PCGH benchmark GTX480 / GTX470

[gambla 10]

Hi,

isn't there really any thread to this review/benchmark by pcgameshardware.com ? I can't really believe it ?

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,743498/Geforce-GTX-480-and-GTX-470-reviewed-Fermi-performance-benchmarks/Reviews/?page=6

A long story short, i think the performance against the "old" HD5870 is pretty disappointing. The GTX480 signific. outperforms the HD5870 in some other games but would you buy one for Arma2, for a plus of 5 minimum-fps ?

Only considering the high price of a GTX480, i personally see no point in buying one for Arma2. And the prices for the HD5870 are naturally expected to drop a bit after the fermi-launch now.

With these facts today, i'll go for a HD5870.

What do you think ?

[Leon86 13]

I think the 480 is awesome, wouldn't waste my money on one though. The 5850 is probably the best bang/buck if you can get one for a normal price. The 5770 is probably the best buy if you dont really really need to play with 16x AA on.

and there was some discussion about these benchmarks in the "what cpu to get etc. topic", then it went to harddisks, then to cpu's again.

[SeaVee 10]

Tomshardware has an extensive review of the new GTX480 and 470. No Arma2 benchmarks sadly... but a great review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585.html

[bangtail 0]

Tomshardware has an extensive review of the new GTX480 and 470. No Arma2 benchmarks sadly... but a great review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585.html

The 480 is extremely disappointing.

Unless you are going to water cool it, avoid.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/04/01/geforce_gtx_480_real_world_temperatures_sound/

Hopefully they will sort out this fiasco with a refresh, the only problem being that ATI will have it's own refresh and possibly a new series out by then.

Edited April 2, 2010 by BangTail

[schaefsky 0]

What all reviews I have read so far neglect (for a good reason, since it does not matter for real world gaming as of now):

Nvidia's new GPUs could really rock with new engines with voxel technology I think. Add PhysX to it, and I am dreaming of a whole new destructible environment game world :eek:

Though I doubt we will see a breakthrough in that regard until AMD has something similar to offer, since I don't think anyone would develop a AAA game which runs fine on one vendor only.

Maybe next next-gen consoles could give a kick start, PS4 anyone?

As said, just dreaming here.

[bangtail 0]

Though I doubt we will see a breakthrough in that regard until AMD has something similar to offer, since I don't think anyone would develop a AAA game which runs fine on one vendor only.

While this statement is true, PhysX is fairly gimmicky at best and Mirror's Edge is the only game where I've seen it used to any real effect.

I've seen a few Mafia 2 videos and the PhysX looks awful. Then again, I wasn't expecting Mafia 2 to be anywhere near as good as the first one. Mafia came from a period when gaming was very different.

Edited April 2, 2010 by BangTail

[gambla 10]

Anybody else please ? Do you think it's worth to buy the expensive GTX480 for a plus of 5 minimum-fps ?

[[frl]myke 14]

Anybody else please ? Do you think it's worth to buy the expensive GTX480 for a plus of 5 minimum-fps ?

To be honest, no. A quick check showed me that the cheapest GTX480 cost 38% more than the cheapest HD5870 i could find.

I have actually a HD5870 in use and have almost all settings maxed out that are related to the GPU. Anything else i have below high or very high is related to CPU power so a faster GPU wont help there (Phenom II X4 965 @3.9GHz, FYI).

IMHO, if your budget would allow you to buy a GTX480 theoretically, i guess a HD5870 and then invest the saved money into a SSD will probably result in a better overall performance.

But this is my very own opinion.

[gambla 10]

Thanks Myke, that matches my opinion. I personally still plan with core i5 / 5870. SSD is already running.

[RedCanoe 10]

Ok, please don't yell at me. I know there is a thread for GPU's and I have looked through it. I want to upgrade for Arma 2 and was waiting for NVIDIA to come out with their DX11 cards. These ones don't look astonishing. I haven't had an ATI card for a long time, and frankly they scare me (always seem to need hotfixes). I also see people saying how CPU dependent ARma2 is, and I don't want to buy something that is bottlenecked. So....I have 2X NVIDIA 8800GT's running with a Q6600 and 6 GB Ram. The 5770 is under $200 CND. Is this a card that can run Arma 2 at pretty high settings? Will the 5850 be significantly better. Should I wait for a while?

Mucho Thanks.

Rob

[bangtail 0]

Ok, please don't yell at me. I know there is a thread for GPU's and I have looked through it. I want to upgrade for Arma 2 and was waiting for NVIDIA to come out with their DX11 cards. These ones don't look astonishing. I haven't had an ATI card for a long time, and frankly they scare me (always seem to need hotfixes). I also see people saying how CPU dependent ARma2 is, and I don't want to buy something that is bottlenecked. So....I have 2X NVIDIA 8800GT's running with a Q6600 and 6 GB Ram. The 5770 is under $200 CND. Is this a card that can run Arma 2 at pretty high settings? Will the 5850 be significantly better. Should I wait for a while?

Mucho Thanks.

Rob

I'm a habitual Nvidia user and this is the first time I have gone back to ATI as a mainstay graphics solution in about 5 years. I can honestly say that ATI is where it's at right now. We'll need to wait and see if Nvidia can come up with a far more efficient revision in the next few months.

Bottom line : The 5770 will run the game fine and the drivers are unlikely to give you any problems. I haven't had any problems to write home about yet and I play a fair few games :)

[-=seany=- 5]

One thing for people to remember when looking at this benchmark, is Arma is basically 2 games as far as hardware is concerned. There's arma2 the single player/benchmark mission game, that will see a nice boost in performance, as per that review ^.

Then there is Arma the multiplayer Coop game (which it has to be said a lot of people play), that wont see any improvement in perf going from a 2 generations old card to a 480.

Example:- 9800gtx sli to a gtx295 - nice boost in benchmark and mission editor, but online coop is the same due to the CPU limited nature of such missions.

However I do think the boost that the 480 gets over a 285 is pretty impressive.

I cant see many GTX200 users upgrading to this card. To many games these days are CPU limited so our cards aren't even getting to stretch their legs at all (which I find ironic given our QuadCores et al). Id say the 480 and 470 are good cards to switch to if you are on an 8800 or ATi equivalent .

[bangtail 0]

One thing for people to remember when looking at this benchmark, is Arma is basically 2 games as far as hardware is concerned. There's arma2 the single player/benchmark mission game, that will see a nice boost in performance, as per that review ^.

Then there is Arma the multiplayer Coop game (which it has to be said a lot of people play), that wont see any improvement in perf going from a 2 generations old card to a 480.

Example:- 9800gtx sli to a gtx295 - nice boost in benchmark and mission editor, but online coop is the same due to the CPU limited nature of such missions.

However I do think the boost that the 480 gets over a 285 is pretty impressive.

I cant see many GTX200 users upgrading to this card. To many games these days are CPU limited so our cards aren't even getting to stretch their legs at all (which I find ironic given our QuadCores et al). Id say the 480 and 470 are good cards to switch to if you are on an 8800 or ATi equivalent .

Go ATI 5xxx. You don't want to deal with cards that run at those temps unless you plan on liquid cooling.

[RedCanoe 10]

I play SP only.

[mrbinkels 10]

Just for FYI, I did a quick check with the same settings as the article(1680 rez) with my setup in my sig and I got 31 and 32 fps. Also ran the 1920rez and got 31fps. Both runs did with the 150% 3D

Edited April 10, 2010 by mrbinkels

[no use for a name 0]

hell I can run Arma2 almost maxed at 1920x1200 with my GTX260...You'd be better off saving your money for a new CPU

[RedCanoe 10]

No Use...I have a quad core Q6600. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a few rungs up the ladder than an E6400. Unless I'm missing something.

[IronTrooper 0]

Hi,

isn't there really any thread to this review/benchmark by pcgameshardware.com ? I can't really believe it ?

...

There doesn't have to be a new thread about every single new piece of hardware reviewed on every single website.

I posted one ArmA 2 benchmark of these cards in a "PC Discussion Thread II" ^^

[AL_ 10]

...have 2X NVIDIA 8800GT's running with a Q6600 and 6 GB Ram. The 5770 is under $200 CND. Is this a card that can run Arma 2 at pretty high settings? Will the 5850 be significantly better. Should I wait for a while?

Mucho Thanks.

Rob

5770 isn't any faster than 2x8800GT, it is on par with gtx260, as well as your SLI is. 5850 seems to be a nice choice, but cannot run ArmA at max either. Well, it can, but...->

hell I can run Arma2 almost maxed at 1920x1200 with my GTX260...You'd be better off saving your money for a new CPU

impossible :) same gpu, better cpu, the game runs smoothly (25-40 fps, 1680x1050) UNLESS you come into a demanding scenario, there are many of these for some unknown reason (why the hell is JUST THIS tree dropping my fps to hell?), and of course, once you come into the action. Especially in the city. I enjoyed for dozens of times situations, when fps dropped so much that I was not able to aim the russian fellows quickly enough, and died because of that... :eek: ..so, GTX260-> +-moderate graphics settings, and even then, it gets unplayable sometimes

gtx260-far from ideal, for arma at max

any dualcore cpu-the same

sad story ;)

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Example:- 9800gtx sli to a gtx295 - nice boost in benchmark and mission editor, but online coop is the same due to the CPU limited nature of such missions.

