GeForce GTX 465 is the latest DirectX 11-based graphics chip released by NVIDIA, being more accessible than the GTX 470 and GTX 480 models. At USD 280 – USD 300 it is quoted exactly between the Radeon HD 5830 (USD 240 – USD 275) and Radeon HD 5850 (USD 295 – USD 335). Let’s see how this factory-overclocked version from EVGA dubbed SuperClocked (SC) edition fared in our tests.
The new GeForce GTX 465 uses the same core and shader clock rates as GeForce GTX 470 (607 MHz and 1,215 MHz respectively), but it uses a 256-bit memory interface (GTX 470 uses a 320-bit memory interface) and a memory clock that is a little bit lower (3,206 MHz vs. 3,348 MHz). It also has a lower number of graphics engines (a.k.a. “shaders” or “CUDA cores”): 352 against 448. In the table below we compare the main specifications of the four video cards we included in our review. The SuperClocked model from EVGA comes with a small 3% overclocking.
|Video Card||Core Clock||Shader Clock||Memory Clock (Real)||Memory Clock (Effective)||Memory Interface||Memory Transfer Rate||Memory||Shaders||DirectX|
|GeForce GTX 465||607 MHz||1,215 MHz||801.5 MHz||3,206 MHz||256-bit||102.6 GB/s||1 GB GDDR5||352||11|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||625 MHz||1,250 MHz||805 MHz||3,220 MHz||256-bit||103 GB/s||1 GB GDDR5||352||11|
|Radeon HD 5830||800 MHz||800 MHz||1 GHz||4 GHz||256-bit||128 GB/s||1 GB GDDR5||1,120||11|
|Radeon HD 5850||725 MHz||725 MHz||1 GHz||4 GHz||256-bit||128 GB/s||1 GB GDDR5||1,440||11|
Now let’s take a complete look at this model from EVGA.
[nextpage title=”EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SuperClocked”]
At this moment EVGA offers two GeForce GTX 465 versions, one running at NVIDIA’s recommended clocks (01G-P3-1465-AR) and the one that we reviewed, SuperClocked (SC, 01G-P3-1467-AR), which has a light overclocking. As you know by now, we are reviewing the SuperClocked model.
This video card has three video outputs: two DVI-D and one HDMI.
On Figures 3 and 4 you have an overall look from the card.
[nextpage title=”EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SuperClocked (Cont’d)”]
EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SuperClocked follow NVIDIA’s reference model. The available heatsink uses four copper heatpipes (which make direct contact with the graphics chip) and aluminum fins, but it doesn’t touch the memory chips.
In Figure 7, you can see the video card with the heatsink removed. This card uses ferrite chokes on its voltage regulator circuit and only solid capacitors. On the top part of the card you can see the SLI connectors and the two six-pin auxiliary power connectors.
The reviewed card uses eight 1 Gbit GDDR5 chips, making its 1 GB video memory. The chips used are K4G10325FE-HC05 parts from Samsung, which support up to 1 GHz (4 GHz QDR) and since on this video card memory is accessed at 805 MHz (3,220 MHz QDR), there is a good margin for you to increase the memory clock rate keeping the chips inside the maximum they support. By the way, the video card comes with an overclocking utility from EVGA called Precision.
In Figure 9, you can see the accessories that come with the reviewed card: a sticker, product manual, two power adapters, one HDMI cable and one DVI-to-VGA adapter. The product doesn’t come with any game and in fact our sample didn’t come even with a driver CD.
Before seeing the performance results, let’s recap the main features of this video card.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SuperClocked video card main features are:
- Graphics chip: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 running at 625 MHz
- Memory: 1 GB GDDR5 memory (256-bit interface) from Samsung (K4G10325FE-HC05), running at 805 MHz (“3,220 MHz”)
- Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0
- Video Connectors: Two D
VI-D and one HDMI
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Cables and adapters that come with this board: One DVI-to-VGA adapter, two power adapters and one HDMI cable
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: None
- Games that come with this board: None
- Programs that come with this board: None
- More information: https://www.evga.com
- Average price in the US*: USD 300.00
* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.
- CPU: Core i7 Extreme 965 (3.2 GHz, 8 MB L2 memory cache).
- Motherboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition (1611 BIOS)
- Memories: 3x 1 GB Qimonda IMSH1GU03A1F1C-10F memory modules (DDR3-1066/PC3-8500, CL7)
- Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache)
- Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560×1600)
- Power Supply: SilverStone Element ST75EF
- CPU Cooler: Intel stock
- Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
- Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
- Video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 10.5
- NVIDIA video driver version: 257.15 beta
- 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
- Aliens vs. Predator
- Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.7
- Crysis Warhead – Patch 1.1 + HOC Bench Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool 1.1.1
- Darkest of Days
- Far Cry 2 – Patch 1.03
- Metro 2033
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark Vantage Professional”]
3DMark Vantage measures Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supports PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Note that since we are considering only the GPU score provided by this program, physics calculations are not taken into account.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” values). The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.
|3DMark Vantage – Performance||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||12684||38.6%|
|Radeon HD 5830||10394||13.6%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||9150|
|GeForce GTX 465||8926||2.5%|
|3DMark Vantage – Performance||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||10075||41.7%|
|Radeon HD 5830||8299||16.7%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||7109|
|GeForce GTX 465||6947||2.3%|
|3DMark Vantage – Performance||2560×1600||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||5955||47.1%|
|Radeon HD 5830||4821||19.1%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||4049|
|GeForce GTX 465||3945||2.6%|
|3DMark Vantage – Extreme||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||9416||24.5%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||7563|
|Radeon HD 5830||7439||1.7%|
|GeForce GTX 465||7395||2.3%|
|3DMark Vantage – Extreme||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||7554||27.3%|
|Radeon HD 5830||5983||0.8%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||5935|
|GeForce GTX 465||5788||2.5%|
|3DMark Vantage – Extreme||2560×1600||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||4511||32.6%|
|Radeon HD 5830||3599||5.8%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||3403|
|GeForce GTX 465||3336||2.0%|
[nextpage title=”Call of Duty 4″]
Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will hapen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was put on the maximum values on the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the game internal benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo for downloading here if you want to run your own benchmarks. We ran the demo five times, and the results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each video card.
|Call of Duty 4 – Maximum||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||138.8||14.5%|
|Radeon HD 5830||124.6||2.7%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||121.3|
|GeForce GTX 465||118.3||2.6%|
|Call of Duty 4 – Maximum||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||118.4||15.4%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||102.6|
|Radeon HD 5830||102.6||0.0%|
|GeForce GTX 465||100.5||2.1%|
|Call of Duty 4 – Maximum||2560×1600||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||81.8||20.0%|
|Radeon HD 5830||69.7||2.3%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||68.2|
|GeForce GTX 465||66.5||2.6%|
[nextpage title=”Crysis Warhead”]
Crysis Warhead is a DirectX 10 game based on the same engine as the original Crysis, but optimized (it runs under DirectX 9.0c when installed on Windows XP). We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maximizing image quality (16x anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filtering) and using the Airfield demo. The results below are the number of frames per second achieved by each video card.
|Crysis Warhead – Very High||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||32||14.3%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||28|
|GeForce GTX 465||28||0.0%|
|Radeon HD 5830||25||12.0%|
|Crysis Warhead – Very High||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||26||18.2%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||22|
|Radeon HD 5830||21||4.8%|
|GeForce GTX 465||21||4.8%|
|Crysis Warhead – Very High||2560×1600||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||15||25.0%|
|Radeon HD 5830||13||8.3%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||12|
|GeForce GTX 465||12||0.0%|
[nextpage title=”Far Cry 2″]
Far Cry 2 is based on an entirely new game engine called Dunia, which is DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10-compatible video card. We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to the maximum allowed and running the “Ranch Long” demo three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.
|FarCry 2 – Maximum||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||118.9||16.1%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||102.4|
|GeForce GTX 465||97.3||5.3%|
|Radeon HD 5830||89.8||14.0%|
|FarCry 2 – Maximum||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||89.7||4.2%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||86.2|
|GeForce GTX 465||84.0||2.5%|
|Radeon HD 5830||72.5||18.9%|
|FarCry 2 – Maximum||2560×1600||Difference|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||70.8|
|GeForce GTX 465||69.1||2.6%|
|Radeon HD 5850||67.7||4.6%|
|Radeon HD 5830||52.8||34.1%|
[nextpage title=”Aliens vs. Predator”]
Aliens vs. Predator is a DirectX 11 game, and like the other games, we ran its benchmarking module at 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600 resolutions, leaving the game on its default image quality settings (texture quality at “high,” anti-aliasing at 4x, and no anisotropic filtering).
