-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
I can see you raising the price of the 768MB GeForce GTX 460
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
sometimes, waiting a week isn't an option, especially when you've recently heard *whirrr WHIIRRRR WHIRRR WHIRRRR* *CLUNK* *eerie silence* BEEP!!BEEP!!BEEP!!BEEP!! Computer shuts off as the fan fails and the graphics card expires..
At this point you re-evaluate your sad life and read a book or get laid
Every time I do that, the money gets spent on something 'essential' instead
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!
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!
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!
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?
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."
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!
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!
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"
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!
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?
Where are you getting that information from? . . . is that true or another of your incorrect assumption?
- 1680 x 1050 (17.71%)
- 1280 x 1024 (16.16%)
- 1920 x 1080 (14.27%)
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%)
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?
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."
I agree with BW, of course a 460 768 will cut it at 1920x res, you're not going to max out the demanding games with a 460 at that res anyway so you're likely to turn AA off or other IQ settings down. In the end it comes down to the individual with the card and his preference in games and IQ settings as to whether or not a 460 768 is fine at 1920 res, not someone on a forum dishing out blanket statements that can't be backed up.
OT, some individuals think it's fine to launch personal attacks in this thread, I suggest they read the sticky at the top of this forum and think on.
OT, some individuals think it's fine to launch personal attacks in this thread, I suggest they read the sticky at the top of this forum and think on.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
I haven't had any probs (as yet!) at 2560*1600, but I must admit I don't use (need) AA at this level
With the 1GB version you're paying for a bit of future-proofing more than anything, argue all you like but the simple fact is (and always has been) when it comes to PC's the more memory you have the better... it's only about 2 years ago that ATI 4870 users were arguing that 512MB is all you need.
I'm not sure the 1GB is really worth the difference but in 1-2yrs time when games are storing more and more textures it could mean the difference between smooth and stuttery gameplay.
I'm not sure the 1GB is really worth the difference but in 1-2yrs time when games are storing more and more textures it could mean the difference between smooth and stuttery gameplay.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
I think I will drop my 2p as well.
Before when the 768MB was at £125 and the 1GB was at £175, there was a £50 price gap between the two cards. Back then I always wondered...if people would pay £50 for 3-5fps extra on the 1GB card, why won't they bother to throw in another £50 for getting the GTX470 at £225, especially the GTX470 deliver average 9-15fps over the GTX460 1GB (three times the frame rate of the gap between the GTX460 768MB and 1GB)!?
But now with the GTX460 768MB at around £140, and the GTX460 1GB at £165, the decision to go for the GTX460 1GB is easier make more sense than before, since the price gap is not as big anymore.
Before when the 768MB was at £125 and the 1GB was at £175, there was a £50 price gap between the two cards. Back then I always wondered...if people would pay £50 for 3-5fps extra on the 1GB card, why won't they bother to throw in another £50 for getting the GTX470 at £225, especially the GTX470 deliver average 9-15fps over the GTX460 1GB (three times the frame rate of the gap between the GTX460 768MB and 1GB)!?
But now with the GTX460 768MB at around £140, and the GTX460 1GB at £165, the decision to go for the GTX460 1GB is easier make more sense than before, since the price gap is not as big anymore.
Last edited:
I think I will drop my 2p as well.
Before when the 768MB was at £125 and the 1GB was at £175, there was a £50 price gap between the two cards. Back then I always wondered...if people would pay £50 for 3-5fps extra on the 1GB card, why won't they bother to throw in another £50 for getting the GTX470 at £225, especially the GTX470 deliver average 9-15fps over the GTX460 1GB (three times the frame rate of the gap between the GTX460 768MB and 1GB)!?
But now with the GTX460 768MB at around £140, and the GTX460 1GB at £165, the decision to go for the GTX460 1GB is easier make more sense than before, since the price gap is not as big anymore.
Except the palit 768mb is £117 so £48 cheaper and the gap is almost the same as the £50 it was originally...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
At £117 a GTX460 768MB is better value than a £164 GTX460 1GB IMHO. I would rather save the extra money and put it towards another graphics card in 12 to 18 months time.
Also,OcUK are selling the HD5850 1GB with a free game for around £194 and this makes it around £30 more than the cheapest GTX460 1GB on OcUK too.
Also,OcUK are selling the HD5850 1GB with a free game for around £194 and this makes it around £30 more than the cheapest GTX460 1GB on OcUK too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Sorry, remember wrong the GTX470 is around 9-15fps faster than the 5850, not the GTX460 1GB, and the 5850 itself is around 3-9fps faster than the GTX460 1GB on the AndandTech bench.I think I will drop my 2p as well.
Before when the 768MB was at £125 and the 1GB was at £175, there was a £50 price gap between the two cards. Back then I always wondered...if people would pay £50 for 3-5fps extra on the 1GB card, why won't they bother to throw in another £50 for getting the GTX470 at £225, especially the GTX470 deliver average 9-15fps over the GTX460 1GB (three times the frame rate of the gap between the GTX460 768MB and 1GB)!?
But now with the GTX460 768MB at around £140, and the GTX460 1GB at £165, the decision to go for the GTX460 1GB is easier make more sense than before, since the price gap is not as big anymore.
So back to my point...I don't understand people would pay £50 extra for the GTX460 1GB for 5-10% faster than the GTX460 768MB, but won't pay another £50 extra for the GTX470 when it is around 21% faster than the GTX460 1GB, AND with more memory and higher memory interface as well.
As for the £117 Palit GTX460 768MB...I don't think they are good quality enough to consider with their toy cooler only provide average cooling, high chance of being loud and with no ram sink.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
So, right now, I have a budget of about £140 for a new graphics card, so I buy a 768mb 460, because they review pretty well and would be a massive upgrade for me over what I am using now. In a couple of years, when I am thinking "hmmm, about time I got a new graphics card", I will likely be looking at a whole new system, and I am sure that the same people that purchased the slightly more expensive 1gb cards, will also be looking for new cards, and those that just have to have the latest all singing all dancing cards, will also be looking for new cards.
Not everyone is a hardcore gamer, not everyone wants all details turned up to the max, in fact in my experience, I don't much like AA and like to see those 'jaggies', call me old school, but that's the way I am, and in some games, I am concentrating on things other than how pretty my screen is.
Ultimately, the 768 was and is, aimed at a specific area of the market, the casual gamer that wants some performance, some of the latest features, but doesn't want to pay the price for it. And I think it does just that.
Would I have preferred the 1gb version? perhaps, but then I'd rather take the money I have saved, and buy myself a nice case of beer, and enjoy my weekend.
Not everyone is a hardcore gamer, not everyone wants all details turned up to the max, in fact in my experience, I don't much like AA and like to see those 'jaggies', call me old school, but that's the way I am, and in some games, I am concentrating on things other than how pretty my screen is.
Ultimately, the 768 was and is, aimed at a specific area of the market, the casual gamer that wants some performance, some of the latest features, but doesn't want to pay the price for it. And I think it does just that.
Would I have preferred the 1gb version? perhaps, but then I'd rather take the money I have saved, and buy myself a nice case of beer, and enjoy my weekend.
Same place I'm at, only my budget isn't as high as yours. I'm hoping to get something around the £100 mark. The 768 was there for a time, but I missed it!
Right now I'm still using an 8800GT. The upgrades I've considered are:
GTS250 @ £45-£80 on the 'bay. Average price of £60.
GTS260 @ £75-£120 on the 'bay. Average price of £90
GTS460 @ £100-£155 on the 'bay. Average price of £140!!!
I'd ideally like to get the 460, but the 2nd hand price is no different to the new price atm, and is above my budget.
With the GTS250 I'm not sure whether it's a worthy upgrade. 8800 - 9800GTX+... think there's maybe 20% or so extra speed there, but still perhaps not enough for 1680x1050 (NO AA) and medium/high settings in recent titles.
GTS260 selling 2nd hand for £100 still. Hard pill to swallow when GTS460s were selling new for £100.
Lastly the 460... ideal card for me I think, but at £150 it's 50% more money than I'm willing to spend. Crazy 'bay prices for 2nd hand too.
I'm absolutely not spending more than £110 inc postage btw
Just a limit I've set myself when there are plenty of other things I need to buy recently, and not enough cash to spread around 
I'm presuming you mean GTX 260? These can be had in the mm for way less than £100, more like £60-£70, I've even seen one go for £55!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,462
- Location
- Planet Earth
Same place I'm at, only my budget isn't as high as yours. I'm hoping to get something around the £100 mark. The 768 was there for a time, but I missed it!
Right now I'm still using an 8800GT. The upgrades I've considered are:
GTS250 @ £45-£80 on the 'bay. Average price of £60.
GTS260 @ £75-£120 on the 'bay. Average price of £90
GTS460 @ £100-£155 on the 'bay. Average price of £140!!!
I'd ideally like to get the 460, but the 2nd hand price is no different to the new price atm, and is above my budget.
With the GTS250 I'm not sure whether it's a worthy upgrade. 8800 - 9800GTX+... think there's maybe 20% or so extra speed there, but still perhaps not enough for 1680x1050 (NO AA) and medium/high settings in recent titles.
GTS260 selling 2nd hand for £100 still. Hard pill to swallow when GTS460s were selling new for £100.
Lastly the 460... ideal card for me I think, but at £150 it's 50% more money than I'm willing to spend. Crazy 'bay prices for 2nd hand too.
I'm absolutely not spending more than £110 inc postage btw
An HD5770 1GB can be had for under £110 delivered although a GTX460 768MB can be had for a few quid more.
Yeah the 460 is the card I really want. I'll just wait till it dips back down to the ~£100 mark. I can wait
- Status