• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Why does GF100 suck?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cannondale06 said:
Unknown-One said:
DeadSkull said:
Too bad 5870 still loses to 4870x2.
Click to expand...
A current-gen single GPU card isn't as fast as a last-gen dual GPU card... makes sense to me.

Too bad that 4870x2 doesn't support DirectX 11 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
can you even do basic math? a 5870 with the SAME number of sp, tmus, and rops along with HIGHER clocks and NO crossfire to contend with losing to the 4870x2 makes sense?
Click to expand...
I can do basic math just fine, though you seem to have failed to realize that there are more factors than you've considered at play here. You're assuming that the stream processors on the 4k and 5k series are the same. They're not. The 5k series supports more features on-die, and it seems some per-clock performance was sacrificed in order to make that happen.

You're also exaggerating the performance deficit. The HD5870 comes out ahead of the HD4870x2 in some benchmarks, and behind in others. Being a dual GPU card, the HD4870x2's performance relies upon crossfire scaling, which is hardly consistent across all games.

The HD5850 supports DirectX11, is better at DirectCompute, supports Eyefinity, supports DisplayPort, doesn't rely upon crossfire, and it does all this while consuming far less power than the HD4870x2. What does the HD4870x2 have going for it? It supports none of the above, and it's faster only sometimes.

The HD5870 might not always beat the HD4870x2 in every single benchmark, but it's a better design all-around. Like I said, it makes sense to me...
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
I can do basic math just fine, though you seem to have failed to realize that there are more factors than you've considered at play here. You're assuming that the stream processors on the 4k and 5k series are the same. They're not. The 5k series supports more features on-die, and it seems some per-clock performance was sacrificed in order to make that happen.
Click to expand...

Also, while most others things were doubled for the 5870 compared to the 4870, memory bandwidth was only increased by a small amount.
 
cannondale06 said:
I just told you what the point was. I guess I will cap and bold it for you. HIGHER POWER CONSUMPTION, HIGHER COSTS while BARELY MATCHING the gtx275 from last gen. and prices likely wont be dropping anytime soon like on the previous gen. hell ATI has only increased their prices in the last 6 months. the consumer is not getting a decent deal at all compared to last gen.
Click to expand...

Except it dusts the GTX 275 in a fair bit of the games, it will cost nearly the same(according to that site) and it will use close to the same power(~180w)
 
It's cost that matters, so until we know how much it costs we can't say it *sucks* although chances are just like the 5830 it'll be too slow for too much money.

tbh this time around everything slower then a 5850 sucks, in that you could have bought something just as fast or faster mostly for less money a year ago. The closest to not sucking is the 5770 in that it costs about the same amount as similarly performing parts did a year ago but that's hardly a leap forward.
 
sbuckler said:
It's cost that matters, so until we know how much it costs we can't say it *sucks* although chances are just like the 5830 it'll be too slow for too much money.
Click to expand...
The first page of the review mentions $279. If that's correct, it seems to have followed the same path as the HD 5830 in being overpriced for the performance, only worse.
 
pxc said:
The first page of the review mentions $279. If that's correct, it seems to have followed the same path as the HD 5830 in being overpriced for the performance, only worse.
Click to expand...

$279 is a ridiculous price for that part with that kind of performance.
 
I Lawl'd a bit when I saw it get ownd by the 4890.

Realy Nvidia?

Realy?

20$ less than a 5850, 80$ more than a 4890?

Realy?
 
I went from a gtx 260 sli setup to a single gtx 480, and I went from running games in dx9 to get acceptable performance at 2560x1600, with no FSAA to running dx11 at 2560x1600 w/ 4x FSAA and it's way smoother. Hell some games are butter at 32x CSAA at 2560x1600...

The benchmarks really aren't telling the whole story, I had bought my first gtx 480 thinking it would be identical to the 260 sli setup at first, with the intention of buying a 2nd gtx 480. I now see zero reason to do so as every game is running maxed out at 2560x1600 with 4x fsaa... that was but a mere fantasy with my old setup.

However according to the benchmarks, gtx260 sli / gtx 295 is more or less on-par with a gtx 480, but the real-world situation is entirely 100% different...

Also take a look at minimum framerates on the fermi architecture, that has been considerably higher than the competition across the board, and the new 256 drivers have raised performance 10-15% across the board.
 
DeadSkull said:
Too bad 5870 still loses to 4870x2.

DX11 gen1 has been a disappointment overall.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I'm running Eyefinity on my 5850 which I could not do on a 4870x2. In my opinion that alone makes it a winner. It's not always about raw performance as much as it is about innovation.
 
I'm pretty sure the proper comparison for older nVidia cards based on performance and price is :
480 = 280/5
470 = 275
465 = 260

So the 465 >= 275 is actually a great thing since it's proper place is replacing the GTX 260, not the 275 ;) Pricing also seems to match this, with the 275 having been 300-350 and the 470 at 300-350, and the 260 launched at a pretty brutal price point that dropped quickly, and I doubt the 465 will be anywhere near the starting price the 260 was.
 
FighterAce124 said:
I'm pretty sure the proper comparison for older nVidia cards based on performance and price is :
480 = 280/5
470 = 275
465 = 260

So the 465 >= 275 is actually a great thing since it's proper place is replacing the GTX 260, not the 275 ;) Pricing also seems to match this, with the 275 having been 300-350 and the 470 at 300-350, and the 260 launched at a pretty brutal price point that dropped quickly, and I doubt the 465 will be anywhere near the starting price the 260 was.
Click to expand...

If you don't take into account any of the other video cards on the market, you would be close to right. Nvidia needs to worry more about the ATI cards rather than their last gen cards.
 
IRSmurf said:
Nice find. I can't believe the 465 is taking on the 285... I expected much less from it.
I want to see some benches on a cheap, super overclocked 465 SLI rig. I bet this thing is hugely underrated, right now!
Click to expand...
Cheap, and SLI 465 don't really go hand in hand IMO. If you have the money to buy two 465s, just buy a faster video card that won't be so crippled, like a GTX480 or a 5970.
 
Builderbobftw said:
Yeh, getting 2 465s when you coudl just get a 5970 is a epic fail....
Click to expand...

If the GTX 465 hits at $275, you'd be looking at $550 for a GTX 465 SLI. The 5970 is 20% more money. I bet the 465 will be even cheaper than the MSRP, when the card is first available. For that reason, it will be interesting to see the benchmarks for an OC'd 5970 VS OC'd GTX 465 in SLI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top