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

[JediFragger]

dont make bigwayne beat you with some more...

Christ please no, I've had enough

 

[Big.Wayne]

You love it!

If you don't then you know what you can do!

 

[RavenXXX2]

Not at all, here's another game I found that loves using up lots of memory.

Company of heroes quite an old game now but excellent gameplay, and I'm sure plenty of GTX 460 owners will want their new cards to be able to run this smoothly with all the eye candy turned up?

Check coupe out with the 32xAA and 8x super sample transparency antialiasing.

 

[Big.Wayne]

And nVidia® 3D Vision™

 

[coupe69]

Check coupe out with the 32xAA and 8x super sample transparency antialiasing.

Huh? No just using maximum in game options, here's another one with maximum in game graphics options:

The same point of the game, only now just 4X anti-aliasing applied:

And again, this time with no anti-aliasing at all.

Notice how it's still well over 768MB even with no anti-aliasing

I'm still of the opinion a 1GB card would be by far the safer choice, if games of today (or in the case of COH which is 4 years old!) are using close to or over the 768MB limit now then who knows what it's going to be like in another year or so?

I remember when the 8800GT was released a cheaper 256MB version was also available, I wonder how the people who purchased that version are getting on with modern games now? I'm sure the 512MB version is holding up far better.

It was only five years ago that people were asking if 128MB was enough! As games evolve they're using more and more vram not less FACT.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Like I've said in a previous post there's only so much detail you can turn down before it starts to look too similar to a console for my liking

 

[TranceCommunity]

Would 2 GTX 460 768s in SLI overcome the memory restriction or would they still have an issue?

noob here

 

[Rroff]

nope you still only haev 768MB useable memory in SLI - each card needs a mirror copy of the data to get best performance.

 

[coupe69]

aparently when a card goes over its vram theres no ill effects as shown by min/max graphs

I'd seriously love to know what happens when memory starts getting swapped into system ram. i cant believe theres no micro stuttering or anything

When a card uses up all its vram the frames drop like a lead balloon, as demonstrated in the following benchmarks between the 8800GT 256MB + 512MB.

 

[KidCanary]

It was only five years ago that people were asking if 128MB was enough! As games evolve they're using more and more vram not less FACT.

I don't think anyone's disputing that - Of course new games will use more. The question is how much impact that has on smaller cards, and based on benchmarks the impact is not that large.

When a card uses up all its vram the frames drop like a lead balloon, as demonstrated in the following benchmarks between the 8800GT 256MB + 512MB.

Not necessarily true - As shown in the benchmarks of the 460 768MB against the 1GB card, in games that use more than vram than the smaller card has.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

Good mention of the 8800GT, that was a prime example of a good card crippled with low memory.

I had no idea that Company of Heroes used so much vram. God bless you aging 1gb 4870.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

The troll is stong in this thread.

If you want a bit more future-proofing get the 1GB version, if you don't think is necessary, get the 768MB.

Personally I was going to get the 768mb but then decided I might as well get the 1024mb for the few extra notes (especially given that in the past I got a 256 over a 512, and it didn't work out well for me). Besides its only 38 quid difference today. Well, unless you get the Palits, and don't mind going deaf. Its getting ordered with CPU, RAM, Mobo, new PSU, so it doesn't exactly add much to the total overall cost.

 

[Strife212]

Yes let's all use 32mb graphics cards :/

 

[FoxEye]

The troll is stong in this thread.

If you want a bit more future-proofing get the 1GB version, if you don't think is necessary, get the 768MB.

Seems to me that if you're exclusively looking at vRam usage, even 1GB isn't "future proof", given that examples were given of games using more, today.

The issue that no-one has addressed in any meaningful way, is what impact running out of vRam will have on performance. Or to put it another way, why running out of vRam seems to have a minimal impact on FPS in today's games, but would have a dramatic impact on FPS in future games.

It's a shame no one seems to own both these cards, and can give us a comprehensive show-down between them.

 

[Marine-RX179]

When a card uses up all its vram the frames drop like a lead balloon, as demonstrated in the following benchmarks between the 8800GT 256MB + 512MB.

Well, I don't think running out on VRAM by over 100% (256MB vs 512MB) is good representation for comparing 768MB to 1GB (running out of VRAM by 33% max).

