what is wrong with the gtx465 that you got? all other reviews have the power consumption, heat, and noise below that of the gtx470. heck all other reviews got better overclocks too.

there is something wrong with your gtx465 for it to consume that much power, make that much heat and even generate more noise than the gtx480.

Now look at TDP ratios of each 5870 and 465 and make a conclusion about DX11 performance (Unigine extreme tesselation for example). Is Fermi still looking that good ? No it isn't. Who forced you to write such bull$&!7 ? Fermi's architecture is a pure failure no matter the API.

It's pitiful that you omitted DX11 computing (OpenCL or CUDA).
Who cares about a few frames more in modern games now?

Hello Alexey and Yaroslav,

Your pros & cons is not consistent.

In the summary You wrote in Highs: "Relatively low noise"
and You wrote in Lows: "High noise"

So make up Your mind guys! Is it noisy or not ?

So far as I am concerned this card is nothing but fail, more heat than performance and for those who live below the arctic circle it is a major issue in the long run. Perhaps in deep space ware it is minus 200 below zero in the shade it might fair well.

Is anyone still taking this Nvidia ball-licking "review" site seriously?

After reading a bunch of reviews and extrapolating the results I must admit that Nvidia has disappointed us again. This card turned to be much worse than a 5830, which I thought to be unlikely. This entire Nvidia's generation should be avoided.

As per the usual, Xbit Labs has always been pro ATI, so most of the so called "conclusions" are mainly just conjecture. Seriously comparing the 465 to the 5850, are you kidding me? The 465 has been brought in to take on the spot between the 5830 and 5850, which it does very well. It is amazing that the 465 trades blows with the 5850, and it totally kicks the 5830's butt. That is why the card is priced the way it is, between the two.

Now when Nvidia releases the GTS450 or whatever it will be called it will compete with the 5830. You bad mouth a card that has chosen to take a middle ground where ATI does not have any card and you try to compare it to the slot above it then criticize it for being $50 less and not able to beat the 5850 enough.

You guys really need to rerun the GTX470 tests with a diff 470 as you guys are the only site on the net that has the numbers the way you do for power consumption. Either you got a hell of a 470 or you fudged the numbers.

NV must be really desperate to even show the light of day to this dog of a card

OMG what a POS. Far fewer shaders than the 470 but it uses more power.

Who thinks up this stuff?

Re-checked reference GeForce GTX 470 3D power consumption 5 minutes ago. The final result is 202.3 Watts under Crysis Warhead. Anyway, it is much lower, than GeForce GTX 465's 224.2 Watts. Sorry, guys, things are what they are.

all these solutions are good and attractive

It's a very interesting and in depth article.

I picked up a Zotac GTX 465 for £150, but you can get the cheapest models for around £145 at the time of writing in the UK. The cheapest Ati Radeon HD 5850 is around £182 which is a considerably higher price while the Ati Radeon HD 5870 costs of lot more with the cheapest around £260. The Zotac card also comes with the added bonus of a long extended warranty of 5 years which is longer than anyone is likely to want to keep any graphics card anyway because of it becoming obsolete.

Yes the Zotac GTX 465 may perform with slower frame rates than the Ati 5850 on the majority of tests, but it's considerably less slower at 1600x900 resolutions which is all I ever need to use anyway and it's only slightly slower while overclocked, although on around 20-25% of games it's actually faster which in my opinion isn't bad for a cheaper card. One would expect considerably lower frame rates than the Ati Radeon HD 5870 which is a lot more expensive, similarly to the more expensive Nvidia GTX 470, but the Nvidia GTX 480 is around twice the price and is therefore in a different league. One also needs to consider that all modern Nvidia cards including the GTX 465 come with the extra hardware required to run the powerful Nvidia PhysX engine which is something Ati cards simply don't have. When the PhysX engine is used to it's full potential it can be quite a noticeable advantage to have, take a look at comparisons of some games with PhysX enabled against PhsyX not enabled on YouTube and you'll see the difference. More and more games are starting to use the Nvidia PhysX engine and while some only offer small improvements, others offer much better effects and true realism with the PhysX engine enabled.

In the article the Zotac GTX 465 graphic card was directly compared to the older Nvidia GTX 275 on various games, the Zotac card performed better on most occasions, although not usually by much and occasionally it was even slightly slower. Well one should also consider that the Nvidia GTX 275 has held it's price well and the cheapest model still costs a little more than the Nvidia GTX 465 at the time of writing in the UK which to me makes the Nvidia GTX 275 a very poor buy in my opinion, especially since the Nvidia 200 series of graphics cards don't support enhanced DirectX 11 graphics and pixel shader 5.0. What's more, some games where tested using enhanced Pixel Shader 5.0 graphics on the Zotac GTX 465 against inferior Pixel Shader 4.0 graphics on the Nvidia GTX 275, but usually if you reduce the graphics to Pixel shader 4.0 on a card that's capable of pixel shader 5.0 (often this can be achieved by running it in Windows XP or sometimes in the graphics options), it increases the frame rate noticeably since it's not doing as much work, so comparing the frame rates side by side isn't really fair in this case. With this in mind, in my opinion the Zotac GTX 465 or in fact any Nvidia GTX 465 series card is much better than the older Nvidia GTX 275 which surprisingly still costs slightly more in the UK at the time of writing.

My Zotax GTX 465 card overclocks better than in the article and is still running quite cool, this is probably because I have set-up a more aggressive custom fan profile which can be a little noisy when the card is pushed hard, but it's in my opinion worth it for improved performance. The card is a little hungry on power, but it's still much better than older graphics cards, I used to own a 512MB Ati Radeon HD 2900XT which was the fastest card ATI sold only a few years ago. It was also one of, if not the 1st card to support DirectX 10.1 and pixel shader 4 in it's day and it even officially supported HD graphics which was quite new then. The Ati Radeon HD 2900XT has a similar power consumption to the GTX 465 which was enormous in it's day when a 550W power supply unit was considered high spec and was the barest minimum requirement for running this card. This Ati Radeon HD 2900XT card also got extremely hot and was very noisy indeed with barely any room left for overclocking. It's performance was absolutely incredible back then and it still amazingly plays all the latest games today, some even on high settings, but it's performance still doesn't come close to the GTX 465 despite using a similar amount of power. In fact even today the Ati Radeon HD 2900XT compares to cheap modern entry level 3D graphics cards that cost around £50-£60 like the ATI Radeon HD 5570 which performs at similar frame rates with the addition of having DirectX11 support.

In conclusion, the Ati Radeon HD 5850 is a better card for higher frame rates on around 80% of games and the Nvidia GTX 465 struggles a lot more at very high resolutions. The Ati Radeon HD 5850 also uses less power, but you certainly lose out on the Nvidia PhysX engine and it also costs a bit more in the UK at the time of writing while the Nvidia GTX 465 is the cheapest of the cards compared in the article. I wouldn't recommend an Nvidia GTX 465 if you plan on running at higher resolutions than 1600x900 as the performance is then considerably less than the HD 5850, instead I'd either buy an HD 5850 or above, or save up for the more expensive Nvidia GTX 470 or even better the best, but the most expensive Nvidia GTX 480 as you then get the best of all worlds with the PhysX engine and good performance at super high resolutions. The Nvidia GTX 275 is now old, expensive at the time of writing and doesn't support DirectX 11 / Pixel Shader 5, plus it's usually performs slower than the Nvidia GTX 465, especially when comparing 2 games that only use DirectX 10.1 / Pixel Shader 4 or below.