I can see you raising the price of the 768MB GeForce GTX 460

[Big.Wayne]

Hello UV

I see half the benchmarks you posted showing lower min-fps for the SLI setup

Well I marked them out for you so I hope you can see . . .

Benching faster overall is useless if the minimum fps is lower. SLI setups will also have micro-stuttering

Here we go!

Surely you can understand that the min-fps is far more important than the max-fps? Would you rather a card that can get 200fps in Crysis, but dips down to 10 fps and has microstutter, or a card that reaches 60fps in crysis, but doesn't drop below 30?

Of course I understand . . . but your example is "ridiculous"

Look at the figures . . . the £340 GTX 480 featuring 100% extra vRam (1536MB) is pulling an extra 6FPS minimum in Alien Vs Predator 4xAA, 5FPS minimum in Far Cry 2 4xAA and 2FPS minimum in Unigine v2.0 4xAA

In the other half of the results the 768MB cards are producing higher minimum framerates! . . . an extra 5FPS minimum in Battlefield:BC2 4xAA, an extra 10FPS minimum in Dirt2 4xAA and an extra 9FPS minimum in Just Cause 2 4xAA

 

[arknor]

get someone with a 768 to go over 768mb of memory and tell us what happens, im sick of the same old carp from you with these min/max benchmarks.

i want to know what happens when they are playing a game that uses 800-900mb of memory , no one on this forum has a 768mb 460?

 

[coupe69]

but you have to ask yourself do you want to invest a £100 premium

£100, nothing like a bit of over exaggeration for effect I suggest you check your prices out again

For the cheapest 768MB card (Palit - noisy) on OcUK the price is £124.98. The cheapest 1GB card is £158.61 a difference of just £33.63 or £67.26 for two of them.

If someone paid £100 extra for the slight 33% extra vRam on the 1024MB SLI'ed cards there not really gonna see added "value" for years . . .

Again it's not £100 extra and have you suddenly become a game programmer overnight You seem to be making a lot of assumptions on how much vram a game will be using say for example this time next year?

I'm sure they'll be a fair few more DX11 games released in the next year or so which in turn will use up considerably more vram than a lot of the current DX9 console ports.

This is something you consistantly fail to miss, maybe it's because you're still running DX 9 XP?

 

[Big.Wayne]

So I "assume" you think that none of the bench results @1920x1200 with high settings and 4xAA in post #192 use over 768MB of vRam!

 

[uv]

Of course I understand . . . but your example is "ridiculous"

Look at the figures . . . the £340 GTX 480 featuring 100% extra vRam (1536MB) is pulling an extra 6FPS minimum in Alien Vs Predator 4xAA, 5FPS minimum in Far Cry 2 4xAA and 2FPS minimum in Unigine v2.0 4xAA

My example was exxagerated, so we'll use your own:

Alien Vs Predator 4xAA
25-61
31-56

SLI: 25 FPS + microstutter = unplayable
Single card: 31 FPS = playable

When the choice is playable or unplayable, which would you choose?

 

[FoxEye]

Would someone kindly explain what "microstutter" means? A quick Google suggests it's only applicable to multi-GPU setups, but it's been applied in this thread to single 768MB cards too.

So what are you all referring too when you say microstutter?

 

[uv]

So what are you all referring too when you say microstutter?

Uneven frame rendering on multi-gpu setups, which becomes more apparent at lower framerates.

 

[Big.Wayne]

My example was exxagerated

Heheh yes it was . . . as are a lot of other peoples struggling to prove a point . . .

Alien Vs Predator 4xAA
25-61 + microstutter = unplayable
31-56 Single card = playable

When the choice is playable or unplayable, which would you choose?

uv your quite welcome to decide what games you want to play or don't play, and in those games what FPS is playable or unplayble, what graphic settings you choose or don't choose and indeed what O/S you want to run . . . these choices are unique to you and you alone and do not reflect the world in general!

re: microstutter . . . no comment!

