PDA

View Full Version : GTX 480 (825/1100 MHZ) vs. HD 5870 (975/1300 MHz)


Ancient76
04-13-10, 08:52 AM
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997&page=22

This conclusion is a short one and it dictated itself. The HD 5870 overclocks solidly in many cases and once overclocked to about 975/1300 MHz it will in many cases catch the stock GTX 480 when performance is already reasonably close. However, the GTX 480 when it is overclocked also turns into a performance monster and in many cases now runs away from even the overclocked HD 5870. This bodes very well for GF100 Fermi architecture and indicates that NVIDIA has very solid scalable new architecture to build on although it is still on an improving process.

CaptNKILL
04-13-10, 10:00 AM
Yeah, I decided that I would buy a 480 if it could be overclocked without setting fire to my computer. The overclocked performance I've seen on various sites is extremely impressive.

The heat and power consumption is just unacceptable for me though.

Logical
04-13-10, 10:34 AM
Hmm intersting, theres a couple of those benchmarks were the stock GTX480 outperforms the OC'd HD5870.

I am still going to wait for the next revisions of the fermi before i purchase one.

brunner
04-13-10, 01:38 PM
Seems like there's a much bigger jump when the 480 is overclocked. It's been a mystery for awhile why there aren't much performance benefits even when the 5870 is overclocked quite a bit.

MUYA
04-13-10, 09:45 PM
Seems like there's a much bigger jump when the 480 is overclocked. It's been a mystery for awhile why there aren't much performance benefits even when the 5870 is overclocked quite a bit.

Could be a bottleneck somewhere in the actual GPU/engine?

Ninja Prime
04-13-10, 11:12 PM
Could be a bottleneck somewhere in the actual GPU/engine?

Memory bandwidth would be my guess. 1200-->1300 at 256 bit isn't much bandwidth increase(+12.8GB/s). However, on the 480 they used here, 924 --->1100 at 384 bit is more than twice as much bandwidth gain, about 2.5 times or so(+33GB/s). Mainly because NVs GDDR5 memory controller sucks, they are actually downclocking the slowest GDDR5 to make it work, but it leaves them with more memory overclocking headroom.

brunner
04-14-10, 01:02 AM
Ninja, I think you're right. There's a significant jump when the 5970 is overclocked to 2 x 5870 levels because there's like a 200 mhz jump in memory. However, most 5870s are limited to 1300mhz memory. It's very likely that there's just no benefit to overclocking the core unless there is a bigger bump in memory speed.

Viral
04-14-10, 05:44 AM
Percentage wise, the core overclock on the 480 is 17.8% and on the 5870 only, 14.7%. Then as said there's the huge difference in memory bandwidth increase.

Still, there may be some sort of better scaling on the 480 with clock speed. Afterall, it is a new architecture while RV870 is the supposed last revision of R600.

azanon
04-14-10, 08:09 AM
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=16997&page=22

This conclusion is a short one and it dictated itself. The HD 5870 overclocks solidly in many cases and once overclocked to about 975/1300 MHz it will in many cases catch the stock GTX 480 when performance is already reasonably close. However, the GTX 480 when it is overclocked also turns into a performance monster and in many cases now runs away from even the overclocked HD 5870. This bodes very well for GF100 Fermi architecture and indicates that NVIDIA has very solid scalable new architecture to build on although it is still on an improving process.

Man, this card is about to overheat and set on fire at default. It's hard to imagine that someone would even consider overclocking an already overheating card with a fan that's despirately trying to cool it.

What I'm interested in is any link where someone tried to DOWNCLOCK the card to the speed it probably should be running at.

Vardant
04-14-10, 08:21 AM
Reviewers say one thing, but the actual owners are saying something else. It all boils down to reviews being done in an open enviroment. These cards behave differently, when put in a case. The temperatures are much lower and so is the noise. So far, people are reporting temperatures around 70C or 80C in heavy scenarios. That's quite a jump from the numbers we were told ;)

Ancient76
04-14-10, 08:22 AM
Man, this card is about to overheat and set on fire at default. It's hard to imagine that someone would even consider overclocking an already overheating card with a fan that's despirately trying to cool it.

What I'm interested in is any link where someone tried to DOWNCLOCK the card to the speed it probably should be running at.

?

Dude, it isn't anything like that at all. I should know, I actually have one. After an hour of Metro 2033 DX11 maxed out settings. Card is in the high 70's using EVGA Precision tool. Fan never exceeds 66% and is not audible at all.

The cards have had an updated bios from the initial cards sent out to reviewers. There has been a big improvement, that's for sure.

azanon
04-14-10, 08:24 AM
Reviewers say one thing, but the actual owners are saying something else. It all boils down to reviews being done in an open enviroment. These cards behave differently, when put in a case. The temperatures are much lower and so is the noise. So far, people are reporting temperatures around 70C or 80C in heavy scenarios. That's quite a jump from the numbers we were told ;)

I don't leave my case open either, but I'm personally going on relative comparisons. By that I mean, I personally own a GTX 285, and I briefly owned a GTX 295. The 295 is about as loud as I'd want to have to listen to with a case closed.

