Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 480 vs GTX 600 series

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 4, 2012 4:16:15 AM

I have been told repeatedly that even the lowest of the gtx 600 series,the gtx 660 beats the gtx 480,and the only evidence to why is that it has more cores,or that it's much more power efficient,etc.
while you could compare with older benchmarks performed they are likely to have bottlenecked the gtx 480 with the processor,comparing a gtx 480 with an i7 920 to a i5 3570k/or higher and gtx 660/670/680,is not giving it a bottleneck free comparison.it's like saying hey lets race,but wait you have to put on this 40lbs armor while you run since you're faster than me.
I've been looking around for the most equal benchmarks I could find to prove that the gtx 480 is the better performing card than the gtx 660,660 ti,and the 670,and not far off from the gtx 680.

and I feel that I've finally found a benchmark that has almost exactly the same conditions.
gtx 480,i5 2500k,8gb ram
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3YJmz32Clo
in the description he lists in his specs as using a gtx 280 for physX,but above that he states that the gtx 280 was not in his system when this benchmark was performed.

avg fps: 56.8 fps
max fps:92.5 fps

gtx 670,i5 3570k,8gb ram
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxHMrX56txk

avg fps:54.9
max fps:73.8

if any of you own this card and have an i5 2nd/3rd gen or higher feel free to contribute your own results.
the benchmark is here.
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=2932

if you have any input on the matter feel free to give me your take on it.
from what I've seen,aside from a mild speedboost,along with a few features like adaptive v-sync,and much improved anti-aliasing,etc the gtx 600 series seems like a very small upgrade from the gtx 400/500 series for the flagship,single gpu,graphics cards.
although for the other graphics cards like the mid range cards,the 660,660 ti,670,it is a relatively large improvement.

and if anyone is wondering,this isn't spam this is simply something I was curious about since the gtx 480 went on sale recently on newegg for 179.99,with a rebate of $10,for an amazing total of $169.99,which was well within my price range.
though sadly it went back up to $230 on October 1st,then went back down to $200 on October 2nd.
if anyone wants to purchase this card for this great price heres a link
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More about : gtx 480 gtx 600 series

a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 4:30:28 AM

The 480 is a beast it doesn't get respect because it's a loud power hog and runs hot but i think it deserves far more credit then it gets nice finds btw thanks for sharing but i think most are going to have allot to say about this and it's not going to turn out well just my thoughts maybe i am wrong anyway take care.
October 4, 2012 4:38:28 AM

bigcyco1 said:
The 480 is a beast it doesn't get respect because it's a loud power hog and runs hot but i think it deserves far more credit then it gets nice finds btw thanks for sharing but i think most are going to have allot to say about this and it's not going to turn out well just my thoughts maybe i am wrong anyway take care.

yeah I agree,so far though seems like this thread being ignored,34 views compared to the 139 and 300 views of the threads posted after it xD,so I doubt anyone will have anything to say about it,let alone many people and say a lot.and I can respect that people want a more power efficient card,or one that runs quieter,or colder.but when they straight out they tell me,or worse when it's on a forum and they encourage somebody new to computers to go for the more expensive gtx 670,using logic that it's outdated and can't hold it's own against newer cards I start to question if they thought before they made their opinion known or if they just decided a while back to always use the "this is newer so it's better" logic.
Related resources
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 4:59:01 AM

Where the 480 really shines imho is on water once you put it on water all bets are off it still wouldn't hang with cards such as Asus Top 670 /680 i don't think anyway but if you thought it was a beast on air you ain't seen the real 480 you met his tame side lol put two 480 on water they just scream overclock me!!!
a c 109 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 5:06:57 AM

Here are some of Recon-UK's vids of the GTX 480....
920mhz

900mhz

October 4, 2012 5:11:16 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Where the 480 really shines imho is on water once you put it on water all bets are off if you thought it was a beast on air you ain't seen the real 480 you met his tame side lol put two 480 on water they just scream overclock me!!!

well on water you could probably reach 1ghz with a good card,I've seen people reach 950mhz with good air cooling so 1ghz + should be attainable with a good watercooled card.and then it'd be probably on par to surpassing the gtx 680,in all but anti-aliasing.I think they didn't improve other things as well as they did the texel filtering,but the texel filtering improvement was huge,wish the pixel rate had improved as much as the texel rate though.

also I noticed you have sli gtx 670's,as well as the i5 2500k and 8gb ram,would you mind running the benchmark with 1 gtx 670 disabled?it's fine if you prefer not to as it's somewhat of a hassle.
October 4, 2012 5:19:36 AM

amuffin said:
Here are some of Recon-UK's vids of the GTX 480....


I saw this video too,and although this shows the power of the gtx 480 it isn't really comparable data since he didn't give avg,min,and max.woulda been a lot better if he had.
thanks for reading and commenting though.
by the way I really liked the thread you did on intel hd 3000 overclocking.
October 4, 2012 5:42:34 AM

amuffin said:
Here are some of Recon-UK's vids of the GTX 480....
920mhz

900mhz


Yeah, but his 480's aren't exactly typical.

They are overclocked highly and have custom cooling.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 6:01:27 AM

It won't be fair to you i have had some things done to my 670 and bios mods
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 6:11:36 AM

But bigcyco does the 480 still hold water against the newer 600 series cards I knew it did quite well against the 500 series. And I'm talking stock to stock.
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 6:13:15 AM

No cheating with the water cooling bro
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 6:51:10 AM

The 480 is still a great card it's no match for a 670 or 680 imo and i cant do bench stock for stock that's what i mean my bios has been modded and they are on water i would half to take them off the water and re flash to my org bios and take the card apart put things back stock i don't feel like doing all that sorry bro.
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 7:06:50 AM

haha yea i feel ya that is a lot of work :) 
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 7:07:18 AM

I have a i5 2500k and 8 gigs of ram and i have a 670 gigabyte coming in on friday maybe I could run a benchmark for you what one would you want?
a c 164 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 7:25:13 AM

Wait wait wait. To prove your point that the GTX480 is as good as the GTX680 you scour the net and come up with some random guys Youtube vid? Oh that's right, all the normal review places are part of the man, feeding us lies to make us upgrade our GPUs? Really?

While the CPU will have a part of the frame rates you get, its not a big one. Certainly not at 1080 and above. You could also look at the GTX570 reviews seeing as its mostly a GTX480 with a smaller memory bus. Considering how well the GTX660 does against the GTX580, its probably rather similar if not slightly faster then the GTX480. Why you would claim that the GTX480 is as good as the GTX680 is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, older tech isn't useless. A GTX470/480 at $150 is a good deal. That gets you a 6870 these days if you are lucky? Maybe a 6950? I often buy used/older and still have a great time gaming. (I'm thinking about that GTX470 actually.) But I don't see the reason to kid yourself. The GTX480 is around the performance of the GTX660. Not the GTX680. Even if you used a IB CPU.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 7:56:52 AM

Lol!I told you this thread wasn't a good idea there will be more that question this in a much nastier way i would delete this thread if i was you.This is going to cause you more trouble than what ever your point of this thread was worth to you.
a c 109 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 8:00:08 AM

Will bench on my 560ti 448 Cores....just for the heck of it ;) 
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 8:00:35 AM

yea I wish people would be more civil to this guy hes only asking legitimate things.
a c 107 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 8:08:38 AM

Albeit, I like the 480 in enthusiast hands due to its flexibility and raw performance per clock, but comparing it to a 680 is quite a statement. I know it can pass a 660ti and probably approach the 670(using stock clocks at reference vs an overclocked 480). Preferably, I would like benching on the same system, because the slightest change in versions or drivers can affect fps.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 8:16:22 AM

dudewitbow said:
Albeit, I like the 480 in enthusiast hands due to its flexibility and raw performance per clock, but comparing it to a 680 is quite a statement. I know it can pass a 660ti and probably approach the 670(using stock clocks at reference vs an overclocked 480). Preferably, I would like benching on the same system, because the slightest change in versions or drivers can affect fps.
Your right you would need to bench on same system otherwise it will just be questioned i really think the mods will end up stepping in here as i suspect this is going to get pretty ugly though i certainly hope i am wrong and that doesn't happen anyway good luck!
October 4, 2012 8:42:37 AM

