Skip to main content

GeForce GTX 480 And 470: From Fermi And GF100 To Actual Cards!

Benchmark Results: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (DirectX 10/11)

Here again we have a title able to support DirectX 11, thus giving compared DirectX 10 cards a performance advantage—at least, you’d think so. But the GeForce GTX 285 and 295 both bring up the rear, leaving ATI’s Radeon HD 4870 X2 as the only contender to factor out of the apples-to-apples comparisons (and for what it’s worth, issues with the GeForce GTX 295 and Bad Company 2 seem to be fairly prevalent online).

All of our cards serve up what I’d consider playable performance at 1680x1050. Most interesting, perhaps, is that the GeForce GTX 480 and 470 sacrifice less of their performance in switching from 1x to 8x anti-aliasing, allowing the GeForce GTX 470 to jump in front of the Radeon HD 5870 with 8xAA enabled, even though the 5870 is faster without AA.

Shifting to 2560x1600 shows the Radeon HD 5970 still in its overwhelmingly-commanding lead. But while the GeForce GTX 480 would seem to fall to fourth place (behind the Radeon HD 5870), it actually scores a second-place finish once you turn on 8xAA.

ATI is able to maintain the fact that it sells the fastest card you can buy. However, with an expected price $200 below the Radeon HD 5970, the GeForce GTX 480 looks to be a contender here at $499. Of course, when you consider the Radeon HD 5870s already selling online at $419, Nvidia might have some work to do on its pricing.

  • restatement3dofted
    I have been waiting for this review since freaking January. Tom's Hardware, I love you.

    With official reviews available, the GTX 480 certainly doesn't seem like the rampaging ATI-killer they boasted it would be, especially six months after ATI started rolling out 5xxx cards. Now I suppose I'll just cross my fingers that this causes prices for the 5xxx cards to shift a bit (a guy can dream, can't he?), and wait to see what ATI rolls out next. Unless something drastic happens, I don't see myself choosing a GF100 card over an ATI alternative, at least not for this generation of GPUs.
    Reply
  • tipoo
    Completely unimpressed. 6 months late. Too expensive. Power hog. Performance not particularly impressive. The Radeon 5k series has been delivering a near identical experience for 6 months now, at a lower price.
    Reply
  • tpi2007
    hmmm.. so this is a paper launch... six months after and they do a paper launch on a friday evening, after the stock exchange has closed.. smart move by Nvidia, that way people will cool off during the weekend, but I think their stocks won't perform that brilliantly on monday...
    Reply
  • not at all impressed
    Reply
  • Godhatesusall
    high power consumption, high prices along with a (small, all things considered) performance edge over ATI is all there is. Are 100$ more for a gtx 480 really worth 5-10% increase in performance?

    Though the big downside of fermi are temps. 97 is a very large(and totally unacceptable) temperature level. IMO fermi cards will start dying from thermal death some months from now.

    I just wanted competition,so that prices would be lower and we(the consumers) could get more bang for our buck. Surely fermi doesnt help alot in that direction(a modest 30$ cut for 5870 and 5850 from ATI and fermi wont stand a chance). It seems AMD/ATI clearly won this round
    Reply
  • Pei-chen
    Wow, it seems Nvidia actually went ahead and designed a DX11 card and found out how difficult it is to design. ATI/AMD just slapped a DX11 sticker on their DX10 card and sells it as DX11. In half a year HD 5000 will be so outdated that all it can play is DX10 games.
    Reply
  • outlw6669
    Kinda impressed :/

    The minimum frame rates are quite nice at least...
    Lets talk again when a version with the full 512 SP is released.
    Reply
  • djtronika
    yawn
    Reply
  • The way we're meant to be dismayed, gg infirmi
    Reply
  • randomizer
    I'll keep my GTX275.
    Reply