What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

ASUS GeForce GTX 465 1GB Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
12,840
Location
Montreal
Temperature & Acoustics / Power Consumption

Core Temperature & Acoustics


For all temperature testing, the cards were placed on an open test bench with a single 120mm 1200RPM fan placed ~8” away from the heatsink. The ambient temperature was kept at a constant 22°C (+/- 0.5°C). If the ambient temperatures rose above 23°C at any time throughout the test, all benchmarking was stopped. For this test we use the 3DMark Batch Size test at it highest triangle count with 4xAA and 16xAF enabled and looped it for one hour to determine the peak load temperature as measured by GPU-Z.

For Idle tests, we let the system idle at the Vista desktop for 15 minutes and recorded the peak temperature.


ASUS-GTX465-69.jpg

We went into this review thinking the GTX 465 would exhibit the same acoustical profile as the GTX 470 but we were wrong. Instead of being moderately noticeable over the system fans, we didn’t hear a peep out of this new card even though it exhibited extremely good temperatures throughout testing. There are some fan speed increases every now and then but you likely won’t hear them unless you are playing a game without the sound enabled.


System Power Consumption


For this test we hooked up our power supply to a UPM power meter that will log the power consumption of the whole system twice every second. In order to stress the GPU as much as possible we once again use the Batch Render test in 3DMark06 and let it run for 30 minutes to determine the peak power consumption while letting the card sit at a stable Windows desktop for 30 minutes to determine the peak idle power consumption. We have also included several other tests as well.

Please note that after extensive testing, we have found that simply plugging in a power meter to a wall outlet or UPS will NOT give you accurate power consumption numbers due to slight changes in the input voltage. Thus we use a Tripp-Lite 1800W line conditioner between the 120V outlet and the power meter.

ASUS-GTX465-67.jpg

There is something very important to remember here: TDP is not max board power and vice versa. As such, the maximum amount of power a graphics card consumes can surpass its TDP values and that’s exactly what the GTX 470 and GTX 480 did in their testing. Luckily, the GTX 465 not only runs much cooler but it is much less power hungry than it bigger brothers as well. It still consumes slightly more than the higher-end HD 5870 but its numbers are more in-line with the GTX 285 and GTX 275 than past 400-series cards were.
 
Last edited:

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
12,840
Location
Montreal
Overclocking Results

Overclocking Results


In the past we have seen some NVIDIA cards reach staggeringly high clock speeds but the GTX 400 series has had its fair share of issues when it comes to overclocking. First and foremost among these is heat becoming a serious concern even when the cards are running at stock speeds. However, the GTX 465 boasts lower temperatures so we were anxious to see what it could offer.

Final Clock Speeds (pre Voltage Tweak)

Graphics Clock: 764Mhz
Processor Clock: 1528Mhz
Memory Clock: 3408Mhz

Memory clocking doesn’t seem to be this card’s strong point but the core itself proved to have the ability to run at incredible speeds. Honestly, an overclock of 156Mhz was impressive but with the ASUS Smart Doctor’s software voltage control, this GTX 465 had even more in the tank…


Final Clock Speeds (post Voltage Tweak)

Graphics Clock: 801Mhz
Processor Clock: 1602Mhz
Memory Clock: 3408Mhz

A core speed above 800Mhz on this card is simply stunning. Unfortunately, the ASUS software does not allow for memory voltage adjustments so those clocks stayed the same from one set of overclocking achievements to the next.

Let’s see what the increase gave us when it comes to actual performance:

ASUS-GTX465-76.jpg


ASUS-GTX465-77.jpg
 
Last edited:

SKYMTL

HardwareCanuck Review Editor
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
12,840
Location
Montreal
Conclusion

Conclusion


There is no hiding the fact that NVIDIA’s 400-series of DX11 graphics cards were delayed to the point where ATI was poised to run away with the discrete GPU market. Now that we have seen three iterations of NVIDIA’s latest and greatest, there should be little doubt that they are decent products that at the very least introduce some much-needed competition into a number of price points. Neither the GTX 480 nor the GTX 470 left any doubt in our minds that NVIDIA was back in a big way but we’re admittedly on the fence about the GTX 465. Many were expecting it to be released with more processing power than it ended up having and there was a hope it’s pricing would put the screws to ATI’s HD 5850 and HD 5830. It didn’t end up doing either but the GTX 465 is still a decent card when taken at face value.

Prospectors can talk all day about what this card SHOULD have been but that won’t do anyone a single bit of good. Yes, we are disappointed that NVIDIA GTX 465 is somewhat hobbled by its shader / TMU count and limited memory bandwidth. However, it gets the job done and for the most part fits perfectly between the HD 5830 and HD 5850 in terms of overall performance. It even soundly beats the latter, higher-end card in a few isolated situations. DX11 performance with AA enabled is inspiring to say the least and we were extremely impressed with how quietly the card was able to go about its duties. It is also great to see that NVIDIA has been able to lower the power consumption of this card to around the 200W mark when compared to the massive peaks we saw on the GTX 470.

There is however one major problem with the GTX 465: pricing and consistency should usually walk hand in hand but in this case they don’t. It is becoming quite obvious that NVIDIA isn’t aiming to displace ATI’s cards on a pricing front or we would have seen the GTX 470 launch at $350 while the GTX 465 we reviewed in this article would have been released $15-$20 cheaper. We saw times when the GTX 465 positively struggles to keep ahead of an HD 5830 let alone bridge the gap between it and the HD 5850. There was also the small matter of this new card running neck and neck in Just Cause 2 with the GTX 275; a card that was released for $250 more than a year ago. When you add this up, all ATI has to do is shave ten to fifteen bucks off their HD 5850 price and the GTX 465 will suddenly look like an overpriced, one-trick pony.

We also have to mention performance at 2560 x 1600 resolution is nothing short of abysmal for a card at this price but it’s important to remember that most gamers on the lookout for a $250 to $300 graphics card won’t be gaming on a thousand dollar monitor. They’ll be viewing things through a 24” or smaller LCD with a resolution at or below 1920 x 1200 which is exactly where the GTX 465 is able to show some excellent results.

To be honest with you, the GTX 465 1GB would have been award-worthy had it hit the $250 to $260 mark and if you find one for somewhere in that range, it should be impossible to resist. There are also some additional benefits like the inclusion of Just Cause 2 (a game well worth its $50 asking price in my opinion) at participating retailers and the ASUS Voltage Tweak software that does actually make a difference when overclocking. Unfortunately, for the time being the GTX 465 retails for a bit more than we would be willing to pay for the performance it delivers and the power it consumes. It’s the right card at the wrong price in a market where consumers are demanding more gaming value for their money.


Pros:

- Very good DX11 performance
- Runs quietly even when pushed
- Significant power savings over the GTX 470
- Just Cause 2 included at some participating retailers
- Hard launch; cards available as you read this


Cons:

- Inconsistent performance across certain apps
- Priced too high for the performance it delivers
- Power hungry when compared to the competition


 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top