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
Add your own comment

44 Comments on More GeForce GTX 465 Details Surface

#1
Wile E
Power User
newtekie1 said:
With the GTX470 peaking at 170w, I wouldn't think so...

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...
470 peaks at 230W.

Either way, it's gonna pull way more than 80w he was hoping for.
Posted on Reply
#2
..'Ant'..
The card seems to be a disappointment. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#3
RONX GT
Like many said Fermi is failing to deal with the Evergreen...SOOOO TRUE.

I think it'll be like the 5830 not the 5850.

150/160 watt peak for my guess on the consumption. Though i dont think disabling 5 SM will make it any where near to "GREEN".

Kinda wish that Fermi Derivatives would be lot more interesting in price/performance and
Watt/performance ratio.
Posted on Reply
#4
Zubasa
RONX GT said:
Like many said Fermi is failing to deal with the Evergreen...SOOOO TRUE.

I think it'll be like the 5830 not the 5850.

150/160 watt max for my guess on the consumption. Though i dont think disabling 5 SM will make it any where near to "GREEN".

Kinda wish that Fermi Derivatives would be lot more interesting in price/performance and
Watt/performance ratio.
The GTX 465 is most likely to be less efficient than a 470, since manufcature tends to cheap out with power circuitry on "no so high-end" cards like these.
The 465 do run at pretty much the same clocks as a 470, so my bet is that it will be closer to 199W :p
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Wile E said:
470 peaks at 230W.

Either way, it's gonna pull way more than 80w he was hoping for.
Notice the word "Peak" at the top of the graph and the 171w next to the GTX470:


I couldn't care less what the power usage is when the card is pushed beyond what it will ever see in real world use, which is where that 230w number comes from I'm sure. The highest it will ever see in real world use is 171w, so that is what the card peaks at.

And yes, it is going to be way higher than the 80w he is hoping for.
Posted on Reply
#6
Wile E
Power User
newtekie1 said:
Notice the word "Peak" at the top of the graph and the 171w next to the GTX470:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_5870_Matrix/images/power_peak.gif

I couldn't care less what the power usage is when the card is pushed beyond what it will ever see in real world use, which is where that 230w number comes from I'm sure. The highest it will ever see in real world use is 171w, so that is what the card peaks at.

And yes, it is going to be way higher than the 80w he is hoping for.
If I bench Kombuster or Furmark, 230W is very real world for me. My point stands.

Posted on Reply
#8
RONX GT
I dont think many people will ever gonna try that(FURMARK is nightmarish kinda software to test the stability of the GPU not regular benching software).
Posted on Reply
#9
Wile E
Power User
newtekie1 said:
Benchmarking isn't real world, especially benchmarking non-real world apps...
Benchmarking is real world if that's what you like to do. It's very real for me.
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Wile E said:
Benchmarking is real world if that's what you like to do. It's very real for me.
Ok, I'll give you that. However, as it pertains to this discussion and everyone else in the world, power consumption under furmark doesn't matter.
Posted on Reply
#11
Imsochobo
newtekie1 said:
Benchmarking isn't real world, especially benchmarking non-real world apps...
I can load a card as much as furmark, just not over same timespan.

The point stands, they are ineffecient....
465 uses more power than 5850 ?
470 uses more power than 5870, meaning its not really good at all.
480 uses more power than two 5850.

sooo... Fermi(100) isnt going to be anything good before the refresh is out.
By then ati have come with a new lineup with die scrink.

Nvidia may survive with the other DIE's like GF104( meaning no GF100)
Posted on Reply
#12
RejZoR
225 pounds!? That's freakin expensive for such shoddy card. For such price i'd expect nothing less than HD5850 performance across the board if not closer to HD5870...
Posted on Reply
#13
Imsochobo
RejZoR said:
225 pounds!? That's freakin expensive for such shoddy card. For such price i'd expect nothing less than HD5850 performance across the board if not closer to HD5870...
It does cost the same as 5850. so yes. power consumtion is higher, overclock gain is less, sound level is most likely higher, and no bitstream sound ? and no DP/trihead support ?
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Benchmarks:







Core i7 920 (stock), Windows 7 x64, 6 GB memory.
Posted on Reply
#15
yogurt_21
newtekie1 said:
You sure about that? Becuase the GTX470 is one of those "disabled" GPU's, and it has a better performance per watt then the GTX480, is more green(uses less power), and is cooler(when fan speed and noise are the same).

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.
I think he's forgetting that the 480 itself is a disabled gpu. the liklihood here is that the 470 is a more efficient combination because it was designed to be a disabled version of the 480, the 465 looks more like an after though put together based on chips that couldn't run at 480 or 470 levels.

I'm still finding it funny that a mere 5 less in name equals a 20% performance drop though. Seems like some kid's going to buy it thinking it's "almost as good" as the 470 and get disappointed with the actual numbers.

we'll see though.
Posted on Reply
#16
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Imsochobo said:
I can load a card as much as furmark, just not over same timespan.
Yeah, that is pretty obvious. 170w over 4 hours and 230w over 3 hours is about the same power usage, but that doesn't mean the card uses 230w just because we run it for 4 hours...

Imsochobo said:
The point stands, they are ineffecient....
465 uses more power than 5850 ?
470 uses more power than 5870, meaning its not really good at all.
480 uses more power than two 5850.
They are very inefficient compared to ATi's offering. We already know that. But we also know that compared to graphics card history, they are very good performance per watt, just not as good as ATi.

Imsochobo said:
sooo... Fermi(100) isnt going to be anything good before the refresh is out.
By then ati have come with a new lineup with die scrink.
There will be no die shrink from either side for the next generation. ATi's next lineup will still be 40nm, as will nVidia's.

Imsochobo said:
Nvidia may survive with the other DIE's like GF104( meaning no GF100)
I'm not worried about nVidia surviving, I'm more worried about nVidia getting weak enough that someone larger can buy them up, like ATi did when they were down, and I'm even more worried it will be Intel...
Posted on Reply
#17
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
I really wouldn't call the card "crap", just would wish it would be less in the consumption area. Awaiting a W1zz review before I comment further.
Posted on Reply
#18
ToTTenTranz
Wow, it's uber-fast in the Far Cry 2's Dunia engine!

That's like, totally relevant because there are lots of popular games using that Dunia engine, like Far Cry 2, Avatar... erm.. and Far Cry 2!
And Far Cry 2 is a totally demanding game, it's totally important to get 200fps in Far Cry 2!

j/k
Posted on Reply
#19
$immond$
We will have to await the benches from Wizz before we draw a conclusion that the card is crap.
Maybe it OC's like no tomorrow?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment