing NV's ass and reviewing Far Cry 2, because they are well-aware how irrelevant Far Cry 2 is and value their reputations more than they fear NV reprisals.

That's not to say that AT and [H] are perfect. Some reviews are weird, like [H]'s 5830 review which somehow awarded the 5830 gold. If they had compared the card to a larger range of cards *cough* 5770 *cough* they may have come up with a different conclusion. Luckily AnandTech's review balanced out [H]'s, which is why you should read both. In fact, I would go so far to say that if you can read just two review sites for graphics testing, they should be AnandTech and [H].
 
The $130 price point is really tiring. This is the range that a lot of cards are sold in, yet the advancement is so slow.

The 4850 (and later 4870) were at this price point for a while. From a performance perspective, the 5750 and 5770 were barely upgrades over the previous parts at the same price, if at all.

Now we went from the GTS 250 to the 450. Small improvement again.


Both companies have been doing sidegrades or very minor upgrades at this price point for a long time. The 4850 is the only card in recent memory that significantly shook up the price/performance ratio at anything close to this price range (forcing Nvidia to put the 9800 GTX and GTS 250 at this price)


Their scheme of chaning model numbers and keeping similar performance must be working. If the $300+ dollar parts can see large gains each generation, why can't the cheaper parts?
 
1. You're comparing expensive parts that had price cuts to parts that started out at $130, the 4850 was $199 at launch.
2. AMD priced the 4800's that low to recover from the previous thrashing of 2xxx and 3xxx series.

You need to compare the performance of parts that started out at $130 if you want to see a real trend.
 
trinibwoy said:
1. You're comparing expensive parts that had price cuts to parts that started out at $130, the 4850 was $199 at launch.
2. AMD priced the 4800's that low to recover from the previous thrashing of 2xxx and 3xxx series.

You need to compare the performance of parts that started out at $130 if you want to see a real trend.
Click to expand...

I agree with trini, except that I heard that ATI overestimated the potency of the 2xx series and thus priced their 4xxx cards cheaper than they otherwise would have, thinking that they were shut out of the high end.
 
blastingcap said:
I agree with trini, except that I heard that ATI overestimated the potency of the 2xx series and thus priced their 4xxx cards cheaper than they otherwise would have, thinking that they were shut out of the high end.
Click to expand...

Anandtech's RV770 story gives a nice backstory on the decisions behind the RV770, that launched (IMO) one of the most epic pricewars of these past few years. :)
 
jeremyshaw said:
Anandtech's RV770 story gives a nice backstory on the decisions behind the RV770, that launched (IMO) one of the most epic pricewars of these past few years. :)
Click to expand...

Lo and behold, page 10 of that review says:

"When NVIDIA finally launched the GeForce GTX 280/260 ATI looked at the results and let out a collective “wait a minute”. It worked out perfectly, not only did ATI hit the competitive points it wanted to but thanks to GT200 performance being lower than ATI expected and the RV770 doing better than expected, ATI now had a $300 card that was competitive with NVIDIA’s brand new $400 GTX 260."

I rest my case. :)
 
blastingcap said:
Lo and behold, page 10 of that review says:

"When NVIDIA finally launched the GeForce GTX 280/260 ATI looked at the results and let out a collective “wait a minute”. It worked out perfectly, not only did ATI hit the competitive points it wanted to but thanks to GT200 performance being lower than ATI expected and the RV770 doing better than expected, ATI now had a $300 card that was competitive with NVIDIA’s brand new $400 GTX 260."

I rest my case. :)
Click to expand...

And with it, two shots of the most epic price war of late, were fired across the bow of the nVidia juggernaut that was perviously unstoppable in their quest for ever-more expensive graphics cards.
 
blastingcap said:
Ridiculous analysis. You need to weight by importance, not create a bunch of categories of equal weight in an attempt to rig the race.
Click to expand...
Who said I give them equal weight? Not me!
blastingcap said:
Considering garbage like PhysX to be the same weight as raw speed is asinine and laughable.
Click to expand...
- PhysX is a very simple yes/no, and having it does bring more options than not having it. Although I detest the way it's been put to use, some gamers find it useful. I give it a little weight, but not much.
- Raw speed is for benchmarkers, not for gamers. It only applies to gamers when the difference is enough to influence...
- Gaming experience! I pretty much swear by [H]OCP's way of testing graphics cards, and that's where I put at least half of the total weight. And going by the review discussed in this very thread it's a tie between the cards. Four tests; one clear win for GTS450, one clear win for HD5770, one square draw and one "about even" (possibly a marginal GTS450 win after software upgrades).
blastingcap said:
You are on a board of gamers, not folders, so that category should be severely underweighted.
Click to expand...
Some gamers are also folders, and it matters to those. I do put very little emphasis on that as well, but just like with PhysX it's a yes/no thing that (unfortunately for the community) do favour nVidia.
blastingcap said:
It's unbelievable that you talk about f@h and physX but don't have any categories for power draw, heat, or noise.
Click to expand...
Not if you've read some reviews.
Both cards are about equal in power draw, with GTS450 using a little less in idle and a little more at full load compared to the HD5770. Therefore they can both use the same PSUs and cooling solutions and heat and noise will follow suit.
Had I been comparing two specific cards (make and model) I would of course have taken those factors into consideration, but the array of different cooling solutions supplied and available makes it a non-issue for a broad comparison.
blastingcap said:
Look, the 5770 is faster. Not a little faster, either, but significantly faster.
Click to expand...
Judging by the [H]OCP review it isn't significantly faster.
blastingcap said:
A highly overclocked 450 might touch a stock 5770, but 5770s can oc too.
Click to expand...
Which is why I don't take overclocking into account at all. (I don't do it myself either.)
blastingcap said:
Blatant fanboyism won't save the GTS450. My condolences.
Click to expand...
I agree that "fanboyism" won't save it. But nVidia's proprietary features might, since everything else is about equal.
The pricing is a bit too early to discuss, since it hasn't settled yet.
(Personally I have a Powercolor HD5770 sitting in my rig, replacing an XFX GF7800GT. I prefer to take an objective approach in evaluating technical equipment...)
blastingcap said:
"GTS450 do support PhysX, HD5770 doesn't. Tie if only no-PhysX games are played, but that's not likely. GTS450 win this round." HAHA. PhysX doesn't make an appreciable difference in most games its used in (Batman and ME are the only exceptions and even then it's not a gamechanger), and most games don't even use it, so your statement about PhysX is so mockable ...
Click to expand...
You didn't read the review, did you?
With all the important factors being equal (trading blows or tie in non-PhysX games, same power consumption) or uncertain (price) it's the small factors that seal the deal.
These small factors are:
- PhysX support. (nVidia 1 - AMD 0)
- CUDA support. (nVidia 1 - AMD 0)
- Multi-monitor support. (nVidia 2 - AMD 3)

So, with pricing currently out of the equation (assumed equal) there's no other conclusion than that for a current mainstream gamer the GTS450 is a very marginal winner.
 
Gimme a break, see Anandtech's review as they bench more games than [H] and bench the STOCK GTS450 AS WELL, after which a clearer picture emerges. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3909/nvidias-geforce-gts-450-pushing-fermi-in-to-the-mainstream Stock vs stock the 5770 is clearly faster. Note that [H] wasn't using a stock GTS 450 nor was it comparing it to an oc'd 5770. Apparently YOU didn't read the [H] review. You wrote "Which is why I don't take overclocking into account at all. (I don't do it myself either.)" but you cite to oc'd GTS450 results vs. stock 5770 results. Wtf? If you're going to compare oc then do a oc-to-oc. Or do stock-to-stock. Else it's an invalid comparison because anyone with half a brain can oc a 5770 using any of a variety of tools such as MSI Afterburner, and the oc'd 5770 would leave the oc'd GTS450 in the dust.

Pricing if anything seems to favor the 5770s aside from one anomalously low-priced GTS450, going by Newegg numbers:

There's a pre-oc'd Powercolor 5770 with Dirt2 (you can sell it to subsidize the card's cost) selling for $124.99AR with free shipping, followed by another $124.99 and then the $129.99 cards right after, on Newegg, right as I type this.

Cheapest GTS450 is $117AR shipped with no bundled game, and it appears to be an anomaly because the next-cheapest is a Gigabyte GTS450 at $130AR shipped, again with no bundled game.

Rather than get any of the deals above (except maybe the Powercolor because you might be able to sell that game for several dollars and put the net price close to $115), I'd rather get one of the $150-155 GTX460 768MB cards on sale right now at Newegg and Tiger. If I didn't have to have Eyefinity, I might jump on those deals, the Tiger one I'm assuming $1.99 shipping and if so, it's 21.6% more expensive than a 5770 (assuming $124.99 cost) and 19% faster--almost parity in a world where usually you lose quite a bit of price/performance ratio as you climb up the curve.

We could argue about PhysX and CUDA vs. Eyefinity all day but most people don't care about any of those things. In terms of raw speed per dollar right now, the 5770 beats the GTS 450, end of story. If GTS 450 prices fall some more (these things just launched and already there are multiple cards on Newegg with rebates), maybe there's a place for it down at $115 or so. Because the GTS 450 can't beat the 5770's price/performance if they are priced equally; the GTS450 would have to be priced lower.
 
Last edited:
Just FYI: Anandtech uses all canned benchmarks so its results do not represent real world gameplay.
 
trinibwoy said:
1. You're comparing expensive parts that had price cuts to parts that started out at $130, the 4850 was $199 at launch.
Click to expand...

No, the MSRP was $199, but it was available for $150 within a week or two of launching. It also had that whole business where it started selling early so ATI said "fuck it" and just launched early (which was awesome). I'd call that a $150 card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top