gtx470m still a good gpu?

i've seen the news of the 6970m and GTX 485m, and wow...


i'm thinking of going for these, but then again, i remind myself... wait for the DX12 gpus instead!

 

Why bother with DX12 GPUs when DX11 isn't even the current standard yet ._.

 

I think the 470M is still a good GPU. Compared to the 6970M pricing it seems a bit like a ripoff but you get additional nVidia goodies to compensate in a sense.

 

that's bs, notebookcheck isn't that reliable... 5870m beats GTX 460m, but loses to 470m by 10% or 15%, and considerably more so when 470m is overclocked.

 

Uh, the 470M is better than both the 5870 and the 480M and is about equal to the 6970M (which is a real disappointment on AMD's part).

 

arguments about 3dmark scores are sort of like the special olympics.

No one wins, but if you participated youre probably a retard.

 

If you look at the recent 6970M reviews when compared with the 470M on the same CPU platform, the 6970M is around 25% faster and is very close to 485M performance (being around 5% slower using the same CPU platform)...

 

Considering that the HD6970m is 4% slower on average to the GTX485m, it means it is also a real disappointment from Nvidia right?

The HD6970 is actually faster than the 470m, depending on the game it might be considerably faster, or at worst, equal.

470m is on par with 480m though, and that's the real disappointment.

 

So according to you the 470m is just under the 485? Makes the 485 a huge disappointment for Nvidia when you have a much cheaper card performing within 5 percent.

Please back up your talk with data

 

The 470m is around 15%-18% faster than the HD 5870, according to gaming reviews.

 

Too bad the 470m has been completely phased out.... nividia is sticking everyone with 2 choices 460s or 485s.... 485s are stupid over priced I could make 4 car payments or buy 4 5870m's

 

In addition, the Quadros version of the GTX 470M (5000M) costs $3,500. LOL!

 

Yeah, I looked back into it later (and found a better review) and found that to be the case. My bad.

EDIT: Alright, alright. It's not my fault that I missed something and got some bad info. -_-

 

More like 8-10FPS.

 

This! Enough said.

 

Then you best be providing those numbers.

There are people in the Sager/Clevo forum who switched from the 480M -> 470M, and found the 470M to be directly on par to just a little bit faster.

 

No 90% of the games is still DX9, DX10 that´s like 8% since DX10 was just a big flop in my opinion. The only game that only uses DX10 and no DX9 is Just Cause 2, sure you have Metro 2033 too that can render the whole game in only DX10. Generally speaking DX10 performance is worse than DX9 performance overall.

Not until the consoles switches over to DX11 or DX10, DX9 will still the the API that will be used for a long time. That´s where the culprit is, the consoles since PC gets many multplats that is specifically written for the consoles but then converted to PC.

 

ah then... what about crysis 2? does it have a extensive DX11 mode?

 

Far Cry 2 DX10.

 

When I was running benchmarks in both DX9 and DX10 mode, I really didn't see a whole lot of difference unless you were looking for specific details. I still opt for DX9 in most my games because the FPS boost far outweighs the minor visual improvements.

I think the 470m is still a good choice for GPU, but once the 6970m comes out, it is a better choice if the upgrade cost from a 460m is about the same.

 

Far Cry 2 is written from the ground up with DX9 API, the DX10 is just an addon.

 

Have a read over his post, again.

Magnus72 is pretty much spot on and no amount of selective facts can dent his argument. Well said, dude.

 

Stormrise, Shadowrun, Shattered Horizon, and upcoming Battlefield 3 are also all DirectX 10 only.

 

Huh? And he cited Just Cause 2. . . see a pattern here? Like how these ports that are separately designed around actual DX10 features are so far and few? Not to mention, almost executed just as well in DX9 mode?

I see, another console port with no real features that showcase DX10 performance since my X205 could run the game.

And. . . Vista-only Shadowrun cracked, playable on XP | Joystiq

Might as well declare Halo 2 as a DX10 item as well, even though it's not. . . even when running in Vista.

Ah, playable Vantage. . . how meagre.

Of course, up and coming.

--

I'll be honest, I could actually name console ports with proper DX10 enhancements that not only make the games LOOK better, but actually perform significantly better than DX9.

--

What people fail to realise is that for all practical intents and purposes, Magnus is right. We can grasp at straws all day about every little fossil under every insignificant rock, but that still won't change the general, observational validity of what's being stated.

 

Just Cause 2? You probably forgot that one as well. Still, not really interesting games on DX 10 only (except BF 3).

 

There's plenty of DX9 games that look and run better than the 'gems' in this attempted DX10 exhibit.

I'd rather have games that can run on both APIs, but show significant improvement under the newer API by way of performance, and even some visual touch. Lost Planet after it go patched up, stands out as a great example.

Assassin's Creed with DX10.1 showed some benefits as well, but we know that the DX10.1 improvements are more of an argument against what was lacking in DX10 than what could already be done in DX9.

 

I'm personally going to be waiting to see what the 6970M pricing comes out to be. If it really is priced where the reviews were suggesting, then the 6970M is going to be win

 

Well, the 6970M costs $403 USD, so that's like $100 more than the GTX 460M.

 

Where did you find that cost? If that's true then it's a win-win all around. The 470m is like a $200 upgrade over the 460m.

 

MXM-Upgrade. Scroll down.

That'll be like saving around $350+, by taking the 6970M over the 485M. Wow?

Edit: oops that's $430, not $403

edit2: fixed link

 

Thats in euros. In USD, that translates to $580. Still waiting on my order though...

 

They have (US) behind it, so I wasn't sure whether they mistakenly used the wrong currency marker.

Have you confirmed that they are charging $580 USD?

 

Yep. E-mailed and ordered, though his communication is not the best (didn't receive any reply for like 5 days).

 

So about a $200 delta between 6970m and 485m. Still a decent savings, put that towards a better screen. Although that would put it about $100 over the 470m. But I think the cost is still justified by the improved performance, almost near 485m.

 

$200 was the advanced speculation, so this pretty much falls in line with our early speculations. I will indeed be putting that money toward a premium screen.

Yeah, once it's all said and done, the optimized 6970M should be about 35% faster than the 470M, which puts it within 5% of the 485M.

 

Forgot to mention that the price does include shipping and thermal gear (paste and pads). So depending on how fast it ships, the actual price of the card could be a decent chunk lower.

 

I just noticed that, according to Tom's review of 6970M in Crossfire:

AMD?s Radeon HD 6970M : AMD's Mobility Radeon HD 6970 In CrossFire On Eurocom's Panther

So they're saying the 6970M is actually cheaper then the 470M?!

 

Oh by the way I was at Mythlogic yesterday and saw the matte and 90% glossy screens and they were so much nicer than mine. The matte was spectacular. Josh was trying to sell me the glossy screen lol, but alas not that important to me at the moment. If anything I'd go for the matte. Zero reflection, but very bright and vibrant. Contrast was much better than my screen.

 

What's your in-person opinion of the 90% glossy? Not feeling it?

 

Glossy was great. But I'm not the best judge of this stuff. After calibration he measured it at 82%, but he said that's typical to drop after calibration.

I would like the glossy with matte finish, lol. Even so, I'm not interested in spending $200 at the moment when my screen works for me just fine for what I do.