-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
GTX 260 192 to GTX460
- Thread starter MikeB
- Start date
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/170?vs=180
As you can see from above comparison between a 260-216 and 460, the 460 is a very good upgrade at its price, benefits include DX11 support, great overclocking that can net you substantial extra performance, less power draw, less heat output, it's a top upgrade.
As you can see from above comparison between a 260-216 and 460, the 460 is a very good upgrade at its price, benefits include DX11 support, great overclocking that can net you substantial extra performance, less power draw, less heat output, it's a top upgrade.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I think instead of upgrading for upgrade sake, are there any demanding games that you are playing, or plan on playing that your GTX260 can't handle the settings you want?
If the answer is yes, then it would worth the upgrade; but if the answer is no, then upgrading graphic card won't be worth it.
For example, my 9800GTX+ can max out most games with 1680x1050 (20" monitor) and 4xAA, but won't cut it for games like BFBC2, Crysis, Metro2033. I ask myself...do I want to spend that much money for the sake of those couple of games. BFBC2 I would just need a GTX460 1GB and overclock it to max out and have decent frame rate, but I'm not dying to play it. For Crysis, I would like to play it, but also not dying to play it. Requirement wise I would need a GTX480 and overclock it to play at very high detail with reasonable frame rate (and then there's the issue my Q6600 would be the limiting factor for the GTX480, as Crysis only uses two cores). As for Metro2033, I ask myself...do I want to spend £250~£500 on graphic card(s) for a single tunnel crawling FPS game that's demanding for demanding sake which doesn't even get a decent score for gameplay from reviews? The answer is no.
If the answer is yes, then it would worth the upgrade; but if the answer is no, then upgrading graphic card won't be worth it.
For example, my 9800GTX+ can max out most games with 1680x1050 (20" monitor) and 4xAA, but won't cut it for games like BFBC2, Crysis, Metro2033. I ask myself...do I want to spend that much money for the sake of those couple of games. BFBC2 I would just need a GTX460 1GB and overclock it to max out and have decent frame rate, but I'm not dying to play it. For Crysis, I would like to play it, but also not dying to play it. Requirement wise I would need a GTX480 and overclock it to play at very high detail with reasonable frame rate (and then there's the issue my Q6600 would be the limiting factor for the GTX480, as Crysis only uses two cores). As for Metro2033, I ask myself...do I want to spend £250~£500 on graphic card(s) for a single tunnel crawling FPS game that's demanding for demanding sake which doesn't even get a decent score for gameplay from reviews? The answer is no.
Last edited:
Summed up quite nicely.
the reality is I play most of the big games out, and to be honest don't notice any major issues, the odd stutter here and there but that's about it. However with the newer titles I know to leave AA alone etc and wonder if the 460 would allow me to start 'fiddling' again 
As Raven's link shows (mentally removed the 4 top Crysis benches) you are talking a -5% to +35% speed increase.
The power draw from a 192 is not that much more than the 460. 20W tops. 192s overclock aswell.
I'd call it a <=25% upgrade.
The power draw from a 192 is not that much more than the 460. 20W tops. 192s overclock aswell.
I'd call it a <=25% upgrade.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
^^^
Not really worth upgrading for that % but the benchmarks were with the 216 core version, so perhaps the difference is more with the 192 version?
Not really worth upgrading for that % but the benchmarks were with the 216 core version, so perhaps the difference is more with the 192 version?
the reality is I play most of the big games out, and to be honest don't notice any major issues, the odd stutter here and there but that's about it. However with the newer titles I know to leave AA alone etc and wonder if the 460 would allow me to start 'fiddling' again
I have a similar system Q9650 at 3.8 and 4 gigs, same mobo too and a GTX470
I upgraded only last weekend, from a dual core also at 3.8 and a OC GTX280, i game at 1680 by 1050
I also have XP so DX9 basically, but now i have a 470 i might get win 7, not sure since the number of DX11 games seems quite low at present
The long and shorts is i did notice a small improvement on BFBC2, it was smooth before on high settings but the frame rate did fluctuate while you were running around, post upgrade, it seems rock steady i'm guessing it's a pretty constant 60FPS no noticable fluctations at all, i not really played any other games since i only had it couple of days, but i'm guessing new stuff might see a small increase, old stuff none at all
It could also be the Quad upgrade, i hear BFBC2 likes a quad
End of the day, this upgrade will see most benefit with a few very demanding current games stuff like Crysis (i might finally pick it up now i can run it in all it's glory), BFBC2 will benefit, even more so if you run in DX11
It will also benefit future games, Dragon Ages 2, That bioware starwars RPG, BFBC2 Vietnam (which looks a fab expansion), you get my drift
Personally i would get a 470 over a 460, it's not that much more, and with your quad at 3.4 should see you set for top quality gaming for another 18 months, if you upgrade do so on the basis of being able to run all current and the next 18 months worth of big demanding titles, the upgrade will show it's worth over time, current games like BFBC2 from what i can see seem run with a more stable framerate, but i bought on the basis of getting good quality gaming for the next 18 months rather than to massively improve any current games
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Just one more thing to add...if I was upgrading from a GTX260, I would consider at least a 5850 or GTX470. GTX460 1GB is around a little faster than GTX280 speed, in a way it is like moving from GTX260 to a GTX280 (but cooler, quieter, overclock better). You will see improvement, but probably not gonna be huge.
The GTX 460 has 330 odd processing cores, i think the boost from a 280 to 460 would be better than 260 to 280, the reason i got the 280 was OC UK were doing them for like £200 quite soon after launch, When Nvidia massively reduced the price and the exchange rate was very favourable contributing to a very keen price, it didnt last long and they soon got more expensive, but if you were in the market at that time the card was a relative bargain considering it was there flagship GPU, you only have to look at the price of it's modern day equivalent the 480
Still a OC 216 core 260 was about on par with a stock 280, i would expect the 460 to be a lot quicker it has nearly 50% more proccesing cores than a 280. I agree with you on the 470 being a better bet, which is why i chose it over a 460, but regardless of which is chosen 460/470 the increase over a 192 260 will certainly be noticable i would expect
Still a OC 216 core 260 was about on par with a stock 280, i would expect the 460 to be a lot quicker it has nearly 50% more proccesing cores than a 280. I agree with you on the 470 being a better bet, which is why i chose it over a 460, but regardless of which is chosen 460/470 the increase over a 192 260 will certainly be noticable i would expect
Last edited: