Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

2x GTX 260 vs GTX 470 vs HD 5870

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 8, 2010 9:52:00 PM

What do you recommend? Building a new system and video card is my weak point in knowledge.

BUDGET RANGE: around $400 seems to be the sweet spot

USAGE FROM MOST TO LEAST IMPORTANT:
Sony Vegas (edit video)
Photoshop CS4
Premiere
Giant database with text and images (over 500k images)
Gaming Bad company 2

CURRENT GPU AND POWER SUPPLY:
new system
Coolermaster Silent Pro 1000W Modular Power Supply SLI ATX12V 24PIN Active PFC PCI-E 135mm Fan


OTHER RELEVANT SYSTEM SPECS:
Intel Core i7 930 Quad Core Processor LGA1366 2.8GHZ 8MB L3 Cache 130W 45NM

Corsair Cooling Hydro Series H50 High Performance CPU Cooler System
OR (not sure yet) :??: 
Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Heatpipe Cooler W/ 2XNH-P12 120MM Fans

Gigabyte X58A-UD3R ATX LGA1366 X58 DDR3 4PCI-E SATA3 USB3.0 Sound GLAN CrossFireX SLI Motherboard
G.SKILL F3-16000CL9T-6GBRH Ripjaws 12GB 6X2GB DDR3-2000 CL9-9-9-24 240PIN Triple Channel i7 Memory
Cooler Master Haf 932 Full Tower Black EATX Case 6X5.25 1X3.5 5X3.5INT No PSU USB eSATA 1394 Audio
2x Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA3 6GB/S 7200RPM 64MB Cache 3.5IN Dual Proc Hard Drive OEM
Western Digital Velociraptor WD3000HLFS 300GB SATA2 10000RPM 5.5MS 16MB 3.5IN Hard Drive OEM
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition 64BIT


PREFERRED WEBSITE(S) FOR PARTS: ncix.com
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: Canada

PARTS PREFERENCES: past experience was not great with ATI drivers /gigabyte cards to match MoBo preferred.

OVERCLOCKING: Maybe / likely
SLI OR CROSSFIRE: Maybe

MONITOR RESOLUTION: 1920x1080 for now

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Last computer lasted 9 years with casual upgrades (now with mobo and / RAM issues), would like to have this one do the same.
Want to edit HD from Canon 7D and work with RAW photo files without waiting.

GTX 260

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 260 Super Overclock 680MHZ 896MB 2.5GHZ GDDR3 PCI-E DVI VGA HDMI Video Card
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=44683&vpn=GV...

GTX 470

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 470 Fermi 607MHZ 1280MB 3348MHZ GDDR5 PCI-E 2XDVI MINI-HDMI Video Card
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=52409&vpn=GV...


HD 5870
Gigabyte Radeon HD 5870 850MHZ 1GB GDDR5 4.8GHZ 2XDVI HDMI Display Port DIRECTX11 PCI-E Video Card
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=51826&vpn=GV...

Thanks

More about : gtx 260 gtx 470 5870

a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 9:54:08 PM

1 5870 is the best option.

The GTX260s don't have DX11, and the GTX470 runs really hot and uses as much energy (if not more) as the 5870 even though it is weaker.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 10:19:19 PM

I'd say ATI5850 or ATI 5870 over all for bang for your buck. Two GTX 260's game well now, but if you're not wanting to upgrade for a while you're always best off with a single high end GPU rather than 2 older ones.

Although, considering the GTX 470 is quite a bit cheaper in your links, it gives that a thumbs up in my book. nVidia has focused more on GPU use for video/photo editing type stuff. But frankly, I dunno that it's going to matter based on what you listed you do.

The 5870 will run cooler and use less energy. And may very well perform a little better than the GTX 470 over all. But it's a substantial price difference between the two ($440 vs $375)
Score
0
Related resources
May 8, 2010 10:19:23 PM

I'D RUN THE 5870 ALL DAY!
Score
0
May 8, 2010 10:26:02 PM

THANKS AGAIN!
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 10:26:15 PM

Quote:
+1 on the 5870

The 260 SLI would match the 5870 for performance, but it will use more power and run a lot hotter, plus lacking DX11and occasional scaling problems, it costs more too.

The 470 on the otherhand, uses 50W more, runs up to 90+ degrees and has lower performance than the 5870, no good.

Another option is Crossfiring 2 5770s, it will perform almost identical to 2 260s, has lower power, cooler and DX11 suopport, it is $80 cheaper too.
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=49042&vpn=GV-R577UD-1...

Finally, you could get a nice 5850 and OC it, 5870 performances and cheaper. :D 


The GTX 470 is $65 cheaper than the 5870, did you mention that? It uses ONLY 50w more power, and uses as much power as the GTX 285. 2 GTX 260s use almost twice that, so he is obviously uncaring towards power, he has a 1KW PSU afterall. Also with the new drivers out(link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte...), the GTX 470 is extremely close to the 5870 and within 1% at resolutions of 1920x1200 or lower, and still has another 10-20% performance advantage in heavy tessellation which is nice for future games.

Another cool thing about the GTX 470 is that it overclocks higher than a 5870, 200 MHz is pretty common without voltage change compared to the 5870's 150 MHz ceiling, and the GTX 4xx series gains a lot more performance per clock when overclocked compared to the 5870. This means:

In DX10:
GTX 470 = 5870
GTX 470 OC >= 5870 OC

In DX11 with heavy tessellation (future titles):
GTX 470 > 5870
GTX 470 OC >> 5870 OC

Do you see a patern?

Now, OP, you should know that these cards run a bit hot and are a bit loud. That said, a GTX 470 will run cooler and quieter than 2 GTX 260s in SLI, with a 5870 beating out both options. Also note than nVidia has CUDA which will benefit at least 2 of the programs you listed I believe.

Face it, all in all the GTX 470 is a far better buy than the 5870 as long as you have a decent PSU and case at the same price, but the GTX 470 is actually CHEAPER than the 5870 making the decision not much of a decision at all.

Do note that many people on here are operating under misinformation or old information.
Share
May 8, 2010 10:31:59 PM

It looks like everyone feels that dx 11 support is more important then CUDA cores for photo and video editing or is the regualre performs out weigh these features? Am I just buying into the nvidia hype? The ATI website did not provide a 'help me choose' feature.

I'm liking the idea of 2x 5770s if ATI is the way to go or is a single 5870 still a better idea?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 10:35:57 PM

andreasx said:
It looks like everyone feels that dx 11 support is more important then CUDA cores for photo and video editing or is the regualre performs out weigh these features? Am I just buying into the nvidia hype? The ATI website did not provide a 'help me choose' feature.

I'm liking the idea of 2x 5770s if ATI is the way to go or is a single 5870 still a better idea?


CUDA isn't that important, but it is nice. The GTX 470 has both DX11 and CUDA.

2 5770s perform slightly behind a 5870, and a little ahead of a 5850. You also wont be able to add another in for great effect, Tri card configurations scale very poorly. Also, 2 5770s will use about the same amount of power and run about as hot as a GTX 470.

Again the GTX 470 gives the same DX10 performance, and better DX11 performance in future titles with tessellation (the main feature in DX11), ends up faster when both are compared overclocked, gives you CUDA should you want it, and costs a good deal LESS.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 10:44:57 PM

Quote:
the 10.4 driver boosts performance slightly also, and the 470 loses to the 5870 in all exept 1 game.

Also, many people have OCed the 5870 to 1050+ on stock (200mhz), while the general 470 OC is aroung 780mhz, which is only 180MHZ higher and 90+ degrees.


Try again:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3260/ati_catalyst_10_...

Quote:
Looking at the performance of the new drivers, we don't really see anything new. In saying that, we see the normal bug fixes which for the most part are a big enough reason to upgrade to the latest driver set.


Its a bug fixing release, which is a very impressive release actually as it fixes a ton of things, big and small.

Most 5870s come very close or hit 1Ghz without voltage modification, but can't go much higher when you crank the volts (the 5850 loves volts on the other hand, but is underclocked to begin with). I haven't seen many GTX 470's that couldn't do 800 MHz+ on stock voltage, and those that couldn't could squeeze out to 850-900 MHz when set to GTX 480 voltages.

That said, I'm going to say that they are at least even since results vary from card to card a lot. But, it is proven that the GTX 4xx series gains a lot more performance per clock, so it still gets the win.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 10:51:57 PM

I'm considering an ATI 5850 or GTX 470 upgrade sometime in the future. I'm kind of on the fence. But I have to say if I had a choice between the two at equal prices, I'd swing for the GTX 470.

Considering the GTX 470 is cheaper than the ATI 5870 in the OP's case, and the performance is fairly close... I think I'd lean GTX 470.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 11:00:55 PM

Ah 5850 vs. GTX 470 is a hard one. On one hand the GTX 470 is a great card for future titles. However, for the extra money, its not really worth it NOW, since clock for clock the 5850 is 10% slower than the 5870, meaning that if it is set at 1GHz it will only be 10% slower than a GTX 470 at ~800 MHz, and might close that gap a little at extreme resolutions. If you upgrade in under 2 years, a GTX 470 might not be worth it. That said, both are terrible upgrades from your current cards, as both will only be able to match 2 GTX 260 216s at very high overclocks, 1GHz for the 5850 and 800-850 Mhz for the GTX 470 for example. If I were you jerreece, I would just wait until the next round of cards.

I would have a hard time deciding because I am impressed by Eyefinity, but the GTX 470 is just such an awesome card for someone who doesn't upgrade a lot, I would probably SLI in 1-2 years and sit on that for another 1-2 years.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 11:17:00 PM

Check this GTX 470 article , they o/c to 774.

So you can match any performance for less money, its a easy choice.

And if your case can't fit a 11(5870) inch card the GTX 470 is only 9
They tested stable up to 774 from 600



http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3252/nvidia_geforce_g...
Score
0
May 8, 2010 11:30:02 PM

the primary purpose of this system is for video and photo editing. I want the best performance for these software packages.

I do most of my gaming on a PS3 on a 135" screen so new games are not what I'm "future proofing" for.

My current system had it's end of life upgrade to a AGP HD 3650 (from Radeon All-in-wonder) on a P4 2.8 OC to 3.2.

As modern video cards are so confusing, I really wasn't thinking about power requirements and I thought the case would help keep things cool. I went with the 1000w to support the 2 blu-ray burners, the 8 hard drives, video cards and whatever else I find I need without having to give it another thought.

The two card approach sounds like it is not a great choice based on the heat/power/performance. I gather from the feedback that going to 3 is just a waste. I figure I am more likely to buy new cards in 3 years then buy a second card in the next 1-2 years. If I go with the 470, how close does the second card have to be if I pick oa second one up in the next couple of years?

So I guess now the question is 470 vs 5850 vs 5870.

I couldn't find any comparions charts that have the 470 and 5870 on them.
The GTX2xx series are on the charts, but none of them are recommended by nvidia for video editing.

Great feedback, but I still need more help.

Thanks
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2010 11:37:44 PM

The power AT LOAD is being touted as a con for gaming rig, lol ? Running cards in crossfire/sli doubles idle power, which adds up every minute the rig is on, Your powerful gaming card is only using max power a small time of the cards life. These cards all conserve power compared to last generations of video cards in 2d, and idle.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 12:41:35 AM

andreasx said:
the primary purpose of this system is for video and photo editing. I want the best performance for these software packages.

...

If I go with the 470, how close does the second card have to be if I pick oa second one up in the next couple of years?


Both of those are not very GPU dependent at all. A single GTX 260 might be a bit much for those tasks, it is more dependent on your CPU and RAM. I would recommend a GTS 250 for CUDA work, that should be plenty of horsepower.

That said, nothing is stopping you from getting a GTX 470 and experiencing the pinnacle of gaming, which is only on the PC. My PS3 and Xbox 360 mostly go unused.

You need to decide on what you want before we go any further.

If you get a reference card, which all GTX 470s are right now, you won't have any problems picking up another in 1-2 years.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:00:32 AM

AMW1011 said:

In DX10:
GTX 470 = 5870
GTX 470 OC >= 5870 OC

In DX11 with heavy tessellation (future titles):
GTX 470 > 5870
GTX 470 OC >> 5870 OC

Nope.

GTX470 < 5870
GTX470 >/~ 5870
GTX470 OC < 5870 OC


"Future" DX11 titles with tessellation
GTX470 ??? 5870

In AVP DX11, it showed with tessellation on, the 5870 still performed better in the majority of the settings. Only at the highest resolutions with AA at max did the GTX470 have an edge over the 5870.

If the OP wants to save money, the GTX470 would be a good choice if he doesn't game all day. otherwise, the 50-70watt increase at load will cut into the $60 savings in terms of electrical bills within a year.
Score
0
May 9, 2010 1:09:48 AM

HD 5870 without a doubt!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:13:39 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
Nope.

GTX470 < 5870
GTX470 >/~ 5870
GTX470 OC < 5870 OC


"Future" DX11 titles with tessellation
GTX470 ??? 5870

In AVP DX11, it showed with tessellation on, the 5870 still performed better in the majority of the settings. Only at the highest resolutions with AA at max did the GTX470 have an edge over the 5870.


Yeah, so your quoting a 1% advantage now? Sorry but that is an equal playing field. Any difference 5% or under is equal, because there are too many variables to be that accurate.

When you overclock a 5870 to 1GHz, or a 150 MHz overclock, and a GTX 470 150 MHz, or 750 Mhz on the core, you think that the 5870 will be better? You realize that the GTx 4xx series gains more from overclocking right? You also realize that the 5870 can't go much over 1GHz, 1.1 GHz is usually the ceiling, while the GTX 470 may go up to 900 MHz with volt adjustment? That's a 300 MHz overclock.

Oh so a game with very little tessellation proves something? If you think this is indictive of anything, then we need to be benchmarking these cards at 800x600 resolution because it will show the clear picture. I'll stick with the benchmarks with real tessellation, where there is a bottleneck that occurs on the 5xxx series before the GTX 4xx series.

Read the article and make logical conclusions please.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:17:32 AM

andreasx said:
How about Quadro FX 1800? IT is on sale right now and brings it into you price range?

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=37707&vpn=VC...


Once again, I don't think you understand how insignificant the GPU is for video editing and Photoshop. Also the quadro series cannot play games, make sure you are okay with that. The 1800 will do pretty well, but you won't tax it with your uses.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:24:29 AM

Bluescreendeath said:

If the OP wants to save money, the GTX470 would be a good choice if he doesn't game all day. otherwise, the 50-70watt increase at load will cut into the $60 savings in terms of electrical bills within a year.


Wow


So a ~50w load difference is going to make that money up? Why don't you look at the idle consumption? The GTX 470 uses only 10w more. You realize these cards are going to be idle for ~90% of their lives? You realize, that if they were used for 12 hours a day on full load that the difference in your electric bill still wouldn't equate to $60 in savings in a year? You realize he MAY pay $10 more a year?



Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:32:24 AM

AMW1011 said:
Yeah, so your quoting a 1% advantage now? Sorry but that is an equal playing field. Any difference 5% or under is equal, because there are too many variables to be that accurate.
When you overclock a 5870 to 1GHz, or a 150 MHz overclock, and a GTX 470 150 MHz, or 750 Mhz on the core, you think that the 5870 will be better? You realize that the GTx 4xx series gains more from overclocking right? You also realize that the 5870 can't go much over 1GHz, 1.1 GHz is usually the ceiling, while the GTX 470 may go up to 900 MHz with volt adjustment? That's a 300 MHz overclock.
Oh so a game with very little tessellation proves something? If you think this is indictive of anything, then we need to be benchmarking these cards at 800x600 resolution because it will show the clear picture. I'll stick the the benchmarks with real tessellation, where there is a bottleneck that occurs on the 5xxx series before the GTX 4xx series.
Read the article and make logical conclusions please.


Equal playing field? I suggest you look at some more benchmarks.

The GTX470 is faster or roughly equal to the 5870 in Nvidia favoring games perhaps. Without taking into account Nvidia or ATI favoring games, the 5870 is roughly 10-15% better than the GTX470. In the game where more fps matters, namely Crysis, the 5870 is faster by a noticeable margin.






As for overclocking the GTX470 - how hot do you think it's going to get with a major overclock? Do you know how loud it's gonna be?
86 decibels for an OCed GTX470. That is roughly 24 db louder than a 5870.




Normal Conversation = 60 dB
Busy Street Traffic = 70 dB
Vacuum Cleaner = 80 dB

An OCed GTX470 is louder than a vacuum cleaner. Epic fail.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 2:08:12 AM

AMW1011 said:
Wow
So a ~50w load difference is going to make that money up? Why don't you look at the idle consumption? The GTX 470 uses only 10w more. You realize these cards are going to be idle for ~90% of their lives? You realize, that if they were used for 12 hours a day on full load that the difference in your electric bill still wouldn't equate to $60 in savings in a year? You realize he MAY pay $10 more a year?
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/nvidiageforcegtx480launch_032610115215/22208.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/nvidiageforcegtx480launch_032610115215/22204.png


Idle:
A stock GTX470 uses ~20 more watts than the 4870. An OCed GTX470 uses 63 more watts.

Load:
At stock and OCed, the GTX470 uses ~70 more watts than the 5870.




Now let's take a look at power vs electrical consumption vs bills.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-radeon-powe...


Comparing an ATI 2900 to an ATI 4850.
Radeon HD 2900 = 78 watts idle
Radeon HD 4850 = 58 watts idle

2900 = 2D operation, 8hrs/365 & 24hrs/365 = $46 & $137
4850 = 2D operation, 8hrs/365 & 24hrs/365 = $34 & $102

For a difference of 20 watts, it is about $12 more to keep it on 8 hrs or ~$35 more to keep it on 24/7.

For a difference of 60 watts (OCed GTX470), that'll be $36 more and ~$108 more respectively for 8hrs and 24hrs idle.

For load, let's compare the ATI 4850 and ATI 3650.

