NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 465: Cheaper Isn’t Always Better
by Ryan Smith on May 31, 2010 3:26 AM ESTConclusion
We opened this article stating that the “sweet spot” for NVIDIA was 93%. The GeForce GTX 465 is 93% of the price of the average Radeon HD 5850, so NVIDIA would want to deliver at least 93% of the performance. All told they come very close to this at 1920 and 1680, coming within 89% and 93% of a Radeon HD 5850 respectively, showcasing just how good of a job NVIDIA is doing positioning their cards as of late.
Unless you’re going to be gaming with a 30” LCD, NVIDIA has done an appropriate job of pricing the GTX 465 on a pure performance basis. For $280 you can have a GTX 465, or for 8% more you can have a card that performs 8% faster (the 5850). If that’s all you care about, stop here and figure out how much you wish to spend and you’ll be able to figure out which card you want.
However if we continue on, there’s an ugly truth to face: the GTX 465 delivers the GTX 470’s power and noise characteristics, but not the GTX 470’s performance. This is a critical difference because while we could make a case for the GTX 470 versus the 5850 based on the former’s superior performance, now we’re looking at a card that is slower than a 5850 but worse in every basic metric except price. The GTX 465 is much louder and much more power hungry than the Radeon 5850 all while being slower – and all you save is $20.
At this point it’s impossible to recommend the GeForce GTX 465 for the average buyer. The extra $20 for a Radeon HD 5850 will buy a card that is cooler, quieter, and appropriately faster. Unless you’re on an edge case and need to be in the NVIDIA ecosystem for a specific reason such as CUDA, 3D Vision, or DX10/11 transparency anti-aliasing (more on this later this week), a 5850 is going to be the better card. NVIDIA is going to have to drive the feature differences between the GeForce GTX 400 series and the Radeon HD 5000 series to sell the GTX 465, as performance won’t do it.
Meanwhile on a broader horizon, we noticed something interesting about the GTX 465: it’s really, really close to the GTX 285. In terms of gaming performance the difference is under 4%, while temperatures, power consumption, and even noise were all very close to NVIDIA’s last-generation king. Whether it was intentional or not, the GTX 465 feels like a GTX 285 with DirectX 11. At nearly 2 years old the GTX 285’s place in the world has been well established in most enthusiasts’ minds and the GTX 465 actually fits this mold nicely. This isn’t necessarily a good thing since we’ve moved on to 40nm and the Radeon HD 5000 series, but if you’ve ever wanted to know what a GTX 285 with DirectX 11 would be like, we would imagine it would be a lot like the GTX 465.
We'd like to once again thank Zotac for providing their GeForce GTX 465 for today's review
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
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.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.SunSamurai - Monday, May 31, 2010 - link
Whats the power cost to run those again? ;)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....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 1, 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