Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

Nvidia GeForce GTX 465 1 GB Review: Zotac Puts Fermi On A Diet
By

Honestly, I’m not sure what Nvidia was thinking with this one. Surely, its competitive analysis team ran these very same benchmarks and found the GeForce GTX 465 and Radeon HD 5830 trading blows. Surely, the same group of folks hopped online and saw Radeon HD 5830s selling for $220, going as low as $199 with rebates. How, then, did they decide that $279 was a good starting point for suggested pricing?

With Radeon HD 5850s available at $289, just $10 more, that’s unquestionably the route we’d take today.

Top-To-Bottom GeForce Product Line-up
Card
GPU
GeForce GTX 480
GF100
GeForce GTX 470
GF100
GeForce GTX 465
GF100
GeForce GTX 260
GT200
GeForce GTS 250
G92b
GeForce 9800 GT
G92
GeForce GT 240
GT215
GeForce GT 220
GT216
GeForce 9500 GT
G96
GeForce 210
GT218
GeForce 8400GS
G98


Now, Nvidia is banking on its tessellation performance as the value-add that wins over enthusiasts, citing Metro 2033 as the poster child for what games of the future will look like. But as I demonstrated here, Metro is a beast when it comes to taxing graphics subsystems. At 1680x1050, a single Radeon HD 5870 verges on unplayable, even without MSAA turned on.

Also in Nvidia’s list of extras that AMD doesn’t have are 3D Vision, PhysX support, and CUDA. To that we’d add Blu-ray 3D support, since we know that Nvidia is going to be the only way to go, at least for a while, if you want Blu-ray 3D on your PC. Naturally, the importance of each of these varies by user—there will undoubtedly be folks who swear by stereoscopic gaming, and those who regularly utilize CUDA acceleration for transcoding tasks.

Playing devil’s advocate, there are also going to be the enthusiasts who place a higher value on AMD’s Eyefinity support and ability to bitstream DTS-HD Master and Dolby TrueHD to their HTPC. We can’t make that call for you.

Make no mistake about it: we’ve talked to architects at both Nvidia and AMD in depth; there is no doubt that the engineers designing the GPUs at both companies are brilliant individuals with a laser sight on what they’re trying to achieve. At the same time, it’s hardly a secret that Nvidia is struggling with the execution of this product generation.

GF100 is a 512-shader GPU, and the GeForce GTX 465 employs a version with 160 of those shaders turned off. We’re getting close to the point where we would have hoped to see a derivative GPU rather than a 3 billion transistor monster pared back, yet still expensive for Nvidia to manufacture. Perhaps that’s the impetus behind the $279 price tag.

Regardless, though, if you belong to the group of enthusiasts who was spoiled by $200 Radeon HD 4890s and still remembers when GeForce GTX 260s sat around $150, the GeForce GTX 465 is an expensive piece of hardware, relatively. Until DirectX 11 becomes a must-have feature for you, the best of last generation is still very much viable for gaming versus today’s derivative models.

Display all 9 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Silmarunya , 31 May 2010 22:25
    The pricing is what you'd expect given the 465's performance, so for the first time in years, Nvidia GPU's are fairly priced compared to their ATI rivals. But that's the only good thing I can say about this card..;

    It's yet another display of Fermi's weakness: hot, loud and power hungry while offering similar performance per euro (or dollar if you prefer) to the ATI cards. That's sad, as in this generation Nvidia really has to be cheaper than ATI to stand a chance imo.

    CUDA has its use in niche situations, but that's about it. 3D? Honestly, who uses it? I don't and don't want it either and many GPU buyers are with me it seems. PhysX is nice, but its real world impact limited.

    So why buy Nvidia this generation? Unless they re-release every Fermi GPU, but with better power saving in place, I think it's safe to say this generation is a failure.
  • 0 Hide
    mactronix , 31 May 2010 23:41
    Looking around other GTX 4650 reviews it seems this one has either been very unlucky with the choice of games used for benchmarks or very specific.
    Either way while the price is high, as was the 5 series at launch but then the extras that only enthusiasts would have cared about were lauded while the extras on offer here similarly will appeal to the enthusiast get the cold shoulder.
    Bottom line folks take this with a grain of salt and go read some better reviews Guru 3d do a SLI test and the scalling is out of this world.

    Mactronix
  • 0 Hide
    Silmarunya , 31 May 2010 23:45
    mactronixLooking around other GTX 4650 reviews it seems this one has either been very unlucky with the choice of games used for benchmarks or very specific. Either way while the price is high, as was the 5 series at launch but then the extras that only enthusiasts would have cared about were lauded while the extras on offer here similarly will appeal to the enthusiast get the cold shoulder. Bottom line folks take this with a grain of salt and go read some better reviews Guru 3d do a SLI test and the scalling is out of this world. Mactronix


    While AnandTech posts similar results to Tom's for example. Every review should be taken with a grain of salt, but the majority is negative, which is a good indicator it actually is a poor piece of hardware.

    Yes, Fermi scales brilliantly in SLI, that's another good point. But that's if you have a case that can keep them cool, a PSU that can keep it fed and a motherboard with 3 or more slots (with two slots you have to put them close to eachother, a bad idea with hot hardware).

    And besides, SLI is used by a small minority. Most people, including me, prefer a single high end card.
  • 0 Hide
    mactronix , 1 June 2010 01:03
    Comes down to who you trust though dosent it, Some sites are well known to lean one way or the other.


    Mactronix
  • 0 Hide
    TheGreatGrapeApe , 1 June 2010 05:04
    Xbit's (usually seen as unbiased mainly because they have a ton of data) review shows a similar picture (usually well under the HD5850 even when OC'ed [no HD5830 to compare]) with many many more tests, and same drivers, with the only major diff being THG using the 6/12 core/thread 980X instead (not that most games will notice the difference).

    Looks pretty similar overall, especially in reviews that don't rely on synthetics and rely on actual games general outcome is +/- HD5830 performance.
  • 0 Hide
    ksampanna , 1 June 2010 23:24
    The author's right. Nvidia has priced this gpu out of the market.
  • 0 Hide
    jamesedgeuk2000 , 2 June 2010 15:26
    Why didn't you bother benchmarking it against any GTX 2x0 cards? we knew it would be slower than the 470/480. What we need to know is is it faster than a GTX-275/285/295/etc, I don't want to pay extra for a 465 just to find out it uses less power and has lower performance than a 200 series....
  • 0 Hide
    Silmarunya , 2 June 2010 21:22
    jamesedgeuk2000Why didn't you bother benchmarking it against any GTX 2x0 cards? we knew it would be slower than the 470/480. What we need to know is is it faster than a GTX-275/285/295/etc, I don't want to pay extra for a 465 just to find out it uses less power and has lower performance than a 200 series....


    Compare the power of the 470/480 or of a comparable ATI card with that of the 2XX series...

    The 285 is slightly slower than the 5850, which is significantly faster than the 465, meaning it should be roughly in the middle of the 285 and 275. But buying an Nvidia 4XX series doesn't make sense anyway.
  • 0 Hide
    jamesedgeuk2000 , 6 June 2010 22:45
    SilmarunyaCompare the power of the 470/480 or of a comparable ATI card with that of the 2XX series...The 285 is slightly slower than the 5850, which is significantly faster than the 465, meaning it should be roughly in the middle of the 285 and 275. But buying an Nvidia 4XX series doesn't make sense anyway.


    depends what games you play, in Farcry2 and WoW the 5850 is behind the GTS-250 and in HAWX its slightly ahead of the GTX-260 and those are three of my fav games