• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately stupid people will still buy it.

Recently someone bought a new Dell laptop, claiming it had a 1Gb ATi GPU in it.

After 30 seconds of research I showed the proof that my 3 year old MBP with 256Mb was just as quick.
 
Concorde Rules said:
Unfortunately stupid people will still buy it.

Recently someone bought a new Dell laptop, claiming it had a 1Gb ATi GPU in it.

After 30 seconds of research I showed the proof that my 3 year old MBP with 256Mb was just as quick.
Click to expand...

yea thats a laptop have fun with your 768mb GTX when most games already use more than 768mb

what you didnt want AA anyway? may aswell buy some budget cack instead then :D
 
arknor said:
most games already use more than 768mb
Click to expand...
What I think is being said here is that there are a few new games that can use more than 768MB of vRam if you manually configure the graphic options to max max, play at high resolution and run Microsoft DirectX®10 & Microsoft DirectX®11 . . .

I don't think the vast majority of games use more than 768MB of vRam? . . . why would they if the vast majority of people have GPU's featuring 512MB of vRam? :D



I'm sure it makes some people happy that they have the ability to manually turn every game graphic option to Max-Max-Max but who cares what it says in the game graphic options . . it's what you can see on the screen in front of you during gameplay that your paying the money for! . . . does it look so much better? . . . if so make some screenies and share them with us please! :p

And getting a game to run with a smooth framerate is not just about vRam, you need lots of cores running with a good frequency, fast memory frequency, etc etc . . . anyone who doesn't understand that is the sorta person who probably buys one of these! ;)

Asus ATI Radeon HD 4350 1024MB GDDR2

£35.24 inc
 
My contention with buying a 768MB card now is - while fine most games today don't require extra VRAM unless you use silly settings - a good number of games are already close to that amount of VRAM with normal settings so it not gonna last a huge amount of time before your seeing games that will use closer to 1gig with normal settings.
 
Big.Wayne said:
What I think is being said here is that there are a few new games that can use more than 768MB of vRam if you manually configure the graphic options to max max, play at high resolution and run Microsoft DirectX®10 & Microsoft DirectX®11 . . .
Click to expand...
not this crap again?

how many people buy a directx 11 gfx card and then run below 16** res? with most the graphics options turned down in dx9 mode?

anyway you know its not a "few" it was something like 12 out of the 28 games tested....
 
Last edited:
I noticed a slight difference going from my 1gb gtx 280 to the 275 gtx, (896mb) gaming at 1920x1200, i was able to use slightly higher ingame settings with the 280.
 
Rroff said:
a good number of games are already close to that amount of VRAM with normal settings so it not gonna last a huge amount of time before your seeing games that will use closer to 1gig with normal settings.
Click to expand...
What you like to give me some statistics please Rroff?

When you say "a good number of games are already close to that amount of VRAM" what does that actually mean in terms of worldwide global games? . . . 3% . . . . 5% . . . 15%? :confused:

The problem here I think is that a few people who post on OcUK graphics forum think everyone is a FullHD 3DMark Vantage Benchmarker? . . either that of they think everyone is happy just to splurge on all the graphic options whether it makes a visual difference or not?

I'd love to see some screenshots of a custom graphics set-up from a game and a MAX-MAX graphics set-up from a game where one config is using tons more vRam than another? . . . the way a few people carry on you would think the difference is night and day? . . . is it night and day Rroff? . . . is it worth spending good money on? ;)

I don't know . . . I certainly don't buy a GPU as a long-term investement, I use an IGP most of the time and then when I get in the mood to game I buy a nice GPU to implant in my PC and game . . . the only thing on my mind when I buy a GPU is what games I want to play "now" . . . I certainly don't think ahead to next year? . . . why should I? . . . by this time next year there will be a whole bunch of new technology available? :D

I think you are looking at computer hardware from an Uber elitists point of view maybe? . . . bit like someone saying why are there still DualCore CPU's for sale? . . . why do they bother making 17" LCD's etc! :cool:
 
arknor said:
not this *** again?
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon? :confused:

Would you mind please learning how to debate politely? . . it seems your long conversation with a certain Intel Core i7 owner has had a negative impact on your ability to communicate? . . . one one will listen to you if you don't have some patience and try to explain yourself cooly and calmly? :D

arknor said:
how many people buy a directx 11 gfx card and then run below 16** res? with most the graphics options turned down in dx9 mode?
Click to expand...
No idea? . . . I don't even know why you said that? :p

arknor said:
anyway you know its not a "few" it was something like 12 out of the 28 games tested....
Click to expand...
Please don't tell me what I do or don't know . . . I am here to learn as many others are hear to learn . . . and I'm not going to find anything you say useful if you don't adjust the way you communicate? . . . what is wrong with you man? :D

All I have seen is some data that shows if a user wants to its possible in a few games to *force* the graphics levels so high that loads of vRam gets used? . . . this doesn't mean to me what it seems to mean to you?

