• 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.

will a GTX460 1gb ever beat a GTX470

460 beats 470 on performance per £.
460 bears 470 on efficiency and noise.
460 suppsoedly scales better when running in SLI

But, the 470 has superior hardware and the 470 will continue to win most benchmarks by 10-20%. Even though the 460's do overclock slightly better, they cannot makeup the gap when both cards are maxxed.

The only thing that will close the gap is when/if NVida release the 384 core GF104 "GTX 460". Current 460's only use 7 out of 8 shader clusters, and that extra cluster may make the diffference.
 
in that case er... no./

a reasonable 3dmark vantage score on the same rig with reveals:

GTX 470 @ 750~ = 17,000 mark
GTX 460 @ 850~ = 14,500 mark

thats in synthetic tests but in games the actual difference can vary up and down dpeending on how CPU intensive the app is and how limited you are by the rest of your components.
 
I find it funny how before when asked 5850 or 470 nvidia boys would say 470 while 5850 was better bang for buck, quieter, cooler.

yet they'd always say but 470 is 5%-10% faster, that all that matters.

and after 460 came out same people 'd say go for 460, its better, cooler, quiter and better bank for buck. :rolleyes:

Anyways no, 460 won't beat 470. It can't. However that is because it involves my interpretation of "beat".

I think for an average person 460 is the way to go.

I personally hate diminishing returns. I preffer to buy best bang for buck card and overclock it to the flagship, I did it with 5850 at 1k ghz I did it with 470 at 850 clock. If only 460 was out when I got 470, I would have gotten 460 and overclocked the socks off that one.
 
It's kinda funny that people assume 460s overclock "better". It's an argument being used against any card out there yet only some 460s barely manage over 900MHz on core (being less than 35% overclock and we're not talking the cheapest models now). Most reference 5850s could achieve about 40% overclock with voltage increase, that is what Hawk edition of MSI 460 is capable of. There are many 470s overclocking to 850MHz (40% increase over stock) on core. I also haven't seen any unbiased review claiming that GF104 overclock with better gains than GF100, neither I've seen ones claiming that original Fermi cards scale better with overclocks than Radeons. It's all claims by hardly unbiased users (eg justifying their purchases).

Also, a 5850 is 10% faster than a 460 and a 470 is 10-15% faster than a 5850. That leaves a pretty significant difference of at least 15% with stock cards. The gap increases with higher resolutions too. SLI scaling is debatable, 470s are always faster in this case scenarios but if anyone is seriously thinking about SLI, 460s are more appealing because of their power usage/heat output.

There's another myth about magical drivers from Nvidia (or ATI) that miraculously optimize and utilize their GPUs from 100% to 200%. Obviously these is all **** nobody cares about, drivers are there to improve flaws so it's not like the overall gap will increase/decrease. If there are problems to be solved, that's where the improvements are going to be made.
 
Last edited:
Mr Krugga said:
It's kinda funny that people assume 460s overclock "better". It's an argument being used against any card out there yet only some 460s barely manage over 900MHz on core (being less than 35% overclock and we're not talking the cheapest models now). Most reference 5850s could achieve about 40% overclock with voltage increase, that is what Hawk edition of MSI 460 is capable of. There are many 470s overclocking to 850MHz (40% increase over stock) on core. I also haven't seen any unbiased review claiming that GF104 overclock with better gains than GF100, neither I've seen ones claiming that original Fermi cards scale better with overclocks than Radeons. It's all claims by hardly unbiased users (eg justifying their purchases).

Also, a 5850 is 10% faster than a 460 and a 470 is 10-15% faster than a 5850. That leaves a pretty significant difference of at least 15% with stock cards. The gap increases with higher resolutions too. SLI scaling is debatable, 470s are always faster in this case scenarios but if anyone is seriously thinking about SLI, 460s are more appealing because of their power usage/heat output.
Click to expand...

I can report that 10% increase on clock and 10% increase in memory gives 10% increase in performance on gtx 470. I tested it up to 30% on both memory and clock and gains were 30% or something like 29.9%. Couldn't take it any further as memory doesn't go that far. Overclocking just the clock will see diminishing returns on the increase in performance.

I had 5850 at 1ghz core and 1.3 memory and that had 44fps(stock 33 if irk) in crysis. So do the maths how well that scales.

The above was tested on vantage.

overclocking just core from 600 to 800 (30%) increase gives 21% performance increase in crysis
 
Last edited:
Nerusy said:
I can report that 10% increase on clock and 10% increase in memory gives 10% increase in performance on gtx 470. I tested it up to 30% on both memory and clock and gains were 30% or something like 29.9%. Couldn't take it any further as memory doesn't go that far. Overclocking just the clock will see diminishing returns on the increase in performance.

I had 5850 at 1ghz core and 1.3 memory and that had 44fps(stock 33 if irk) in crysis. So do the maths how well that scales.
Click to expand...

But the overclock increases obviously are dependent on the tasks? You've not even stated how you'd taken these measures.
 
Last edited:
No. A 470 will always be faster than a 460.

People that claim the 460 OCed is faster (than a 470 @ stock) may be right in certain circumstances however that isn't exactly a fair comparison.

A OCed 470 would far surpass any 460 out there.

Also down to scaling. 460 SLI only just scraps past a 480, yes it is a cheaper option however it does yield disadvantages (more power, noise, no future upgrading etc). You can only imagine what 470 SLI is capable of, especially when clocked.

Do you think companies would create their low end "gamer" card to surpass their higher end cards? I don't think so. However there is the 465 which an exception which to be honest, is a crippled/failed 470.
 
Mr Krugga said:
But the overclock increases obviously are dependent on the tasks? You've not even stated how you'd taken these measures.
Click to expand...

What do you mean how I taken this measures? If its my unbiasedness you're worried, I am telling you I owned 2x5770, 5870, 5850, 470.

measure stock performance in vantage, overclock both memory and clock by 10%, record the new result in vantage and calculate the % increase.

% increase in memory and core = exactly same % increase in performance in vantage.

I am not saying it will performs like that in every application, all I am saying in vantage it does.
 
If a 470gtx overclocks quite easily by 40%, people need to realise that overclocking a faster card by 40% and a slower card by the same 40% will mean a larger performance gap than at stock.

one card gets 100fps, the other 50fps, overclock both by 40%, one card gets 140fps, the other card gets 70fps, the gap moves from 50fps, to 70fps, the 470gtx, at current pricing, is better value.

The 460gtx doesn't use significantly less power, its a slower card, if a 30% slower card uses 30% lower power, its not 30% more efficient.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/17

uses roughly speaking 75W less under load than a 470gtx, which is rated at 230-250W depending on review and card. So maybe 25-30% less power, yet in most games its between 20 and 30% behind the 470gtx.

Making it actually very very close on power vs performance. If you overclock either card just clocks and not voltage you get a good performance boost with not much extra power, if you overvolt either, the power starts to increase rapidly.

In many situationst the 470gtx is 30% ahead, and overclocks a higher number, but a larger percentage aswell, its the better card all around. More heat will make it run hotter, and there are more 460gtx's with better design cooling.

Realistically, the 470gtx will stay ahead of the 460gtx by 20% at worst, 30 or maybe even 40% at best if the 470gtx overclocks really well, considering the price difference £170 vs £224(on ocuk, I think better prices are available on each elsewhere though a bigger price difference on the 470gtx). £170 x 1.3 = £221, so they are about on par for performance per pound, and about on par for wattage for the performance given.


Now a 470gtx at the £300-350 launch price, its a horrible value card, at circa £200, its a great card.

I'd also take some results with scepticism, if anyone saw another thread today, with a couple of places being proven as quite awful sites, that used results from reviews and drivers 4 months ago against a new driver and new cards in the 460gtx and 460gtx sli benching.

Anandtech showed that release drivers for 480gtx in BC2 for instance were giving 48fps or something at some res, and 4 months later were giving 69fps at the same settings, a MASSIVE increase in performance. That would clearly effect the SLI results aswell, while other sites, like Hardware Canucks, was showing 460gtx and 460gtx sli results on the NEW driver, against the 480gtx results from 4 months ago, which in some cases are 30% slower.

A 460gtx sli doesn't scale better than 480gtx sli, (except the 480gtx sli will hit a cpu limit much sooner in games that it manages to max out and the 460gtx sli can't), its more a case of VERY lazy and crappy review sites not updating numbers on other cards, IE a very unfair comparison.

The 460gtx sli is fast, and good value, better value than 480gtx for sure, but its not as far ahead as some sites will have you believe, I think Hardware Canucks was showing the 460gtx quite close to a 480gtx and 460gtx sli quite close to 480 SLI, which frankly is complete BS.
 
Last edited:
Nerusy said:
What do you mean how I taken this measures? If its my unbiasedness you're worried, I am telling you I owned 2x5770, 5870, 5850, 470.

measure stock performance in vantage, overclock both memory and clock by 10%, record the new result in vantage and calculate the % increase.

% increase in memory and core = exactly same % increase in performance in vantage.

I am not saying it will performs like that in every application, all I am saying in vantage it does.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen your edit when I posted. Vantage increases are obvious up to certain levels because both 470 and 5850 are severely underclocked (although the latter shows good increases only up to 900MHz on core).

I get almost linear scaling up to 20-25% overclock, then it starts to show off the limitations.
 
No, average overclock max for 470 is 30% (800core)

For reference due to insane temps 850 core is quite unreachable for most people on air unless you're lucky to get a low stock voltage 470, which are, as you understand, rare.
 
Nerusy said:
I personally hate diminishing returns. I preffer to buy best bang for buck card and overclock it to the flagship, I did it with 5850 at 1k ghz I did it with 470 at 850 clock. If only 460 was out when I got 470, I would have gotten 460 and overclocked the socks off that one.
Click to expand...

Damn what kind of cooling did that card have? :D
 
Nerusy said:
No, average overclock max for 470 is 30% (800core)

For reference due to insane temps 850 core is quite unreachable for most people on air unless you're lucky to get a low stock voltage 470, which are, as you understand, rare.
Click to expand...

Sure they are but so are 460s doing more than 900MHz. Most reach 850MHz as a max safe overclock? There's also quite a few problems with SLI setups reaching high temps afaik.

brodie1shot said:
Damn what kind of cooling did that card have? :D
Click to expand...

It's over 9000, deal with it.


On the topic, did a quick comparison of 460 and 470 using AnandTech Bench, the latter being just 20% faster at 1920x1200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom