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

[Big.Wayne]

Asus GeForce GTX 460 768MB GDDR5

£134.98 inc


If you were intending to break this image then it would have been better to lower the price of the 1GB unit!



Asus GeForce GTX 460 1024MB GDDR5

£174.99 inc

 

[Big.Wayne]

most games already use more than 768mb

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?



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!

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

 

[Big.Wayne]

Nice card rolypolyman! . . . pity you didn't have an IGP to fall back on!

 

[Big.Wayne]

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.

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%?

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?

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!

 

[Big.Wayne]

not this *** again?

I beg your pardon?

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?

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?

No idea? . . . I don't even know why you said that?

anyway you know its not a "few" it was something like 12 out of the 28 games tested....

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?

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!

 

[Big.Wayne]

you know its night and day because most of the memory is textures...

Please don't tell me what I do or don't know . . .

 

[Big.Wayne]

you know its night and day because most of the memory is textures...

I think that's right . . . is that all it is then? . . . just textures and nothing else?

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..

I like a game to look good, I'm not gonna be such a tight wad as to sit there and play basic low detail . . . I want the good stuff like most people? . . . I game at 1920x1200 and have done since 2006, always have at least 2xAA except for when played Crysis . . . I just don't subscribe to this Max-Max culture as I'm not really wanting to pay extra money for something that isn't making a huge visual difference . . . if you want to thats fine, I'm not gonna get heated or anything!

When you say "we like high/veryhigh/ultra or whatever the highest setting is " which authority are you speaking on behalf of exactly? . . . are you actually trying to say "I arknor likes" or? . . . is anyone allowed to run Windows XP in your group? . . . is anyone allowed to play at lower res in your group?

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.

Ok thats totally fine, no one is forcing you to participate in this discussion? . . . the thread was made to highlight the fact that the 768MB card is being price-jacked? . . . and here you are telling everyone you think they shouldn't buy one . . . very strange?

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.

No not really? . . . I just like cool calm conversation and like to discuss technical matters and share facts? . . . you seem to have a problem with that? . . . you seem to get quite frustrated because some people see things differently to you? . . . most of what you say is your opinion and not really something I personally am interested in . . . . do what you want with your money, buy what hardware you like but please don't come onto OcUk forums and throw your opinion around like its fact? . . .

Any comment on the GTX 460 768MB slow price hike or?

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

How strange? . . . if you step away from the PC for an hour and come back you will see a few peeps having a chat about PC hardware? . . . the only person here who appears to be "forcing there values onto others" is you mate?

You seem to get really irritated that people just don't accept anything you say as fact and change their viewpoint because you say they should . . . It's a pity because you probably know quite a bit of useful stuff but you don't have the patience or skill to get your viewpoint across in a cool and calm manner and resort to telling me I am selling bibles and that I'm wrong? . . . what am I wrong about exactly? . . . . Am I wrong because I don't want to spend more money than you on PC hardware? . . . buy what you like? . . . I really have no idea what your point is?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello JTrickle

Agreed. 768 isnt enough in quite a few situations now, as shown by those recent articles*

You are entitled to your opinion and you are free to buy whatever hardware you please? . . . the article you speak of proved nothing except how much vRam can be used by the latest games with Max Max settings . . .thats it?

It doesn't show FPS details or anything actually useful like that? . . . if you feel that one single article gives you the justification to spend extra on your Video cards thats fine with me?

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.

Sorry? . . . what do you mean "people do not buy cards for just now"? . . . are you sure your not just talking about yourself and somehow thinking the whole world does and acts like you do? . . . have you got any data or facts that you can share as to peoples buying habits? . . . if you do that will be interesting? . . . personally I buy a GPU for the "Now" and really don't give much thought about 6 months or 12 months time let alone 18 months lol!

Each to their own but please do not presme to know about anyone elses hardware habits than your own . . . you speak for yourself and yourself only!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey jimbob27

33% isn't "the vast majority". It's a very small majority....

Ok point taken . . . i stand corrected! . . . lets just say "the majority" then!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey KidCanary

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?

We have no idea actually how much vRam is being used in any of the anandtech results but there are a small group of people here that think those results are worthless . . . they think min/avg/max benchmarks somehow "mask" how the game actually plays . . . their proposition is that every few seconds a card that does not have enough VRam will "stutter" or the game will "skip" . . . not one of them have produced any evidence or data to backup this proposition so it is in fact conjecture on their behalf?

I think the Anandtech data "perhaps" shows the truth of the situation and I think the difference is FPS between the 768MB card and the 1024MB card is those tests is not soley due to the vRam difference but actually the 33% extra ROPS and memory bandwidth on the 1024MB card . . .

I seem to remember that 256-bit helps transfer the graphic data quicker which helps when you game at high res like 1920x1200 . . in the old days the really uBer cards had 512-bit memory link although apparentky that costs a lot to produce now . . . they work around this by using faster memory!

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)

Indeed . . . that benchmark shows the data that we have always been used to seeing . . . now it is being ridiculed as "worthless & meaningless"

If somebody wants to do some testing and show a timeline from a game where the framerate can be viewed along with the vRam usage that would be really helpful . . . sadly no one has made this effort and we are just expected to listen to one or two guys like they actually know what they are talking about . . . leap of faith if you will!

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

It appears to be the same old story in most of the games . . . the 768MB card despite having less vRam, less ROPs and memory bandwidth chugs along quite nicely . . . . but somehow anyone would be foolish to buy one! . . .

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.

Same old story . . . the nVidia fermi seems like a comprelling choice for anyone that wants to save a few quid and get some gaming done "today" . . .

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.

I think most games have the capacity to use a heap of VRam if you turn up the options . . . whether this makes the games better is subjective, I played Crysis on Medium but then Crysis medium was like Ultra-High in most other games I played before!

The thing is there appears to be some people that take their GPU purchases seriously . . . very seriously . . .and after weeks or reasearch and careful "examination" they nearly always conclude by purchasing the most expensive GPU and feeling pretty "justified" about it too . . . so when a newer card comes out, that costs a lot less than they paid for theirs and still performs really well it kinda kicks them in the goolies!

I'm wanting to do a bit of gaming soon actually and these GTX 460 768MB cards look just the ticket . . . sadly as they become more popular and as more people become aware of how much performance they bring the price seems to be rising . . .

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.

I would say your just as much an expert as anyone here makes out to be . . . some people like to consider themselves an authority here but actually they are no smarter than you or I, they may just have some facts that we don't . . . but when you ask them for the facts you get abused!

I look at those benchmark charts the same way as you do and all I see if "bargain buy me" . . . . if some of these guys here who carry on like that have some wisdom would actually pull their fingers out and produce some meaningful facts then we would all be the wiser . . . sadly no one has so if somebody is looking for card to game at 19200x1200 then it seems that the Geforce GTX 460 768MB is the bang-for-buck champion right now!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello uv

that image that you love to post so much has a picture of a fifty pound note, whilst the two products you linked to have a price difference of £40.

So its just £10 now per average extra Frame-rate . . . bargain!

Did you actually read the O.P or?

If you were intending to break this image then it would have been better to lower the price of the 1GB unit!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello JediFragger

I run 2 of these babies in SLi (when the Palits were £112 each) at 2560*1600 resolution and have yet to have a problem!

What game are you playing? . . . some older 2003 titles in wireframe mode or something vaguely modern and demanding?

The fact that I mostly run without AA probably helps, but such a large res rarely needs it.

One or two people are suggesting that if the game loads up a huge amount of graphic data that exceeds the vRam limit the game "stutters, skips & splutters" . . . basically not playable or playability reduced a lot? . . .

If you have been using the cards for a few months and gaming @ 2560x1600 have you had this problem? . . . do you Max Max your graphic details or do you turn down the graphics until you get things smooth? . . . also what O/S are you running please?

Bottom line is, am more than happy with the purchase

A few other people have suggested that the Palit cards feature an inferior cooler, fairly quiet at idle but under load turn into hovercrafts! . . . they also complained about a lack of heatsink on the cards VRMs? . . . are they Scaremongering or over-reacting or is there some truth in this please?

Any further feedback would be useful . . . thanks in advance!

 

[Big.Wayne]

I'm not saying they will present a performance issue now

Really? . . . I'm pretty sure a few peeps have been making out anyone who buys a 768MB card will be lagging badly? . . . "frame skip ,stutter , frame skip ,stutter"?

I am concerned that vRAM useage in current stuff is very close to the cut off and in the not too distant future could be a problem.

