Back to Article

  • poohbear - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Why's the 5770 10fps slower than the 4870? is that a mistake? they perform on par especially w/ the recent driver updates for the 5770. Reply
  • poohbear - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    in mass effect 2.:p hate the no edit feature! Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    There aren't any typos; those are the results we got for those cards on the 10.3a drivers. Reply
  • temps - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I can vouch for that. When my 1gb 4870 died, it was replaced with a 5770. In ME2, I saw a 10-15fps drop across the board with the same settings.. that didn't do it for me, so I ended up stepping up to a 5850. Reply
  • BoFox - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    Didn't you know that the 5770 is generally slower than 4870? The 4870 has far, far greater memory bandwidth despite a 100MHz lower core clock. Reply
  • tno - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I think a repost to the feed is appropriate when someone goes through this again and polishes it up. I couldn't finish the second paragraph it was so full or mistakes. Really guys there is no shame in hiring a copy editor. Reply
  • softdrinkviking - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    i don't care about typos in this kind of article.
    aside from problems with the numbers, i think everyone knows what is meant.

    i feel like it's expected that tech blog sites are littered with typos.

    actually, i'd like to hear about this from ryan smith or somebody here.

    do you guys want us to post typo corrections in the comments?

    i don't care, but what does anandtech want?
  • taltamir - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Moving on to load temperatures, we can begin to see the price of using a GPU with a higher core voltage. Under Crysis that 2C advantage over the GTX 470 holds, with temperatures peaking at just 91C. This still makes it the 3rd hottest single-GPU card we have tested, tying with the Radeon HD 3870 and coming in 24C hotter than the 5850, a card it underperforms in this game.

    According to the graph, the GTX465 gets 89 C not 91 C.
  • taltamir - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    nevermind, I see now that there are two graphs, one for furmark and one for crysis. Reply
  • multivac - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    NVIDIA filled in the first 2 spots in their lineup with the GTX 480 and GTX 480, with obvious room to grow out the family in the future.
    end of the first paragraph.
    still reading but im sure its a great article
  • multivac - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    also, you thanked Zotec at the end Reply
  • rscsr - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I read earlier the GTX465 review at and the load temperatures and power are well of both GTX 465 are well below the GTX 470.
    could it be that there is something wrong with your GTX 465 or your GTX 470 has a particular low power draw?
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    It's always possible.

    The primary issue is that the quality of chips coming off of a wafer are going to be variable in the best of times, and TSMC's situation is not quite that good. So between any two cards there can be a lot of variability, which is hard to account for when we only have a handful of any given card.

    I do not believe that our GTX 465 is "damaged" in any way. It functions just fine. But it consumes a lot of power, and it's hot. We may have simply received a card with a poorer-than-average GPU, which would color our results.

    As for our GTX 470, looking at some of the other reviews of it, I don't believe it's particularly exceptional.

    For anyone curious, under FurMark the fan on our 470 stabilizes at 76%. On the GTX 465 it stabilizes as 80%. This is the primary reason why our GTX 465 is louder than our 470.
  • CPUGuy - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    "I read earlier the GTX465 review at and the load temperatures and power are well of both GTX 465 are well below the GTX 470.
    could it be that there is something wrong with your GTX 465 or your GTX 470 has a particular low power draw?"

    Perhaps they were given a different sample card? Ever thought of that? You folks have to remember that these are not retail cards.
  • CPUGuy - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Why are you taking another review into consideration when they may have been given a different sample? I honestly don't think they had a retail version. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    It's said somewhere in the article that nVidia is using different voltages for these chips. So there you have it: Anand tested one at the upper bound of the voltage range (a worse chip) whereas computerbase likely got one which was more in line with the voltage on the 470/480s.
    Yes, voltage can make such a difference in power draw.
  • tviceman - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    This review is sloppy and outright laughable at points. Although you state which Nvidia drivers used (3 of them) you clearly used different drivers and/or old benchmarks for the same game on many parts of the tests, despite the 257 drivers offering some noticeable across-the-board increases. Even if not by much, FPS scores should be slightly different and/or up. In some reviews, it was clear newer drivers were only used on certain cards as the gtx470 is way faster than the gtx480 at BFBC2. Nearly all the other benchmarks, though, have both cards scoring the exact same as they did at release.

    It's not an accurate, or credible, way to post a review. All tests should be done on the same configuration. same software, same hardware, same drivers. If you don't have time to rerun your gtx470/480 benchmarks with the latest drivers, then you should NOT include them in the review.
  • tviceman - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    And just to say, it's not that I disagree with your analysis on the gtx465, but if you are going to have huge graphs showing how all the cards perform and where they fit vs. their counterparts and rivals, those graphs need to be accurate and not using different configurations that will skew results. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    New drivers are always a thorny issue. In an ideal world I'd like to update our results with the latest drivers as they're released. But realistically it's 1-1.5 man-weeks of work to redo the entire benchmark suite and that's just not practical.

    As a result, for the most part we will keep the same results set for upwards of 6 months. If there's a significant change in performance due to a new driver we'll go ahead and rerun some numbers as necessary, which we have done for the 257.15 drivers. We will probably redo some more benchmarks, but it wasn't possible to get anything else done ahead of this review.
  • tviceman - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Well I think it's only fair, proper, and balanced to run all the cards with the same configuration. If you're unable to do so in the time frame alloted, then only include the cards which are in immediate competition and add more later.

    The BFBC2 benchmark looks plain WRONG with the gtx470 trouncing the gtx480. And since other gtx470 scores were exactly the same as your original review, it just looks like you randomly picked a few small benchmarks to update with the latest drivers, and left the rest untouched.

    It just isn't accurate.
  • MadMan007 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Yeah I've got to agree. It's one thing to not rerun benchmarks with new drivers on older cards or ones that are well out of the intended competition envelope but to not redo cards that are new and might benefit greatly from the new drivers just seems lazy. Reply
  • Greenhell6 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    My 4870X2 Is still rocking out!!! Faster than the 5870 in some tests and on par with the GTX 480. Cant complain since i picked it up for about nothing. Reply
  • SunSamurai - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Whats the power cost to run those again? ;) Reply
  • Greenhell6 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Very little for me, since I only use my 4870X2 for gaming and nothing else- I have another rig that uses all low power components for everything else. And now with two kids my gamiing computer get's turned on less and less. You have to admit it though--The 4870X2 Numbers are still very impressive--Rock's your face off.... Reply
  • Nighteye2 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    In cases like this, it would be good if power costs are also taken into account. If a card is cheaper but uses a lot more power, you may still end up paying more through your electricity bill.

    Why not make a comparison based on lifetime costs, rather than only purchase price? You can estimate lifetime costs by adding the power usage over about 1000 hours on full load and 500 hours idle - and that'd probably still be a low estimate for some people.
  • C'DaleRider - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    OK.....but whose power costs are you going to use as a metric? Massachusetts? California? Idaho? Georgia? Michigan?

    Rural or urban?

    Or should they be limited to U.S. figures only as this site is read internationally?

    So, I guess AT should post your request with power figures from every state in the U.S., urban and rural averages per state, Canada by province, Mexico, Germany, Italy, England, France, Spain, and Turkey. Hope that's enough coverage for you.

    On the other hand, I'd personally think that anyone with two functional brain cells can make a determination that consuming 100W of extra power will cost more to run. Simple point to make as this review made it.
  • Nighteye2 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Just use the US average cost/kwh. The prices in the articles are also in USD, so that would be most convenient. It doesn't need to be accurate to the cent, just give a decent indication/estimate.

    Oh, and I suspect global power costs to be similar enough for such a figure to have meaning to all readers globally (I'm not from the US, btw).
  • Apocy - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    If you are so interested in power costs, here is the basic calculation (take in mind I live in Bulgaria)
    Power cost during day - 0.12$ (US dollars)
    Idle power gap - 9
    Load power gap - 105

    Given we use the system only during daytime we have ROI:
    Idle - 185185,1852 hours
    Load - 15873,01587 hours

    So on average you will need 700 days to pay off these 20$ by saving power with 5850.
  • rbnielse - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Your calculation are off by an order or magnitude.

    It's actually 1587 hours (load) to pay off the 20$ pricegap, and frankly that's not a lot.

