GTX 480: Worst GeForce card ever?

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by Rollo

I wasn't talking about marketshare, but I can see why you would want to steer the conversation away from what I actually said about ATi making the second best GPU for years.

If we were going to talk about market share, maybe we should discuss the desktop discrete market share because that is what we're talking about here?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d..._Research.html

A quite different story with NVIDIA at 59% and ATi at 41% isn't it?

Again, up from 29% around two years ago. How do you account for that 12 point increase? Thats something like 42% marketshare gain for ATI, assuming you want to limit it to just desktop cards... I guess it was their bad products that brought that about, right?

[Bah!]

Originally Posted by JasonPC

Well I don't think anyone is complaining about the idle temps (except maybe those with multiple monitors, though I think that issue got somewhat sorted out). Unless something was really wrong with your 8800, it shouldn't really get up to the temps than the 480 gets up to under load.

There are about a half dozen people or so in the "report your idle 8800gtx temps" thread on this very site that report higher load temps on their 8800's than what I get on my 480's. And in the same case I'm using right now my single 8800 GT would routinely get in the mid to high 80's at load, which is right about the same as the max I've seen on SLI'd 480's. 20c higher idles and nearly the same load temps and not a peep from people complaining about temps, but Fermi comes out and it's the end of the world and the worst card ever.

Anyway, enough about temps, it's been beaten to death already.

If I had to pick a worst from Nvidia, it would easily be the FX series. After that there really are no bad Geforce cards going back to the Geforce 256 cards, but the 9 series would probably be the most useless series of cards, followed by the 300 series.

[Madpistol]

Originally Posted by Bah!

And yet you bought a 580? That makes zero sense, considering the 580 is only marginally better than the 480, and the 470 is actually a better value than the 480 was.


Also, enough about the heat. Where were all these people whining about heat when the 8000 series came out? Those cards are still universally praised and they ran MUCH hotter at idle and about the same at load.

I think the 8800 GTX didn't run nearly as hot at load. It did run hotter at idle, but then again, it didn't have as beefy of a cooler as the GTX 480 (or the 470 too). Also, the 8800 GTX was done right from the beginning. The only time it got better (other than the 8800 Ultra) was with the introduction of G92. The 580 is what the GTX 480 was supposed to be: a 512 CUDA core card that uses slightly less power and achieves 20% extra performance while running cooler.

Basically, while the GTX 580 is essentially a tweaked version of the GTX 480, it is a vastly superior card that is pretty much just as efficient as the 5870. However, the GTX 580 is much faster, and no one will dispute that. If I had my choice between a 5870 and a GTX 580 right now, I would choose the GTX 580 hands down. If I had a choice between the 5870 and the GTX 480, the choice would not be as easy.


I also agree that the FX series was Nvidia's worst card series in their history. Fermi was just a fluke that has been fixed.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

Again, up from 29% around two years ago. How do you account for that 12 point increase? Thats something like 42% marketshare gain for ATI, assuming you want to limit it to just desktop cards... I guess it was their bad products that brought that about, right?

Actually it could well have been. You may not have noticed, but it hasn't exactly been "times of plenty" in the last two years. It could well be pricing alone that drove that rise in marketshare, and it doesn't hurt that NVIDIA was just releasing their mid range cards.

The fact remains that with the 5870, the 4870, the 3870, and the 2900XT (the last four generations of ATi "flagship" GPUs) ATi has produced slower GPUs with less image quality enhancing features.

Just the way it is, no way it can be spun any different. It's pretty fitting that AMD purchased them, AMD makes their living producing second tier chips for less. Doesn't mean they're "bad" just means they're not as good- and there's a big difference.

[Madpistol]

Originally Posted by Rollo

The fact remains that with the 5870, the 4870, the 3870, and the 2900XT (the last four generations of ATi "flagship" GPUs) ATi has produced slower GPUs with less image quality enhancing features.

You are correct about the 2900 XT and 3870. For the 4870, you're also right, although it was a great product in its own right and very competitive during its time.

For the 5870, though, you're wrong. The 5870 went uncontested for 6 months before the GTX 480 hit the market, so calling the 5870 slower is controversial if not baseless. It's slower than a product that was released 6 months later for $100 more. Remember that AMD/ATI also has eyefinity. Even if you don't think of it as an asset, it is something that AMD has and Nvidia doesn't.

Also, if we're talking about flagship products, the 5970 was superior to the GTX 480. Less power from a dual chip card than Nvidia's flagship single chip card, and the 5970 was faster too... ouch.

Originally Posted by Rollo

Just the way it is, no way it can be spun any different. It's pretty fitting that AMD purchased them, AMD makes their living producing second tier chips for less. Doesn't mean they're "bad" just means they're not as good- and there's a big difference.

Where the hell do you get off calling AMD's chips second tier? Last I checked, they have a more efficient architecture this generation. No, it doesn't have CUDA or PhysX, but both of those items are proprietary. On top of that, the only reason CUDA is succeeding is because Nvidia is throwing tons of cash at developers. Physx can be considered somewhere between a gimmick and a failure.

