- Official Post
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=gtx+480&x=0&y=0
have a look for your self, id like to watch these prices inflate and ati prices drop.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=gtx+480&x=0&y=0
have a look for your self, id like to watch these prices inflate and ati prices drop.
GTX 480 and GTX 470 cards won't be hitting stores until the week of April 12th but here's a video to hold you over:
Yup. PAX convention in Boston this weekend timed right for the NVIDIA launch.
I wouldn't mind x-firing my 4870 at a cheap price.
Six times the performance compared to the previous generation cards? Wow.
Just like Intel has over AMD, Nvidia has over ATI. It's all about the instruction sets. That might be over a lot of peoples heads. Allow me to provide an example of technology developments.
First ever (personal computer) CPUs were 286's and 386's. Lets say you buy a 33Mhz processor in 1991. Not all 33mhz were equal. Back then, the big thing was level 1 and level 2 cache. Developers finally reached the cache size wall and enlarging the cache size did almost nothing for performance. Still, they needed things to perform faster with demand.
Fast forward to the year 1996. This was the territory for pentium 2 and pentium 3. The big advancement was Mhz. The more Mhz you have, the better the computer performs.
Eventually, they figured out that 3-3.6Ghz was about as fast as you want to go before you have heat and power issues. Maybe 2004-2005-ish with Pentium 4 HT. Later 64-bit systems took into the market.
Another Fast forward to 2006-2010, the computer developers decided they can achieve even better performance by cramming multiple processor cores into one die. Thus, the dual core, triple core, quad core, and hexa core processors are being produced in masses.
2010 - Yet, they have found that increasing the # of cores is not faster for ALL applications. Only applications built to utilize the multi core sub-architecture. Intel has resolved this issue with the Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 processors. These processors contain more than just hardware. They contain micro code that interprets data. Did you know a processor will try to predict every outcome or possible input before you actually provide input. Such as, what will the position of the mouse be before you move it. Instruction sets allow the processor to use itself more efficiently. It's like algebra or calculus, and there are different ways to solve a question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set
What I'm getting at is, Nvidia has taken the route of Intel by improving instruction sets. ATI may have raw power, but it can't use that power as effectively as Nvidia can. It's like comparing a quad-core Intel Core i7 2.8Ghz to an AMD quad-core 2.8Ghz Phenom2. We all know the Core i7 will beat the Phenom2 in almost every real world test.
Nvidia had a hold on the market for two years around the 8xxx series were out continued into 9xxx series, but for about the past year since the 5xxx series was introduced ati has had a hold on the market.
the 5970 is clearly still at the top, but the 5870 seems to be par with the gtx 480 ati many points.
http://www.vizworld.com/2010/03/nvidia…480-benchmarks/
Nvidia had a hold on the market for two years around the 8xxx series were out continued into 9xxx series, but for about the past year since the 5xxx series was introduced ati has had a hold on the market.
the 5970 is clearly still at the top, but the 5870 seems to be par with the gtx 480 ati many points.
http://www.vizworld.com/2010/03/nvidia…480-benchmarks/
I'd disagree with those numbers. Some benches imply the GTX 480 performs the same as the GTX 295. Besides that, the ATI 5970 is a $700+ card, while the GTX 480 is listed at $500. While the ATI 5970 has more video memory (2Gb), the GTX 480 only has 1.5Gb. The ATI 5xxx series has been out for long enough that the video drivers should be developed. However, the GTX 480 has not been released long enough to have a video driver that is properly suited for benchmarking.
When we have fair game, then we can compare benchmarks again. There are things that go unmentioned in reviews, such as driver development. From what I understand, the ATI 5970 did not perform very well with the very first driver release, much less a pre-release driver version. I will refrain from uncovering senseless garbage about the ATI 5970, but keep in mind, Nvidia emphasis quality control.
If this is going to turn into a fanboy debate it should be in spam.
Or located here:
Who is debating? Is this the 480 fermi thread?
It's too bad that there is still nothing to compare with the 5970, but I suspect it won't be too much longer until Nvidia offers its own dual GPU version of the new gf100 cards, as Nvidia has only just showed up to the DX11 party.
ATI FTW!
(yes i am a ATI fanboy)
More like an AMD fanboy in general.
And I'd go with "fagboy"
jk
It's too bad that there is still nothing to compare with the 5970, but I suspect it won't be too much longer until Nvidia offers its own dual GPU version of the new gf100 cards, as Nvidia has only just showed up to the DX11 party.
Nvidia on the GTX 495 "Shit we took down the power grid"
In any case buying a high end card is a waste. It's only good for epeen.
found this chart that shows power consumption.http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=480&Itemid=72&limit=1&limitstart=14
well this isn't a gtx480 but it is still just as cool
Its the gtx465 SPECS!! and a pic if your lucky.
NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 465 is based on a GF100 GPU with five SM disabled (SM = Streaming Multiprocessor) .
A SM of a GF100 GPU has 32 SP (SP = Streaming Processor or core) and a GF100 with all SM enabled has 512 cores or 16 SM. So the GTX 465 has 352 cores (or 16-5 = 11 SM) with the same clocks than the GTX 470.
- GPU: GF100 @ 607.5MHz
- Cores: 352 @ 1215MHz
- Memory: 1024MB GDDR5 256-bit @ 801MHz
- ROPs: 32
- Price: around US250$
- 3D APIs: OpenGL 4.0 and Direct3D 11
- GPU Computing: CUDA, OpenCL, DirectCompute and PhysX
- Retail 300 usd
specs for the asus
From its benchmarks, eNet says that the GTX 465 is "slightly faster" than an ATI Radeon HD 5870 running Far Cry 2, but it was "significantly slower" than an ATI Radeon HD 5830 in Crysis Warhead, and it performed somewhere in between an ATI Radeon HD 5850 and 5870 in Unigine Heaven benchmark.
Strange that the GTX 465 is so slow in Warhead, but so fast in everything else.
I play Far Cry 2 on Ultra High 1680x1050. I can play on Ultra High 1280x(sumthin widescreen) with 16xAA. Then again, somehow I've benched faster than two 8800 GTX's SLI in 3DMark06. Perhaps it's all the overclocking?