Let's assume a game uses 850 of VRAM, the 768MB card will still have around 90% what's required for the VRAM max usage, whereas the 256MB card will has less than 35% of what's required for the VRAM max usage.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

The issue that no-one has addressed in any meaningful way, is what impact running out of vRam will have on performance. Or to put it another way, why running out of vRam seems to have a minimal impact on FPS in today's games, but would have a dramatic impact on FPS in future games.

Minimal effect? Looks to me like it falls off a cliff in the charts above.

But here, if you want to risk occasional stuttering and all as textures load, and that doesn't annoy you, go right ahead and get the 768. Its only going to get worse as time goes on.

Its not like you're going to go out of your way and find a 512 card these days, because it costs less is it?

 

[KidCanary]

Its not like you're going to go out of your way and find a 512 card these days, because it costs less is it?

Of course not. I don't think any current gen cards come in 512 anymore (though I could be wrong), so any existing cards would be far too out of date to be a sensible purchase now.

The 768Mb cards aren't out of date yet though, and shouldn't be for a while yet, at which time the current 1GB cards will also be out of date.

I think the key point, as many others have said, is what resolution you use. A 768MB card seems to match up well with the 1GB at a resolution of up to 1920x1200. I'm not sure what happens beyond that res, and I can't remember if I've seen any benchmarks of it (except for one Crysis benchmark at 2560x1600 with very high settings in which both cards were useless).

I play games at 1680x1050, as my monitor doesn't go any higher and I have no plans to replace it - So for me I'm fairly sure the 768 card will be absolutely fine, and it's the one I intend to buy soon.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello TranceCommunity

Would 2 GTX 460 768s in SLI overcome the memory restriction or would they still have an issue?

Please take a look at the benchresults in post #193 and tell me what you see . . .

I can see a pair of cards with a "combined" 768MB memory benching faster overall @ 1920x1200 with decent settings than a "much" more expensive £340.00 card featuring 1536MB memory (GTX 480) . . . lets be clear about this . . . that's 100% extra memory basically not doing very much at all!

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

You can see if a few tests the card with 100% extra memory just manages to pull back a handful of minimum FPS . . .

Now take a look at the chart in post #192 which shows a few benches @ 2560x1600 with 8XAA and you can clearly see what happens once the vRam limit is breached . . . the little 768Mb cards just can't hack these super dooper high settings! . . . . but these are really extreme circumstances and obviously anyone insisting on play at such high res with such high settings would obviously be prepared to shell out a heap of extra ££££

Some people are placing waaay to much importance on vRam, sure its part of the picture especially if your intending to keep the card/s for 3 years but you have to ask yourself do you want to invest a £100 premium for something that offers precious little today? . . . . if you invest the extra today I agree that in 3 years the extra vRam will certainly yeild this "value" but again in 3 years a pair of 1024Mb cards in SLI will be *much* slower than whatever cards will be selling then . . . .

Meanwhile today in a lot of the benches using modern & demanding games @1920x1200 the 768MB SLI'ed cards look very happy indeed . . . just like the wallet of the person who owns them!

 

[uv]

I can see a pair of cards with a "combined" 768MB memory benching faster overall @ 1920x1200 with decent settings than a "much" more expensive £340.00 card featuring 1536MB memory (GTX 480) . . .

I see half the benchmarks you posted showing lower min-fps for the SLI setup.
Benching faster overall is useless if the minimum fps is lower. SLI setups will also have micro-stuttering (I've only just moved away from a crossfire setup, before anyone asks, micro-stuttering was definitely evident).

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?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Good mention of the 8800GT, that was a

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

Minimal effect? Looks to me like it falls off a cliff in the charts above.

Why don't you look at the hardware in the topic instead? . . . check post #193 and tell me what you see? . . . do you see anything that "falls off a cliff" . . . I can't see it?

if you want to risk occasional stuttering and all as textures load, and that doesn't annoy you, go right ahead and get the 768. Its only going to get worse as time goes on

Nobody is forcing you to buy any hardware you do not want, and likewise you can't force or "scaremonger" anyone to buy hardware they don't want? . . . 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 . . .

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?

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!