Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 460 SLI beats 5870 Crossfire for 300 dollars less...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 9:01:52 AM

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/09/geforce_gtx_4...

Just one of the reasons I have two GTX 460's and a 120Hz 3D ready monitor on the way.

Bye bye ATI, at least for now.
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 10, 2010 10:09:22 AM

Great review,
As its mentioned in the article, AMD has to work more on its driver for CrossFire performance.
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 10, 2010 10:52:14 AM

i've seen the one they compared SLI 460 vs CF 5850. the one that really impressed me is the bench result of AVP at 2560 x 1600
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 11:43:03 AM

it better be quicker considering how late it is

just remember ATi will have an answer for it sooner or later

dont get me wrong nvidia has done well, its a great card no doubt about it, i want one myself
August 10, 2010 11:50:43 AM

Remember, that was the Galaxy Super OC edition..
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 11:52:25 AM

While the 460 is the best buy on the market, it does not beat 2 5870's. 2 5850's, yes, its superior scaling overcomes its slight deficit in performance to it. It however doesnt beat 2 5870s in xfire.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-...

It comes a little close, and your right, for the lesser amount of money and possible better overclocking, id rather have 2 of the, but stock it loses.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 11:52:54 AM

Mezza_18 said:
Remember, that was the Galaxy Super OC edition..


+1 not fair
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 11:53:32 AM

apache_lives said:
just remember ATi will have an answer for it sooner or later


Agreed. The benches have the 460 with a good showing. But the 5870 is also a year old card so not really that impressive on nVidia's part, IMO. What is impressive is the fact that the 5850/5870 are a year old and still kicking a$s!
August 10, 2010 12:02:03 PM

ATI still have to fix their drivers, crossfire atm is terrible.
August 10, 2010 12:34:39 PM

ares1214 said:
+1 not fair


How is using a vendor-overclocked retail card in the test not fair? Because the 5870s weren't also overclocked? A vendor-overclocked 5870 would cost more. MSI's Lightning 5870 costs an extra $80 each, and it isn't overclocked as far as the Galaxy cards used in that article. The point of the article was to show how much money you can save over a 5870 crossfire setup with a 460 sli setup and still get the same performance. The customer paid extra for two vendor-overclocked cards vs. two reference 5870s and still saved $300.
August 10, 2010 12:54:49 PM

Minus_i7 said:
How is using a vendor-overclocked retail card in the test not fair? Because the 5870s weren't also overclocked? A vendor-overclocked 5870 would cost more. MSI's Lightning 5870 costs an extra $80 each, and it isn't overclocked as far as the Galaxy cards used in that article. The point of the article was to show how much money you can save over a 5870 crossfire setup with a 460 sli setup and still get the same performance. The customer paid extra for two vendor-overclocked cards vs. two reference 5870s and still saved $300.


^ Troof
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 1:07:24 PM

It is almost recommended that you sync AMD with ATI, and in a way, Nvidia want to sync their GPU's to the CPU (Fermi),allowing for a stronger GPU communication with the procedures run by the cpu! Doesn't anyone think that Intel should get together with Nvidia, co-working into allowing this to happen! the Gpu and Cpu are trying to do the same thing with two sets of heads!! result: over power usage,resulting in heat, lack of expected performance! they do have many more traits that ATI wishes they had! i personally think they only brought out the GTX 400 series to give ATI a little to brag and write about... we'll certainly see when nvidia comes back... and i can gaurantee it will be with a bang!! buying an ATI Card is like buying a cellphone, just when you think you've got the best and the strongest, two weeks later there's a newer one with one or two more functions that makes your card look like a cheese grater! Doesn't anyone think thats a bit frustrating!

if i want a card with all the functions that i need, i'll wait for it! and i'm counting on nvidia to deliver this time... with Fermi... with the new 512 CUDA core technology( which is astounding), and the ECC memory builds!! and nobody can talk about price vs power differences... if you can afford to buy one of these GPU's, then for heaven's sake...get yourself a decent PSU!!!

all ATI are worried about is their measely 3dMark scores and there performance points!!! has anyone compared the two companies when it comes to visuals!!??? what about Phyx?? 3d Vision? (which is out of this f*cking world!!) nvidia are doing what a graphics company need to do, and thats to make as if your shooting in a real jungle with branches and leaves and debri (phyx)... to make as if your enemy is popping out of your screen while you shoot his brains out (3d Vision)...

BUT... all ATI are worried about is how fast you can run through the jungle... where's the fun in that... thats not what graphics are... visuals are the most important part of any game (obviously besides story line and game play...uneffected by graphics!)

nvidia was the first company to bring out independent GPUs... i think with a little more time, we'll see what they have in store for us! and keep writing about the differences between the gtx 400 series and the HD5000 series...you'll soon get bored!

i'm waiting for better things!! and still i'm counting on nvidia!!
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 2:03:41 PM

so let me get this straight...you guys are comparing a factory pre-overclocked card to a stock card, and only saying because 1 site says its better that its better, when the vast majority say it isn't. I have news for ya, 2 overclocked 470's beat 2 stock 480's and cost less too! Shocking, eh? :pfff: 
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 2:19:21 PM

Yes. One was with 786MB and the other for 1GB. Both at reference. Level playing grounds, you see! :) 
August 10, 2010 2:27:38 PM

hell_storm2004 said:
Yes. One was with 786MB and the other for 1GB. Both at reference. Level playing grounds, you see! :) 


Well, no, because the 786MB version of this card has fewer ROPs and a 192-bit memory bus(vs 256 in the 1GB version), so it tends to perform less well. You're essentially saying that a GTX 285 SLI setup shouldn't be faster than a radeon 4890 crossfire setup, but you're using a GTX 260 benchmark as proof.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 2:42:23 PM

Dane Bouwer said:
It is almost recommended that you sync AMD with ATI, and in a way, Nvidia want to sync their GPU's to the CPU (Fermi),allowing for a stronger GPU communication with the procedures run by the cpu! Doesn't anyone think that Intel should get together with Nvidia, co-working into allowing this to happen! the Gpu and Cpu are trying to do the same thing with two sets of heads!! result: over power usage,resulting in heat, lack of expected performance! they do have many more traits that ATI wishes they had! i personally think they only brought out the GTX 400 series to give ATI a little to brag and write about... we'll certainly see when nvidia comes back... and i can gaurantee it will be with a bang!! buying an ATI Card is like buying a cellphone, just when you think you've got the best and the strongest, two weeks later there's a newer one with one or two more functions that makes your card look like a cheese grater! Doesn't anyone think thats a bit frustrating!

if i want a card with all the functions that i need, i'll wait for it! and i'm counting on nvidia to deliver this time... with Fermi... with the new 512 CUDA core technology( which is astounding), and the ECC memory builds!! and nobody can talk about price vs power differences... if you can afford to buy one of these GPU's, then for heaven's sake...get yourself a decent PSU!!!

all ATI are worried about is their measely 3dMark scores and there performance points!!! has anyone compared the two companies when it comes to visuals!!??? what about Phyx?? 3d Vision? (which is out of this f*cking world!!) nvidia are doing what a graphics company need to do, and thats to make as if your shooting in a real jungle with branches and leaves and debri (phyx)... to make as if your enemy is popping out of your screen while you shoot his brains out (3d Vision)...

BUT... all ATI are worried about is how fast you can run through the jungle... where's the fun in that... thats not what graphics are... visuals are the most important part of any game (obviously besides story line and game play...uneffected by graphics!)

nvidia was the first company to bring out independent GPUs... i think with a little more time, we'll see what they have in store for us! and keep writing about the differences between the gtx 400 series and the HD5000 series...you'll soon get bored!

i'm waiting for better things!! and still i'm counting on nvidia!!


Are you part of Nvidia's PR department or something? Either that or thats a big fanboy attitude you have. Both Nvidia and ATI make good, successful lines of cards. ATI are on top this round for various obvious reasons. I'm not counting Nvidia out, but they do need to get their act into gear because Southern Islands will be all over them soon.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 3:23:11 PM

Minus_i7 said:
Well, no, because the 786MB version of this card has fewer ROPs and a 192-bit memory bus(vs 256 in the 1GB version), so it tends to perform less well. You're essentially saying that a GTX 285 SLI setup shouldn't be faster than a radeon 4890 crossfire setup, but you're using a GTX 260 benchmark as proof.

Ooops... my bad made a mojor boo boo in the 1GB link.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_4...

Here if you see... the 1GB version SLI is only 30-45 FPS more than HD5870 single. So i guess you can make out HD5870 CF would perform. All reference... i mean!
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 3:28:07 PM

Dane Bouwer said:
It is almost recommended that you sync AMD with ATI, and in a way, Nvidia want to sync their GPU's to the CPU (Fermi),allowing for a stronger GPU communication with the procedures run by the cpu! Doesn't anyone think that Intel should get together with Nvidia, co-working into allowing this to happen! the Gpu and Cpu are trying to do the same thing with two sets of heads!! result: over power usage,resulting in heat, lack of expected performance! they do have many more traits that ATI wishes they had! i personally think they only brought out the GTX 400 series to give ATI a little to brag and write about... we'll certainly see when nvidia comes back... and i can gaurantee it will be with a bang!! buying an ATI Card is like buying a cellphone, just when you think you've got the best and the strongest, two weeks later there's a newer one with one or two more functions that makes your card look like a cheese grater! Doesn't anyone think thats a bit frustrating!


First of all, i don't think NV and Intel will be getting along anytime soon, remember how they locked them out of the chipset market (good riddance, the NV chipsets were starting to get horrible), and this isn't a two seeks later, the GTX4xxx series was 6 months later and in the GPU segment that is a half architecture (usually 1 year between arch's)

Dane Bouwer said:
if i want a card with all the functions that i need, i'll wait for it! and i'm counting on nvidia to deliver this time... with Fermi... with the new 512 CUDA core technology( which is astounding), and the ECC memory builds!! and nobody can talk about price vs power differences... if you can afford to buy one of these GPU's, then for heaven's sake...get yourself a decent PSU!!!


it's not even just a decent PSU you need, to get 4 x GTX480's you need a top of the line 1.5kW PSU, ECC memory means nothing in the consumer space unless you use it for scientific research but you better not be using double precision floating point numbers as the consumer cards are crippled to 1/4 of that power

Dane Bouwer said:
all ATI are worried about is their measely 3dMark scores and there performance points!!! has anyone compared the two companies when it comes to visuals!!??? what about Phyx?? 3d Vision? (which is out of this f*cking world!!) nvidia are doing what a graphics company need to do, and thats to make as if your shooting in a real jungle with branches and leaves and debri (phyx)... to make as if your enemy is popping out of your screen while you shoot his brains out (3d Vision)...


Between the two the visuals are the same now in terms of quality though they look slightly different, PhysX is crap especially locking out the Ageia owners now too and keep in mind that with OpenCL and DirectCompute developers can create their own physics comput for GPU's that can be used on either brand, and wow 3d, really you are bringing that to the table, it's not that good and 3d is prohibitively expensive which does matter since most gamers are relatively poor ($600-1000 machines so $500 for the monitor and glasses doesn't cut it)

Dane Bouwer said:
BUT... all ATI are worried about is how fast you can run through the jungle... where's the fun in that... thats not what graphics are... visuals are the most important part of any game (obviously besides story line and game play...uneffected by graphics!)


yes, but playing the game is part of the game, so go ahead and look around with your NV card while i shoot you in the head in BF:BC2

Dane Bouwer said:
nvidia was the first company to bring out independent GPUs... i think with a little more time, we'll see what they have in store for us! and keep writing about the differences between the gtx 400 series and the HD5000 series...you'll soon get bored!


nope, 3dfx had them beat by quite a few years on multi gpu, hell they also called it SLI (Scan Line Interweave not Scalable Link Interface)


Dane Bouwer said:
i'm waiting for better things!! and still i'm counting on nvidia!!


i count on them for competition as well as it helps all of use, the consumers
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 4:10:11 PM

Dane, i think you take the cake for fanboy of the month. Nvidia has 1 good card out, and it was 6 months late to the party. While the 460 is a great card, not even your bias will put nvidia on top. Physx=nothing at all, even for games that support it, CUDA is useless to the vast majority of people, and ATI has something like it. Lets take into account that the 480 uses about 25-125 more watts than the 5870. Sure, if you have a good psu, who cares eh? Wrong. Assuming on average the 5870 uses 75 less watts than the 480, here where i live thats a savings of $75-80. Tag that on to the 480 already costing about $100 more than the 5870 for initial cost. Dont forget the fact it also runs 10-20 C hotter. All this for what?! Literally a few fps. True, it has better scaling, however thats a different story. I am far from an ATI fanboy, ill likely be getting the 460 soon, or holding out for SI, but you are far from reasonable.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 4:38:23 PM

Kyle at Hocp has a certain style. Right now he and his team LOVE the gtx 460. They mention that old reviews aren't comparable in that the driver performance has increased greatly from Fermi launch. Its something they have tracked themselves.
I'm having a great time reading the discussion for this article, lots of good posts.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1538336&page=4
Kyle:
Quote:
Kyle_Bennett HardOCP Editor-in-Chief, 13.2 Years

Kyle_Bennett is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldExclusive View Post
Kyle, you're getting the business over there at OCN.

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-ne...b-sli-v-s.html
I get the business right here, our readers whine more than they do.

Hehe, where do I pick up the check. LOL! The idiots that refuse real world gaming proof never fail to amaze me pulling out that "getting paid" bullshit. Suck it up girly man.

Quote:
Perfect examples of how nVidia has to be paying of reviewers. Cold hard evidence from two sites that show those results are completely wrong. This is why I have lost all respect for nVidia as a company.
Wasn't it just a couple months ago that I getting paid by AMD? Never got my ******* check then either.

LOL
August 10, 2010 4:48:22 PM

hell_storm2004 said:
Ooops... my bad made a mojor boo boo in the 1GB link.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_4...

Here if you see... the 1GB version SLI is only 30-45 FPS more than HD5870 single. So i guess you can make out HD5870 CF would perform. All reference... i mean!


Yes, we all know 5870 crossfire generally beats 460 SLI at stock speeds. Is it worth that extra $300+? Probably not. Tom's Best Graphics Cards For The Money - August 2010 doesn't think so.

But that wasn't the point of the article linked in the OP anyway. The point was to show that you can actually get better performance for less money with a 460 SLI setup right out of the box.


Not trying to start an argument or anything, but c'mon... read what's being written.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 4:56:44 PM

Annisman said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/09/geforce_gtx_4...

Just one of the reasons I have two GTX 460's and a 120Hz 3D ready monitor on the way.

Bye bye ATI, at least for now.


so you changed your whole setup because of what you saw on that website?

Lets look at the facts, the 460's (1Gb) are on par with a 5970 give or take (depending on game). Most websites put the dual 5850's in front of any dual 460 setup. Here is an example :

In BC2 the 460's got slaughtered by the dual 5870's
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Warhead the 460's got obliterated by the dual 5870's
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Metro the 460's fell short again
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Dirt2 the 460's don't have a chance against the 5870's
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Vantage (where NV gets a boost due to PPU) the 460's still got owned
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

Of course these tests were done with the 768mb models so we can add an extra 10 frames and still the 5870's come on top. I could understand if you were upgrading to dual 470's, but the 460's in SLI = 5970 in most cases. Your 5870's are faster than a 5970, you do the math ;) 

Forgot to mention, those 460's were overclocked vs. the dual 5870's stock.. ha, and they said "apples to apples :pfff:  . Why not have Hardocp test both setups at stock clocks? That's like me saying that my 5850 OC'ed to 1000/1300 is faster than a stock 470... um... pointless IMO.

I guess what im trying to say is that you should not expect the same exact performance with your new setup. Even though its a great one you already had something more powerful so hopefully that 120Hz screen and 3d can keep you busy for quite some time ;) 

a c 124 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 10, 2010 5:08:05 PM

SLI GTX 460s beat a single GTX 480 and cost less too. CF5770s beat a 5870 and cost less too.

This is nothing new in the gaming world.

However, that SLI GTX 460s can beat CF5870s, is a tad surprising. Until you realise that they used 3 whole benchmarks, and only on 1 resolution. Other benchmarks show much different results.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 6:07:14 PM

The 460's are awesome no doubt, but they are not faster than dual 5870's regardless what ANY website says. Anand already tested both the 768mb and the 1Gb in SLI :









on the other hand the tess advantage is obviously given to the green team, hopefully SI will change that =)
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 6:13:20 PM

I heard somewhere in a report from ATI/AMD that the main focus of SI was tesselation, and it would have 3x the tesselation performance. I doubt it, but still, it must be a decent bit better.
August 10, 2010 6:28:12 PM

OvrClkr said:
The 460's are awesome no doubt, but they are not faster than dual 5870's regardless what ANY website says. Anand already tested both the 768mb and the 1Gb in SLI :

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/warhead.png

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/BC2.png

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/Stalker.png

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/Mass.png

on the other hand the tess advantage is obviously given to the green team, hopefully SI will change that =)



New drivers. The anandtech reviews were using Catalyst 10.3 and 258.80 for Nvidia.

The OP's article was using the latest: 10.7a beta and 258.96.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 6:41:42 PM

Minus_i7 said:
New drivers. The anandtech reviews were using Catalyst 10.3 and 258.80 for Nvidia.

The OP's article was using the latest: 10.7a beta and 258.96.


well that makes it even worse since the 10.7's are crap to begin with. The 10.3's and 10.4's are the most stable AFAIK but it all depends. I have seen a few users complain about the most recent AMD drivers while a few others say they work fine so in the end you really cant compare benches since we don't even know if those drivers were working properly or not. Websites that praise the 460 will benefit from AMD's broken drivers since it will give them an advantage. Not saying that the bench is wrong but if they used an inferior driver in those tests it kinda makes the comparison unfair in certain ways. Use the 2 best drivers for both teams and test, make it as leveled as possible if you want to get the most accurate results.


August 10, 2010 6:51:24 PM

OvrClkr said:
well that makes it even worse since the 10.7's are crap to begin with. The 10.3's and 10.4's are the most stable AFAIK but it all depends. I have seen a few users complain about the most recent AMD drivers while a few others say they work fine so in the end you really cant compare benches since we don't even know if those drivers were working properly or not. Websites that praise the 460 will benefit from AMD's broken drivers since it will give them an advantage. Not saying that the bench is wrong but if they used an inferior driver in those tests it kinda makes the comparison unfair in certain ways. Use the 2 best drivers for both teams and test, make it as leveled as possible if you want to get the most accurate results.


Doesn't it make more sense to use the latest available drivers for everything?
a c 273 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 10, 2010 6:58:54 PM

Minus_i7 said:
Doesn't it make more sense to use the latest available drivers for everything?

Some people moan when old drivers are used and others moan when new drivers are used, there's no way of pleasing everyone at the same time as someone will always find fault if they don't like the results.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:06:57 PM

Quote:
It seems that nvidia is bribing website to promote gtx460.This is really conflicting.Who knows who is telling the truth?


Minus_i7 said:
Doesn't it make more sense to use the latest available drivers for everything?

IMO, yes. The logic of trying to conclude what is the best driver should be left up to the driver team of the Hardware company. A certain, game, level, or map maybe better with xx.xx, but usually changes are made for the better functionality for the greater good.
I don't know, but have read for example, 10.4 ati and older don't render Starcraft 2 correctly. Some map objects just don't appear ? Just an example.

H ocp or any tech site likes to reap hits with reviews like this, but take it for what it is, a small data sample. Period.

To start with Nvidia bribing blah blah blah is cynicism out of control. Type, read, then delete , at times :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:15:52 PM

Minus_i7 said:
Doesn't it make more sense to use the latest available drivers for everything?


not if they are not working properly. For example, if NV pays a website to do a few tests and lets say that they get a few cards in the interim do you think that website is going to care if the drivers are working to their maximum potential? Of course not, the whole purpose is to make the other team look worse, same goes for ATI so you can never base your purchases on website benchmarks alone. You need to see what the actual "USER" is getting in terms of FPS/PC/different resolutions etc before jumping to any conclusions.

Another example :

Anand says that a 5850 average FPS in BC2 @ 1920x 1080 is around 52.3FPS..

I get well over 60FPS using an X4 as opposed to the i7 that Anand used.

Anand says that a 5850 average FPS in Warhead @ 1920x 1080 is around 34FPS..

I get anything from 38 to 58FPS with all settings on Enthusuiast (no gamer settings)

Anand says that a 5850 average FPS in Stalker @ 1920x 1080 is around 35FPS..

I get well over 45FPS with all settings on Ultra and 4xMSAA

So in the end you really have to take those tests with a grain of salt, all systems vary therefor there will always be a margin of error.


a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:20:48 PM

OvrClkr said:
so you changed your whole setup because of what you saw on that website?

Lets look at the facts, the 460's (1Gb) are on par with a 5970 give or take (depending on game). Most websites put the dual 5850's in front of any dual 460 setup. Here is an example :

In BC2 the 460's got slaughtered by the dual 5870's
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Warhead the 460's got obliterated by the dual 5870's
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Metro the 460's fell short again
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Dirt2 the 460's don't have a chance against the 5870's
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

In Vantage (where NV gets a boost due to PPU) the 460's still got owned
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-sli-revie...

Of course these tests were done with the 768mb models so we can add an extra 10 frames and still the 5870's come on top. I could understand if you were upgrading to dual 470's, but the 460's in SLI = 5970 in most cases. Your 5870's are faster than a 5970, you do the math ;) 

Forgot to mention, those 460's were overclocked vs. the dual 5870's stock.. ha, and they said "apples to apples :pfff:  . Why not have Hardocp test both setups at stock clocks? That's like me saying that my 5850 OC'ed to 1000/1300 is faster than a stock 470... um... pointless IMO.

I guess what im trying to say is that you should not expect the same exact performance with your new setup. Even though its a great one you already had something more powerful so hopefully that 120Hz screen and 3d can keep you busy for quite some time ;) 



I suppose I need to defend my decision a little then...

I decided that I wanted to game in 3D, have physx, grab a sweet new 120HZ monitor, and do it while not spending a penny more. How do I plan on doing that ? Sell my 2X 5870's, and my 24' monitor = extra money left over after I buy the nvidia cards, 120hz monitor and 3d vision kit.

Look, I am not here to say that 2X GTX 260's are flat out better than my 2X5870's, but what I am pointing out is that it is VERY close, and MUCH cheaper. Money is not exactly an issue for me (at least when it comes to buying hardware) so if I wanted to beat out my previous setup, I would have nabbed two 470's, but I actually wanted to go the bargain route this time.
EDIT: Not to mention, they should run cooler than my 5870's, and use less power.

If anybody has not read anandtech's review of Nvidia 3d/ Asus new 120Hz monitor I think you will be blown away with some of the conclusions: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-o...

Needless to say I had to have it, and now I will have it, on Thursday to be exact ^^

So no, I don't expect more graphics horsepower, but I do expect to be ALOT HAPPIER with what I get for my money this time around...
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:41:01 PM

Annisman said:
I suppose I need to defend my decision a little then...

I decided that I wanted to game in 3D, have physx, grab a sweet new 120HZ monitor, and do it while not spending a penny more. How do I plan on doing that ? Sell my 2X 5870's, and my 24' monitor = extra money left over after I buy the nvidia cards, 120hz monitor and 3d vision kit.

Look, I am not here to say that 2X GTX 260's are flat out better than my 2X5870's, but what I am pointing out is that it is VERY close, and MUCH cheaper. Money is not exactly an issue for me (at least when it comes to buying hardware) so if I wanted to beat out my previous setup, I would have nabbed two 470's, but I actually wanted to go the bargain route this time.

If anybody has not read anandtech's review of Nvidia 3d/ Asus new 120Hz monitor I think you will be blown away with some of the conclusions: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-o...

Needless to say I had to have it, and now I will have it, on Thursday to be exact ^^

So no, I don't expect more graphics horsepower, but I do expect to be ALOT HAPPIER with what I get for my money this time around...


Agreed =)

I’m not saying that you are downgrading when it comes to price/perf, I am just letting you know what to expect. I understand you want PhysX, better tess, 3D ect.. I was just pointing out that HardOCP is testing that setup to their convenience since the NV cards were OC’ed while the 5870’s where left at stock clocks, basically the same as all other websites are doing to attract buyers. Right now I have yet to see a website test both teams fully OC’ed with the best 2 drivers available, why? because the outcome will be different and in-turn show different numbers, which is something that they don’t want to show since they are being sponsored by one team and not both. Watch, when SI drops the hardcore AMD websites will go out of their way to praise that line-up regardless if it meets expectations or not. In the end it’s all business, if you want to get accurate numbers you need to test the hardware yourself to get a “real” outcome.


a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:44:06 PM

Look, I'm with you here man. Remember, I read the Anandtech 120hz/3d vision review before I decided to pull the trigger on these cards. I read the review that I linked in the OP - AFTER I bought the cards and monitor, I can see through the b.s. as well.

However, I think it's fair to say that the 460's will overclock better than the 5870's, so there is room to be gained there as well.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:49:52 PM

Annisman said:
Look, I'm with you here man. Remember, I read the Anandtech 120hz/3d vision review before I decided to pull the trigger on these cards. I read the review that I linked in the OP - AFTER I bought the cards and monitor, I can see through the b.s. as well.

However, I think it's fair to say that the 460's will overclock better than the 5870's, so there is room to be gained there as well.


yea, some 460's are reaching 1Ghz speeds while others cap out at 900Mhz. What 460's did you buy?
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 7:50:12 PM

Yeah I have a few people interested, and I have a post up there already, selling both 5870's for 280$ each, not bad price.
August 10, 2010 7:52:41 PM

OvrClkr said:
not if they are not working properly. For example, if NV pays a website to do a few tests and lets say that they get a few cards in the interim do you think that website is going to care if the drivers are working to their maximum potential? Of course not, the whole purpose is to make the other team look worse, same goes for ATI so you can never base your purchases on website benchmarks alone. You need to see what the actual "USER" is getting in terms of FPS/PC/different resolutions etc before jumping to any conclusions.

--cut--

So in the end you really have to take those tests with a grain of salt, all systems vary therefor there will always be a margin of error.


Okay... but what would people say if sites perpetually ignored the latest drivers?

1.) "Oh, thank god they're not using those latest POS drivers. AMD will never be able to top a product they released six ****ing months ago. "

or

2.) "What the hell? Why are you guys still using drivers from the stone age in these reviews? We want to see how a 5870 runs with the latest and greatest!"


Is a USER more likely to uninstall and reinstall a different video driver for every application, or just always run the latest because they expect their favorite team's products to actually improve with time?
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 8:00:22 PM

Minus_i7 said:
Okay... but what would people say if sites perpetually ignored the latest drivers?

1.) "Oh, thank god they're not using those latest POS drivers. AMD will never be able to top a product they released six ****ing months ago. "

or

2.) "What the hell? Why are you guys still using drivers from the stone age in these reviews? We want to see how a 5870 runs with the latest and greatest!"


Is a USER more likely to uninstall and reinstall a different video driver for every application, or just always run the latest because they expect their favorite team's products to actually improve with time?


That is not my point, of course websites will use the most updated driver available regardless if it fully working or not, but that doesn’t mean the bench is 100% accurate. For instance if I use the 10.7’s or 10.8 beta I lose around 8/10 frames and lose my v-sync, so in my case there is no point in using anything other than the 10.4’s since all other degrade the performance. The whole point of upgrading the driver is to get a better outcome, not a worse one.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 8:06:27 PM

Oh man, Ok, so we have seen all the tests lately and the 460 SLI beats out a 480 by about 10% on average, so, that being said, the 460 SLI was not able to edge out the 5970, therefore it is right in between the 480 and the 5970, right?

My point here is that if 2 X 5870 > 5970, how will the 460 SLI beat it if it cannot even edge out the 5970?
August 10, 2010 8:36:46 PM

OvrClkr said:
That is not my point, of course websites will use the most updated driver available regardless if it fully working or not, but that doesn’t mean the bench is 100% accurate. For instance if I use the 10.7’s or 10.8 beta I lose around 8/10 frames and lose my v-sync, so in my case there is no point in using anything other than the 10.4’s since all other degrade the performance. The whole point of upgrading the driver is to get a better outcome, not a worse one.


Hm...

So would a review site be 100% accurate if they cherrypicked only the most favorable results for a given product, or if they just did that for AMD products?

The whole point of running the tests is to see how well the latest stuff works and report it. How would we know how well Catalyst 10.7 runs at all if the tests aren't run with it? And then are reviewers just supposed to throw the results out if they don't beat the previous best? Are sites expected to provide the tested hardware's PR(personal record) with a given software in every review? "AvP Dx11 1920x1080 with an i7 920 OC'd @3.5, you wanna use Catalyst 10.4, but if you go to 2560 resolution you'll get 2.1 extra frames on average with the older 10.3a driver, unless that i7 920's overclocked at 3.7, then you gotta get yourself rev 10.5. Turn Dx11 off and you'll get the best results with 10.4a beta if you can find it, but not with a Phenom II in there. Then you want 10.6. Now, for Dirt 2..."

a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 8:48:36 PM

I really wish i worked @ Tom's, at least i would have the resources to test this out with a couple different platforms and more than just 3 games... or if i was filthy stinking rich i could do it but that's not the case i guess, not yet anyway, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! <---- (evil laugh)
August 10, 2010 9:09:49 PM

The point is that gtx460 sli setup is a great value, its better value than 5870s but it will never beat hd5870 cf when using properly functioning drivers. U cant ignore fact that in this particular test they used 10.7 driver which is not working properly with crossfire. But it does not change the fact that gtx460 is great value. And its another proof that ATI has to improve their driver support. Its ridiculous how they release drivers without required testing...
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 9:10:21 PM

Minus_i7 said:
Hm...

So would a review site be 100% accurate if they cherrypicked only the most favorable results for a given product, or if they just did that for AMD products?

The whole point of running the tests is to see how well the latest stuff works and report it. How would we know how well Catalyst 10.7 runs at all if the tests aren't run with it? And then are reviewers just supposed to throw the results out if they don't beat the previous best? Are sites expected to provide the tested hardware's PR(personal record) with a given software in every review? "AvP Dx11 1920x1080 with an i7 920 OC'd @3.5, you wanna use Catalyst 10.4, but if you go to 2560 resolution you'll get 2.1 extra frames on average with the older 10.3a driver, unless that i7 920's overclocked at 3.7, then you gotta get yourself rev 10.5. Turn Dx11 off and you'll get the best results with 10.4a beta if you can find it, but not with a Phenom II in there. Then you want 10.6. Now, for Dirt 2..."


Are you seriously arguing that 2 1 gig 460s at stock beat 2 1 gig 5870s at stock? IT DOESNT HAPPEN. Also, if that review was fro a while back, im sure they were using the most modern drivers for each card, so you cant complain. However it is also a good idea to use the best drivers for each if possible.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 9:13:35 PM

Minus_i7 said:
Hm...

So would a review site be 100% accurate if they cherrypicked only the most favorable results for a given product, or if they just did that for AMD products?

The whole point of running the tests is to see how well the latest stuff works and report it. How would we know how well Catalyst 10.7 runs at all if the tests aren't run with it? And then are reviewers just supposed to throw the results out if they don't beat the previous best? Are sites expected to provide the tested hardware's PR(personal record) with a given software in every review? "AvP Dx11 1920x1080 with an i7 920 OC'd @3.5, you wanna use Catalyst 10.4, but if you go to 2560 resolution you'll get 2.1 extra frames on average with the older 10.3a driver, unless that i7 920's overclocked at 3.7, then you gotta get yourself rev 10.5. Turn Dx11 off and you'll get the best results with 10.4a beta if you can find it, but not with a Phenom II in there. Then you want 10.6. Now, for Dirt 2..."


There is no way to get a 100% accurate bench, but you can get as close as possible by using the best fully working drivers from both teams. I think you are over exagerating my point, what I am saying is that you should not rely on a website's bench when it comes to determining the card you are going to buy. Use the websites as an example and the compare those to the numbers that the actual user is getting to get a more accurate outcome.

When it comes to the drivers it would be better IMO to have the website test the last 5 drivers (for each team) and go from there, this way they can pick what works best for that specific card to get the best outcome possible. If you disagree with me then go ahead, im just trying to make it fair on both sides.
a c 124 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 10, 2010 9:25:05 PM

Just sayin, 10.7a work great for me. Now, I haven't benched them but the gameplay is good. I did bench 10.6 against 10.5 and noticed about 3% better FPS (I think I did Dirt 2, AVP, FurMark, and RE5). I also have to use 10.7a since I want to use 2xSSAA in Starcraft 2. (4xSSAA really bogs down!)

Although my FPS in STALKER: CoP does seem a bit off, but if I look at my GPU usage in Afterburner, the usage drops along with the FPS which I'm quite sure is a CPU or memory bottleneck (I noticed the HDD light seems to go on during the fps drops, but the wierd thing is in performance monitor I have ~100-150mb "free" and as much as 800mb "cached" which sucks)
August 10, 2010 9:31:05 PM

ares1214 said:
Are you seriously arguing that 2 1 gig 460s at stock beat 2 1 gig 5870s at stock?


Nope.

OvrClkr said:
When it comes to the drivers it would be better IMO to have the website test the last 5 drivers (for each team) and go from there, this way they can pick what works best for that specific card to get the best outcome possible. If you disagree with me then go ahead, im just trying to make it fair on both sides.


I think what we really disagree on is the definition of the word 'fair'. In this case it wouldn't be fair to cangelini who would actually have to run all those tests, or to those of us who'd have to wait an extra two months after product launch to read the reviews. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2010 9:31:12 PM

I heard a bunch of stuff about the bad drivers, so i kept something in the 9's as long as possible. Upgrade to 10.6 and 10.7, cant overclock the gpu anymore without artifacing. Just how things are.
!