Monday, May 17th 2010
More GeForce GTX 465 Details Surface
More details have surfaced about NVIDIA's upcoming GPU which is on the low-end of the GeForce GTX 400 series, the GTX 465. Chinese website eNet.com.cn published some lesser known specifications about the GPUs, which pieced together with known details more or less completes the picture. The GTX 465 has not four, but five streaming multiprocessors (SMs) disabled from the GF100 core, yielding 352 CUDA cores (against the earlier known number of 384). With a 256-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface, the GPU has 32 out of 48 ROPs enabled, and makes use of 1 GB of memory.
Out of the few benchmarks the GTX 465 was put through, it scored 5488 points in the eXtreme preset of 3DMark Vantage, which is roughly 20% less than what a GTX 470 would manage. It is said to have outperformed the ATI Radeon HD 5870 in Far Cry 2, while was slower than Radeon HD 5830 in Crysis Warhead. The GeForce GTX 465 will be launched on the 3rd of June, at the Computex 2010 event.
Source:
Hexus.net
Out of the few benchmarks the GTX 465 was put through, it scored 5488 points in the eXtreme preset of 3DMark Vantage, which is roughly 20% less than what a GTX 470 would manage. It is said to have outperformed the ATI Radeon HD 5870 in Far Cry 2, while was slower than Radeon HD 5830 in Crysis Warhead. The GeForce GTX 465 will be launched on the 3rd of June, at the Computex 2010 event.
44 Comments on More GeForce GTX 465 Details Surface
Interesting how its low end
If it is priced correctly like at £140 here in the UK it may do well, but as Nvidia/AIB's and it's resellers in the UK are currently ripping of consumers with their extortionate pricing, I very much doubt it and can see it coming in at £200 or above in which case they can take a flying f**k.
www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-215-AS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=411
Problem nr 2.
It uses way more power than 5850, and more than 5870 ??
GG!
this thing wont end up much faster (if at all) than a GTX285, in fact maybe even slower at first. I guess we'll see, but at this stage it looks like a useless card, unless drivers work serious magic.
I think I'll wait for a W1z review that give an overall impression of the card, and not just two games, before passing judgement.
Hell, the GTX470 actually turned out to be a decent card but no one cared until W1z did the review, everyone just lumped it in with the horribly power hungry GTX480.
But the wait.. ..come on be June already :)
I'll pass
It's like taking a top of the line v12 engine, then making cheaper cars by disabling cylinders. It just doesnt work. Yes, you get a weaker performer at a lower pricepoint, but at the same time, less efficient to boot.
Fermi is failing.While the top-end might have had its "top player"credits, these weaker siblings are embarrasing. Really, a 200W card with only mid performance. Nasty.
And hey, while we are no the subject, the HD5850 is one of these "disabled" GPU's too. Lets look at it. Yep, more performance per watt than the HD5870, is more green(uses less power), and is cooler(again at the same fan speed/noise level).
Hmmm...
And really, the GTX470 is probably the least embarrasing of the Fermi cards right now, with very reasonable performance per watt numbers actually. If you remove the simply amazing HD5000 series, which goes way beyond what has been considered normal for performance per watt up until now, and look at all the other cards in recent history, the GTX470 is prett good for a top-teir card. Beating out previous generation's top-tear cards actually. It beats out pretty much the entire HD4800 series in performance per watt, and the GTX200 series. That probably would have been considered pretty damn good if it wasn't for the HD5000 series simply rocking in power consumption.
However, the board partners are left to design this card themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if they screw it up totally like they did with the HD5830...