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

DX11: Battlefield Bad Company 2

The Battlefield franchise has been known to demand a lot from PC graphics hardware. DICE (Digital Illusions CE) has incorporated their Frostbite-1.5 game engine with Destruction-2.0 feature set with Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 features destructible environments using Frostbit Destruction-2.0, and adds gravitational bullet drop effects for projectiles shot from weapons at a long distance. The Frostbite-1.5 game engine used on Battlefield: Bad Company 2 consists of DirectX-10 primary graphics, with improved performance and softened dynamic shadows added for DirectX-11 users.

At the time Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was published, DICE was also working on the Frostbite-2.0 game engine. This upcoming engine will include native support for DirectX-10.1 and DirectX-11, as well as parallelized processing support for 2-8 parallel threads. This will improve performance for users with an Intel Core-i7 processor. Unfortunately, the Extreme Edition Intel Core i7-980X six-core CPU with twelve threads will not see full utilization.

In our benchmark tests of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, the first three minutes of action in the single-player raft night scene are captured with FRAPS. Relative to the online multiplayer action, these frame rate results are nearly identical to daytime maps with the same video settings.

Battlefield-Bad-Company-2_Benchmark.jpg

The Frostbite-1.5 game engine in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 appears to equalize our test set of video cards, and despite AMD's sponsorship of the game it still plays well using any brand of graphics card.

Cost Analysis: Battlefield: Bad Company 2

  • Radeon HD 5770: $4.52 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX 465: $5.94 per FPS
  • Radeon HD 5850: $5.91 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX 470: $7.37 per FPS
  • Radeon HD 5870: $6.29 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX 480: $6.58 per FPS
  • Radeon HD 5970: $8.05 per FPS
  • GeForce GTX480 SLI: $9.09 per FPS
  • Test Summary: Battlefield: Bad Company 2's Frostbite-1.5 game engine forces the ASUS GeForce GTX-465 to trail behind the Radeon HD 5850, and also operate nearly to the same level as an overclocked GeForce GTX 285. The surprise here is how close the ASUS GeForce GTX-465 performed to the GTX-470, which was just barely more than 2-FPS better. Despite the drop in DX10 performance compared to the others, the relative price per frame costs are actually the same as ATI's Radeon HD 5850.

    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