In that one single example you picked out, Alien Vs Predator 4xAA the average FPS is overall better on the SLI'ed GTX 460's which means most of the time the gameplay is better . . . if it dropped to 25FPS minimum too often then I agree some action needs to be taken like "OverClocking" the card maybe? . . . or "tweaking" the details down a touch maybe? . . . and the same would need to be done on the GTX 480 too . . . neither of those set-ups look very happy playing at those uBer high settings in that "one" game . . . look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA GTX 470 with 1280MB ram? . . . look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA HD 5870 with 1024MB . . . all of them slower in that one game? . . . less minimum FPS than the 768MB SLi'ed GTX460? . . . what point are you making exactly?

 

[uv]

uv your quite welcome

you're

I'm fairly sure my choices aren't unique to me - I suspect the vast majority of PC gamers would prefer to play their games with the best available settings, rather than lower settings down to suit their hardware.

what point are you making exactly?

I've made my point. I don't enjoy turning settings down, and I don't enjoy unplayable fps. I'd rather spend more money on better hardware that can cope with high settings.

 

[arknor]

So I "assume" you think that none of the bench results @1920x1200 with high settings and 4xAA in post #192 use over 768MB of vRam!

more min/max? get someone to post real world experiences...

how come these min/max never have average? is it because the average fps is much lower?

anyway i want someone with a 768mb gtx460 to play a game thats using over 768mb of memory and tell us there experiences someone in this thread must have one

 

[RavenXXX2]

^^ What you going on about? the benchmarks display minimum and average frame rates, no maximum to be seen.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello uv

you're

Are you really correcting my spelling?

I'm fairly sure my choices aren't unique to me

I think you may be suprised actually . . .

I suspect the vast majority of PC gamers would prefer to play their games with the best available settings, rather than lower settings down to suit their hardware

Well they have problems then in that one example your talking about? . . .go back to post #193 and look again at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA and tell me what you see?

The GTX 480 which is currently the worlds best single GPU is "struggling" . . . . you have no choice but to "lower settings down"

no choice uv

I've made my point

You have made no point at all . . . none!

I don't enjoy turning settings down, and I don't enjoy unplayable fps

In that one example you have no choice uv . . . if the GTX 480 can't hack it what ya gonna do?

I'd rather spend more money on better hardware that can cope with high settings.

Like what? . . . the GTX 480 is struggling . . . what do you call "better hardware" than that?

 

[RavenXXX2]

Hello uv



Like what? . . . the GTX 480 is struggling . . . what do you call "better hardware" than that?

I wouldn't call 56 average and 31 min struggling, especially with 4xAA applied.

 

[uv]

Like what? . . . the GTX 480 is struggling . . . what do you call "better hardware" than that?

All those quotes to say one thing?

The GTX480 has a minimum FPS of 31, which is playable. When the choice is SLI 460 768s and a single GTX480 (as in, the comparison you yourself made earlier), then I believe the choice is an easy one - either a setup that struggles visibly, or one that doesn't.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello again uv

The GTX480 has a minimum FPS of 31, which is playable

Maybe for you . . . but 31FPS min is not cool for me personally?

anyway we digress . . . what does this have to do with 768MB vRam vs 1024MB vRam exactly?

When the choice is SLI 460 768s and a single GTX480 (as in, the comparison you yourself made earlier), then I believe the choice is an easy one - either a setup that struggles visibly, or one that doesn't.

Ok you made your choice it seems . . . . one GTX 480 for uv please! . . .

So back to the topic . . . do you think there is really a problem with 768MB of VRam? . . . care to comment on the GTX 470 and HD 5870 points I made earlier?

look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA GTX 470 with 1280MB ram? . . . look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA HD 5870 with 1024MB . . . all of them slower in that one game? . . . less minimum FPS than the 768MB SLi'ed GTX460? . . . what point are you making exactly?

