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

[arc@css]

Ok, just my two cents.

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

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).
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.

Another point..I remember playing Clear Sky (vanilla) 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.

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.

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. Do what works for you...

 

[kylew]

i like some of your answers such as when presented with something you dont like you just release the troll and ignore it.

Wow...

Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[coupe69]

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

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 bloody console

Not everone is quite as obsessed as you are at getting good "bang for buck", especially those that reguarly visit the graphics card forum

 

[D13]

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

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

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.

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'

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.

 

[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?

 

[Fanatic]

Never have so many ... been posted by so few

 

[Rroff]

All we are missing are a few more posts by drunkenmaster and it will be complete.

 

[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?

 

[JTrickle]

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"

Might as well have not started the thread if you didn't want people's opinions. Or did you only want to state yours?

On the vram doubling. Nope. I dont think it will happen this time. But it will oft depend on ram prices and they have been high recently. I've got no idea what GDDR will be doing in the next year.

 

[D13]

That's what i mean in difference in benchmarks e.g here;
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...orce-gtx-460-1gb-gtx-460-768mb-review-10.html
at the highest resolution, the extra ram seems to be the difference between playable and not playable.
i dont literally mean exactly %50 i just meant some will some wont. Some ppl are on tight budget and can only spend certain amount, some ppl just want peace of mind that they have the best card they can get for their budget etc.... anyone who spends this kind of money on card is to at least some degree an enthusiast and will have their own personal preferences when making final selection. That is why this question is difficult because to one guy that extra 40 quid is a rip off and to the next it is worth every penny.
When i say the price makes sense i mean end of the day the price cannot be too close because if they were who would buy the slower card?

 

[coupe69]

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!

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

Maybe you can't tell the difference between a solid 60fps and a stuttering mess that's 25fps, or the difference between traditional 2xAA and 32xCSAA etc etc.

Unfortunately though for me I can tell the difference, 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.

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.

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

That is all

 

[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!

 

[drunkenmaster]

The main question is, how do they do overclocked, because stock clocks are rather crap and I'd quite literally never consider buying a 460 of either variant without overclocking them, they are poor performers in general. Crysis is only hitting 30fps at 1280x1024, a res I've long since given up caring about.

At max resolution the 5870 is basically 100% ahead of the 768mb version, and thats the worst value card in the AMD range. The 5850 is the best part of 70% ahead of it, yet it only costs around 40% more at £135 for a 768mb version.

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.

However a heavily overclocked 460gtx 1gb, launched when the best clocking 5850's had become more expensive IS somewhere the 460gtx cards looked attractive in price performance.

One rather large issue with Fermi's manufacturing/design is a rather poopy memory controller and pretty low memory speed, the cards do seem to became rather less bottlenecked as you overclock the memory.

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?

Stock, the 460's are pretty damn average/boring cards I really wouldn't consider, overclocked, due to higher overclocking, they aren't bad at all, and you've ignored that completely.

Does the average 1gb version overclock 20% further than a 768mb version? IF both cards under maximum clocks suddenly establishes a 30% performance difference, or more, then that needs to be considered.

 

[drunkenmaster]

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!

WEll you've been told dx11/dx10 use more memory, you've posted your own screen shot to prove as much. A HUGE number of people buying newer cards have Vista or Win 7, and as such, will use more memory and potentially have much nicer looking games(for those that use dx10/11 effectively, many don't) so basing your argument on your lack of issues, in a rather non common setup is indeed strange.

If 98% of the forum buying a dx11 card is intending to use dx11, which will use 100-200mb more memory, and you're making the argument a card with less memory might be the better option, having used one of those cards with dx11 would normally be taken into account.

You also keep throwing around peoples responses, if someone says MOST games don't use that much memory you seem to jump all over it and qoute it to death as most don't and make a big deal of it.

It doesn't matter if most games don't use that much memory. If you spend £135 on a card, and then find the game you bought does infact need 1gb or options turned down to look much worse and though its only one game, that one game is almost unplayable, how great value does that £135 card look it if simply can't offer you an experience you want.

If ONE GAME you want to play needs 1GB, its game over, you need a 1GB card, thats life.

I as a user, would very much be unhappy that I'd brought a card that works with all games, but one game just sucks on it and for no apparent reason other than I decided to cut my choice of card to close to the bone.


Also I like your assumption and attempted justification that someone read a few threads/posts of people saying they buy for the future and not just one game at a time.

I've seen a SINGLE poster offer your opinion, that you'll buy a card as and when required and you don't buy for the future.

THOUSANDS of threads on here over the years show an absolutely overwhelming majority of people considering the longevity and futureproofness of their cards, dismissing this as one persons view is completely wrong.

Ask 50 people on this forum which people they see more often, people who buy for long term and people who wait for a single game and 49 people would say the former, that IS the opinion of the massive majority, any tech forum will prove that frankly. Almost every "should I buy this or that card" thread on here is based on buying with a hope it will last as long as possible and therefore what card to get.

We've already had several games breach the 1gb mark, GTA4(though through awful coding)and many that want more than 768mb.

If you want top end gaming, you'd be a bit mad to buy under a 1gb card, if you don't mind going with lower settings, you can get a lower end card.

If anyone posted a thread saying they wanted to buy for sub £180 and wanted it to last as long as possible, I'd recommend the 1GB version, simple as that, not least because correct or not, a 1gb will sell for a higher price than a 768mb version, especially if you are selling it another year from now and THAT person wants something that will last as long as possible.

 

[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

 

[arknor]

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? . . .

i havent came across a game i cant yet

i was over 40fps for the majority of metro 2033 maxed out with 4x aa and i dont recall ever going below 30 and thats one of the most demanding games there is

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

From reading some posts in this thread, I think some missed the point of the 768mb 460 completely.
I have a few friends running them who have monitors in the 1440x900, 1280x1024 region. They didn't want new monitors, but like decent quality graphics. This card allowed this to happen.

I don't think this card was made for people gaming at monster resolutions?
Benchmarks and reviews seem to say the same...

Complaining that 768mb is not enough is mild amusing, who is it not enough for?
For the low-mid range user, these cards are perfect. For the average user on these forums, running at 16squillion x 10squillion resolution, who need the best to keep away the tears... a 768mb 460 is and never was meant for you.

 

[easyrider]

The 30 quid spent now on the 256 bit card will yield better returns when people come to move the cards on,

They will lose less money

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-001-PL&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1830

£164.49

Your Point?

Don't tell me that no-one can muster up another £30 for the 256bit card?

 

[arknor]

The 30 quid spent now on the 256 bit card will yield better returns when people come to move the cards on,

They will lose less money

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-001-PL&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1830

£164.49

Your Point?

Don't tell me that no-one can muster up another £30 for the 256bit card?

acording to bigwayne people buying 460's dont want all the graphics options maxed out they want them at medium settings , when they game at 1080P
and the 768mb card can do just aswell as its 1GB brother which in his eyes has added rops , cache , memory , 256bit bus etc is just for the sake of charging people 50 quid more

i just cant fathom why they are buying a 1080p monitor if they are using these settings like he suggests anyone buying such a card will..


aparently with a 460GB card you cant max out the settings anyway which prooves how little bigwayne knows what hes talking about i highly suspect he doesnt own one in which case he shouldnt be telling people who do they are wrong . . .