Skip to main content

PAX: What Gamers Think of Nvidia's GTX 480

There is a lot of positive energy on the PAX East show floor regarding the new Nvidia hardware. “It’s good to finally see Nvidia with a new series of video cards. It’s been too long, but I think it’s been worth the wait," said one bystander at the Nvidia booth (he did not want to give me his name). "I haven't had a chance to sit down at look at reviews," said John S, while playing the StarCraft II beta at the Nvidia booth, "but if the rocket sled demo is any indication, Nvidia has some impressive hardware on their hands."

Brandon, a passer-by at the Alienware booth emphatically stated "I can't wait to grab a GTX 480, or even a dual-GPU version when it comes out. AMD is going DOWN!"

Sure, new hardware is always exciting, but there's a flip-side to every coin. "I don't claim loyalty to AMD or Nvidia, but why would I pay $500 for a GTX 480 when a 5870 from AMD is $100 less for only a minor dip in performance?" said Mike G., also at the Nvidia booth. Another negative reaction came from Brian R, near the Rockstar Games booth. "I bought my 5870 about a month ago, and after seeing what Nvidia is bringing to market in a few weeks, I think I made the right choice."

And of course, to keep things even, admitted AMD fanboy Kelby said, "AMD took the price-performance crown with the 4000 series, and after looking at the reviews online, things won't be any different with the 5000 series. Plus, why get a GTX 480 when the 5970 uses roughly the same amount of power but offers much better performance?"

My two cents: competition is great, if not an absolute necessity, so Nvidia finally showing up to the DX11 party can only be good for PC enthusiasts. After witnessing the press conference here at PAX East and reading Chris Angelini's review, it looks like AMD does indeed have the performance per dollar edge for now (full disclosure: I am using a 4870 X2 right now, but I claim no loyalty to either company). However, some of what Nvidia is showing off is pretty cool, like the new raytracing demos. I'll leave it to the commenters to battle over which is better.

  • Vestin
    The way I see it (correct me if I'm wrong): Nvidia's cards are better for 3D gaming, ATI's are better for 3-monitor gaming... That's SOMEWHAT balanced.
    Reply
  • znegval
    I'm sorry but I'm not a "performance at any cost" guy. The power requirements for Fermi are absolutely ridiculous considering it doesn't deliver any significant improvement over the competing product (at least not as significant as it should). In my opinion, quality isn't measured by raw performance and I belive 5870 is a better quality product than the 480.

    By the way, "I can't wait to grab a GTX 480, or even a dual-GPU version when it comes out". Good luck with that.
    Reply
  • Marco925
    I think they completely dropped the ball on this one.
    Reply
  • the fact I can run it on a 550w psu says its not that bad
    Reply
  • yose3
    Nvidia even tho i dont blamee it because thay did thair best and i kow it.

    but i dont think is balanced...

    3D Vision,Physicx, ect


    is more like Nvidia = Quality vs ATI = Performance

    for now..... -.-
    Reply
  • ptroen
    Um this is just plain stupid. Show us some UNBIASED benchmarks then decide....
    Reply
  • TemjinGold
    znegvalI'm sorry but I'm not a "performance at any cost" guy. The power requirements for Fermi are absolutely ridiculous considering it doesn't deliver any significant improvement over the competing product (at least not as significant as it should). In my opinion, quality isn't measured by raw performance and I belive 5870 is a better quality product than the 480.By the way, "I can't wait to grab a GTX 480, or even a dual-GPU version when it comes out". Good luck with that.
    I can't wait to grab a GTX 480 myself... when a dual-GPU version comes out... ;)
    Reply
  • matchboxmatt
    Outside of that tessellation demo, Fermi has kind of been disappointing, especially considering how late they are to the DX11 party. I was really hoping for a heavy hitter that would drive ATI's 5xxx series prices down, but it looks like things are gonna be staying the same.
    Reply
  • eodeo
    Both ati and nvidia have 3 gaming monitor options, while nvidia requires 2 cards and another month to get the drivers ready. (dont forget you actually need 3 monitors for this to make any sense)

    nvidia cards are not better for 3d gaming, but they are impressive nonetheless. The thing they are indisputably better is for CUDA, and thats not a negligible thing for me. I'm having hard time deciding should i trade my 4850 for 5850 or gtx 470. 5850 would be a clear winner if it could run CUDA apps, like vReveal and upcoming Mercury player for Adobe Premier cs5...

    Since games run the same on both and I can live without CUDA support for at least another year, the only thing that will sway me in either direction right now is what card runs Quicksilver, the newest renderer for 3ds Max, better. Autodesk won't come forward with the results on which is faster, since they are partnered with both ATi/nVidia, so I would love it if Tom's did a review of this.

    To me a heavy 3d user, Quicksilver is the single most important piece of software coming out this year. iray would likely take the crown if 3ds max was supporting it in the upcoming release.
    Reply
  • shadow187
    Well if the GTX480 uses over 250Watts, there won't be a dual version of that.
    If the GTX470 uses over 215Watts, there won't be a dual version of that.
    What're we left with? The unknown. GTX460? GTX450? Or will nVidia be the first to break the 300W PCI-E sig spec? Will the GTX490 (512Shader version) compete with the HD5890? Will there be an HD5930 or an HD5950?

    Stay tuned!
    Reply