Oh come on Rroff! . . . . your "concerned" . . . your actually troubled or anxious about VRam on a GPU!

What do you know about Game-Engines. . . isn't it the Game-Engines that determine what a games requirements will be? . . . is there something new coming out you know about or?

When you say "not too distant future" is that a vague notion you have or are you working to some kind of algorithm? . . .

Also its possible that the lesser ROPs means you could see poor performance in certain scenarios - tho it should show in graphs

A few days ago you stated that all the benchmarks that show framerate like the anandtech data in the O.P "mean absolutely nothing" . . . now you are referring to some data that may "show in graphs"

What kinda "graphs" are you talking about please? . . . obviously not min/avg/max right? . . . I mean if you were that would be entirely contradictory to you stating they "mean absolutely nothing"

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello seabiscuit

Love that name!

A lot of people DO buy 4350's/5450's/GT 210's/8400's

Yeah I know that! . . . I used to buy them myself? . . . only the 256MB models though . . . my point was some people may think the 1GB model is better right?

Many people use their systems for general office work/homework or for general video playback. These cards are ideal for a given purpose.

They used to be, now they are being made redundant by the IGP, heres mine right now! . . .

While they are not suited for high end gaming, they are not really aimed at that in the first place.

Indeed . . . I think you may have missed the point!

 

[Big.Wayne]

I must admit have been playing mostly older titles of late so not noticed, [Battlefield Bad Company 2] is the most demanding I've run and was fine

Played at 2560x1600 with "max/max"

screenie?

maybe I need to get some newer titles!

No actually you should play the games you want to play! . . . some people I take it are compelled to play every single latest resource-hungry title they can lay there hands on! . . . doesn't appear to matter what the gameplay is like just as long as it uses enough resources to help them "justify" their expensive GPU's . . . titles that use 1200MB of vRam are the best . . . apparently?

 

[Big.Wayne]

[Off Topic]

I buy expensive GPU's so that i can hope to play any game i like new or old the way i like

um . . . . nice slong you have there boy!

 

[Big.Wayne]

[Off Topic]

As far as game engines go - I have more than 10 years development experience in that field including a substantial part of that working with idtech3.

Nice! . . . we got a real life game coder on ocUk forums! . . . did you have anything to do with Quake III Arena? . . . loved that game?

So why are you concerned about vRam exactly?

VRAM wise I'm basing it on a general trend for VRAM requirements over the last few years.

Share your data please?

 

[Big.Wayne]

[Off Topic]

double the very oh so important Vram.

If you say so . . .

smooth & creamy dreamy goodness.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey Rroff

I am concerned that VRAM useage in current stuff is very close to the cut off and in the not too distant future could be a problem.

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.

My point is - at the moment your at a point where the extra swapping in/out of local memory isn't intensive enough generally to have much impact on performance but its right on the edge of where that’s going to be an issue. If your happy to turn down settings to save a few quid then it won't bother you.

I think you have made your point abundantly clear . . . you say that "a 768MB card will not present a performance issue now" and will be "fine for most games today" but go on to say you are troubled or anxious that anyone who doesn't buy a GPU with enough VRam will run into problems in the future . . .

What you are not very clear about is your personal definition of "not too distant future" or exactly what you mean by "it not gonna last a huge amount of time" . . . you are advocating that a punter should Future-Proof their GPU investment by spending additional funds so that when this undefined "distant future" arrives the added premium will safeguard their investment . . .

In essence you are stating the obvious . . . and labouring the point . . .

What you are doing is actually no different from a salesmen selling an extended warranty? . . . asking the punter to pay an additional £40-£50 quid so that if the product doesn't work properly after 12 months they are covered? . . . and if the product does work properly after 12 months they have spent £40-£50 for nothing really!

Taking your Future-Proof ideology to its logical extreme it would seem anyone who really wants peace of mind and remove any doubts about the product functioning well in the "not too distant future" should spend as much money ££ as they can spare on as much Vram as possible? . . . is 1024MB even gonna be enough or perhaps they should step up to a GTX 470 1280MB like you?

The problem I have with discussions like these is that some people are putting so much emphasis on vRam as the be-all-and-end-all of GPU's when there is a lot more too it, shaders, rops, frequencies etc etc . . . sure vRam plays its part but its not the complete picture . . .

This article was quite interesting, comparing a GTX 460 768MB against a HD 5770 1024MB using a bunch of state-of-the-art games . . . strangely enough the card with the less vRam provided a better game play experience?