Well it`s easyer to just check this rezult wich has a direct comparison on same hardware (i7-3770K) in 20 games ... this is the summary but in some newer games the difference is much bigger : http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
The conclusion is very clear : in 1920x1200 gtx 670 is 28 % better , gtx 660ti is 20 % better , gtx 660 is 15 % better (need to search also gtx 660 and 660ti reviews on techpowerup). For future games on newer engines i suspect the difference will increase aprox. 10% making it about 38 % advantage for gtx 670 (both stock cards).

a c 164 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 8:44:05 AM

It's not in my nature to be nasty and I hope I didn't come off as mean. But if you have to look all over for proof that you are right and you can only come up with youtube or wiki then you might want to stop and rethink your stance on things.

Edit: Forgot to say this is the nature of things. Last years high end is todays midrange. That a GTX480 is only around the 660 shouldn't be a big surprise.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 9:19:01 AM

4745454b said:
It's not in my nature to be nasty and I hope I didn't come off as mean. But if you have to look all over for proof that you are right and you can only come up with youtube or wiki then you might want to stop and rethink your stance on things.

Edit: Forgot to say this is the nature of things. Last years high end is todays midrange. That a GTX480 is only around the 660 shouldn't be a big surprise.
I wasn't meaning you were being nasty just trying to help the OP from being TH most hated member that's all i recall a member who use to stick up for the 480 and look what happened with him if you even mention the 480 on this forum somebody bound to lose their mind and start stuff with you i think it's bs but it's the way it is most members on this forum give 480 no respect very bias members
a c 164 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 9:39:45 AM

I remember when people took exception to the GTX480 from being recommended when it hit $200. Fact was it was a good deal at the time. Even at $200 now its still a good deal just not as good. I like those $120/170 numbers. $120 normally buys you a 5770 or GTX550TI. GTX470 is much faster then those cards. Every card can be a good deal. You just need a good price/performance ratio.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 10:05:55 AM

Yeah i guess it all depends on what you catch onto as well like for instance the same members that use to talk about 480 being a bad buy pay $60 more for a 7850 because of power consumption being less and that would be the main reason they bring up to sway a person from buying it well now when the 670 power consumption is less then a 7970 they argue power consumption who cares about that lol i just find members not all members but a lot very bias on this forum but maybe i am wrong.
October 4, 2012 2:34:05 PM

4745454b said:
Wait wait wait. To prove your point that the GTX480 is as good as the GTX680 you scour the net and come up with some random guys Youtube vid? Oh that's right, all the normal review places are part of the man, feeding us lies to make us upgrade our GPUs? Really?

While the CPU will have a part of the frame rates you get, its not a big one. Certainly not at 1080 and above. You could also look at the GTX570 reviews seeing as its mostly a GTX480 with a smaller memory bus. Considering how well the GTX660 does against the GTX580, its probably rather similar if not slightly faster then the GTX480. Why you would claim that the GTX480 is as good as the GTX680 is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, older tech isn't useless. A GTX470/480 at $150 is a good deal. That gets you a 6870 these days if you are lucky? Maybe a 6950? I often buy used/older and still have a great time gaming. (I'm thinking about that GTX470 actually.) But I don't see the reason to kid yourself. The GTX480 is around the performance of the GTX660. Not the GTX680. Even if you used a IB CPU.


I never said it was as good as the 680,I said with an extreme overclock of 1ghz it could approach the territory of the 680.
and the reason I think that we need a good fair benchmark is to see how much of a difference there really is,and while those two people were just found,they had the same settings,relatively similar systems,and the 480 ended up beating the 670.I realize there are other factors I'm just introducing the idea that the 480 may be on par to better that the 670.
they had same settings and the 480 beat it by 2fps avg,and 20fps max.and yes this is only one benchmark,but if you'd like to buy both and prove me wrong go for it,and when I'm proven wrong I'll tell you that you were right, congratulations,etc.
but until then you can't deny that for whatever reason,these two people with very small variances in specs,showed that the 480 won.
if you compare this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...
to tomshardwares review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-gef...
you'll see that he gets higher fps at higher settings than a 660 ti,significantly higher if you believe his fps without the video capture.
and yet you say you'd take a 660 over a 480....
a c 164 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 3:16:18 PM

Ohhh, approach the territory of. My mistake.

I'll stand behind my problem with youtube vids. We just don't know. Does one of them have a virus? Did one of them forget to turn off something before he ran the benchmark? Does one of them have a poor PSU causing something to not run as fast as it should? Thermal throttling?

It's also possible you found the one benchmark where something crazy happened. The GTX580 is faster/better in every way compared to the GTX480. I would still take a GTX660/TI over those cards, even if a benchmark here or there is for the older card. You listed the reason in your first post. The only time I suggest the older card is if you find it at a great price, or you need the 64bit FP. Its been nerfed big time in the 6 series.
October 4, 2012 9:51:56 PM

4745454b said:
Ohhh, approach the territory of. My mistake.

I'll stand behind my problem with youtube vids. We just don't know. Does one of them have a virus? Did one of them forget to turn off something before he ran the benchmark? Does one of them have a poor PSU causing something to not run as fast as it should? Thermal throttling?

It's also possible you found the one benchmark where something crazy happened. The GTX580 is faster/better in every way compared to the GTX480. I would still take a GTX660/TI over those cards, even if a benchmark here or there is for the older card. You listed the reason in your first post. The only time I suggest the older card is if you find it at a great price, or you need the 64bit FP. Its been nerfed big time in the 6 series.

I realize that issue.
but honestly,I want to find a clear answer to which card is better.
gtx 660/ti or the gtx 480.gtx 670 or the gtx 480.
I found 2 benchmarks done at equal settings.no they were not done on the same system,no there were not a series of tests,but it was about as close as we'll come to seeing whats true until someone takes the time to bench both cards on the same system so that most doubt can be put to rest.
I didn't start this thread to tell everyone that "oh the gtx 480 owns every single graphics card out there with the exception of dual gpu graphics cards."
I started it to find out if anyone had anything that they found,maybe something that they wanted to clear up,some obvious reason why it's better than the gtx 480.
yes theres new architecture,yes there improved anti aliasing,yes it runs cooler,yes it runs on less power,but are all of the gtx 600 series really better than the gtx 480?or maybe there was a bottleneck with the gtx 480,maybe something kept it from performing as well as it could.maybe it's on par with the gtx 670,or just barely performs below it.
thats what I'm trying to figure out.and from the few benchmarks you can find,that are free of bottlenecks,the gtx 480 shows that it holds it's own with the gtx 670.
is this a sure fire yeah the gtx 480 is on par with the gtx 670,no,but is it interesting,is there a chance that the gtx 480 really is on par with the gtx 670,of course.
I'd love to see a benchmark done by a reliable source,anandtech,tomshardware,Overclock.net,guru3d.com,etc but I highly doubt it'll happen.
I wanted some people that have systems that won't bottleneck the gtx 480 or the gtx 600 series card if they have it,to check for themselves,to post data here so that we'll know for sure "oh the gtx 480 really is on par" or "oh the gtx 480 is completely outdone even by the gtx 660 non ti."

a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 10:10:08 PM

Well I have a 670 coming in tomorrow and here are my specs. Just tell me what benchmark you want 3dmark 2011, 3dmark vantage, Unigine whatever.

Intel Core i5 2500k
Asrock Z68 EXTREME4 Gen 3
GIGABYTE GV-N670OC-2GD GeForce GTX 670 2GB
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 8GB (2x4)
Samsung 830 256GB SATA III SSD
Seagate Barracuda 500 GB SATA II
LG 12x Super Multi Blue WH12LS38
CM Storm Sniper
Corsair AX850 PSU
Corsair Hydro H100
October 4, 2012 10:14:47 PM

bigshootr8 said:
Well I have a 670 coming in tomorrow and here are my specs. Just tell me what benchmark you want 3dmark 2011, 3dmark vantage, Unigine whatever.

Intel Core i5 2500k
Asrock Z68 EXTREME4 Gen 3
GIGABYTE GV-N670OC-2GD GeForce GTX 670 2GB
Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 8GB (2x4)
Samsung 830 256GB SATA III SSD
Seagate Barracuda 500 GB SATA II
LG 12x Super Multi Blue WH12LS38
CM Storm Sniper
Corsair AX850 PSU
Corsair Hydro H100


the unreal engine 3 is the one I was looking at.
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=2932
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 4, 2012 11:34:13 PM

Okay I will run it asap and let you know man :) 
October 5, 2012 1:04:31 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Okay I will run it asap and let you know man :) 

thanks,much appreciated.
October 6, 2012 1:15:34 AM

youtube user "originalWrathchild67"
ran the benchmark again recently with the same settings as TomsHardware in their review of the gtx 660.
as a recap TH got
avg: 61.3 fps
min: 22 fps
they ran it with the 3960x,16gb Corsair Vengeance LP PC3-16000,and multiple graphics cards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-gef...

when originalWrathchild67 ran it with his i5 2500k @5ghz,DDR3 1600 LV 2x4GB @ 2133MHz,and EVGA Geforce GTX 480 @ 850/2100 at the same settings Toms ran the gtx 660 and 660 ti he got
avg: 73 fps
min: 43 fps
max 99 fps
http://i.imgur.com/sVVom.jpg

a c 132 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 1:36:35 AM

here is my 670 benchmark

a c 132 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:15:59 AM

Omg okay sorry >< I'll have to figure out how to change the settings on this thing.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:21:59 AM

How did you fellas get the video to show in thread
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:23:49 AM

a c 185 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:30:23 AM

Thanks
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:35:11 AM

neo_moco said:
Well it`s easyer to just check this rezult wich has a direct comparison on same hardware (i7-3770K) in 20 games ... this is the summary but in some newer games the difference is much bigger : http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
The conclusion is very clear : in 1920x1200 gtx 670 is 28 % better , gtx 660ti is 20 % better , gtx 660 is 15 % better (need to search also gtx 660 and 660ti reviews on techpowerup). For future games on newer engines i suspect the difference will increase aprox. 10% making it about 38 % advantage for gtx 670 (both stock cards).


This is a common mistake, but the 670 is more than 28% faster than the 480. The 480 is 28% slower than the 670 and the 670 is 39% faster than the 480. To say how much faster, you have to adjust the original card to 100% and compare how much above 100% the next card is. 100/72 - 1 gets your answer on how much faster it is than 72%.
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:45:41 AM

bystander said:
This is a common mistake, but the 670 is more than 28% faster than the 480. The 480 is 28% slower than the 670 and the 670 is 39% faster than the 480. To say how much faster, you have to adjust the original card to 100% and compare how much above 100% the next card is. 100/72 - 1 gets your answer on how much faster it is than 72%.
I would agree with this pretty much ;) 
a c 132 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 2:54:09 AM



There with physx
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 3:34:20 AM

Sparkle gtx 480 841/1682/1900

Which is my 24/7 OC on stock cooler:

Max settings 1920 x 1080, fxaa high, physx high, post processing on.

average 57.8 fps

max 70.2 fps


Best $160 I ever spent!


I am probably getting a arctic cooling accelero xtreme plus 2 now after this.





a c 216 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 6:08:52 AM

maxalge said:
Sparkle gtx 480 841/1682/1900

Which is my 24/7 OC on stock cooler:

Max settings 1920 x 1080, fxaa high, physx high, post processing on.

average 57.8 fps

max 70.2 fps


Best $160 I ever spent!