|Aliens vs. Predator – Default||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||53.7||44.7%|
|Radeon HD 5830||41.8||12.7%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||37.1|
|GeForce GTX 465||36.2||2.5%|
|Aliens vs. Predator – Default||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||43.7||47.6%|
|Radeon HD 5830||33.8||14.2%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||29.6|
|GeForce GTX 465||28.9||2.4%|
|Aliens vs. Predator- Default||2560×1600||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||27.1||53.1%|
|Radeon HD 5830||20.6||16.4%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||17.7|
|GeForce GTX 465||17.3||2.3%|
[nextpage title=”Metro 2033″]
Metro 2033 is a DirectX 11 game, and like the other games, we ran its benchmarking module at 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600 resolutions, leaving the game on its default image quality settings (texture quality at “high,” anti-aliasing at 4x, and anisotropic filtering at 2x).
|Metro 2033 – Default||1680×1050||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||35.10||20.8%|
|Radeon HD 5830||30.48||4.9%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||29.05|
|GeForce GTX 465||27.81||4.4%|
|Metro 2033 – Default||1920×1200||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||27.59||22.6%|
|Radeon HD 5830||23.63||5.0%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||22.51|
|GeForce GTX 465||21.24||6.0%|
|Metro 2033 – Default||2560×1600||Difference|
|Radeon HD 5850||15.97||28.5%|
|Radeon HD 5830||13.43||8.1%|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||12.43|
|GeForce GTX 465||11.48||8.2%|
[nextpage title=”Darkest of Days”]
Darkest of days is a DirectX 9 game that implements a PhysX engine, moving physics calculations from the CPU to the GPU. Although it’s not very popular, we added this game because of its PhysX benchmarking feature. We ran this game at 1680×1050 with details set at “very high,” and both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled. We ran three tests, first with PhysX set at “low,” where the game makes all physics calculations using the system CPU, then increasing it to “medium” (which adds leaves, wind and weapons impact effects due to bullets and grenades), and finally increasing it to “high” (which adds fog and smoke effects). The medium and high PhysX levels move physics calculations from the CPU t
o the GPU. Keep in mind that only NVIDIA-based cards support PhysX.
|Darkest of Days – 1680×1050||Low Phys X||Difference|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||108.07|
|GeForce GTX 465||103.09||4.8%|
|Radeon HD 5850||92.83||16.4%|
|Radeon HD 5830||90.11||19.9%|
|Darkest of Days – 1680×1050||Medium PhysX||Difference|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||79.78|
|GeForce GTX 465||75.02||6%|
|Radeon HD 5850||2.89||2660%|
|Radeon HD 5830||2.78||2770%|
|Darkest of Days – 1680×1050||High PhysX||Difference|
|EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SC||48.55|
|GeForce GTX 465||47.43||2%|
|Radeon HD 5850||1.39||3393%|
|Radeon HD 5830||1.29||3664%|
The performance advantage of EVGA GeForce GTX 465 SuperClocked over the standard GeForce GTX 465 was insignificant (below 3%), since it has a very light GPU overclocking (3%). So we don’t see why pay more for the overclocked card to get the same performance level.
There were only two scenarios where GeForce GTX 465 was faster than Radeon HD 5850: Far Cry 2 at 2560×1600 with image quality settings maxed out (at other resolutions Radeon HD 5850 was faster) and Darkest of Days. And besides these two games, GeForce GTX 465 was only faster than Radeon HD 5830 in Crysis Warhead with image quality settings maxed out (but at 2560×1600 Radeon HD 5830 was faster).
So unless you plan to play a PhysX-based game or are a stubborn NVIDIA fanboy, we see no reason why you would buy the new GeForce GTX 465. Radeon HD 5850 costs only a little bit more and completely crushes GeForce GTX 465, while Radeon HD 5830 costs less and achieved the same performance or was faster in most of the games we ran.