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

uv · 14 Oct 2010 at 10:12

Hi Wayne

Big.Wayne said:
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? . . .

I can definitely tell the difference between 8xAA and 32xCSAA, game dependant. TF2 shows a particularly noticable difference imo.

What has it got to do with the different cards? Well, the Anand benches only go upto 8xAA (in one game, most benches are at 4xAA). I'm fairly certain that the difference in RAM usage for 4xAA and 32xCSAA is fairly hefty, and would exceed 768MB in many games. Perhaps the Anand benchmark would show a much higher difference in framerate than 4fps if it actually had benchmarks with more AA applied.

JTrickle · 14 Oct 2010 at 10:17

arknor said:
i havent came across a game i cant yet

In the interests of equality, I've fished out the link.
Metro was a game that Tom's claimed the 460 not to have exceeded 768 before it ran out of steam.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/game-performance-bottleneck,2738-6.html

This is the single game that can exceed 768 on higher settings on their article.
GTA4

1) I still rekon the person in the market for £170 graphics cards instead of £120 is all the more likely to be the person to use mods and games that are hard to bench [mmos] and more likely to run over budget.
2)Sooo many games are right on the limit of 768. I guess the ultimate answer to how long before devs start exceeding it [from casual gamers perspective] is how many 8800GTXs + budget 460s got sold.

Those links above are the 'proof' for the other person in the thread wanting info on my claim a 512m 4870 was past it. My 4850 spent most of its life with non maxed game settings and no AA. And that was 2008.
3)People on a £170 are going to want to spend it, instead of saving the £50 for these reasons. Running out of memory is _too big a risk_. Performance hits the wall. Hence why I posted in the thread!

arknor · 14 Oct 2010 at 10:24

754mb on a metro2033 pic i posted in the high res screenshot thread im sure if i installed metro2033 again i could walk around and go over 768.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2393/metro203320100902181201.jpg
pic would have been max settings 2x aa @ 1920x1080 (before i resized it)

i could load of bfbc2 right now and easily go over 768mb with 4x aa (probably the most common AA setting)

found an old pic of BFBC2 single player i posted on another forum thats using 854MB i was probably using 4x AA though but then again most people with these cards are more than likely to want atleast 2x AA which i imagine would still be over 768MB
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6505/bfbc2game20100912011018.jpg

but as big wayne claims anyway

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? . . .

oh wait did my old screenshots just prove atleast with the 1024MB card you can?...

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

Gibbo · 14 Oct 2010 at 10:31

Hi there

The 768MB is becoming harder to get, prices are increasing due to supply and demand and as such prices have gone up again this morning, until we can source a large volume at a low price this is what unfortunately happens. Prices don't always go down, they quite often go up, the I7 950 is another example of this.

JTrickle · 14 Oct 2010 at 10:37

Big W wins the thread. He was right. You put the price up!

/end

JTrickle · 14 Oct 2010 at 10:56

arknor said:
754mb on a metro2033 pic i posted in the high res screenshot thread im sure if i installed metro2033 again i could walk around and go over 768.

Whilst I agree, I figured I make a devils advocate post this morning in a fully awake sober state. And he did ask for information sources. And the only thing I know that gives gpu memory count is Everest, and that doesnt log file it (free version anyway). Cant be bothered to try to screenshot a non modded game in windowed mode... as windowed mode might take more mem?

People who buy £170 budget stuff (about as high as we go, we dont sell the top end stuff) are into their mmos and fps and mods that go with them. People who spend £120 usually just want to confirm it will work with their (inevitably) OEM machine.

You make your choice and you pays your money... Looks like people have been voting with their wallets and the 768 hasnt been putting as many off. Ultimately I dont know how many 1meg 5770s the company I work for sells vs 768 460s.

Even Devs say they rely on stuff like Steam. They problem they have is planning a game 18months before release. The fact that so many games now are hitting 750/760 I think was because of the fairly high % of 768meg cards on Steam's survey for last year. That was a lot of 8800GTXs you could see gamers using.

The question now is how long until you have to lower the detail/AA sliders to get under 768. My opinion is >12<24 months. Will people on £120 budgets be annoyed to be looking at the card market again in 18? They might be annoyed that they cant just buy a cheap 2nd hand 460 768 to sli. But now I'm going against what I've said about the £120 purchaser vs the £170+ 'enthusiast'. Although we have had a couple of people that I've seen on this forum go for 460 768 sli.

arknor · 14 Oct 2010 at 11:03

the only thing I know that gives gpu memory count is Everest, and that doesnt log file it

MSI afterburner has an onscreen display option where you can set it to have a fraps style display like on my screenshots.

you can show as much or as little gpu information as you like i always run with gpu temp , usage , memory usage and fps displaying.

you dont need an msi card to use it either

JTrickle · 14 Oct 2010 at 11:05

How on earth did I miss that Afterburner option!

Emlyn_Dewar · 14 Oct 2010 at 11:16

Christ, it's like banging your head on a brick wall...

The reasoning of "you can always get an extra £30 to go for the 1gb"...
It's more than £30, going from £123 for the 768mb. This reasoning is also flawed as it'll only get you stuck in a loop. Why get a 4770 when I can get a 768mb 460 for £20 more? Why get a 768mb when I can get a 1gb for £30 more? Why get a 460 when I can get a 5850 for £40 more? *repeat*

The idea of budgets go out the window to many in the graphics card forum, but they do exist and many do not want to budge from them.
Until the price goes up a bit more, the 768mb 460 is a great card for the money.

Snooble · 14 Oct 2010 at 11:29

Well now we're talking about each persons individual value of money. I'd happily spend 1k of GPUs if I was earning 200k a year.

Point being, 1gb for 1920< with AA etc, 768mb for 1680< with some possible AA.

End of story.

$AA = "Sometimes I like AA";
if($yougame > 1680){
$card = "460GTX 1GB";
}elseif($yougame <= 1680){
$card = "460GTX 768mb";
}else{
echo "GTFO";
}

JTrickle · 14 Oct 2010 at 11:41

Emlyn_Dewar said:
The idea of budgets go out the window to many in the graphics card forum, but they do exist and many do not want to budge from them.

Sometimes you have to spend less in your full system build budget to accommodate a better gfx card. Also, there is the perspective on why spend £170 when you only lose 10% (from Anandtech benches) for a £50-55 saving.

The argument here is I think Anandtech benches are not in line with expectations of a £170 enthusiast gamer, and are potentially misleading if you were to try to use them as an estimate on true performance differences people will encounter over the cards lifespan.

Emlyn_Dewar · 14 Oct 2010 at 12:11

The 1gb and 768mb cards are for different areas of the market I'd say.
I guess it's wrong that they've called them both the GTX460. One should be the 465 or one should be the GTS460 I guess.

Still, I think people would just rather the card didn't exist. Or people have no right to dare play games with good graphical settings, without paying >£165...

easyrider · 14 Oct 2010 at 12:36

Silly thread

Smacks of sophisicated trolling from Big Wayne.

Bored of CPU's he trys it out in GFX. :rolleyes:

Don't fall for it guys.

robgmun · 14 Oct 2010 at 12:57

He just wants to justify himself for being a cheapskate

FoxEye · 14 Oct 2010 at 13:02

robgmun said:
He just wants to justify himself for being a cheapskate

That's right. Anyone who thinks in terms of "value for money" is a cheapskate, and possibly a threat to our great Capitalism itself.

Burn him at the stake for not spending at least £200 on a gfx card, I say!

You know what? I think I dislike PC hardware snobs even more than 12 year old XBox-live kids.

KidCanary · 14 Oct 2010 at 13:18

Well I don't know enough about Big Wayne to say whether he's trolling or not - But the fact remains that in most benchmarks the 768MB card is only a few FPS behind the 1GB card, even in games that already use more memory than it has.

Whether the same will be true in the future is unknown - But there's very little evidence to suggest that in a year or two the 1GB card will be any more 'superior' to the smaller card than it is now.

easyrider · 14 Oct 2010 at 13:36

Emlyn_Dewar said:
The 1gb and 768mb cards are for different areas of the market I'd say.
.

There is only £30 between the two?

robgmun · 14 Oct 2010 at 13:45

FoxEye said:
That's right. Anyone who thinks in terms of "value for money" is a cheapskate, and possibly a threat to our great Capitalism itself.

Burn him at the stake for not spending at least £200 on a gfx card, I say!

You know what? I think I dislike PC hardware snobs even more than 12 year old XBox-live kids.

He's coming off as some kind of nut job because he thinks it's a great conspiracy to rip us off by charging people an extra £50,

Guess what, we know the specs, we aren’t fooled and he wants to justify it to himself about buying a cheaper card then so be it. But his "I know better then all of you because i saved myself money" attitude simply stinks. He, himself, is PC hardware snob. And he is the worst kind, an evangelical one

Emlyn_Dewar · 14 Oct 2010 at 13:59

easyrider said:
There is only £30 between the two?

768mb for £123, the 1gb is £164, so it's a tiny bit more... Correct me on the price of the 1gb, was just going by places I'd used lately.
Unless the 1gb is £153 or until I can't get a 768mb for £123 or less, then there is not "only" £30 between the two. When the price is this low, I see £30 or more as being a significant increase.

I'm not saying I would buy the 768mb, but some people can't just immediately throw more money at the graphics card budget. I mean it's ridiculous that everyone doesn't meticulously look at framerate to analyse what they could have had for slightly more money... :| *cough*

I'm completely confused by some of the people in graphics cards area. It's different price segments, therefore different market?

Maybe the graphics forum needs split into 2 sections? Cheap peasant cards and high end cards, maybe a third area for meaningless rumours?

arknor · 14 Oct 2010 at 15:21

theres nothing wrong wtih you buying a 768mb card but the way bigwayne goes about preaching is ridiculous.

at first in another thread he was trying to claim the performance different is 4fps and no games need 768mb of memory...

then we show him a lot of games out already use that much memory and he trys to claim its ok they still give the same performance with the same settings...

then its oh well i dont game at max max and no one else does either unless there a hardware snob.

then evidence was presented showing the 768mb stuggles in some games at 1920x1080 where as the 1gb card doesnt.

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...

if your gaming at under 1600 res your good to go but if you spent money on a 1080p monitor in your "budget" then your not going to be a happy bunny when you realise 768mb doesnt cut it