I am probably getting a arctic cooling accelero xtreme plus 2 now after this.


Keep in mind, this is an OpenGL engine, which means you'll see lots of wonky performance issues because Nvidia doesn't keep their OpenGL profiles up to date, and the 600 has not been out a long time.

I tried the same settings on my GTX 680 SLI setup in 4 ways:
1) On a single 680:
Average: 80.0 fps
Maximum 124.4 fps

2) On a single 680 but the 2nd one ended up defaulting as a dedicated PhysX card:
Average: 99.4 FPS
Maximum: 141.7 fps

3) 680 SLI:
Average: 108.8 fps
Maximum: 221.2 fps

4) 680 SLI in 3D Vision:
77.8 fps
142.3 fps
October 6, 2012 6:26:27 AM

bystander said:
Keep in mind, this is an OpenGL engine, which means you'll see lots of wonky performance issues because Nvidia doesn't keep their OpenGL profiles up to date, and the 600 has not been out a long time.

I tried the same settings on my GTX 680 SLI setup in 4 ways:
1) On a single 680:
Average: 80.0 fps
Maximum 124.4 fps

2) On a single 680 but the 2nd one ended up defaulting as a dedicated PhysX card:
Average: 99.4 FPS
Maximum: 141.7 fps

3) 680 SLI:
Average: 108.8 fps
Maximum: 221.2 fps

4) 680 SLI in 3D Vision:
77.8 fps
142.3 fps


well what benchmark is appropriate I've heard all sorts of arguments for all benchmarks.
metro 2033 - badly optimized,has physX so favors nvidia
crysis - badly optimized
crysis 2 - not intense,simply console port
batman arkham city - badly optimized
unigine heaven - not even that great/stuttering/jagged

I like detailed 3dmark scores but the averaged ones tell you nothing alone.
you can give a number of excuses for any benchmark.if they don't keep opengl up to date that is not an excuse it's a weakness nvidia imposes upon themselves in order to encourage their professional series graphics cards as opengl can accelerate cad and scientific real time simulations.

so what benchmark is good,that nobody disagrees on the validity of how it assesses graphics cards performance?
a c 185 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 6:28:38 AM

@bystander what 680's do you have those scores look low for the beast msi lightning 680's unless you got the newer ones which suck compared to org imo.
a c 164 U Graphics card
October 6, 2012 6:52:52 AM

I don't think he was saying the benchmark itself is bad, just that the new Nvidia cards in the drivers haven't been optimized for it as much as the GTX4xx cards. Hence the 6xx cards will perform lower then they can.

This is the problem with looking at only one benchmark. I said you should look at more while you said the problem is the CPU. You also ask those with the cards and good enough CPUs to test ONLY that benchmark. Its my understanding that most of the GTX480s if they were tested with the i7 920 where done so with highly clocked 920s. Did you look and see what the difference between a 4GHz 920 and 4GHz 2500k is in games?
October 6, 2012 7:12:24 AM

4745454b said:
I don't think he was saying the benchmark itself is bad, just that the new Nvidia cards in the drivers haven't been optimized for it as much as the GTX4xx cards. Hence the 6xx cards will perform lower then they can.

This is the problem with looking at only one benchmark. I said you should look at more while you said the problem is the CPU. You also ask those with the cards and good enough CPUs to test ONLY that benchmark. Its my understanding that most of the GTX480s if they were tested with the i7 920 where done so with highly clocked 920s. Did you look and see what the difference between a 4GHz 920 and 4GHz 2500k is in games?

quoted from my response
"well what benchmark is appropriate............you can give a number of excuses for any benchmark.if they don't keep opengl up to date that is not an excuse it's a weakness nvidia imposes upon themselves"

I feel I blatantly showed that I knew he meant drivers.

and I picked one benchmark because if I gave people 5 benchmarks,how many people would do it?maybe one person.
I had 1 benchmark that was done by three people,having them do more would decrease the chance of anyone trying.
as I said earlier if you want to test them all personally,and prove me wrong,feel free.
!