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

[Big.Wayne]

Hello UV

I see half the benchmarks you posted showing lower min-fps for the SLI setup

Well I marked them out for you so I hope you can see . . .

Benching faster overall is useless if the minimum fps is lower. SLI setups will also have micro-stuttering

Here we go!

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?

Of course I understand . . . but your example is "ridiculous"

Look at the figures . . . the £340 GTX 480 featuring 100% extra vRam (1536MB) is pulling an extra 6FPS minimum in Alien Vs Predator 4xAA, 5FPS minimum in Far Cry 2 4xAA and 2FPS minimum in Unigine v2.0 4xAA

In the other half of the results the 768MB cards are producing higher minimum framerates! . . . an extra 5FPS minimum in Battlefield:BC2 4xAA, an extra 10FPS minimum in Dirt2 4xAA and an extra 9FPS minimum in Just Cause 2 4xAA

 

[Big.Wayne]

So I "assume" you think that none of the bench results @1920x1200 with high settings and 4xAA in post #192 use over 768MB of vRam!

 

[Big.Wayne]

My example was exxagerated

Heheh yes it was . . . as are a lot of other peoples struggling to prove a point . . .

Alien Vs Predator 4xAA
25-61 + microstutter = unplayable
31-56 Single card = playable

When the choice is playable or unplayable, which would you choose?

uv your quite welcome to decide what games you want to play or don't play, and in those games what FPS is playable or unplayble, what graphic settings you choose or don't choose and indeed what O/S you want to run . . . these choices are unique to you and you alone and do not reflect the world in general!

re: microstutter . . . no comment!

In that one single example you picked out, Alien Vs Predator 4xAA the average FPS is overall better on the SLI'ed GTX 460's which means most of the time the gameplay is better . . . if it dropped to 25FPS minimum too often then I agree some action needs to be taken like "OverClocking" the card maybe? . . . or "tweaking" the details down a touch maybe? . . . and the same would need to be done on the GTX 480 too . . . neither of those set-ups look very happy playing at those uBer high settings in that "one" game . . . look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA GTX 470 with 1280MB ram? . . . look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA HD 5870 with 1024MB . . . all of them slower in that one game? . . . less minimum FPS than the 768MB SLi'ed GTX460? . . . what point are you making exactly?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello uv

you're

Are you really correcting my spelling?

I'm fairly sure my choices aren't unique to me

I think you may be suprised actually . . .

I suspect the vast majority of PC gamers would prefer to play their games with the best available settings, rather than lower settings down to suit their hardware

Well they have problems then in that one example your talking about? . . .go back to post #193 and look again at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA and tell me what you see?

The GTX 480 which is currently the worlds best single GPU is "struggling" . . . . you have no choice but to "lower settings down"

no choice uv

I've made my point

You have made no point at all . . . none!

I don't enjoy turning settings down, and I don't enjoy unplayable fps

In that one example you have no choice uv . . . if the GTX 480 can't hack it what ya gonna do?

I'd rather spend more money on better hardware that can cope with high settings.

Like what? . . . the GTX 480 is struggling . . . what do you call "better hardware" than that?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello again uv

The GTX480 has a minimum FPS of 31, which is playable

Maybe for you . . . but 31FPS min is not cool for me personally?

anyway we digress . . . what does this have to do with 768MB vRam vs 1024MB vRam exactly?

When the choice is SLI 460 768s and a single GTX480 (as in, the comparison you yourself made earlier), then I believe the choice is an easy one - either a setup that struggles visibly, or one that doesn't.

Ok you made your choice it seems . . . . one GTX 480 for uv please! . . .

So back to the topic . . . do you think there is really a problem with 768MB of VRam? . . . care to comment on the GTX 470 and HD 5870 points I made earlier?

look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA GTX 470 with 1280MB ram? . . . look at the Alien Vs Predator 4xAA HD 5870 with 1024MB . . . all of them slower in that one game? . . . less minimum FPS than the 768MB SLi'ed GTX460? . . . what point are you making exactly?

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hello again uv

The topic isn't whether 768MB VRAM is a problem, simply whether it's value for money

Haha! . . . a few very "vocal" people think its a problem . . . . a lot of other people stated it "wasn't" worth the extra money £££ when selling at the reduced price . . .

I doubt anyone is saying it's a problem

I do believe you may not have read this thread . . . if you have I suggest you re-read it again . . .

simply that the 1GB offers better performance, which it does. This cannot be argued against

Your right uv . . . . the GTX 460 1024MB offers an average extra 4FPS . . . well done you made a point we established a week ago!

What points? That these cards have a lower FPS? So what?

well they both have more memory and one of them is more expensive . . . in case you missed it people have been "scaremongering" people away from the 768MBs cards because games would be laggy and unplayable . . . what do the "facts" say to us? . . .

The amount of ram available is obviously not that relevant for these cards in this game, wheareas GPU grunt is. This is hardly a revelationary point

I think if you look closely at the benchmarks in post #193 I think you will find that the amount of vRam doesn't appear to be a problem in any of those games . . . I think to some people posting in this thread and reading this thread this is indeed a "revolutionary point"

and it's completely irrelevant to either the GTX460 768 vs 1GB argument

Not at all . . . . there are several people desperately trying to prove that the 1024MB cards should be standard issue otherwise they won't be able to enjoy HD gaming . . . please re-read the thread . . .

or the argument for SLI 460 768's vs a single GTX480.

I wasn't making an argument vs the GTX 480 actually . . . believe it or not I only picked that card to place against the SLI'ed 768MB GTX 460's because the former has such a humoungous vRam . . . . this was to demonstrate that the SLI'ed cards were not "crippled" by their 768MB vRam . . . but if you want to make an argument about the GTX 480 vs the cheaper SLI option then you made your point, your happy to pay a large premium for the slight extra minimum FPS in a few games even though the same card offers less minimum FPS in other games and "Overall" is the slower option according to the average framerates . . . again from benches in post #193

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

for those people who can still source cheaper 768MB GTX 460's for SLI I would say the £100 saving over the GTX 480 is very much worth paying myself . . . you don't agree, no probs!

Why ask me to comment on a point that's completely irrelevant to the discussion?

I think we maybe are having two different discussions! . . . if you would like to comment on the topic then please go ahead . . . re-read the thread first because I think most points have already been made for the 1024MB card!

 

[Big.Wayne]

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

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

12th Oct 2010, 17:37

Check the prices of 460's and 470's now, pricing down.

20th Oct 2010, 16:52

Nice one Gibbo! . . . still room for a little more reduction on the 1024Mb models! . . . see what you can do!

That's been a most productive week! . . . Enjoy your cards Peeps!