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

[Big.Wayne]

Hey Porcelina

I think that the discussion could possibly do with introducing some framework distinctions

In theory I agree with you but it seems a flame-thrower and a couple of hand-grenades tend to be more appropriate here!

I find that what most people skip out on when they refer to buying graphics cards is what they are looking for in their card. Most people are on a budget and most people who are looking into the higher range of cards are looking to game.

What most people are looking for in a GPU is a piece of hardware that they can plug into a computer that allows them to play their computer games of choice . . . some other people are just looking for a bit of retail therapy in order to improving their mood or disposition . . . as you may have witnessed quite a few people who post here need as much improvement to their moods or dispositions as possible!

There is also two extreme groups of buyers . . . Benchmarkers and e-Slongers . . . its hard to tell the difference between these two as they both tend to spend a "ridiculous" amount of money on their hardware . . . A benchmaker will at least put his hardware to task and try and produce synthetic tests results to compare with his peers around the world . . . but an e-Slonger appears to just want to talk about their hardware on forums?

Now, a lot of potential buyers and certainly a lot of the people who come to these fora for advice want one thing, performance within their budget. However, there is a huge difference between having a set budget set for GPU and just wanting to get whatever you can for that amount and the one who actually want the most bang for the buck.

It's true . . . . some newer members have no idea on the distinction between the two scenarios you describe . . . the problem is if an innocent punter looking for buying advice happens to get into a conversation on the forums with either a Bencharker or an e-Slongers they get quite a distorted picture of what hardware they actually need? . . . both Benchmarker& e-Slongers are looking to enforce the reality of their strange habits by "grooming" the innocent punter and attempting to indoctrinate them into the world of excess!

If the innocent punter is a bit luckier he may bump into someone based a bit more in the RealWorld and will get asked a number of questions about their specific needs, what games they are playing or want to play, what screen res they have, what O/S they are using etc etc . . . they will then have an appropriate hardware solution suggested to them with the aim of keeping as much money in their pocket while at the same time getting a GPU that meets their specific technical requirements . . .

The understanding of the original OverClocking mantra "Bang-for-Buck" is not understood by a great many new forum users . . . I suspect this is due to the hardware manufacturers detesting it as they want to separate the punter from as much of his/her money as possible and have been working on various strategies to erode the Bang-for-Buck ideology from the public domain . . .

It seems to me that most people who object to Big.Wayne's assertions concerning the 768 version of the 460 do not fall in a range where you actually want bang for buck, where the proverbial buck is actually in flux. Most people actually want the most bang for what buck they have.

With enough data/information it should be possible to draw a line in the sand so the end user knows that stepping past this mark is all about diminishing returns where the more they spend the worse value they are getting . . . some people will just look at a benchmark chart and choose the card with the highest score that fits their budget . . even if the card only gets a handful of extra FPS than a GPU costing £40-£50 less its somehow enough to convince them the premium is worth paying?

Additionally, and this is not unimportant, people want safety. And safety when it comes to spec threads is in finding that a lot of people recommend the same thing . . . . . . the herd feels pretty good.

Yeah this is one of the biggest problems we have on this forum . . . this herd mentality leads to a situation called Consensus Trance and Groupthink and is the thing I fight against all the time . . . both scenarios leads to people not thinking for themselves and instead deferring the logic process to a so called "expert" . . . there are a few people on this forum who like to think of themselves as an expert but actually if you scrap away the thin layer of pretence you often find that their actual knowledge is very little or nothing! . . . . and revealing a Wiseman to not be wise often leads to attack!

I think every single person who posts here has the capability to think for themselves and not let other people do their thinking for them . . . all the punter needs is the "facts" to make their own opinion from . . . . sadly these facts are often hidden away or when they do come forward they are skewed or distorted to suit that individuals own point of view . . . .

My Modus operandi on these forums is to make sure the truth is spoken and this can only be done by accurate facts . . . facts speak for themselves!

However you should not underestimate the fact that getting bang for your buck, as stated, quite often means something else than the most lateral interpretation. And it is not always silly to have that view of it.