    Most people who buy a highend graphics card like this are going to play at least 20 hours per week, which means they'd even out the costs after a year and half at the most. So for the majority of buyers I'd say the GTX465 is actually more expensive than the HD5850, in addition to being slower and louder.
  • Apocy - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    Yep you are right, I placed 20$ as 20,000 cents not 2,000 that's why the numbers are 10 times higher.
    So ok then, 70 days roughly :)

    In reality if you consider the power savings, yes 5850 will become cheaper with time. Guessing the average user will hit these 70 days of playtime mark by the 8th month if he plays roughly an average of 6-8 hours :)

    So yeah, in conclusion, this card is totally useless unless you want physX and 3d Vision
  • iantis - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Honestly, I feel like the more important measure is greenhouse gas emissions, anyway. Power is so cheap in America. I suppose if you play computer 20 hours per day it will hit your wallet, but the carbon emissions are what really matter imho. Reply
  • Zoomer - Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - link

    Think it's getting off topic now. Others may not agree. Reply
  • oldscotch - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I thought it'd be a good year or two before we'd start seeing gpu reviews with the phrase "only 1gb of ram". Reply
  • aegisofrime - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    "NVIDIA pegs the GTX 470 at 200W TDP, 15W below the GTX 470’s official TDP"

    I believe the first 470 in the sentence should be 465 instead?
  • Exodite - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    The GeForce GTX465 comes off as an even worse deal than the Radeon 5830, no mean feat to be sure.

    It'll be interesting to see how the GTX460 holds up under scrutiny once it arrives, being based on another chip should help a lot with the worse metrics of thee 400-series I hope. Meaning power, heat and noise that is.
  • gtr92 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I think there's a typo on the L4D page.

    "The GTX 465 ends up losing to the GTX 285 here, and even the GTX 475. Compared to the GTX 285 the GTX 465 is..."

    The 2nd and 3rd sentence in the last paragraph, I think it's supposed to be GTX 275, not 475.
  • xxtypersxx - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I have had my GTX 280 for 2 years now and it is pretty surprising to see how close its die shrunk brother the GTX 285 is to the GTX 465 and Radeon 5850 in benchmarks. I will likely not upgrade for another year while I wait for meaningful advancements and that gives this card a usable lifespan rivaling the fabled 8800gtx!

    On another note, after reading this and my recent experience with a GT240 I have definitiely learned to look beyond SP count. For a while the number of shader processors (within a brand anyway) was a pretty dependable way to gauge relative performance. Now with Nvidia and ATI hacking away other critical components in their salvaged dies we see this really fall apart (GTX 285 vs GTX 465 and Radeon 5830 vs Radeon 4890).
  • JAG87 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    after I read the BC2 charts, I just moved on to a different review. if you don't have time to re-run the benchmarks then don't include skewed numbers in your charts, just for the sake of completion. we understand that you don't have a week to dedicate for every product review, but don't make these silly mistakes. Reply
  • fausto412 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    i'm sorry but nvidia must think we are idiots. trying to sell us these super power hungry, super hot, not 100% cards and not competing head on with AMD? what game of chicken shit is this?

    i'm waiting for them to get real and for prices to come down. at this pace ATI will have something faster than 5870 for me to buy that will run cooler and be positioned to make the gtx480 look like a freaking toy.
  • osideplayer - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I really don't know what's up with Nvidia right now, but I hope they don't go downhill. It seems with like they are really falling apart with intel and now they are loosing at their own game :( I have a Nvidia 260, an I7 920 and 6GB DDR3 ram they have worked together flawlessly. I'm glad you guys are still putting up benchmarks for them. I love this site. Reply
  • osideplayer - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Sorry for the typo's I didn't edit Reply
  • robert3892 - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    I would like to know why you didn't benchmark a GTX 465 SLI? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    We only have the 1 card. Reply
  • spathotan - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    Still satisfied with my GTX 285 I bought in February 2009, and these benchmarks support me. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link

    ATI is so far ahead. Reply
  • n0nsense - Tuesday, June 01, 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 01, 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 01, 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. Reply
  • BoFox - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    10.5's offer almost zero performance improvements over 10.3a. Remember, the 10.3 drivers already brought the largest boost to 5xxx cards since they came out in October. Reply
  • Lapoki - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    With the latest series from ATI and nVidia one thing that didnt happen at all were the price wars. I loved watching that with the last gen and remember the day when i almost purchased a non-reference 4890 for just $179.
    Then came the 58XX and i thought i'd wait for nVidia's response which took quite a while but in the end i was sorely dissapointed. It looked like both teams had decided upon a performance point to target with a price
    $250 - HD 5830
    $280 - GTX465
    $300 - HD 5850
    $350 - GTX470
    $400 - HD5870
    $500 - GTX480
    Is it just me or these alternating figures look fishy?

    In the end, after delaying my purchase by quite a few months, i gave up and bought a 5850 for ~$280 and i have to say i really like its performance though wish i it was cheaper by $30-$40.
    Also, this is my first ATI or for that matter non-nVidia card in 12 years.
  • BoFox - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    Yeah! Nvidia is deliberately avoiding price wars by avoiding the exact same price categories this time around.

    ATI's Southern Islands (HD 6770) is due in a couple months or less, since it already taped out. It will give GTX 480 a spanking, for sure.
  • ragejg - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    In my GTX 465 review for nVNews I took an average for a 1 minute run in a repeatable firefight in SP, and a 1 minute run in a full MP server. How did you guys do the BC2 benching? Could you explain what the waterfall benchmark entails, as well as the other one? I'd like to do a better job of benchmarking with this game.

    - john
    -nVNews Staff/Mod
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    The text and pictures from our GTX 480 review should do a good enough job explaining our test methodology.
  • Chalnoth - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    "Above the GTX 480 is of course the “full” GF100 with all of its functional units enabled, and which is still missing in action on both the consumer and HPC markets."

    What the hell are you smoking? As of the time of this post, all 10 GTX 480 products listed on newegg's website were ready for immediate shipping. Can you at least get your simplest facts straight?
  • silverblue - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    He said the "full" GT100, which offers 512 shader cores and not 480 as is the case with the 480. As such, I believe he's correct to make that statement. Reply
  • silverblue - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    They used Catalyst v10.5, and the 5830 was far closer to the 465. In most games, it was behind at the lower resolutions, then ahead as you went higher. Pretty easy to conclude that, unless you're playing MW2, the 465 was a waste of time unless you wanted PhysX, CUDA and 3D gaming/BluRay.

    I know you use a different gaming test suite but I'm surprised that the 5830 is relatively nowhere on your test. Are you using AA at any point?
  • BoFox - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    Perhaps you are the owner of a 5830, but just check dozens of review sites out there and see for yourself how a 5830 is rather lackluster even compared to the 4890 (which is already slower than GTX 275 and 465 in overall DX9/10 games). Reply
  • Slayeristight - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    I just lost a lot of respect for this website with the posting of these benchmarks. I looked at the 5830 number and they are very, very low. I compared the numbers from this review to the of the 5830 and they are a lot lower! How can this be with all the performance upgrades in the drivers that they have had. Also, while I am speaking of drivers, why not use the newest drivers for ATI? Why use AMD Catalyst 10.3a that is 2 driver releases old?

    If you messed up on the 5830 so bad how can I trust any of the other numbers that were put up for any of the other cards be it Nvidia or ATI?
  • BoFox - Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - link

    Catalyst 10.4 refuses to work with 5830 cards. I'm not sure about 10.5's.. gotta check out the forums.

    """We've often thought that GPU performance in 3DMark's color fill rate test seems to be limited primarily by memory bandwidth. Notice how much faster the Radeon HD 4870 is than the Radeon HD 5770, for instance. The 5770 has a slightly higher theoretical peak fill rate, but the 4870 has nearly twice the memory bandwidth and proves markedly faster in this directed test.

    The 5830, however, breaks that trend by delivering much a lower measured fill rate than the 5850, though their memory bandwidth on paper is identical. Heck, the 4870 outscores the 5830, too, even though it has slightly less theoretical peak fill rate and memory bandwidth. Something about the way AMD pruned back the Cypress GPU's render back-ends produces unexpectedly poor results in this test."""

    Also, here's an excellent article with much more in-depth analysis on the issue:

    It's a very good read. The R800 architecture appears to have the ROP's linked to the memory controller (bus) in that cutting the ROP's in half really does affect the usage of the available bandwidth.

    Simply put, the 5830 is even more of a castrated child of RV870 than the 465 is a castrated child of GF100.
  • Slayeristight - Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - link

    But that does not explain why the 5830 performs better on its original review vs this new review. On the HAWX tests show 50%+ slower speeds! I would have thought someone would have seen this problem before the review was posted. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - link

    I'll rerun the 5830 later today. There's a pretty good chance I just wrote down the wrong numbers when compiling all of this date for the GTX 480 review, but ultimately you're right: there's something wrong with our HAWX data. Reply
  • Arbie - Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - link

    It isn't just the cost of the wattage to run the card. That doesn't add much when you consider what a small percentage of the time the thing is loaded. The dominant factor, in most moderate or hot climates, is the cost of air conditioning to keep the computer room comfortable. With central A/C, to cool off a single hot room you have to refrigerate the rest of the house. That is not only very expensive but also inconvenient and uncomfortable.

    ==> After the inefficiencies of your PSU and A/C are taken onto account, each watt of idle power probably translates into 3-4 watts you have to pay for. That's just a guess, but it is clearly pointless to argue about small differences in GPU dissipation without considering these multipliers. That's where the hurt is. And that's one of the *many* reasons to favor ATI now.

    Technically, the Nvidia Fermi line is junk, and nobody who doesn't need the few special features of the architecture should be conned into buying one. That means most gamers. Thanks for a good article that doesn't pull any punches on this, and in fact exposes the over-volting Nvidia is resorting to in order to move their leaky culls. The GTX 265 is clearly the worst of Fermi yet.

    I apologize if this double posts but it seems to have been lost the first time.
  • Arbie - Wednesday, June 02, 2010 - link

    Typo: I meant "GTX 465" at the end, not 265.
  • Golgatha - Thursday, June 03, 2010 - link

    This is a high end card review. I would personally like to see the 5770 and 5750 results omitted and replaced with 465/470 SLI and 5850 Crossfire results so we can make an intelligent buying decision based on an apples to apples comparison with currently shipping drivers. Reply
  • fingerbob69 - Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - link

    see for yourself how a 5830 is rather lackluster even compared to the 4890 (which is already slower than GTX 275 and 465 in overall DX9/10 games).

    I'm sorry but that statement re275 v 4890 simply isn't true! If you examine the graphs for CrysisW. (in a "if it can render Crysis all other ingame rendering follows" moment) the 4890 matches or more often betters the 275 in every resolution bar one ...average frame rates@1900x1200 the 275 manages a 0.3 better frame rate. That is a margin so small no human could perceive it, in game or anywhere else for that matter.

    As for how the 4890 stacks up against the 465... the 465 never holds a lead greater than 4 frames on the average and 2.7 frames on the minimum, over the 4890. Considering the 465 is a year young new architecture and costs av £240 compared to the £160 the 4890 was, before it went eol, that is an appalling return for the extra £80 or so premium Nvidia expect you to pay.

    The 465 is to Nvidia what the 5830 is to Ati, wrong on so many levels; the most important being performance v price.
  • RoninK - Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - link

    Did anyone else notice that the benchmark results on Bad Company 2 show the 480 performing worse than the 470 and even the 465 (especially at the 1680 resolution)? In fact the fps numbers for the 480 are the same as the ones used in the old article where they performed the test using the OLD FIRMWARE VERSION:

    The new firmware definitely made a big difference so you definitely should not compare the 480 running the old firmware to the 465 and 470 running the new firmware. Shame on you, Mr. Smith!
  • GamerDave20 - Saturday, July 03, 2010 - link

    This card should of been called the GTS 460. At some point in crippling a video card, it ceases to be a GTX. I know we are pulling for less naming confusion, but now NVIDIA has hemmed themselves in on their naming scheme with there third card. Now there is no room for continuity between the 485, 475, and 465 which will inevitably come out in a year.

    Also, in response to the question about posting typos - don't do it. I know it's irritating and unprofessional but it is petty to point out. Email the writer direct to point these out. The forum part of the article is for pointing out and discussing technical features, comparisons and inconsistencies.

    Strangely, this article makes the 5830, 4890, and 4870 look good. In the past, the 5770 seemed to be the value leader, but in these benchmarks the 5770 looks like a poor choice for this years' games.

    Anyways, as a long-time Anandtech reader I it odd that this article caused me to finally register and post, but I really think NVIDIA naming is about to become an issue again and was curious if anyone else agrees. Keep up the good work - I look the GPU reviews/comparisons as well as the gaming notebook reviews!

  • GamerDave20 - Saturday, July 03, 2010 - link

    Ah ha...that's funny to talk about type-o and then make a few myself. Sorry, but posting from an iPhone works but is kinda cumbersome!

    Also, isn't it odd what a dog the 8800 GT looks like now - 3 years after being such a darling of the review sites!

    Bring on another review of a powerful GPU!

    Dave (GamerDave20)
  • Alleniv - Monday, August 02, 2010 - link

    Hi, I just found a new review about GTX465! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now