4850 = 133watts load
3650 = 63watts load

4850 = 3D operation, 8hrs/365 = $78
3650 = 3D operation, 8hrs/365 = $37

For a difference of 70watts at load, if you do 3D operations for 8hrs/365, it will cost you $41 more.



Now let's put that together. Assume you keep your computer on for 16hrs a day, and game for 4 hours a day.

For a stock GTX470 vs 5870
It will cost 12*2 + 20.5 = $44.50 more in electrical bills

For an OCed GTX470 vs 5870
It will cost 36*2 + 20.5 = $92.50 more in electrical bills



So buying a GTX470 instead of a 5870 will cost you an average of $44.50 to $92.50 more in terms of electrical bills. Add in the fact that the GTX470 is 10 dB louder @ stock and ~20 dB louder @ load than the 5870, and it shows that the $60 "savings" isn't worth it in the long run if you care about money and performance.

The GTX470 is only worth it if you're an Nvidia fan or need Nvidia features such as physX.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 2:10:25 AM

Sorry your power numbers are wacked.
Heres a online calculator http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html
avg power cost for USA
60 watts or the difference at load
60 watts X 4 hours a day X 365=1.11 a month or 13.00 dollar a year.
And thats 1/4 of every day for a year. Basically insignificant.


I'll say it again, this power issue is laughable. To me its like two high performance cars ,finishing a race. And the loser jumping out and screaming how he gets better gas mileage.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 2:46:47 AM

notty22 said:
Sorry your power numbers are wacked.
Heres a online calculator http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html
avg power cost for USA
60 watts or the difference at load
60 watts X 4 hours a day X 365=1.11 a month or 13.00 dollar a year.
And thats 1/4 of every day for a year. Basically insignificant.
http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr185/notty222/powera.png

I'll say it again, this power issue is laughable. To me its like two high performance cars ,finishing a race. And the loser jumping out and screaming how he gets better gas mileage. http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smilies/bounce.gif


1. "The power cost was estimated at 20 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)."

2. 4 hours a day is not 1/4 of a day. 4 hours a day is 1/6 of a day. And who here only uses a computer for 4 hours a day?

3. It's not insignificant if you use your computer a lot.


Let's say this is an OCed GTX470:




All I'm saying that even though the GTX470 is $60 less than a 5870, it is offset by higher power bills in the long run if you use your computer a lot. (if you plan to OC it)

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 2:51:53 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
Idle:
A stock GTX470 uses ~20 more watts than the 4870. An OCed GTX470 uses 63 more watts.

Load:
At stock and OCed, the GTX470 uses ~70 more watts than the 5870.

http://images.tweaktown.com/content/3/2/3252_40.png


Now let's take a look at power vs electrical consumption vs bills.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-radeon-powe...


Comparing an ATI 2900 to an ATI 4850.
Radeon HD 2900 = 78 watts idle
Radeon HD 4850 = 58 watts idle

2900 = 2D operation, 8hrs/365 & 24hrs/365 = $46 & $137
4850 = 2D operation, 8hrs/365 & 24hrs/365 = $34 & $102

For a difference of 20 watts, it is about $12 more to keep it on 8 hrs or ~$35 more to keep it on 24/7.

For a difference of 60 watts (OCed GTX470), that'll be $36 more and ~$108 more respectively for 8hrs and 24hrs idle.

For load, let's compare the ATI 4850 and ATI 3650.

4850 = 133watts load
3650 = 63watts load

4850 = 3D operation, 8hrs/365 = $78
3650 = 3D operation, 8hrs/365 = $37

For a difference of 70watts at load, if you do 3D operations for 8hrs/365, it will cost you $41 more.



Now let's put that together. Assume you keep your computer on for 16hrs a day, and game for 4 hours a day.

For a stock GTX470 vs 5870
It will cost 12*2 + 20.5 = $44.50 more in electrical bills

For an OCed GTX470 vs 5870
It will cost 36*2 + 20.5 = $92.50 more in electrical bills



So buying a GTX470 instead of a 5870 will cost you an average of $44.50 to $92.50 more in terms of electrical bills. Add in the fact that the GTX470 is 10 dB louder @ stock and ~20 dB louder @ load than the 5870, and it shows that the $60 "savings" isn't worth it in the long run if you care about money and performance.

The GTX470 is only worth it if you're an Nvidia fan or need Nvidia features such as physX.


You keep changing your arguement, first it was the price difference would be lost in a year, that was total b/s.
Now your confusing using your computer for 2d normal uses and full load gaming/benchmarking. The power draw difference/increase is in 3d at full load. I hope you knew that.
And this arguement is pure fanboy
Quote:

The GTX470 is only worth it if you're an Nvidia fan or need Nvidia features such as physX.


I could say buy Nvidia to avoid the ATI grey screen russian roulette. Or if you don't mind about a 10% chance of rma'ing your purchase to get one that doesn't flicker or grey screen.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:09:17 AM

notty22 said:
You keep changing your arguement, first it was the price difference would be lost in a year, that was total b/s.
Now your confusing using your computer for 2d normal uses and full load gaming/benchmarking. The power draw difference/increase is in 3d at full load. I hope you knew that.



No I am not confusing anything. I just didn't want to repeat everything I said so I put idle and load together and made an estimate in my previous post.


Just reread my other post if you're confused:


Comparing an ATI 2900 to an ATI 4850.
Radeon HD 2900 = 78 watts idle
Radeon HD 4850 = 58 watts idle

2900 = 2D operation, 8hrs/365 & 24hrs/365 = $46 & $137
4850 = 2D operation, 8hrs/365 & 24hrs/365 = $34 & $102

For a difference of 20 watts, it is about $12 more to keep it on 8 hrs or ~$35 more to keep it on 24/7.

For a difference of 60 watts (OCed GTX470), that'll be $36 more and ~$108 more respectively for 8hrs and 24hrs idle.

For load, let's compare the ATI 4850 and ATI 3650.

4850 = 133watts load
3650 = 63watts load

4850 = 3D operation, 8hrs/365 = $78
3650 = 3D operation, 8hrs/365 = $37

For a difference of 70watts at load, if you do 3D operations for 8hrs/365, it will cost you $41 more.



Now let's put that together. Assume you keep your computer on for 16hrs a day, and game for 4 hours a day.

For a stock GTX470 vs 5870
It will cost 12*2 + 20.5 = $44.50 more in electrical bills

For an OCed GTX470 vs 5870
It will cost 36*2 + 20.5 = $92.50 more in electrical bills



So buying a GTX470 instead of a 5870 will cost you an average of $44.50 to $92.50 more in terms of electrical bills. Add in the fact that the GTX470 is 10 dB louder @ stock and ~20 dB louder @ load than the 5870, and it shows that the $60 "savings" isn't worth it in the long run if you care about money and performance.



notty22 said:

Quote:

The GTX470 is only worth it if you're an Nvidia fan or need Nvidia features such as physX.

And this arguement is pure fanboy
I could say buy Nvidia to avoid the ATI grey screen russian roulette. Or if you don't mind about a 10% chance of rma'ing your purchase to get one that doesn't flicker or grey screen.


Pure fanboy? You guys are claiming how the $60 cheaper GTX470 makes it a better deal than the 5870. It is obvious that the additional power consumption cuts into that saving depending on how often a person uses their computer.

As for grey scren roulette...

And how often does that happen? (1/2)%? 1%? 2%? Let's see how many GTX470s die due to temperatures regularly being in the 90s+'C. I'm sure people with bad ventilation in their cases would have this issue.

Oh, and as stated above, the GTX470 is already 10+ dB louder than the 5870. When the GTX470 OCed, it is at EIGHTY TWO FREKING dB. As stated above that is LOUDER THAN A VACUUM.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:15:34 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
Equal playing field? I suggest you look at some more benchmarks.

1. The GTX470 is faster or roughly equal to the 5870 in Nvidia favoring games perhaps. Without taking into account Nvidia or ATI favoring games, the 5870 is roughly 10-15% better than the GTX470. In the game where more fps matters, namely Crysis, the 5870 is faster by a noticeable margin.

2. An OCed GTX470 is louder than a vacuum cleaner. Epic fail.


1. Are you blind? How about looking at the NEW benchmarks.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte...

The most common resolution, 1680x1050 the GTX 470 is 6% faster, at 1920x1200 the GTX 470 is 1% slower, at 2560x1600 it is <10% slower.

Like they say:
Quote:
The new card has its highs, however, and looks preferable to the Radeon HD 5870 at resolutions below 2560x1600 but if your monitor supports that display mode, you may want to add $50 more and purchase a Radeon HD 5870 instead.


2. Are you an idiot? How the hell could it be louder than a vacuum cleaner?! Not only does it defy basic common sense and logic, it is completely against even the simplest laws of sound physics.

http://www.guru3d.com/news/geforce-gtx-480-noise-levels...
Quote:
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Jet takeoff (200 feet) 120 dBA
Construction Site 110 dBA Intolerable
Shout (5 feet) 100 dBA
Heavy truck (50 feet) 90 dBA Very noisy
Urban street 80 dBA
Automobile interior 70 dBA Noisy
Normal conversation (3 feet) 60 dBA
Office, classroom 50 dBA Moderate
Living room 40 dBA
Bedroom at night 30 dBA Quiet
Broadcast studio 20 dBA
Rustling leaves 10 dBA Barely audible


Now lets see how loud it is:
Quote:
Above video shows the GeForce GTX 480 heavily stressed with Furmark = ~ 45 DBa


Note that the GTX 480's fan is louder than the GTX 470's. So, in a case without a side panel, it is a little louder than a living room...



A good quote in this context is:
Quote:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:22:21 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
...lots of B.S. figures


So... Notty uses the official calculator for the U.S. and gets $13 a year if the computer is at complete load for 4 hours a day. You do the same for 8 hours a day and you get $40-100 a year. Do you see a problem here?

Please, boot up a game for me and check your GPU load. Notice that even Crysis won't keep your GPU(s) at full load. The thing is, most power consumption figures are peak figures because that is what really matters, if the card runs at 150w most of the time but peaks at 250w every once and a while you may have a smoking PSU.

4 hours at MAX power consumption seems very fair to me, that would likely equate to 6-10 hours of actual gameplay when you consider your cards are STILL not at full load for most of it.

Please, please sit there and ponder the "louder than a vacuum" statement. It is completely idiotic and proven false by my link above.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:37:49 AM

Quote:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/3260/ati_catalyst_10_...
3Dmark.

Quote:
performance gains of up to six per cent can be had in one particular gaming title; S.T.A.L.K.E.R. – Clear Sky

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=24446


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Well at least 3dmark is faster! Oh and Stalker, and only Stalker, gets a gain of a whole SIX PERCENT?!

Amazing.

You realize that the performance in 3dmark is completely irrelevant and that one game gaining 6% more performance is completely useless?

If this was meant as a joke, its pretty good.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:40:06 AM

AMW1011 said:
1. Are you blind? How about looking at the NEW benchmarks.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte...

The most common resolution, 1680x1050 the GTX 470 is 6% faster, at 1920x1200 the GTX 470 is 1% slower, at 2560x1600 it is <10% slower.

Like they say:
Quote:
The new card has its highs, however, and looks preferable to the Radeon HD 5870 at resolutions below 2560x1600 but if your monitor supports that display mode, you may want to add $50 more and purchase a Radeon HD 5870 instead.


Technically 1280x1024 is the most common resolution.

Except what games do you actually need the extra fps? Namely Crysis - which the 5870 performs better in.


Who would buy a $300+ graphics card while playing at under 1080p? At 1920x1080, the resolution people with $300+ GPUs would be more likely to have, the 5870 soundly defeats the GTX470. For 1680x1050, people would be better off with a 5770.

A 5870 or a GTX470 is absolute overkill for under 1080p - that is simply common sense.



AMW1011 said:

2. Are you an idiot? How the hell could it be louder than a vacuum cleaner?! Not only does it defy basic common sense and logic, it is completely against even the simplest laws of sound physics.
http://www.guru3d.com/news/geforce-gtx-480-noise-levels......
Now lets see how loud it is:
Quote:
Above video shows the GeForce GTX 480 heavily stressed with Furmark = ~ 45 DBa

The GTX470 fan is clearly louder than the GTX480 fan. Read the benchmarks. And what you're saying is,

Note that the GTX 480's fan is louder than the GTX 470's. So, in a case without a side panel, it is a little louder than a living room...

]



Violate the laws of sound physics? Stop pulling phrases out of your @ss.

1. The video shows the person running furmark with an UNKNOWN fan speed. It could be 40-50% fan speed for all you know. The benchmarks I posted
were for near max fan speed or 100% fan speed. How the hell are you going to overclock if your GTX470 is already at 90'C and you keep your fan speed at only 40%?

2. A GTX470 fan is LOUDER than the GTX480 fan.

3. Just look at the benchmarks. The numbers don't lie. At 100% fan speed, an OCed GTX470 gives out around 80 dB (presumably at point blank). Even if the test methods are different, relative to the 5870, it is still 20-30% louder.





So let's review the facts:

GTX470 has:
1. higher power consumption which offsets the $60 saved within 1 year
2. extremely loud fan speeds which makes overclocking unbearably noisy, 20-30% louder than the 5870
3. already runs ridiculously hot so you better have very good ventilation


AMW1011 said:

A good quote in this context is:
Quote:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

You must be looking in a mirror.

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:46:59 AM

AMW1011 said:
So... Notty uses the official calculator for the U.S. and gets $13 a year if the computer is at complete load for 4 hours a day. You do the same for 8 hours a day and you get $40-100 a year. Do you see a problem here?
Please, boot up a game for me and check your GPU load. Notice that even Crysis won't keep your GPU(s) at full load. The thing is, most power consumption figures are peak figures because that is what really matters, if the card runs at 150w most of the time but peaks at 250w every once and a while you may have a smoking PSU.
4 hours at MAX power consumption seems very fair to me, that would likely equate to 6-10 hours of actual gameplay when you consider your cards are STILL not at full load for most of it.
Please, please sit there and ponder the "louder than a vacuum" statement. It is completely idiotic and proven false by my link above.


1. Apparently you are incapable of something known as "reading the entire post." I clearly stated several times that the chart uses different values for the cost per kwh.
I suggest you reread the post again and notice "15 cents per kwh" vs "20 cents per kwh."

2. 60 watt difference during idle when overclocked, 70 watt difference when running at load. What you need to understand is whether this is full load or not, the 5870 is still going to be more energy efficient in RELATIVE terms. Even if you're running at 50% load, the 5870 will still use less energy than the GTX470.

At full load the 5870 might consume 150 watts, while the GTX470 might consume 210 watts.

At 50% load, the 5870 might consume 100 watts, while the GTX470 might consume 170 watts. Or maybe it will consume even more than 70 watts RELATIVE to the 5870.

No matter what your figure, the GTX470 still consumes more power than the 5870.

And you've completely ignored the idling power issue. Do you have a short attention span?

3. As for the vacuum, read my response above.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 3:54:14 AM

Bluescreendeath said:


...another wall of B.S...

So let's review the facts:

GTX470 has:
1. higher power consumption which offsets the $60 saved within 1 year
2. extremely loud fan speeds which makes overclocking unbearably noisy, 20-30% louder than the 5870
3. already runs ridiculously hot so you better have very good ventilation



You must be looking in a mirror.


So suddenly Guru3D is non-credible!?!? They are one of the most trusted sites on the web. They are testing the fans at stock settings, 60-70% fan speed for the GTX 470 at full load.

Once again your power consumption B.S. is just that, B.S. and notty has proven that already.

So overclocking is unbearably noisy? To you? To me? To Joe? Do you realize how sound is heard? Do you realize that even a DBA level, not DB, does not take into account frequency levels? A lower ~8KHz sound is quiet most people, but even a low DBA ~15KHz sound sounds loud to most people. More and more people are saying how these cards sound very similar to the last generation and how the temps are not nearly as bad as stated, but you are going to take these semi-useful figures and act like they are directly proportional to how a person hears the sound and judges it's volume?

Ridiculously hot? Well you better go buy a GT 240, who needs performance when you can have such a cool running card!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 4:06:32 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
1. Apparently you are incapable of something known as "reading the entire post." I clearly stated several times that the chart uses different values for the cost per kwh.
I suggest you reread the post again and notice "15 cents per kwh" vs "20 cents per kwh."

2. 60 watt difference during idle when overclocked, 70 watt difference when running at load. What you need to understand is whether this is full load or not, the 5870 is still going to be more energy efficient in RELATIVE terms. Even if you're running at 50% load, the 5870 will still use less energy than the GTX470.

At full load the 5870 might consume 150 watts, while the GTX470 might consume 210 watts.

At 50% load, the 5870 might consume 100 watts, while the GTX470 might consume 170 watts. Or maybe it will consume even more than 70 watts RELATIVE to the 5870.

No matter what your figure, the GTX470 still consumes more power than the 5870.

And you've completely ignored the idling power issue. Do you have a short attention span?


Wow...

Yeah the 5870 is still more efficient when both are at 50% load, but that doesn't change anything.

If 3 hours out of those 4 hours is at 50% with the rest being at 100%, you would effectively get the same power consumption as 2.5 hours of 100% load. That would end up being 37.5% less than 4 hours at full load, meaning notty's average would be $8.13 and not $13. It completely changes the figures. If these cards were run for ten years, notty's amount would turn into $130 instead of $13

Just give it up, you can't justify this B.S. based on misinformation and conjecture.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 4:15:09 AM

Bluescreendeath said:

3. As for the vacuum, read my response above.


20-30% louder? This isn't FPS, seconds, MPH, or miles, its not a quantifiable value. Volume is dependent on frequency and the person listening.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 5:21:04 AM

AMW1011 said:
So suddenly Guru3D is non-credible!?!? They are one of the most trusted sites on the web. They are testing the fans at stock settings, 60-70% fan speed for the GTX 470 at full load.
Once again your power consumption B.S. is just that, B.S. and notty has proven that already.


When did I say they were non-credible? You have once again demonstrated your inability to read. 60% fan speed. Yes...60%. Only 60% fan speed.

Even at stock, the GTX470 is a good deal louder than a 5870.

There goes your overclocking fantasies. At 100% fanspeed, the GTX470 screams.

AMW1011 said:
Wow...
Bogus....If these cards were run for ten years...


Your estimates are bogus and entirely useless:

1. A person who uses a computer for only 4 hours a day is probably a person who doesn't need a GTX470.

2. The fact you're only talking about load and not idle means you've given up on overclocking the GTX470. A computer spends the vast majority of the time in idle, and many people keep their computer on 24/7. You've completely ignored this crucial fact.

Let's use notty's value of $13 for a year if it is on 4 hours a day. Compared to a 5870, if a GTX470 OCed and the computer kept on 24/7 at idle, that still translates into $78 difference.

All you're doing is cherry picking the best case scenarios to suit your own views.


AMW1011 said:
turnandburnr said:
20-30% louder? This isn't FPS, seconds, MPH, or miles, its not a quantifiable value. Volume is dependent on frequency and the person listening.



Volume is measurable. Again, take a look at the benchmarks. When I say 20%-30% louder, I mean in terms of the numbers, it is 20-30% higher. Since volume increases exponentially, that 20-30% increase probably translates into being many times nosier.

So you've actually proven my point. A 20% increase in the dB scale translates into far larger increase than a 20% increase in volume.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 2:02:47 PM

BSOD you said:
Quote:
The video shows the person running furmark with an UNKNOWN fan speed. It could be 40-50% fan speed for all you know.

I pointed out that it was done by Guru3D and so it can be trusted.

The power consumption issue is something you do not understand:





Going Anandtech's results, I used a 45w difference at load, 10w at idle, and a high 25w estimate for the 50% load.

I did load for 2 hours, 50% load for 6 hours, and idle for 16 hours. This is assuming the computer is gaming or working for a total of 8 hours a day, every day, for one year. This is highly unlikely since if you have the time to game for 8 hours, you need to get a life, let alone do that EVERY DAY. A much better estimate would be 2-4 hours of load, but for the sake of argument I did it your way.

It all comes to an even $30 extra a year to run a GTX 470 over a 5870 and have the computer on 24/7 all year long, very bad for your computer BTW, and you game or work for 8 hours straight every day for a year at a higher than average cost of $.20 kWh.

That is absolute worst case scenerio

Now if you want to pull the overclocking card then you are an idiot. I overclocked my processor to 4.0 GHz and it now uses 90w more than at stock. My 2 8800 GTS 512Mbs are also heavily overclocked. I don't care about the electric bill when it comes to my hobby, otherwise I would not overclock at all for that last 10-20%.

As for sound, you are comparing them at 100% fan speed. You insinuate that you have to crank the fan to 100% to overclock which is just false. Many people can hit high overclocks, 800 MHz+ on the core, with 80% fan speed. But just to satisfy you, here is a video of the GTX 470 at 100% in a close case with all side panels on form 2 feet away:



Yes it is loud, and it is louder than the 5870. But to say that no one would ever think it is worth it to get the same amount of DX10 performance, and 10-20% more performance with heavy tessellation, ie future titles, all for $50-60 less, in exchange for slightly higher temps, noise, and power consumption is just ludicrous. It is all about what fits someone's needs.

I am not trying to say that the GTX 470 is NOT loud, NOT hot, DOESN'T have higher power consumption, it does, but you are horribly exaggerating these attributes while ignoring the positive.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 5:49:50 PM

AMW1011 said:

Going Anandtech's results, I used a 45w difference at load, 10w at idle, and a high 25w estimate for the 50% load.

I did load for 2 hours, 50% load for 6 hours, and idle for 16 hours. This is assuming the computer is gaming or working for a total of 8 hours a day, every day, for one year. This is highly unlikely since if you have the time to game for 8 hours, you need to get a life, let alone do that EVERY DAY. A much better estimate would be 2-4 hours of load, but for the sake of argument I did it your way.


There are different values for different sites. For idle and stock, Anadtech says there's a 10w difference, but I've seen some sites record over a 30w difference. On guru3d, the 5870 idles at 169, the gtx470 idles at 205 - a difference 36watts! The average difference I've seen for idle watts is in the mid 20s. As for load, some sites recorded over 70watts difference.


But those values again are for the stock GTX470. If a person wants to OC it to 5870 speeds, the difference expands to much higher watt idle difference.

AMW1011 said:

Now if you want to pull the overclocking card then you are an idiot. I overclocked my processor to 4.0 GHz and it now uses 90w more than at stock. My 2 8800 GTS 512Mbs are also heavily overclocked. I don't care about the electric bill when it comes to my hobby, otherwise I would not overclock at all for that last 10-20%.

Apparently the world only revolves around you? Just because you don't care about electrical bills doesn't mean everyone else doesn't care either.
If the OP doesn't care about extra $40-60 on electrical bills, then he might as well just get a 5870 for the extra money.

AMW1011 said:

As for sound, you are comparing them at 100% fan speed. You insinuate that you have to crank the fan to 100% to overclock which is just false. Many people can hit high overclocks, 800 MHz+ on the core, with 80% fan speed. But just to satisfy you, here is a video of the GTX 470 at 100% in a close case with all side panels on form 2 feet away:
...http://www.youtube.com/v/Y52CvOVmNtA&hl=en_US&fs=1&...
Yes it is loud, and it is louder than the 5870. But to say that no one would ever think it is worth it to get the same amount of DX10 performance, and 10-20% more performance with heavy tessellation, ie future titles, all for $50-60 less, in exchange for slightly higher temps, noise, and power consumption is just ludicrous. It is all about what fits someone's needs.


1. Except it's not the same DX10 performance. In higher resolutions the 5870 performs a good ~10% better. The GTX470 was meant to perform between the 5850 and
5870 and it does exactly that.
2. Slight noise increase is relative. The GTX470 is already loud compared to the 5870. It all depends on whether the OP wants to bear it or not.
3. On guru3d, the 5870 maxes at 77'C. The GTX470 maxes at 94'C. That is a 17'C difference. That is by no means only "slightly" higher.
4. Yes, it is about fitting someone's needs. All I'm saying is the $50-$60 is nullified by higher power consumption in the long wrong. If you want to use a best case scenario where the power consumption difference is only half that, then the OP can use BING and get the GTX470 for $340 or the 5870 for $370 - a $30 difference.



AMW1011 said:

I am not trying to say that the GTX 470 is NOT loud, NOT hot, DOESN'T have higher power consumption, it does, but you are horribly exaggerating these attributes while ignoring the positive.

If I'm exaggerating the negatives and ignoring the positives, then you're exaggerating the positives and ignoring the negatives.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a list of positives and negatives. Compared to the 5870, the GTX470 has:

Positives:
1. Just as good overclocker, if not better with more headroom
2. Better Tesselation and has PhysX
3. ~$50-$60 cheaper
4. Equal or slightly better than the 5870 in lower resolutions

Negatives:
1. Hotter
2. Nosier
3. Higher power consumption
4. Weaker than the 5870 in higher resolutions
5. No eyefinity? 3D vision requires SLi and 3D LCDs
Score
0
May 9, 2010 6:48:06 PM

Go for HD 5870.
After on you can crossfire it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 7:02:25 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
There are different values for different sites. For idle and stock, Anadtech says there's a 10w difference, but I've seen some sites record over a 30w difference. On guru3d, the 5870 idles at 169, the gtx470 idles at 205 - a difference 36watts! The average difference I've seen for idle watts is in the mid 20s. As for load, some sites recorded over 70watts difference.


But those values again are for the stock GTX470. If a person wants to OC it to 5870 speeds, the difference expands to much higher watt idle difference.


Apparently the world only revolves around you? Just because you don't care about electrical bills doesn't mean everyone else doesn't care either.
If the OP doesn't care about extra $40-60 on electrical bills, then he might as well just get a 5870 for the extra money.



1. Except it's not the same DX10 performance. In higher resolutions the 5870 performs a good ~10% better. The GTX470 was meant to perform between the 5850 and
5870 and it does exactly that.
2. Slight noise increase is relative. The GTX470 is already loud compared to the 5870. It all depends on whether the OP wants to bear it or not.
3. On guru3d, the 5870 maxes at 77'C. The GTX470 maxes at 94'C. That is a 17'C difference. That is by no means only "slightly" higher.
4. Yes, it is about fitting someone's needs. All I'm saying is the $50-$60 is nullified by higher power consumption in the long wrong. If you want to use a best case scenario where the power consumption difference is only half that, then the OP can use BING and get the GTX470 for $340 or the 5870 for $370 - a $30 difference.


I'm going by Anandtech's averages because I trust them. Also, Tom's, Techpowerup, get about the same:






My example was based on non-real world and extreme conditions, higher than average cost for KHW, running 24/7/365 which is extremely wasteful and not needed for a desktop PC, and assuming that the user has absolutely no life and games/works 8 hours a day. Lets say the true difference is a bit higher than what Anandtech, Techpowerup, and Tom's found, in a real world scenerio we are still looking at costs of <$30 a year. You ARE exaggerating when it comes to this.

The GTX 470 does not have to be overclocked to match the 5870, it only loses at extreme resolutions. If you run at 2560x1600, then the 5870 is a good deal, but that resolution is still based on an extremely niche market, while 1650x1050 and 1920x1200 are very common resolutions for people buying $300+ cards.

The point I am trying to make with the electric bill is that someone can save more money by buying the right lightbulbs for their house, than getting a 5870 over a GTX 470. The difference also won't make up even half the price difference in the Canadian market, and about half in the U.S. market.

1. With a SINGLE driver update, the GTX 470 beats the 5870 at 1650x1050 and completely matches it at 1920x1200, and loses by ~8% at the extreme niche market that are the 2560x1600 owners. So yes, it performs on par with the 5870 in current titles, even in 2560x1600 resolution where the difference is not noticeable. Then with heavy tessellation the GTX 470 will leave the 5870 in the dust, making it far more attractive in future titles.
2. Exactly. It is louder, but it is not ridiculously so. If you have had two of any mid-range to high end cards in the recent years you will do just fine, but it is louder.
3. Yeah and at 80% fan speed the GTX 470 never goes over 75c according to a few users on OCN. According to hardware Canuks, at 70% fan speed you can overclock by 200 MHz with exceptable heat. Also, the actual heat of the card does not mean that it dumps more heat into the case, nVidia has said that the fan speeds were to create a balance so as not to overheat people's computers with poorly ventilated cases, this seems extremely stupid to me, personally, though and I would take this claim with some salt, but it bares consideration.
4. The power consumption nullifies nothing, as I have proven. Also Bing cashback prices the GTX 470 at $330 and the 5870 at $370, but those are U.S. prices and they are not going to help the OP.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 7:08:09 PM

Bluescreendeath said:

Here is a list of positives and negatives. Compared to the 5870, the GTX470 has:

Positives:
1. Just as good overclocker, if not better with more headroom
2. Better Tesselation and has PhysX
3. ~$50-$60 cheaper
4. Equal or slightly better than the 5870 in lower resolutions

Negatives:
1. Hotter
2. Nosier
3. Higher power consumption
4. Weaker than the 5870 in higher resolutions
5. No eyefinity? 3D vision requires SLi and 3D LCDs


That is an extremely accurate and fair list. I have nothing to add or change. The only thing I might change is the 3D vision thing, since ATI will have it soon and we don't know what it will require or how nVidia will combat it, but I cans see your point.

My only aim is to show that some of those negatives have been blown out of proportion by reviews and general misinformation spread in the forums.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 8:04:38 PM

Ok, let's just leave it at that.
Score
0
May 16, 2010 11:12:58 PM

Best answer selected by andreasx.
Score
0
May 16, 2010 11:17:25 PM

Thanks for all the great facts and preferences. I'll be going with the 470 with the intent to buy another one next year for SLI if required. Adobe recommends only cards with CUDA to help with specific processes.
Cooling, power, and noise are not really a concern. The case has a ton of fans, I rarely work without the tunes cranked and most of my power comes from clean nuclear and Niagara Falls.

Thanks again
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
May 17, 2010 2:36:49 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!