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

Power, Temperature, & Noise


View All Comments

  • 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 1, 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 1, 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now