Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Video Cards arrow ASUS GeForce GTX-465 Video Card
ASUS GeForce GTX-465 Video Card E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Video Cards
Written by Olin Coles   
Monday, 21 June 2010
Table of Contents: Page Index
ASUS GeForce GTX-465 Video Card
Features and Specifications
NVIDIA GF100 GPU Fermi Architecture
Closer Look: ASUS GeForce GTX-465
Video Card Testing Methodology
DX10: 3DMark Vantage
DX10: Crysis Warhead
DX10: Far Cry 2
DX10: Resident Evil 5
DX11: Aliens vs Predator
DX11: Battlefield Bad Company 2
DX11: BattleForge
DX11: Metro 2033
DX11: Unigine Heaven 2.1
NVIDIA APEX PhysX Enhancements
NVIDIA 3D-Vision Effects
GeForce GTX465 Temperatures
VGA Power Consumption
ASUS SmartDoctor and GamerOSD
Editors Opinion: Fermi GF100
ASUS ENGTX465 Conclusion

DX10: Resident Evil 5

Built upon an advanced version of Capcom's proprietary MT Framework game engine to deliver DirectX-10 graphic detail, Resident Evil 5 offers gamers non-stop action similar to Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet, and Dead Rising. The MT Framework is an exclusive seventh generation game engine built to be used with games developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and PC ports. MT stands for "Multi-Thread", "Meta Tools" and "Multi-Target". Games using the MT Framework are originally developed on the PC and then ported to the other two console platforms.

On the PC version of Resident Evil 5, both DirectX 9 and DirectX-10 modes are available for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista Operating Systems. Microsoft Windows 7 will play Resident Evil with backwards compatible Direct3D APIs. Resident Evil 5 is branded with the NVIDIA The Way It's Meant to be Played (TWIMTBP) logo, and receives NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision functionality enhancements.

NVIDIA and Capcom offer the Resident Evil 5 benchmark demo for free download from their website, and Benchmark Reviews encourages visitors to compare their own results to ours. Because the Capcom MT Framework game engine is very well optimized and produces high frame rates, Benchmark Reviews uses the DirectX-10 version of the test at 1920x1200 resolution. Super-High quality settings are configured, with 8x MSAA post processing effects for maximum demand on the GPU. Test scenes from Area #3 and Area #4 require the most graphics processing power, and the results are collected for the chart illustrated below.

Resident_Evil_5_Benchmark.jpg

Resident Evil 5 has really proved how well the proprietary Capcom MT Framework game engine can look with DirectX-10 effects. The Area 3 and 4 tests are the most graphically demanding from this free downloadable demo benchmark, but the results make it appear that the Area #3 test scene performs better with NVIDIA GeForce products compared to the Area #4 scene that favors ATI Radeon GPUs.

Cost Analysis: Resident Evil 5 (Area 4)

  • Radeon HD 5770: $2.72 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX 465: $3.21 per FPS
  • Radeon HD 5850: $3.72 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX 470: $3.40 per FPS
  • Radeon HD 5870: $4.02 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX 480: $4.24 per FPS
  • Radeon HD 5970: $5.69 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX480 SLI: $5.85 per FPS
  • Test Summary: It's unclear if Resident Evil 5 graphics performance fancies ATI or NVIDIA, especially with two test scenes that alternate favoritism. Although this benchmark tool is distributed directly from NVIDIA, and Forceware drivers likely have optimizations written for the Resident Evil 5 game, there doesn't appear to be any decisive tilt towards GeForce products over ATI Radeon counterparts from within the game itself. Test scene #3 certainly favors Fermi GF100 GPU's, and they leads ahead of every other product tested. In test scene #4 the Radeon video card series appears more competitive, which allows the ASUS ENGTX465/2DI/1GD5 to nearly match performance with the Radeon HD 5850 after leading it by 8-FPS in area #3 tests. Once again, the ASUS GeForce GTX-465 and GTX-470 earn respect for the most value-packed video cards.

    Graphics Card GeForce 9800 GTX+ Radeon HD4890 GeForce GTX285 Radeon HD5770 GeForce GTX465 Radeon HD5850 GeForce GTX470 Radeon HD5870
    GPU Cores 128 800 240 800 352 1440 448 1600
    Core Clock (MHz) 740 850 670 850 608 725 608 850
    Shader Clock (MHz) 1836 N/A 1550 N/A 1215 N/A 1215 N/A
    Memory Clock (MHz) 1100 975 1300 1200 802 1000 837 1200
    Memory Amount 512 MB GDDR3 1024 MB GDDR5 1024MB GDDR3 1024MB GDDR5 1024MB GDDR5 1024MB GDDR5 1280MB GDDR5 1024MB GDDR5
    Memory Interface 256-bit 256-bit 512-bit 128-bit 256-bit 256-bit 320-bit 256-bit



     

    Comments 

     
    # Little mistake...BETA911 2010-06-21 23:33
    At Battleforge, how can a none DX11 card (9800GTX+) be in the charts when DX11 is tested? Same with the HD490.
    Then, the HD5770 is not 256-bit but 128-bit!
    Report Comment
     
     
    # RE: Little mistake...Olin Coles 2010-06-22 06:07
    Thanks for finding that typo - it's been fixed. I'll update the chart, too, since those products shouldn't be included. Even though the game allows them to benchmark with the same settings, they're not compliant and likely ignore the DX11 extensions.
    Report Comment
     
     
    # A Strange review pt1The Crouch 2010-06-22 11:50
    I'm really sorry, but this review does not make much sense to me. Not compared to other reviews mind you, but in itself!

    I count 5 clear wins for the 5850, 3 for the 465 and one wash (Resident evil 5). From the 465's point of view, thats a staggering 67% more wins for the 5850!!
    Report Comment
     
     
    # A Strange review pt2The Crouch 2010-06-22 11:52
    When it comes to the value numbers you provide I count 5 wins for the 5850 and 4 for the 465 (RE5 is clearly a 465 win).

    And by the way, I don't count the two parts of 3D vantage as separate tests.

    So not only is the 5850 the faster card with over half the tests won, more importantly, it also offers the most bang for your buck! All according to your own figures!

    At least to me, this would count as a clear win for the 5850, but that is hardly what I see in the summary.

    Also worth mentioning i think: Having been on Newegg on a few occasions, $305 seemed a bit steep for a 5850, and for aspiring customers for a graphics card, I can tell a 5850 can be found for $285. Only $5 more expensive than the price for the 465 you are quoting, and with that small difference I think the value numbers throughout the test would look a bit different.
    Report Comment
     
     
    # RE: A Strange review pt2Olin Coles 2010-06-22 16:03
    Based on NewEgg prices today, nearly every single Radeon HD 5850 is priced above $305 with an average price of $325 (I did the math). Conversely, several models of the GTX-465 sells for as little as $250, with an average price of $260. That makes the Radeon HD 5850 22~25% more expensive... but does it perform 22~25% better? No, it doesn't. It doesn't even perform better than the GTX-465 all of the time; only 'some' of the time... slightly more than half (as you point out). So should a card that costs $55-75 more than GTX-465 be considered the best value when it doesn't even offer a relative boost to performance? I don't think so.
    You should also check your math on the cost per FPS, because the GTX-465 beats the Radeon 5850 in nearly all of them.
    Report Comment
     
     
    # Thank you !SiliconDoc 2010-06-27 17:10
    I came here to see just how much red raging rooster ATI bias was here on the gtx465.
    I thank you and congratulate you for your response to the commenter.
    I sit here absolutely STUNNED. I can't believe that somebody didn't just "take it" and nearly agree with the ati fan fraud.
    THANK YOU SO MUCH.
    My faith in humanity has been renewed.
    Believe me, I really, really appreciate it.
    Sincerely sick of the rampant red bias,
    SiliconDoc
    Report Comment
     
     
    # Is a 1~2 FPS lead really a win?Olin Coles 2010-06-22 17:54
    Is a 1~2 FPS lead really a win? You might see it that way, but I don't. Especially when the Radeon HD 5850 costs $55 more.
    Report Comment
     
     
    # RE: ASUS GeForce GTX-465 Video CardStephen E 2010-06-22 16:48
    About the VGA Power Comparison that you did, can you provide a sample calculation on how you came up with your data?

    Did you just report the AC Power differnence between no graphic card in the system and with the Graphics card installed? Did you try to take into account the PSU efficiency?
    Report Comment
     
     
    # RE: RE: ASUS GeForce GTX-465 Video CardOlin Coles 2010-06-22 16:53
    From the power consumption section: "A baseline test is taken without a video card installed inside our test computer system, which is allowed to boot into Windows-7 and rest idle at the login screen before power consumption is recorded. Once the baseline reading has been taken, the graphics card is installed and the system is again booted into Windows and left idle at the login screen. Our final loaded power consumption reading is taken with the video card running a stress test using FurMark. Below is a chart with the isolated video card power consumption (not system total) displayed in Watts for each specified test product."

    Power supply efficiency is not taken into consideration for any of our reported results. Only the motherboard, processor, memory, SSD, and video card are drawing power. The math is simply idle/load result minus baseline.
    Report Comment
     
     
    # Weird...xtremesv 2010-06-22 18:04
    Why do reviewers still benchmark FarCry 2? Is it a requirement recommended (imposed) by Nvidia?

    And I don't get your pricing figures. I found a 5850 for $285 and another for $305 in Newegg... the ones you mention beyond $325 include special cooling designs.
    Report Comment
     
     
    # nooneoverclockyourkeyboard 2012-02-11 03:10
    hey do you know that i got my zotac gtx 465 at just 7250 which is $147.17(converted to USD) and the 5850 costs 14950 which is $303.48.At this price i can sli a gtx 465 and when you sli a gtx 465 against a 5850 clearly 465's the winner.I dunno why the prices aren't coming down for the 5850.
    Report Comment
     

    Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

    Search Benchmark Reviews
    QNAP Network Storage Servers

    Follow Benchmark Reviews on FacebookReceive Tweets from Benchmark Reviews on Twitter