The way it is eh? What about the Geforce GT 430? How about the HD 5670 being a completely superior product in every way to the GT 430? (that includes IQ as well as performance... read the reviews) The money in this market is made in the low-end and mid-end segments. Nvidia currently has high-end, both companies are battling in the mid-end market, and AMD is thrashing Nvidia in the low-end. Nvidia has one under performing solution, while AMD has about 6 to 8 cards that perform pretty damn well for the price. To add insult to injury, AMD is getting close to releasing their first "Fusion" based products, and that will add a whole new element to the low-end market; NO MORE VIDEO CARD!!! An AMD GPU will be on the CPU. Where's Nvidia's answer to that one?

Seriously, where do you come up with these fanboy remarks of yours? I would love to figure it out because a lot of it doesn't make sense.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Madpistol

You are correct about the 2900 XT and 3870. For the 4870, you're also right, although it was a great product in its own right and very competitive during its time.

For the 5870, though, you're wrong. The 5870 went uncontested for 6 months before the GTX 480 hit the market, so you calling the 5870 slower is unfounded. It's slower than a product that was released 6 months later for $100 more. Remember that AMD/ATI also has eyefinity. Even if you don't think of it as an asset, it is something that AMD has and Nvidia doesn't.

Also, if we're talking about flagship products, the 5970 was superior to the GTX 480.

Hmmm. So for three of the four you agree with me, period. (this says a fair amount about my point in and of itself)

We weren't talking about dual GPU cards, we were talking about single GPUs. (and even if we did speak about dual GPUS, ATi only wins one of the four generations produced- 7800GX2>(no ATi), 9800GX2>>3870X2, GTX295>4870X2- so it's not like ATi is king of the dual cards)

The 5870 did indeed go uncontested for 6 months- much like the 7800GTX and 8800GTX did before it. Parts don't always launch on the same month. Nonetheless, the GTX480 was NVIDIA's answer to the 5870 and it had more features and was faster. I use "Eye Finity" all the time with NVIDIA cards, and some GTX295s can do it on a single card as well. It wasn't even ATi's idea, they were the last company to bring this to market. Matrox had it long ago, and NVIDIA was doing it with their Quadros.

GTX480 feature list:
PhysX
3d Vision
3d Vision Surround
NVIDIA Surround
Force Ambient Occlusion
CUDA apps

HD5870 feature list:
EyeFinity
STREAM

If the 6970 launches with less performance and features some day, it will only solidify my argument that ATi builds second tier GPUs. However, being in second place at world leading tech isn't all bad, as I noted. Makes for competition, lower priced alternatives.

One of my rigs is a PhenomII 965 which offers great bang for buck, and I don't like to think about what Intel would charge if AMD wasn't around. Same with NVIDIA.

[Madpistol]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Hmmm. So for three of the four you agree with me, period. (this says a fair amount about my point in and of itself)

We weren't talking about dual GPU cards, we were talking about single GPUs. (and even if we did speak about dual GPUS, ATi only wins one of the four generations produced- 7800GX2>(no ATi), 9800GX2>>3870X2, GTX295>4870X2- so it's not like ATi is king of the dual cards)

Ok... but Nvidia didn't have an answer to the 5970 until they finally released the GTX 580. Once again, Nvidia's past records have been fine, but AMD's current architecture is spot on. For you to not acknowledge that shows just how biased you truly are.

Originally Posted by Rollo

The 5870 did indeed go uncontested for 6 months- much like the 7800GTX and 8800GTX did before it. Parts don't always launch on the same month. Nonetheless, the GTX480 was NVIDIA's answer to the 5870 and it had more features and was faster. I use "Eye Finity" all the time with NVIDIA cards, and some GTX295s can do it on a single card as well. It wasn't even ATi's idea, they were the last company to bring this to market. Matrox had it long ago, and NVIDIA was doing it with their Quadros.

It's a cycle, but the fact that ATI came out with the 4870, 5870, and 5970 in the gap between when Nvidia launched the GTX 2xx cards and the GTX 480 should tell the story. AMD pulled ahead... big time. Even the GTX 480 wasn't the king of the hill. The 5970 was. Also, you're bringing professional cards into your evidence? How is that relevant? Eyefinity was designed as a feature for gaming, and as it stands, Nvidia cannot drive 6 monitors from a single GPU core on a consumer product... period. AMD wins on multi-monitor support, no contest.

Originally Posted by Rollo

GTX480 feature list:
PhysX - Gimmick/dying
3d Vision - neat, but AMD has 3rd party support as well.
3d Vision Surround - See above
NVIDIA Surround - Beaten By AMD's eyefinity (6 monitors per card vs. 3 monitors on 2 cards)
Force Ambient Occlusion - Not practical
CUDA apps - Neat, but still a gimmick. Will be replaced by OpenCL.

HD5870 feature list:
EyeFinity - superior to Nvidia's offerings
STREAM - includes OpenCL extensions, although a gimmick as well

Red = AMD advantage
Green = Nvidia advantage
Black = Gimmick/no advantage

To put it in perspective, Eyefinity is not totally practical either, but hey, you don't have to buy 2 cards to use it either. AMD wins squarely on multi monitor support, while Nvidia is ahead in GPGPU support. CUDA won't last though. OpenCL will probably end up being the industry standard since it isn't governed by either company.

Originally Posted by Rollo

If the 6970 launches with less performance and features some day, it will only solidify my argument that ATi builds second tier GPUs. However, being in second place at world leading tech isn't all bad, as I noted. Makes for competition, lower priced alternatives.

Wrong again. If the 6970 is slower than the GTX 580, then it will also be cheaper. This market is not determined by who has the fastest card. This market is determined by who has the best product. Usually that is swayed depending on price and performance. That item is still up in the air, but knowing AMD's current track record, I have a feeling that AMD will be ahead on the "value for money" front. Also, while we're speculating about upcoming cards, the 6990 is also in the works and Nvidia's got the GTX 595 supposedly. AMD has all but formally announced the 6990, while the GTX 595 is nothing more than a rumor... I guess we'll see what happens.

Also, doesn't AMD support more monitors on their 68xx cards? I believe they now support 4 natively with the option to add more with other cards. The gap on multi monitor support is widening as time goes on. You know that Nvidia wants a slice of that pie since they released 3D surround... too bad 3D surround isn't as good.

[Rollo]

I haven't mentioned anything about the 5970- we've primarily been talking about single GPUs in this thread. The 5970 isn't a GPU, it's two neutered 5870s in CF config on a single board.

You may not have heard, but people aren't exactly having a love-in for Crossfire these days:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1562576

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1560549

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1562970

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=333196

I could go on (and on) but you get the picture. There's a guy "Solofly" on AnandTech that I used to think worked for ATi given his passion for disagreeing with me. These days he has all NVIDIA cards in his four PCs because he found Crossfire "unusable".

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread....49#post3747300

Originally Posted by Solofly

I bought about 15 ATI/AMD cards in the last two and a half years and let me tell you, their drivers are a joke. (mainly multi GPU) One month it's all good and the next time you change it something gets broken and unusable

PhysX isn't dying- two of my favorite games this year had PhysX. (Mafia II and Metro2033) It's not in every other launch, but I think I have ten PhysX games, and there are no other types of GPU accelerated physics games in development AFAIK. There will be more PhysX though.

ATi's multimonitor is actually pretty pathetic. You wouldn't say anything about 6 or 12 panel EyeFinity if you had actually used them. I've used both, and they SUCK. Totally unusable because the bezels bisect the main action and are VERY distracting. Three panel is only good because the additional panel are in your peripheral vision and your mind sort of ignores them. Also, I'd note that when you're running resolutions like 5040 X1050 and up, multiple GPUs comes in handy. I don't think 6 panels would be playable on a lot of games on one measly 5870.

ATi has no "third party support" I know of for stereo. I saw one article about one brand that they could barely get to work at all, and the glasses actually had to be hardwired to the video card. Unless you can link us to ATi's "3rd party support", I say it doesn't exist for practical use. ATi totally dropped the ball on this, sitting back and saying "We make video cards, you guys should code drivers and create glasses for them" is ridiculous and going no where. I have several games that are optimized for 3d Vision and 3d Vision Surround, how many are for ATi's "vaporware 3d"?

We're talking about ATi's current track record while waiting for their delayed products?

Basically, NVIDIA gives gamers usable features that are implemented in games. ATi gives gamers press releases about how someday some other companies will bring similar tech to their products. And ATi owners wait....and wait....and wait......then they mutter about "open source would be better, NVIDIA should help ATi get up to speed".

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by slaWter

Guys give it a rest already!

Originally Posted by MadPistol

Read slawter's post again, please.

Point taken.

[Madpistol]

*deleted*

[Fotis]

Maybe not their worst card ever but Geforce GTX 480(GF100) was Nvidias first top end card with disabled units.They just couldnt release a fully working chip.

Every now and then companies have failures. Nvidia failed with NV30,ATI failed with R600 and Nvidia failed with GF100.It happens! No need to make such a big deal out of it.
With both companies pushing each other to the extreme sometimes they go over their limits or make mistakes.

[v3rninater]

Originally Posted by Maverickman

If it's not the worst Nvidia card ever made, the GTX 480 is probably very close. While I never owned the ill-fated GeForce FX 5800, the GTX 480 may not be far off. It's overpriced, hot, underperforming and noisy. Sound a little like the FX 5800? It took some time, but Nvidia finally corrected its GTX 480 mistake with the GTX 580. From what I've read, it's the real deal. At least the GTX 480 owners out there have something to heat their house with this winter!

Dude shut up, it's no where NEAR what the 5800 was when it came out, were you even old enough to talk english when it did? The 5800 was horrible, even under-performing the ATI card out at that time, I think it was the 9800 pro.

The 480 beats the 5870 out pretty darn easily, and don't put a good HSF on it, and o/c it, because then it smokes the 5870. Don't even let me talk about DX11, cause stock, the 480 smokes the 5870.

Who are these people that come into these forums now days, and type stupid crap? GOTTA be trolls...