Getting the most performance for a set budget is not Bang-for-Buck . . . Bang-for-Buck is about getting as much performance as possible while at the same time spending as least money as possible . . . performance data and facts needs to be examined and an individual works out what is the "sweetspot" between performance and price . . . it's not such a hard concept to grasp . . . spending £40-£50 pound extra on a GPU that on average only gives an extra 4FPS in game people play today is madness . . . but somehow a few peeps are now trying to "justify" this premium by making out the extra 256MB of vRam will give the card a much extra useful life? . . .

"If" the 768MB GTX 460 meets someones needs today then by the time it begins to struggle the 1024MB GTX 460 will likely need upgrading too . . . the 1024MB GTX 460 may have extra vRam but compared to the technology for sale in 12 months+ it will look weak . . . personally I'd rather have a card that meets my specific needs today and save £40-£50 to put towards a card that meets my specific needs in 12 months . . . that £40-£50 saved and the funds from the sale of the 768MB GTX 460 in 12 months is gonna get a faster card down the line that what the 1024MB GTX 460 will be down the line . . . and if somebody says they will upgrade the 1024MB model at the same time then why exactly did they pay the premium for the 1024MB model today? . . . for the extra average 4FPS or?

 

[Big.Wayne]

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

why because they build computers? they dont actually play games on the ones they build

arc@css, it doesn't matter what people who build computers think of this subject . . . thats like asking a cow farmer if he thinks eating too much steak leads to high cholesterol

The only authority you need to seek out are the "facts" . . .

if you think a card using 100mb+ memory than it has wont have any performance impact at all your crazy

It's not about what anybody "thinks" . . . it's about the "facts" . . . if you are in possesion of the data that shows if after someone max-max's a game or if the game is just max-max by default and the vRam on the card is exceeded and this in turn leads to the game becoming unplayable or has its playability reduced then please post up your data . . . The only way I would be crazy would be to just believe that what every angry person screams at me is a universal truth? . . .

Do you think its a bit strange that almost every single review site has given the 768MB GTX 460 a glowing review and all the benchmark data shows good FPS results? . . . on average coming in at a handful of less FPS than the 1024MB version? . . . I don't understand why you are making such a big fuss over this?

why do you think games like [Grand Theft Auto IV] dont let you pick settings that would use more memory than your GPU has?

I dunno? . . . maybe that specific game is coded badly and runs like carp if the VRam limit is exceeded so the coder built in a mechanism to restrict the game looking bad? . . . do you assume if this individual game uses a colossal amount of textures and runs like carp that all games use a colossal amount of textures and runs like carp? . . . and therefore "justify" that everyone needs to spend more money for a game they may not play?

and yes bigwayne the majority of the memory will be textures go play [Battlefield Bad Company 2] single player and after a short time he card will easily be over 800mb of memory

now turn the textures down to "medium" and only 500mb of memory is needed you clearly have no idea what your talking about and want to argue for the sake of it.

You know, if I didn't know what I was talking about do you think I would be learning anything from you the way you are talking? . . . did it ever occur to you that your coming across a bit huffy and puffy? . . . . take a chill pill man and when you feel nice and calm come back and join us in a cool, polite and calm discussion . . . if you can bring any "facts" with you that would be much appreciated by all parties involved!

join a debate club or something

I already did!

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/

Fora de OverClocker

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey arc@css

To sum up..

To sum up? . . . hehe we have barely started?

Some games will require more vram / beefier architecture on the card than others. We've already established that.

Kinda stating the obvious!

Would be nice to see some FPS "timelines" on some of the newer games where perhaps the vRam requirements are greater than the card . . . does it just reduce FPS by a set amount or is it judder, skip, judder? . . . should be an easy enough question to answer? . . . all the min/avg/max results that are published look pretty good for the 768MB GTX 460?

Although it may not be able to max-max all the games out is this due to the cards architecture (less shaders, slower cores, less rops etc) or is this due to the vRam?

I don't think anyone is expecting a £120-£130 card to be able to cut through every single game at high res and ultra settings with a playable framerate but is the 768MB model really as bad a choice as one or two people are making out? . . . is the £40-£50 premium really worth it for the added vRam? . . . from the data I am seeing it doesn't look like it today? . . .

Some games when maxed out don't look that much better than when on medium or high-er settings, others will and do such as Stalker (IMO)

Yup but as said is anyone really expecting a GTX 460 regardless or its vRam to be able to Max Max any game? . . . . obviously not right? . . .

An old game I know but (again subjective ) Doom 3 is a half decent example. Not 'that' great a difference between medium and ultra settings though defo noticeable imo.

Medium and Ultra? . . . don't you mean High & Ultra?

I personally couldn't see the difference between High & Ultra myself (apart from the FPS hit with Ultra) . . . and I'm not one to pay out my sheckles if I can't see a visual difference? . . . in that example I'm not sure why anyone else would either except Johnny Max-Max who would like to tell people on the forums what hes got set in the game graphic options!

Another point..I remember playing Clear Sky on my old lcd monitor, 1680x1050 with an ATI (AMD) 4870 512mb (not a 768 I appreciate). I wanted to play at that res with at least 2xAA and maximum graphics settings. 'I' could see the difference, not everyone will, which is fair enough. I found that I couldn't get a decent enough frame rate with that set up.

Do you think that was due to the HD 4870 architecture or the 512MB vRam? . . . or maybe a combination of both?

If you are inclined to select auto in the graphics options then a 1gb is not needed in most games. If you are someone that likes to squeeze out a bit more eye candy then you will need more memory and a card with a more powerful architecture.

Yes I understand that but we are not talking about someone who wants to Max Max any game at will but instead about someone wanting to enjoy some gaming "today" and choosing between the 768MB and the 1024MB GTX 460 . . . is the added £40-£50 going to improve the gameplay? . . . the benchmarks suggest not? . . . a few forum users are "conjecturing" its gonna be skip, stutter, skip, stutter city with the 768MB but nice and smooth with the 1024MB?

A lot of this is subjective, I see no clear right or wrong. Life is usually grey in my experience, but that is for 'you' decide.

You may be missing the point? . . . The problem about this topic being "subjective" is how can we give advice to anyone if it isn't based on "Fact" . . . if someone comes to the forum next week and is trying to make a choice between the two GTX 460's and weighing up if the added premium is worth it what are they going to be told?

Anyone who steers the punter towards spending more money than perhaps they need to cannot and must not do so based on "subjective" reasons! . . . the "facts" have to be examined and the best advice has to be given based on these "facts" . .

It will not do for people giving advice to "scaremonger" a punter on to a more expensive product based on the fact the person giving the advice happens to like playing MMO's featuring high texture MODs and game at high res with 100+ players? . . . this has no bearing on the person looking for buying advice does it? . . .

The problem is some people giving advice don't really appear to be in possession of many "facts" and are kinda twisting the information they give to the prospective buyer to suit their own perspective . . . i.e I deem I personally need a more expensive card for my own reasons and circumstances and therefore I deem you need a more expensive card based on my own reasons and circumstances?

 

[Big.Wayne]

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!

Well actually I care tbh, If I wanted to play at some miserable res with a bunch of smeary textures, low lod and low framerate I'd buy a ****** console

You appear to have missed the point coupe69!

So you are basically admitting you are more concerned about what it says in the games graphic option page than what you actually see when you game? . . . doesn't matter if you can barely tell the difference visually or not but just that you see the words Max Max in the control panel! . . . and are prepared to pay good money out for this? . . . classic!

getting good "bang for buck"

So what do you think about the two cards being discussed in this thread? . . . details in post #1 in case you missed it?

Are you saying you would personally pay the premium or recommend someone else looking for buying advice pay the premium for the GTX 460 1024MB or?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello D13

so you are saying 40 quid; £135 768mb compared to £175 1gb is too far apart?

We are just looking at the two cards and discussing is the premium £££ worth paying? . . . and if so why is it worth paying?

end of the day without research i think it is known that higher resolution benefits from more gpu mem?

Did you look at the anandtech benchmark data in post #1 . . . you can see the "benefits" work out to be an average 4FPS increase . . . worth it or?

Also it depends on the individual, yes the actual performance benefit is seemingly small (it varies so much from benchmark to benchmark out there), but 50/50 some ppl will pay that 40 quid for the extra kick and some will think just screw it save 40 quid for slightly lower performance.

So you "guesstimate" that 50% of potential punters out there would pay an extra £40-£50 premium for the added average 4FPS? . . . really? . . . why do you think they would do this? . . .

You say the results "varies so much from benchmark to benchmark out there" but I didn't see this myself . . .would you be so kind as to show me another set of bench results that paint a different picture please? . . .

I think perhaps the real terms benefit of more mem isn't that big a deal. But overall i would say those prices 'make sense'

You would say "those prices make sense" . . . why do they make sense? . . can you explain please?

Also the key thing to pricing is not just what is the appropriate price, but whether it is selling at that level. If enough ppl cough up the extra cash as far as ocuk/nvidia are concerned it is at the right price.

Thats correct . . . something is only worth as much as someone will pay for it . . . but why exactly do you think that people would "cough up the extra cash" for an average extra 4FPS?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Not at all, it's clearly you that's missing the whole point in having a gaming PC

Well I'm not sure how you worked that one out? . . .

Maybe you can't tell the difference between a solid 60fps and a stuttering mess that's 25fps

That's quite a ridiculous thing to say? . . . smooth framerate is probably the easiest thing to tell? . . . what has this got to do with the difference between the GTX 460 768MB and 1024MB btw?

or the difference between traditional 2xAA and 32xCSAA etc etc

Hmmm . . . well gaming at 1920x1200 I'm not sure I could tell much difference beyond 8xAA actually? . . . am I going blind or are you checking in the control panel? . . . good for you gaming with 32xCSAA, you must be very happy with your purchase and even happier that you told everyone!

what has this got to do with the difference between the GTX 460 768MB and 1024MB btw? . . .

Unfortunately though for me I can tell the difference

between 2xAA and 32xCSAA sure thats easy . . . but beyond say 8xAA I not sure how easy it would actually be . . . probably have to examine some still screeshots maybe . . just to make sure your getting your monies worth!

what has this got to do with the difference between the GTX 460 768MB and 1024MB btw? . . .

and I'll also add that I play a good deal of my games in 3D vision which if you didn't know cripples framerates.

I didn't know that actually . . . I know very little about 3D vision? . . .

what has this got to do with the difference between the GTX 460 768MB and 1024MB btw? . . .

Like I said if I wanted sub-standard framerates and low lod I'd be playing my games on a 150 quid console, which by the sounds of it would suit you down to the ground.

Really? . . . how did you work that out? . . . I like high quality graphics and smooth 60FPS+ framerate @1920x1200 with a dash of AA myself . . . dunno about 32xCSAA though? . . . sounds a bit excessive heh!

Btw . . . what has this got to do with the difference between the GTX 460 768MB and 1024MB btw? . .

All this trolling coming from the guy who's still running a DX9 XP machine

Really strange? . . . you come into a thread, ignore the topic completely, reveal to everyone what a "connoisseur" of high end graphics you are, make comments on what operating system I am using and then call me a troll? . . . hehe nice one!

I would ask you again what you think about the two graphic cards being discussed here but I'm not sure the answer would be that useful really?

Thanks anyway for your helpful "contribution" to this thread . . . ciao!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello drunkenmaster

Do the 768/1gb versions firstly, overclock to the same speeds, secondly, do they maintain a similar performance gap when overclocked or does the 1gb version manage to extend the performance advantage as with more memory bandwidth/lower latency the rops/bandwidth really start to show the difference?

It's a good question . . . hopefully someone can answer it!


[Off Topic]

The 5850 is still around 50% faster at the more common 1920x1200 res, which makes we heavily question peoples "the 460gtx is great value" philosophy, its been rubbish since day one.

11 games tested and average 9FPS advantage to the Radeon HD 5850 1024MB

Stock, the 460's are pretty damn average/boring cards I really wouldn't consider

 

[Big.Wayne]

[Off Topic]

The 5850 is still around 50% faster at the more common 1920x1200 res, which makes we heavily question peoples "the 460gtx is great value" philosophy, its been rubbish since day one.

In general I blanket ignore results that are CPU limited

iXBT Labs - GeForce GTX 460 Roundup - link courtesy of stulid

As for what I said, they do suck

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello Troezar

Hmm I don't really see what the arguement is in this thread, more performance costs more. Seems obvious to me!

I explained this point to arc@css at the end of post #65 if you would like to read it . . . here is a little bit of it

The problem is some people giving advice don't really appear to be in possession of many "facts" and are kinda twisting the information they give to the prospective buyer to suit their own perspective . . . i.e I deem I personally need a more expensive card for my own reasons and circumstances and therefore I deem you need a more expensive card based on my own reasons and circumstances?

I think it's important that someone asking for help choosing any hardware is given good advice that serves their best interests and not the person recommending the hardware interests . . .

Some people want bang for buck some want performance at any cost

Indeed, that is beyond the scope of this specific discussion though . . . I have no problem at all if any of my fellow forum members choose to spend a vast amount of money on any of their hardware but what I object too and will always object to is if they "scaremonger" people away from a more affordable option based on reasons that simply are not based in a shared reality . . .

If they do this for good reasons based on "Fact" then they should have no problem producing the "Facts" to backup what they are saying and everyone is happy . . . however if they do this for reasons that are not based on "Fact" and instead "Conjecture" or "Speculation" then that needs to be made abundantly clear . . .

Quite a few people are clearly unable to distinguish fact from fiction, personal belief from the truth . . .

The two will never agree to change their philosophy, their brains are wired up differently

Hmmm . . . I'm not sure that is true but again this is beyond the scope of this discussion . . . I believe most people with a finite amount of cash ££ do enjoy value-for-money . . . if not I have no idea why OcUK have "This Week Only" of why indeed we see thousands of consumers flocking to Summer & Winter "SALES"

I gave up trying to convince people I was right years ago, of course they're still wrong but now I let them just think they are right!

It's not really about you personally being right or them personally being wrong . . . it's about all of us working together as a friendly, polite and intelligent group to search out the Truth . . . . to examine "Facts" and be prepared to discard any belief we may have had in order to increase our "Knowledge" and get closer to the Truth . . . the person who is never wrong is the person who will never learn!


Epistemology

 

[Big.Wayne]

Palit GeForce GTX 460 768MB GDDR5

£117.49 inc



Palit GeForce GTX 460 Sonic 1024MB GDDR5

£164.49 inc

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello arknor

I'm absolutely amazed at your propensity to misunderstand things and then fly off into a world of myth and fantasy and literally twist a situation into something it's not . . . stunning!

the argument was games have already started to use more than 768mb of memory so you will either have to have no AA , turn the game settings down or lower the resolution.

A forum user called raikesi made a thread called "460 1gb and 768mb" and asked "What is the difference between the palit 460 1gb and the 768mb in power and use?"

He was shown the £50 note Picture and a debate broke out as to why he should spend the extra money based on the evidence presented . . . after a while with no real "justification" made as to why the premium was worth paying you joined the conversation with the following two points:

"they [benchmarks] are telling you max , min average ? not frame skip ,stutter , frame skip ,stutter , frame skip anytime the card reachs more than 768 memory" #39

"most games already use more than 768mb of memory at 1080. as i said min/max are useless when your stuttering along out of memory" #42

In response to this I asked you the following two "questions"

[min/max are useless] if you can produce some tangible "Facts" to backup this I would be most interested . . . I would imagine you could do some testing with a FPS tracker that showed the framerate across a timeline . . . these "stutters" you speak off would be very easy to note as the framerate counter would most likely dive down to 0FPS for a second? #50

[most games already use more than 768mb] can you produce any data which shows the games you speak off using more than 768MB of vRam please?