What this means to me is that its possible to increase the VRam and thats it? . . . I have no idea what this increased VRam usage does to the visual appearance of the game? . . . i have no idea what this increased VRam usage does to the frame rate? . . I mean the more data there is the more processing there is right? harder work on the shader? harder work on the bandwidth? :)

If your getting whipped everytime a 768MB GTX 460 gets sold then I understand why your replies are abrupt, heated and opinionated conjecture . . . if however you are a normal person then please can you adjust your tone and make an effort to post your facts please as I don;t give a fig about your opinion . . . its meaningless to me! :cool:
 
you know its night and day because most of the memory is textures...

maybe you like medium textures and no AA ? we like high/veryhigh/ultra or whatever the highest setting is and atleast 2x aa to kill the jaggies as do most gamers..

stop trying to forget we already did the 768 vs 1gig the other day and im so short an abrupt because most of us dont have the spare time to draw pie charts , graphs and everything else that comes with your posts.

i'd imagine your a huge fan of power point presentations , i pitty any sales people that knock on your door as you probably have a projector sitting in your hallway so you can show them the error of their ways.

you always come across as someone trying to force there values onto others like yours selling the bible and even when your wrong you have to be right
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
we already did the 768 vs 1gig the other dayt
Click to expand...

Agreed. 768 isnt enough in quite a few situations now, as shown by those recent articles*. And people do not buy cards for just now. Most will probably want it to last most of 2 years and will rightly not want to hedge on a lack of requirement for more memory over the next 18 months.

*Links are in the other threads on this subject this week.
 
Big.Wayne said:
What I think is being said here is that there are a few new games that can use more than 768MB of vRam if you manually configure the graphic options to max max, play at high resolution and run Microsoft DirectX®10 & Microsoft DirectX®11 . . .

I don't think the vast majority of games use more than 768MB of vRam? . . . why would they if the vast majority of people have GPU's featuring 512MB of vRam? :D
Click to expand...


33% isn't "the vast majority". It's a very small majority...29% of people have 1024mb cards, and 38% have a card over 512mb.
 
Well heres just a few typical games from my machine:

Playing at 1680x1050, high quality settings ingame with 4x AA.

Batman AA - Using between 700 and 800MB
Mafia 2 - Rarely exceeds 500MB but the game ships with a lot of console quality textures
Mass Effect 2 - 450-600MB
Farcry 2 - Averaged about 800MB but using upto 900MB in places
Modern Warefare 2 SP - Quickly using well over 800MB

You don't really buy a 460 and turn down the settings when a few more quid could get you high settings - granted when its only a few MBs over you won't notice hideous slowdown from the swapping from system/local memory but it doesn't leave you much future breathing room.
 
I'll admit a lot of this stuff goes over my head - So perhaps I'm missing something here, but surely the graph in the first post (and other benchmarks) shows that although some games use over 768MB of memory, it doesn't make *that* much difference to gameplay?

Rroff mentioned Modern Warfare 2, which was missing from the graph, but this benchmark shows that the 1GB version of the card still only gets just under 5FPS average more than the 768MB card. (looking at the standard versions of the cards, as different manufacturers overclock in different ways)

With Crysis Warhead, which I imagine also would take a lot of VRAM, the difference is again only about 5FPS more.

With the original Crysis, this benchmark shows that at the highest settings they tested, the average FPS is only 1 higher with the bigger card. Clearly neither card is good enough for that game at those settings - But at lower settings the difference is still only 1 or 2FPS.

Certainly in the future a lot more games will use larger amounts of video memory, but by then the rest of the card will be so outdated that it's not going to matter that much.

As I said, a lot of this stuff goes over my head, but such a tiny increase in FPS doesn't seem to justify the extra £40/£50 for the bigger card.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom