Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Heard the Gtx 450 is slower than Ati 5770 why make it then?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 6, 2010 7:02:28 AM

Was wondering why Nvidia would make a Gtx 450 if its slower than Atis 5770? Acording to the benchmarks i saw its slower than the 5770
September 6, 2010 7:13:25 AM

To fill the price gap?
m
0
l
a c 189 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 6, 2010 7:46:38 AM

they make different cards for different purpose.
If you aren't gaming at all then why not go with GTX450? :) 
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2010 7:52:22 AM

Doom3klr said:
Was wondering why Nvidia would make a Gtx 450 if its slower than Atis 5770? Acording to the benchmarks i saw its slower than the 5770

There is also a GTS 455 (according to the beta drivers) which is meant to compete against the 5770.Maybe the GTS 450 is going to compete against the 5750.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2010 8:24:17 AM

If you aren't gaming at all then why not go with GTX450? said:
If you aren't gaming at all then why not go with GTX450?


i disagree, go with an intel gma instead or any igp.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 6, 2010 8:32:01 AM

Wait until we get a full set of benchmarks from the usual suspects and then we will see, the point i guess is the card is said to be cheaper than the 5770 and we still dont know what the card can do in terms of Overclocking yet. Yes we have seen a pre overclocked version fron ASUS but thats not to say thats all the card has to give.
So the very real possability of a card that can perform on par or even surpass a 5770 at a pricepoint that if prices are to be beleived will be in my case £30 cheaper.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2010 8:36:14 AM

Yeah. No point discussing this when nothing is out. GTS450 was slated to be released this month. Haven't got any dates or any benchies as well.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 6, 2010 8:41:39 AM

hell_storm2004 said:
Yeah. No point discussing this when nothing is out. GTS450 was slated to be released this month. Haven't got any dates or any benchies as well.


Released on the 13th and early benchmarks are here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4532...
These were taken from a website and posted on the forum.

Mactronix :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2010 8:47:05 AM

Oh... Then i guess i am late on this one. :) 
m
0
l
a c 189 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 6, 2010 8:53:11 AM

wh3resmycar said:
i disagree, go with an intel gma instead or any igp.


^
true true... :) 
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 6, 2010 2:07:28 PM

The gts450 is bandwidth limited but if it weren't for being only 128bit it would have outperformed the 5770. Looking at the benches it often trades places with older cards such as the gts250 and the gtx260 while being competition for the 5750 but that is all. The gts455 is not out yet with no date, price, ect but seeing pcb shots of the gts 450 and the g106 being a native 192 bit chip it will hold much better than the current releasing card. I passed one up on Amazon (preorder) and went with the gtx460 1gb. The gts 450 is a very nukeable card so it will be fun for those who buy it.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 12:18:53 AM

nforce4max said:
The gts450 is bandwidth limited but if it weren't for being only 128bit it would have outperformed the 5770. Looking at the benches it often trades places with older cards such as the gts250 and the gtx260 while being competition for the 5750 but that is all. The gts455 is not out yet with no date, price, ect but seeing pcb shots of the gts 450 and the g106 being a native 192 bit chip it will hold much better than the current releasing card. I passed one up on Amazon (preorder) and went with the gtx460 1gb. The gts 450 is a very nukeable card so it will be fun for those who buy it.



Your talking rubbish the 5770 is 128 bit as well so how the hell can a card that you incorrectly by the way are claiming under performs it because of the same bus even exist :pfff: 
The 5770 is borderline as to if its limited and there have been lots of tests on that card and here you are claiming a card that has yet to be fully tested is bandwidth limited while under performing a card that has been fully tested... Give me a break
I'm not totally sure you know what you are talking about with the rest of the post either :pt1cable: 
Care to expand on the differences between the 450 and 455 ?? I'm guessing not

Mactronix
m
0
l
a c 358 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 12:22:22 AM

Doom3klr said:
Was wondering why Nvidia would make a Gtx 450 if its slower than Atis 5770? Acording to the benchmarks i saw its slower than the 5770



Because it was already part of the development lineup.

Companies do not simply drop a product from it's lineup unless the performance is so poor that they would need to sell it for less than the cost to manufacture.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2010 12:51:41 AM

mactronix said:
Your talking rubbish the 5770 is 128 bit as well so how the hell can a card that you incorrectly by the way are claiming under performs it because of the same bus even exist :pfff: 
The 5770 is borderline as to if its limited and there have been lots of tests on that card and here you are claiming a card that has yet to be fully tested is bandwidth limited while under performing a card that has been fully tested... Give me a break
I'm not totally sure you know what you are talking about with the rest of the post either :pt1cable: 
Care to expand on the differences between the 450 and 455 ?? I'm guessing not

Mactronix


How? Try different architectures maybe?

How can the GTX 460 require 2GB for a 3 monitor setup while the 5850 with the same bus doesn't? Architecture, you just can't compare them.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 1:06:20 AM

AMW1011 said:
How? Try different architectures maybe?

How can the GTX 460 require 2GB for a 3 monitor setup while the 5850 with the same bus doesn't? Architecture, you just can't compare them.


Behave your self and stop trying to twist whats being discussed :pfff:  No one even mentioned monitor support so how is that relevant ??. And how is a 5850 relevant to a comparison between a 5770 and a GTS 450.
l [:lectrocrew:1]

Mactronix
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 1:20:53 AM

mactronix said:
Your talking rubbish the 5770 is 128 bit as well so how the hell can a card that you incorrectly by the way are claiming under performs it because of the same bus even exist :pfff: 
The 5770 is borderline as to if its limited and there have been lots of tests on that card and here you are claiming a card that has yet to be fully tested is bandwidth limited while under performing a card that has been fully tested... Give me a break
I'm not totally sure you know what you are talking about with the rest of the post either :pt1cable: 
Care to expand on the differences between the 450 and 455 ?? I'm guessing not

Mactronix


I guess you didn't do much digging around on the net then. As one had already stated its architecture and clocks. At stock the GTS 450 gets 57gbs while the 5770 gets 72gbs then there is drivers at play as well.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 171 Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 1:38:25 AM

AMW1011 said:
How? Try different architectures maybe?

How can the GTX 460 require 2GB for a 3 monitor setup while the 5850 with the same bus doesn't? Architecture, you just can't compare them.

Are you sure about that?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2010 1:48:30 AM

Perhaps its because most people don't want something as hot/power hungry/expensive as the 460, so they need a cheaper part that consumes less power. Both companies need a wide range of products to fill a variety of usage needs and price segments, if all Nvidia had was $200+ cards, they'd go bankrupt.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 171 Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 1:51:04 AM

loneninja said:
Perhaps its because most people don't want something as hot/power hungry/expensive as the 460, so they need a cheaper part that consumes less power. Both companies need a wide range of products to fill a variety of usage needs and price segments, if all Nvidia had was $200+ cards, they'd go bankrupt.

:heink: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2010 2:27:15 AM

mactronix said:
Behave your self and stop trying to twist whats being discussed :pfff:  No one even mentioned monitor support so how is that relevant ??. And how is a 5850 relevant to a comparison between a 5770 and a GTS 450.
[:lectrocrew:1]

Mactronix


I was just trying to have a discussion but if you want to be childish then please do it somewhere else. Honestly it is *** like this that makes me post here less and less. This was once a discussion based and friendly community.

I did not twist what was being discussed. You said that because the 5770 has the same 128-bit bus as the GTX 450, that it couldn't be the bottleneck that is holding it back (see quote below for proof). I remarked that it was non-sense to try and compare them since they are different architectures and will be bottlenecked by different things, and I gave a legitimate example of the architectural differences down to the memory. Whether that is reason or not remains to be seen, atleast until reviews are out.

mactronix said:
Your talking rubbish the 5770 is 128 bit as well so how the hell can a card that you incorrectly by the way are claiming under performs it because of the same bus even exist


Sorry MM, now on to your question.

Mousemonkey said:
Are you sure about that?


Well in the literal sense of require, no, but if you don't want to lose half of your potential FPS to a VRAM bottleneck, then absolutely:
http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/801683-surround-gaming-...

Pretty surprising huh? Then again I've always said you shouldn't assume, and many did assume that the GTX 4xx series would perform the same with 2GB of VRAM as the 5xxx series.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
a c 171 Î Nvidia
September 7, 2010 4:00:51 PM

A card that can actually use 2GB of VRAM, would've have thunk it. Thanks for that, I have bookmarked that page for future reference.

P.S I edited your post as there really is no need for name calling.
m
0
l
!