You could produce no "facts" as to why the benchmarks were useless but rather postulated that they were based on a link to a foreign article that showed some testing where 10 games out of 28 @ 1920x1200 with pretty much Max Max settings had used more than 768MB of vRam . . . "most games" = 10 games (out of 28) in one review that had been hand configured to Max Max settings . . . "most games" . . . is this flawed reasoning?

"its clearly obvious even now 768mb of ram on a video card is barely cutting it at settings most people who buy one of these cards are likey to want" #52

"are you dense? how hard is it to understand game benchmarks tell us 2-3 things MINIMUM , AVERAGE , MAXIMUM. which tells us 3 simple things , it does not tell you how the game actually ran, it doesnt tell you if its actually smooth framerates. buy your 768mb card for all i care , you know games already exist that use more than that , dont come crying on the forums if your games judder along at what should be a nice smooth fps" #63

"sure if you dont mind games using more than 768mb of memory and potential not smooth framrates even if they are only 4fps different acording to a benchmark. dont worry the cache , rops etc extra arent needed nvidia added them for ***** and giggles" #63

"no they are not becauze minimum frame rates dont tell you if its smooth ,suffers from stutters or juddering. it only tells you what the lowest point the frame rate dropped to , you could be getting micro stutters at 100fps , min , max tell us nothing of use." #78

Essentially I did nothing more than ask you to backup your statements . . . you came back with data that showed it was possible to exceed vRam in scenarios with Max Max settings and a few games and then went on to "assume" that because it was possible to use more than 768MB that everyone gaming at 1920x1200 must buy a 1024MB card, regardless of whether they would be playing these games or not, regardless of whether they would be running these few games at Max Max settings and regardless of what O/S they were running . . . a total Blanket Statement based on a scenario that did not strictly apply to the O.P or indeed everyone!

big wayne thinks the added cache , rops , higher memory bus and added memory is some big con to charge 50 quid more

Interesting . . . so me asking for "Facts" on why someone should pay a £50 odd premium has been twisted in your mind to this? . . . If I ask a question you should really try and answer it . . . as said before I would be grateful if you could please not tell me what I think! . . . if you can't be bothered to answer the questions I'm cool with that? . . . if you are "unable" to answer the questions I won't think anything less of you either but it does make it hard for you to recommend hardware to myself or anyone else if you can't answer questions satisfactorily as to why the £50 odd premium is "justified"

weve argued min/max dont tell you how a game is actually running when the card starts swapping memory.

Well in the case of the GTX 768MB vs 1024MB you've made a very big point of this but sadly your statement is based on "conjecture" . . . you have not actually produced any "Fact" . . . I may believe you and I may not believe you but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you or I believe but about the "Facts" and not "Conjecture" or the "Assumption" that people are playing a few of the games @ 1920x1200 with Max Max settings which are capable of exceeding 768MB vRam . . . and indeed "factually" what happens if the vRam limit is exceeded? . . . .

Simply put, all I have done is not taken your word as gospel, asked you to produce data/fact to backup your argument which thus so far you have still failed to produce . . . if you make statements of fact you must be prepared to produce the "Fact" . . . . sorry!

is it frame skipping ? is it smooth ? suttering? you cant tell from a min/max/avg graph you need a video of each running side by side..

So your basically saying that min/max/avg benchmark charts are no longer valid? . . . we must no longer use or refere to min/max/avg benchmark charts on OcUk forums? . . . I think your going to have a very hard time trying to make this point stick . . . and your also saying that if a game with its graphic options Max Max can exceed a certain amount of vRam then its not playable without reducing some of the graphic options? . . . right or wrong?

most people seem to have monitors twith a native res of 1920x1080 or 1900x1200

Where are you getting that information from? . . . is that true or another of your incorrect assumption?

1. 1680 x 1050 (17.71%)
   
2. 1280 x 1024 (16.16%)
   
3. 1920 x 1080 (14.27%)

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

a 768mb card wont cut it unless you turn the textures right down.

Blanket statement again . . . assumes you know what games the person is playing and what O/S they are running! . . . stop the Blanket statements please!

• Windows 7 64 bit (32.25%)
• Windows XP 32 bit (27.93%)

Heres a scenario that "breaks" your Blanket statement . . . 768MB card with textures turned right up! . . . is it possible that someone out there who may be looking at the 768MB GTX 460 may have a bunch of these 16 games in mind or?

some games like GTAIV wouldnt even let you use settings which would need more GPU memory than you have.

Oh good grief . . . one game does not the whole world make!

Do you deem that a 768MB graphics card should be *blanket* not recommended because there is one game out there is hard-coded to not let a user select too high graphics settings which would exceed vRam? . . . do you deem that a 768MB graphics card should be *blanket* not recommended because there is some games out there that if configured Max Max will exceed the vRam limit? . . . and according to your "Conjecture" will become unplayable? . . .

You are *blanket* recommending the 1024MB card based on the "assumption" that people will be playing these games or like to play any of these games? . . . and you deem that such a punter with a budget of £120-£170 would not be prepared to play at anything less that Max Max settings and therefore the GTX 460 1024MB is the best choice?

he just ignores than and shows his worthless min/max graphs and advises people to go 768 because its cheaper

Haha! . . . they are not "my" charts . . . I repeat they are not "my" charts . . . they are public domain charts created by various review websites and have been used for years and years as a source of reference, they are the only source of "fact" that anyone has presented in this thread so far and there will be more to come (sorry!) . . . please do not be upset if the whole world is not prepared to ignore these min/avg/max benchmarks because you say they are "worthless" based on your "conjecture" . . . . you may be right or you may be wrong . . . if you are right then "prove" you are right? . . . don't get angry with me because you cannot prove something?

The discussion is why someone should pay the £50 odd premium for the GTX 460 1024MB? . . . what benefit will it bring them beyond the average extra 4FPS . . .

[Off Topic]

This is not my argument, it is external to myself and public domain, if I get banned, nuked, burnt @ stake etc this argument does not cease to exist . . . therefore anyone who wishes to contribute further *must* only address the hardware as this is the topic not me! . . . if you feel some of the posts in this thread break the OcUk forum rules please use the RTM function! . . . is there any MODs in the Graphics Cards forum anymore?

"We also expect members to behave respectfully and not launch personal or abusive attacks on other members. Those who post for the sole purpose of causing trouble are not welcome here and will be dealt with accordingly."

 

[Big.Wayne]

 

[Big.Wayne]

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!

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

Hey JediFragger!

I was just doing a bit of SLI homework and stumbled across what looks like an obvious lack of vRam symptom showing up in some Ultra High, 8XAA 2560x1600 min/avg/max benchmarks . . .


768MB vRam limitation detected . . .

 

[Big.Wayne]

But looking at the 1920x1200 results with more "Moderate" settings the pair of SLI'ed 768MB nVidia® Fermi's appear to cope quite well! . . .

 

[Big.Wayne]

[Off Topic]

play at some miserable res with a bunch of smeary textures, low lod and low framerate

All this trolling coming from the guy who's still running a DX9 XP machine

there may not be as many games as I initially thought there would be at 1080P that take up more than 768MB of video memory

its clearly obvious even now 768mb of ram on a video card is barely cutting it at settings most people who buy one of these cards are likey to want

dont come crying on the forums if your games judder along at what should be a nice smooth fps

maybe see if bigwayne offers a stutter back garuntee

not this crap again?

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

you clearly have no idea what your talking about and want to argue for the sake of it.

he clearly doesnt know much about the cards other than one is 768 one is 1024 and theres a suposed £50 price difference

hes ridiculous he trys to preach without knowing what hes talking about them comes back with some sophisticated trolling to ignore anything he doesnt want to hear.

buy a 768mb card by all means but dont expect to play with any AA or high texture settings at 1920x1080...

it does seem to take a bit more than i expected to push the 768 over a cliff

 

[Big.Wayne]

You love it!

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

 

[Big.Wayne]

And nVidia® 3D Vision™

 

[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

 

[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!

 

[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!