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

[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!

 

[uv]

Wayne: 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.

 

[rounddodger]

Bleedin'ell they've gone up [the 460 768MB's in general]. They were about less than 120 all in a few weeks back.

 

[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!

 

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

Bottom line is, am more than happy with the purchase

 

[KidCanary]

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 . . .

That certainly seems to be true. The Asus was only £122 a week or two ago.

 

[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!

 

[Rroff]

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.

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

Also its possible that the lesser ROPs means you could see poor performance in certain scenarios - tho it should show in graphs - where you'd see localised poor performance without massively hitting the averages. i.e. in scenes with heavy smoke effects.

 

[seabiscuit]

Big.Wayne.
A lot of people DO buy 4350's/5450's/GT 210's/8400's. Many people use their systems for general office work/homework or for general video playback. These cards are ideal for a given purpose. While they are not suited for high end gaming, they are not really aimed at that in the first place.

 

[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"

 

[JediFragger]

Hello JediFragger

Hi!


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

I must admit have been playing mostly older titles of late so not noticed, BC2 is the most demanding I've run and was fine.

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? . . .

See above, maybe I need to get some newer titles!

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?

Always max/max atm, will prob change as (and when) I run into probs


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?

Well they're not 480's Palit have stated that the cards are fine without and I don't tend to mind with a 2-year warranty Top card gets a little loud, but I have a well-ventilated case so not too bad & certainly not noticable in games

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

Hope this helps to clarify

 

[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?

 

[Final8y]

Played at 2560x1600 with "max/max"

screenie?


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?

I play BFBC2 maxxed at 2560x1600 & maxxed ingame & max in game AA+AF settings.

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

UT3 maxxed out 2560x1600 + 24XAAA 16AF 60fps Vsync smooth & creamy dreamy goodness.

 

[arc@css]

I'd be interested to hear what the chaps at OcUk that build and test the systems think with regard to this topic.

 

[Rroff]

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?

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.

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

 

[JediFragger]

I play BFBC2 maxxed at 2560x1600 & maxxed ingame & max in game AA+AF settings.

I should bloody hope so with 2 5970s LOL