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
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.Zoomer - Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - link
Think it's getting off topic now. Others may not agree.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".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.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.