NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 465: Cheaper Isn’t Always Better
by Ryan Smith on May 31, 2010 3:26 AM ESTLeft 4 Dead
Introduced in 2004, Valve’s Source engine continues to live on in new Valve games. At this point even newer Source games like Left 4 Dead are rarely GPU limited to a significant degree, but we keep it on here due to the fact that we’re expecting at least one more Source game this year in Portal 2.
Left 4 Dead is not a game that favors the Fermi architecture, and this becomes all too clear with the GTX 465. At 1680 it falls behind by 10%, and at 2560 that increases to 30%. Notably this is our only game with 8x anti-aliasing, but as we saw in our GTX 480 review GF100 is no worse than AMD’s Cypress when it comes to 8x AA, so something else is the culprit. It could the lack of ROPs, but we’re also not willing to throw out the idea that it’s a texture filtering limitation.
Meanwhile we have something else interesting going on with the GTX 465: it’s not just losing to AMD’s cards. The GTX 465 ends up losing to the GTX 285 here, and even the GTX 275. Compared to the GTX 285 the GTX 465 is around 10% slower, which is quite surprising since we did not expect the GTX 285 to score any notable wins today. With L4D being fairly light on shader use, this leads us once more to the ROPs or texture units. Unless there’s an edge-case where the GTX 465 is slower than the linear difference between the two cards’ ROPs, the ROPs alone can’t explain this difference. The texture filtering difference between the two cards could explain this though.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
osideplayer - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
Sorry for the typo's I didn't editrobert3892 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
I would like to know why you didn't benchmark a GTX 465 SLI?Ryan Smith - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
We only have the 1 card.spathotan - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
Still satisfied with my GTX 285 I bought in February 2009, and these benchmarks support me.mianmian - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
Under load, GTX465 "drawing 17W less than the GTX 470 and 72W more than the 5850"It is different than the chat indicate.
The label for 5870 , GTX465, GTX470 must be switched by accident.
Ryan Smith - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
A graph went AWOL. It has returned.AnnonymousCoward - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
ATI is so far ahead.n0nsense - Tuesday, June 1, 2010 - link
The GTX465 is physicaly identical to GTX470.You can overclock it at least to 750MHz. You can flash 470 BIOS and achieve same thing as with unlocking Phenom's cores. And i couldn't find a word about it in all pages.
This makes this card much more interesting then anything from AMD.
Actually it is even more interesting then 470. The price is 70$ lower.
I'd like to see research on these "features". Let's hope someone is already working on it ;)
7Enigma - Tuesday, June 1, 2010 - link
- cannot guarantee an OC that high when looking at the variabliity of the chips-cannot guarantee unlocking extra areas of the card since these are clearly harvested from "bad" 470/480's
-power consumption/noise is already quite bad and doing either of the above would make this even worse.
It would have been interesting for it to be mentioned in the conclusion however as a POSSIBLE plus.
rohitbaran - Tuesday, June 1, 2010 - link
I think that the GTX 465 isn't that fast compared to 5850. The tests were done using catalyst 10.3a. I saw benchmarking done with catalyst 10.5 and differences were wider. The GTX 465 lagged behind the 5830 in many cases forget the 5850, which proved to be a bit too mighty for the newcomer 465. So I don't agree completely with the conclusion that 465 offers same performance to price ratio as the 5850.