I dont really think its the problem with the "missions" although a lot of missions have WAY to many scripts running in the background in multiplayer. Its the net code in arma2. Many times i've seen fps on my machine spike down to 10 for NO reason, and then pop back up to 40 in the same area. There is some issue with the IO bottle necking from poor net code which then slows down the entire game. Its the reason why 30 human players will have worse performance than 100 AI in most instances.

[Steakslim 1]

One thing for people to remember when looking at this benchmark, is Arma is basically 2 games as far as hardware is concerned. There's arma2 the single player/benchmark mission game, that will see a nice boost in performance, as per that review ^.

Then there is Arma the multiplayer Coop game (which it has to be said a lot of people play), that wont see any improvement in perf going from a 2 generations old card to a 480.

Example:- 9800gtx sli to a gtx295 - nice boost in benchmark and mission editor, but online coop is the same due to the CPU limited nature of such missions.

However I do think the boost that the 480 gets over a 285 is pretty impressive.

I cant see many GTX200 users upgrading to this card. To many games these days are CPU limited so our cards aren't even getting to stretch their legs at all (which I find ironic given our QuadCores et al). Id say the 480 and 470 are good cards to switch to if you are on an 8800 or ATi equivalent .

I went from a 9800gtx to a gtx260. I saw a large improvement framerate wise. I still had framerate drops in object dense areas like cities, even on Duala, but at higher settings I could maintain a more stable average. Going for a 9 series to a gtx480 will be a large improvement, even if a mission is a bit cpu heavy. Some people want that 5k viewdistance without too much fps loss. Granted unless you are using some system like EVGA's step-up program, I'd be weary of spending the money on nvidia's new cards atm when the gain over ATI's current models is debatable and ATI will be a cheaper option in most cases.

[MavericK96 0]

hell I can run Arma2 almost maxed at 1920x1200 with my GTX260...You'd be better off saving your money for a new CPU

I think I'd have to disagree with this; I've tried running this game at that res "almost maxed" with one GTX 280 and it's unplayable. But my SLI setup chews through this game pretty good. I think things are more or less CPU-bound on my end.

[Dead3yez 0]

hell I can run Arma2 almost maxed at 1920x1200 with my GTX260...You'd be better off saving your money for a new CPU

I have a GTX260 with AMD 965. With the Beta patch, it's now the gtx260 which is mostly bottlenecking my system. With Grass on, my system starts to die. I am definitely looking towards investing on a new GPU for my next upgrade. Though, for any resolutions below 1920x1200 then my 260gtx would probably satisfy me.

[no use for a name 0]

I have a GTX260 with AMD 965. With the Beta patch, it's now the gtx260 which is mostly bottlenecking my system. With Grass on, my system starts to die. I am definitely looking towards investing on a new GPU for my next upgrade. Though, for any resolutions below 1920x1200 then my 260gtx would probably satisfy me.

I think I'd have to disagree with this; I've tried running this game at that res "almost maxed" with one GTX 280 and it's unplayable. But my SLI setup chews through this game pretty good. I think things are more or less CPU-bound on my end.

Well mine is the "Max OC edition" (or whatever the hell it's called) with higher clocks then stock. Either way...I can run 1920x1200 with a 133% 3D-Resolution and:

View Distance=4k

Texture Detail=Very High

AF=Very High

AA=Disabled

Terrain=High

Objects=High

Shadows=Very High

PP=Very Low

I for the most part still avg. 30-35 FPS in the editor and in multiplayer games. It dips a little when there's a lot of dust/particles and in large cities (usually ~20-25FPS); but it's still very playable. My bottleneck is my E6400 @ 3.2GHz during SP missions with lots of AI, then it brings my system to it's knees (12-15FPS on Dogs of War); but a 260 + faster CPU should run this with High settings fairly easily.

But each system is different...

Edited June 15, 2010 by No Use For A Name

[jonneymendoza 10]

5770 isn't any faster than 2x8800GT, it is on par with gtx260, as well as your SLI is. 5850 seems to be a nice choice, but cannot run ArmA at max either. Well, it can, but...->

impossible :) same gpu, better cpu, the game runs smoothly (25-40 fps, 1680x1050) UNLESS you come into a demanding scenario, there are many of these for some unknown reason (why the hell is JUST THIS tree dropping my fps to hell?), and of course, once you come into the action. Especially in the city. I enjoyed for dozens of times situations, when fps dropped so much that I was not able to aim the russian fellows quickly enough, and died because of that... :eek: ..so, GTX260-> +-moderate graphics settings, and even then, it gets unplayable sometimes

gtx260-far from ideal, for arma at max

any dualcore cpu-the same

sad story ;)

agreed, i got a 260gtx and i average at 30-35fps most of the time playing at medium settings at 1680x res. i also have a i7 as well