In every game we tested today, except Aliens vs. Predator due to video card RAM limitations, the ASUS ENGTX460 provided a better gameplay experience than the ATI Radeon HD 5770. When all things were equal in AvP performance was very similar between the video cards. It seems that AvP is very sensitive to video card RAM and uses high quality textures, the limitations of 768MB are showing themselves here. The 1GB HD 5770 was able to surpass the ASUS ENGTX560 in gameplay experience because we could use higher quality video card settings. While that is interesting, it was the only game that behaved like this, and out of this entire evaluation the ASUS ENGTX460 overall provided the best experience from these games.

ASUS ENGTX460 TOP 768MB Video Card Review

People will be happy enough now but I can see them struggling in the not too distant future especially with DX11 games which seem to eat an extra 200MB off the bat.

I'm not sure everyone will want to spend more money ££ to safeguard against this "not too distant future" if they don't have to . . as seen above vRam doesn't always translate as "better gameplay" . . . except Aliens vs. Predator? . . . is this an example of your concern or is this just a badly coded game? . . .

Your point about DirectX® 11 is a also blanket statement that assumes people are using Windows 7? . . . I'm happily still using Windows XP pro and don't see myself upgrading for at least another year maybe? . . . DirectX® 9 still looks good to me!

 

[Big.Wayne]

people do not buy cards for just now. Most will probably want it to last most of 2 years

Do you not read peoples 'recommend me a card' threads? They *always* justify their budgets by stating "its going to last me 2-3 years".

I also work in retail for one of OCUKs competitors and have experience of what drives peoples buying habits from that.

So you have read a few threads on the forums and picked up some info from work and have determined this represents "Most people"? . . .even if that was actually true I would still say it doesn't matter how many people believe or do something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right or indeed the best practice!

Loads of game mods have little in the way of max memory usage planning like pro developers do. Look at all the games out there with high res texture mods. MMOs where you can get 100+ people on screen at once - that's why I had to ditch my 4850 for a 5850 last year.

I see, because you play MMOs that you customised with a high res texture mod and have 100+ people running around you somehow think this is "quite a few situations" and that it applies to everyone else? . . . and this is one of the reasons you state the following?

768 isnt enough in quite a few situations now

Why do you need data on this?

Why do I need data on the vRam trends on the last several years? . . . well I want to see the data so I know its based on some kinda fact and not someone’s opinion? . . . its obvious VRam requirements have increased over the years but I honestly don't know the "facts". . . hence why I am asking if anyone does actually have any "facts"

Were you not into PC's two years ago? And three years bacl?

Believe it or not I've been into PC's since 1995 . . . nearly sixteen years now . . . and been a member of OcUK forums since 2003 . . . when I joined these forums I bought an AGP Radeon 9800 128MB @ £210 and flashed it to a Radeon 9800 Pro to save some money (they were £295) . . . had probably about a dozen GPU's since then 256MB, 512MB, 1024MB etc

At first I kinda got the feeling there was some kinda pattern where the VRam requirements would double every 12months but if that had been the case we would be on 16GB cards by now!

I honestly don't know that much about vRam trends and the only way I personally can find out is to "examine" where we are now and see what is actually needed . . . of course working out what the definition of "needed" is also another contentious point!

We were having these discussions on whether the 1meg 4870's were necessary. A 1meg 4870 is still ok today. A 512 is not

The above is a non specific blanket statement that is based on your own personal opinion and relevant to everyone . . . I'm sure there would be quite a few folk quite happy with a Radeon HD 4870 512MB in their rig right now . . .what O/S do they run? . . . what screen res do they run? . . . what games do they like to play? . . . what level of graphic details do they require?

try to avoid generic opinionated statements like the above please!

Only a year before that, the question on 256 vs 512. And look how quickly the 256 and 320 8800 based cards became obsolete

I see so your working to the basic premise that roughly every 12/18months the vRam requirements of games will double? . . . right or wrong?

Asking for quotations and sources for common knowledge stuff is annoying.

Seeing people making blanket statements based on assumptions and their personal opinions is annoying . . . I'm still none the wiser of exactly the details of this vRam trend knowledge that both you and Rroff profess to have? . . . If you make statements of fact then please be prepared for someone to ask you where you are getting your facts from!