Assuming the GTX 480 is louder than a 295 - a solid assumption based on the reviews I've read - then its just too loud IMO.

....

I've seen the 94-95C repeated and reported by several long-standing review sites (think the top names here) who probably have near perfected their measuring techniques. Who am I going to trust?

Vardant
04-14-10, 09:04 AM
I would believe the users. According to them, is't better than a GTX 295.

azanon
04-14-10, 09:18 AM
I would believe the users. According to them, is't better than a GTX 295.

I trust Kyle Bennett and the video he (or his staff) made which I heard with my own cans. First hand opinion; it's freakin' loud. And the 470 uses more watts than a crossfire 5870. Talk about an AMD slam dunk.

snowmanwithahat
04-14-10, 09:31 AM
You guys really blow the temperature "problems" way out of proportion.

If you've owned a 275+ you've already had exposure to the same thermal issues.... I peak at 105 C while folding.... These cards are designed to run this way

Bah!
04-14-10, 12:27 PM
I don't leave my case open either, but I'm personally going on relative comparisons. By that I mean, I personally own a GTX 285, and I briefly owned a GTX 295. The 295 is about as loud as I'd want to have to listen to with a case closed.

Assuming the GTX 480 is louder than a 295 - a solid assumption based on the reviews I've read - then its just too loud IMO.

....

I've seen the 94-95C repeated and reported by several long-standing review sites (think the top names here) who probably have near perfected their measuring techniques. Who am I going to trust?


It's clear you have your mind set on believing what you want to believe, and that's fine, but I can tell you these FACTS:

In the exact same case, with the exact same system, my 480 runs 10-15c cooler and is quieter than my 295 that I replaced last week. That's a fact, that's not reviewer testing the card out of a case, of putting some stupid decibel meter directly on the card, or some lame microphone on the fan, etc. that's apples to apples, hands down, solid victory for the 480.

All of these reviews that you saw were pre-release with pre-release bios, and older drivers. My 480 has yet to hit 80c ON ANY GAME and it's never gone above 90c in ANYTHING, including Furmark, which flat out torched my 295.


The real truth is that since gamers have gotten a hold of these cards, the results are FAR different from just about every review that came before they were released. Hell, even Hardware Canuck, which is an excellent site, got fed up of listening to all the FUD and released a video showing what things are really like.

Who am I kidding, you guys who keep complaining about this stuff don't want the truth, you just wanna parrot what you read on some site like you know what you are talking about.

Roliath
04-14-10, 01:05 PM
And the 470 uses more watts than a crossfire 5870. Talk about an AMD slam dunk.
Source?

azanon
04-14-10, 02:58 PM
Source?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/03/26/nvidia_fermi_gtx_470_480_sli_review/7

azanon
04-14-10, 03:34 PM
It's clear you have your mind set on believing what you want to believe, and that's fine, but I can tell you these FACTS:

You have 297 posts, so I'm going to take it you've heard of "MikeC"; the guy posting updates on his GTX 480 right here in this forum. He's a forum mod/VIP here too if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, he's measuring 96C after 2 minutes of load.

Any questions?

Bah!
04-14-10, 04:02 PM
You have 297 posts, so I'm going to take it you've heard of "MikeC"; the guy posting updates on his GTX 480 right here in this forum. He's a forum mod/VIP here too if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, he's measuring 96C after 2 minutes of load.

Any questions?

He is measuring 96c after two minutes of Furmark with the auto fan profile. What's your point? When is the last time anyone running a high end Nvidia card used an auto fan profile?

Load up a 285 and run the same test and tell me what you get...

I've mentioned in previous posts, as have other people, that the default fan profile sucks and doesn't ramp up the fan until the card hits nearly 90c, and by that time there is no keeping it cool. A simple adjustment of the fan profile so that it ramps up equally with temps completely eliminates this.

Furmark caps out for me at 90c at 85% fan speed, which BTW is cooler than a 295 in the same test, and even 96c is about average for a 200 series card.

You guys pick what you want to and pretend that it's that way across the board. If you read my previous posts in these threads you'd see my results, haven't hit 80c in a GAME yet, and haven't gone above 77% fan speed. Explain to me how that's worse than Nvidia's last generation?

Muppet
04-15-10, 02:13 AM
You have 297 posts, so I'm going to take it you've heard of "MikeC"; the guy posting updates on his GTX 480 right here in this forum. He's a forum mod/VIP here too if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, he's measuring 96C after 2 minutes of load.

Any questions?

Yeah, but MikeC had a pre-release card if memory serves me right. The retail cards have had an updated Bios since then. Honestly, these cards don't run any hotter than my previous GTX280. Fan speed is also not any louder.

I ran Metro 2033 for over an hour on auto fan settings. Temps didn't go any higher than high 70's. I set up EVGA Precision and it logs the hottest temps that the card gets. Also the highest Fan speed was 66% and not audible at all. At least not over the CPU fans I have using a fan controller.