 

[uv]

So back to the topic . . . do you think there is really a problem with 768MB of VRam?

The topic isn't whether 768MB VRAM is a problem, simply whether it's value for money. I doubt anyone is saying it's a problem, simply that the 1GB offers better performance, which it does. This cannot be argued against.

care to comment on the GTX 470 and HD 5870 points I made earlier?

What points? That these cards have a lower FPS? So what? The amount of ram available is obviously not that relevant for these cards in this game, wheareas GPU grunt is. This is hardly a revelationary point, and it's completely irrelevant to either the GTX460 768 vs 1GB argument, or the argument for SLI 460 768's vs a single GTX480. Why ask me to comment on a point that's completely irrelevant to the discussion?

 

[coupe69]

[Slightly off topic]

re: microstutter . . . no comment!

No comment because you've never had experience with a multi-gpu setup perhaps?

Duff-Man and countless others have tried to prove to you that there is inherent issues with SLi and CF configurations in this thread, until you've sampled it you'll not properly understand the very real issue that is "microstutter".

The fact of the matter is a good single GPU will produce smoother gameplay than two average GPUs regardless of what frames per second fraps is telling you.

[Back on topic]

Quite a few people are clearly unable to distinguish fact from fiction, personal belief from the truth . . .

You sir have come up with no facts whatsoever, you merely copy and paste benchmark results without question.

On the other hand myself and a few others have done some testing and posted our results, yet you seem to totally dismiss our findings?!?!

I'm going to quote Duff-Man as he describes the lack of vram issues far more eloquently than me.

Regarding the VRAM limitation issue that this thread is focussing on; it is very much game-dependent, and resolution / anti-aliasing dependent. In the case that the game is consistently using more than the total VRAM allocation of the card, there will be near-constant DRAM -> VRAM paging, and the average framerate will plummet. This will be clearly visible on average-FPS graphs. However, in the case that the VRAM limit is close to the threshold, there will be only certain game scenes where the VRAM limit is reached, leading to relatively infrequent cases of paging, which will manifest as small pauses or brief periods where the framerate drops dramatically. This is extremely disruptive to gameplay, but may not have a significant effect on average-FPS benchmark scores.

There's too many games that are getting close and some even breaching the 768MB vram limit right now.

There's a couple of examples by our friend RavenXXX in this thread here.

COD 4 and Crysis are both getting precariously close to that limit and this is only at 1680x1050 with 4xAA!

Perhaps if people are running XP like yourself then the 768MB version would be fine, for people using more up to date operating systems and running 1080p monitors then I cannot see how anyone could recommend anything other than the 1GB card.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello again uv

The topic isn't whether 768MB VRAM is a problem, simply whether it's value for money

Haha! . . . a few very "vocal" people think its a problem . . . . a lot of other people stated it "wasn't" worth the extra money £££ when selling at the reduced price . . .

I doubt anyone is saying it's a problem

I do believe you may not have read this thread . . . if you have I suggest you re-read it again . . .

simply that the 1GB offers better performance, which it does. This cannot be argued against

Your right uv . . . . the GTX 460 1024MB offers an average extra 4FPS . . . well done you made a point we established a week ago!

What points? That these cards have a lower FPS? So what?

well they both have more memory and one of them is more expensive . . . in case you missed it people have been "scaremongering" people away from the 768MBs cards because games would be laggy and unplayable . . . what do the "facts" say to us? . . .

The amount of ram available is obviously not that relevant for these cards in this game, wheareas GPU grunt is. This is hardly a revelationary point

I think if you look closely at the benchmarks in post #193 I think you will find that the amount of vRam doesn't appear to be a problem in any of those games . . . I think to some people posting in this thread and reading this thread this is indeed a "revolutionary point"

and it's completely irrelevant to either the GTX460 768 vs 1GB argument

Not at all . . . . there are several people desperately trying to prove that the 1024MB cards should be standard issue otherwise they won't be able to enjoy HD gaming . . . please re-read the thread . . .

or the argument for SLI 460 768's vs a single GTX480.

I wasn't making an argument vs the GTX 480 actually . . . believe it or not I only picked that card to place against the SLI'ed 768MB GTX 460's because the former has such a humoungous vRam . . . . this was to demonstrate that the SLI'ed cards were not "crippled" by their 768MB vRam . . . but if you want to make an argument about the GTX 480 vs the cheaper SLI option then you made your point, your happy to pay a large premium for the slight extra minimum FPS in a few games even though the same card offers less minimum FPS in other games and "Overall" is the slower option according to the average framerates . . . again from benches in post #193

Alien Vs Predator 4xAA
25-61
31-56

Battlefield:BC2 4xAA
45-62
40-58

Dirt2 4xAA
88-106
78-87

Far Cry 2 4xAA
66-116
71-101

Just Cause 2
43-71
34-59

Unigine v2.0 4xAA
25-58
27-48

for those people who can still source cheaper 768MB GTX 460's for SLI I would say the £100 saving over the GTX 480 is very much worth paying myself . . . you don't agree, no probs!

Why ask me to comment on a point that's completely irrelevant to the discussion?

I think we maybe are having two different discussions! . . . if you would like to comment on the topic then please go ahead . . . re-read the thread first because I think most points have already been made for the 1024MB card!

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

How ridiculous showing a 2007 GPU with 256MB vs 512MB! that's 100% difference in memory on three year old cards using totally different technology . . . . 768MB >> 1024MB is 33% extra vRam

Not really, it shows you what a lack of vRAM can potentially do to your system. Less of a difference in amount of vRAM, sure, so I can conceivably see it being less of a drop in FPS. But still a drop. Its up to you if you want to pay more to have more RAM in the hopes of avoiding that or not. It might not even happen!

No-ones saying you must, just saying if they recommend it or not. To me, yeah, I'll pay the extra notes, and go for the more RAM sure. If you don't want to, fair play to you, I don't really give a toss what you put in your PC. I'm not going to use it am I?

It doesn't take much thought to realise that several years into the future games will require more and more vRam but does everyone buy a GPU today to last years and years into the future? . . . . if someone paid £100 extra for the slight 33% extra vRam on the 1024MB SLI'ed cards there not really gonna see added "value" for years . . .

Seeing as I've had my last graphics card for 2 years, I'd have to disagree with you there. I'll fork out the couple extra notes if it'll last me a wee bit longer, sure. Its nothing in the overall cost.

By that time comes the person who owns a pair or 768MB cards will have sold them both on and with the £100 they saved along with the funds they get from the sale of the 768Mb cards will be able to reconsider their options in the 2012/2013 GPU scene! . . . and will the person who paid the extra £100 premium will be sitting there happy as pie in 2012/1013 with their GTX 460 1024MB SLI?

So wait, in the last paragraph you're saying no-one buys cards with the intention of lasting a few years, but now you're saying that you expect people to upgrade in 2013? Thats a few years mate. But whatever.

Anyway, its no longer £100 more. Its £20 quid difference individually, or £40 for the SLI version. Ignoring the Palits, unless you want deafened. I dunno, maybe deafness when gaming till 2013 is an acceptable price for a £30 reduction in cost to some people too.

And no, I don't think that 2-3 years down the line anyone is going to say to themselves "I wish I saved £40 on my SLI setup." They wont care, they'll be happily off oogling the nice shiny new graphics cards that are up for sale.

It's horses for courses really but looking at the benchmarks today using demeading games at high res with decent settings I would not be spending more money myself!

Yes, its horses for courses, so why the hell do you really care so much? Its like its been a personal insult to you for some people to recommend the 1024 version.

 

[RavenXXX2]

I would not recommend a 460 768 at 1080p if you want to enjoy demanding games with AA, my own research shows you are pushing 800mb at 1680x, go 1GB.