Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nvidia's $200 GTX 460 Ups Bargain Performance

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the pixels-and-profits dept.

Graphics 197

NervousNerd writes "Nvidia's first DirectX 11 offerings ran hot and offered a negligible performance difference compared to ATI's Radeon HD 5800 series for the cost. Also missing was the $200 mid-range part. But that stopped when Nvidia released the GTX 460 based on a modified version of their infamous Fermi architecture. The GTX 460 offers incredible performance for the price and soundly beats ATI's $200 offering, the HD 5830."

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bargain? $200? (4, Insightful)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874674)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Bargain? $200? (4, Insightful)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874714)

Can we have ONE video card news posting discussion without a flood of people preaching how it's supposedly stupid to spend anything more than 100$ on a videocard? Please? People have different needs and expectations.

Re:Bargain? $200? (5, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874744)

I don't think it's stupid to spend more than $100 on a video carrd (I definitely have), but it does seem hard to argue that $200 is a bargain priced video card. I would probably call it mid-range?

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874768)

I don't think it's stupid to spend more than $100 on a video carrd (I definitely have), but it does seem hard to argue that $200 is a bargain priced video card. I would probably call it mid-range?

If 200$ is mid-range, what does that make 300$ and 400$ videocards, assuming we call 500-600$ videocards the high-end?

Re:Bargain? $200? (2, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874810)

mid-range.

Re:Bargain? $200? (-1, Troll)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874816)

overpriced.

Re:Bargain? $200? (5, Funny)

radicalpi (1407259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874818)

If 200$ is mid-range, what does that make 300$ and 400$ videocards, assuming we call 500-600$ videocards the high-end?

Upper middle class with distinction

Re:Bargain? $200? (1, Insightful)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874932)

Maybe we can call them "Gaming video cards" in which case $200 may well be bargain priced.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875474)

If 200$ is a bargain, what does that make all those 50$ last generation cards with proper drivers on many platforms? Oh, "the right choice for most applications".

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876192)

I can only speak for myself (different needs as has been mentioned already) but I think of $500-600 video cards as fucking insane. A $400 video card is (again, just "in my eyes") plain ridiculous and buying a pair of them to connect for even "MORE EXTREME VIDEO!!!!!!" is functionally retarded. Somewhere around my 40th birthday I decided this was all just a big scam and can no longer bring myself to pay more than $100 for a video card.

Re:Bargain? $200? (4, Insightful)

MonChrMe (1849782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874844)

I would probably call it mid-range?

So would the TFS, apparently. I guess Taco's got some cash to play with. :)

That said, if it beats out the other cards in it's price range, and has the same price then it's probably fair to call it a bargain within that slice of the market.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

Kamots (321174) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876180)

It's a bargin priced performance video card not a bargin priced video card. Interestingly enough, "bargin performance" is the phrase used in the summary.

You're not going to get solid performance at a respectable resolution in modern video games for below $150-200 or so. If you spend below that you're either having to drastically cut resolution or you're cutting way back on the settings. The $200ish range of cards will let you run with most all of the pretty stuff turned on at approximately 1080p resolution with a solid framerate that's not being killed by stuttering or slowdowns. (i.e., acceptable mins)

The mid-range and high-end cards allow you to run at yet higher resolutions and/or with lots of AA. And yes, there are people that play modern FPSers at 2560x1600 with AA. I'm not one of them. I tend to go the budget performance card route and game at 1600x1200 with low or no AA but with high settings and a good frame rate. I'll likely need to upgrade come this fall though, and this card is definately on my radar.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875596)

Also not everything is about speed or horsepower but capability.

I would buy the ATI card all things being equal for the "Eyefinity" technology alone.

It would let me use 3 monitors not just 2 (tho one needs to be a special new one with a "display port" apparently)
It would also let me set different resolutions on my different monitors.

With my current setup I would likely have HD 1080 resolution set on my 37" HD TV DVI-HDMI 16:9 connection, and then run my 4:3 normal LCD monitors at a more usable resolution.

With my current video card I have to set my TV basically at 720p because it is the highest supported resolution between both TV and Monitor, and they have to be the same but due to different aspect ratios this is problematic.

Eyefinity would change that, and that's a pretty big deal to me. To my knowlege the Geforce cards cannot do it.

I would even go cheaper and get a 5750 or 5770 in the 125-150$ range as they still have that technology even in the lower range cards.

Re:Bargain? $200? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876614)

I assume you have an ATI card right now, with its shitty support. As I'm running 2 monitors at different resolution right now, in fact I didn't think anything of it, as it was just well what I assumes would be normal.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875712)

You realize thats as silly as arguing some people only need a windows 95 machine, right? Why would that kind of article be exciting?

You shouldn't even need to spend anything on a video card, everything now-adays has something integrated, from laptops to desktops there is always some form of output. That would fit most people's needs.

People who need stronger video cards should be expecting to shell out a bit of money.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876226)

The term isn't 'stronger video cards.'

You're not stronger if you are better at playing video games. Having a more powerful video card does not make you stronger.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876556)

Can we have ONE video card news posting discussion without a flood of people preaching how it's supposedly stupid to spend anything more than 100$ on a videocard? Please? People have different needs and expectations.

It's not about whether it's stupid, it's about the definition of the word bargain. Frankly, even $100 is stretching the term in this economy, but we're still so awed by not-even-raytraced 3D graphics in realtime that we're willing to accept that we should be grateful to pay a hundred bucks for a couple wafers of fiberglass with some plastic-packed chips of interestingly impure sand that we're going to replace in a few years at most* anyway. And I say that as someone who was grateful to get a GTS 240 for $100ish when it was a newish card. (I wanted low power, no fanboys ranting about how I could have got more card for less money please kthxbye)

Suggesting that $200 is a bargain for a video card is nuts. You can buy a whole PC capable of playing a generation-ago's games at medium quality for that, shipped! At least you still can't accomplish that for $100. (Willing to be proven wrong)

* (statistically)

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876806)

You can buy a whole PC capable of playing a generation-ago's games at medium quality for that, shipped!

From where ?

Re:Bargain? $200? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874746)

Did you consult the dictionary before typing that? Bargain isn't related to how much something costs, but how much it is worth compared to how much it costs. This is a bargain.

Re:Bargain? $200? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875068)

Did you brush up on Princess Bride quotes before typing that? Don't feel bad, neither did your mods. ;)

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875448)

I didn't see a scatter plot of price vs fps. Does this $200 card get you twice the fps of a $100 card? What do you get for the extra hundred that's actually worth an extra hundred?

Re:Bargain? $200? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876114)

While I would like to see a scatter plot, it would be pretty misleading. The (performance) value of a video card can't be judged by the ratio of FPS/$ alone. If a video card was $100 but could only run a game at 10 FPS, while a $300 FPS video card could run that same game at 30FPS, the $100 card is obviously a ridiculous ripoff. Gamers know that that sort of value comparison situation isn't too uncommon, either. Games are unplayable below 30 FPS. That said, this card is a bargain.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876606)

That's true. The first 30FPS are pretty worthless. But after you reach 60FPS, that's pretty worthless too. A $200 card that gives you 120FPS is not twice as good as a $100 card that gives you 60FPS.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876852)

You are right about the framerates until gamers start to embrace... drumroll... 3D. Then we pretty much need to double our framerates.

Re:Bargain? $200? (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874750)

Well for a hard core gamer that is pretty cheap. I do not spend that much on video cards but if it is your hobby.
Ever see how much golf clubs costs? Or motorcycle gear? How about the cost of gas for a boat?
This isn't that bad in comparison.

Re:Bargain? $200? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875836)

Ever see how much golf clubs costs? Or motorcycle gear? How about the cost of gas for a boat?
This isn't that bad in comparison.

The critical difference here is that the other three will at least get you out of the house and into the sunshine and fresh air.

Re:Bargain? $200? (2, Insightful)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876668)

Ever see how much golf clubs costs? Or motorcycle gear? How about the cost of gas for a boat? This isn't that bad in comparison.

The critical difference here is that the other three will at least get you out of the house and into the sunshine and fresh air.

What's your point?

Re:Bargain? $200? (0, Troll)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876282)

Ever see how much golf clubs costs? Or motorcycle gear? How about the cost of gas for a boat?

This past weekend I checked, and .22 shells were still only $1.47 per box. They won't make you 'stronger' in any sense of the word, but if your hobby is plinking with a .22 handgun, it's a low cost hobby that is very rewarding. Now, if you're one of those over-compensating types who needs to shoot off bigger calibre bullets, which are less accurate, you won't get as much practice in.

But stick to your FPS video games. Nobody will ever even notice you down in the basement if trouble arises. When it's all settled and done we'll have you roust you out and you can help in the kitchen.

Re:Bargain? $200? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876588)

This is more power than any game in the next few years will need to run smoothly.

It IS a bargain if your hobby is waving around your e-peen.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874942)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No it does. When you use this card you have to negotiate with it for it to decide what performance it will give, and what you will do for it in return.

Re:Bargain? $200? (2, Informative)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874976)

Why is this modded funny? He's right - $200 isn't a "bargain price". I don't think I've paid that much for a video card ever - and if I have, it was back around 2001, and only once.

A "bargain" card is under $100, at most. To most people, that's what the cost of an upgrade (to pretty much anything) should cost. Most products try really, really hard to get in under that $100 mark on account of people trying to not spend more than that amount on a given item.

In my book, a "bargain" card is $50 or less. You know, the ones being discounted because they're being discontinued, which will serve as a good upgrade for an aging machine. These cards won't even work in most aging machines (whether due to bus or power requirements).

Re:Bargain? $200? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875202)

Cool story; get with the times, gramps.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875276)

Maybe you forgot that price points are not based on U.S. currency only. 100 may be a nice round number in dollars but it is certainly not such a nice number in other currencies.

Re:Bargain? $200? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875286)

Something is a "bargain" when it has a very good price/value ratio.

A full frame DSLR camera for $1000 would be a bargain, though you can get a DSLR for $400 easily, and if you're not picky and just want any digital camera at all you can get it for $50.

$200 is not a bargain. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874686)

See subject.

NV has it made until... (2, Insightful)

spammeister (586331) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874690)

AMD lowers their prices, which they can do quite easily.

Re:NV has it made until... (1)

radicalpi (1407259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874892)

Good ol' American Competition... I'm always in favor of lower prices, but who isn't?

Re:NV has it made until... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875112)

Good ol' American Competition... I'm always in favor of lower prices, but who isn't?

The colluding GPU manufacturers?
The colluding memory manufacturers?
The colluding storage manufacturers?
The colluding LCD panel manufacturers?
The CPU monopolist Intel?

Re:NV has it made until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875310)

The people in China who have to make this stuff?

Re:NV has it made until... (3, Interesting)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875144)

AMD lowers their prices, which they can do quite easily.

Whichever company restores sanity to their chipset numbering scheme will get my money.

"Bargain" or not, it's simply not worth my time to investigate each card and decipher how a 460 GTX would perform compare to my 8800 GTX. My four year-old card has so far handled every game I've thrown at it at 1920x1080 without giving me the impression that I'm lacking on the eye-candy.

I have the money to spare, but I no longer have the free time to make a hobby of staying up to date on all the graphics card releases. All the manufacturers are failing to sell me on how returning to a more frequent upgrade cycle would improve my life, and they certainly aren't making it easy (in terms of time) to find out the relevant details.

Re:NV has it made until... (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875216)

Newegg makes it pretty easy to compare specs, and I'm assuming you know your price range ahead of time.

Re:NV has it made until... (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875322)

ATi's numbering has been pretty easy to follow lately. The first number is the series, this tells you the basics in terms of features, process, and so on. 5 series are DX11 40nm parts, 4 series are DX 10.1 40nm parts, etc. The next number tells you the major performance class. The ones they seem to like to use are 9 for their high end dual boards, 8 for their high end single boards, 7 for their midrange boards, and 5 (and sometimes 6) for low end boards. The final two numbers are the sub category for performance, 3 being on the lower end, 7 being on the higher end.

So a 5870 is a 5 series board, one GPU, high end performance line, with high clocks. A 5750 is a 5 series board, midrange, middle clocks.

In terms of numbering, that's about as good as it can get. They can't give you a single "goodness" number and if you demand one that simply shows you want an oversimplification where one cannot be had. Different things will have different performance. For example in Uengine 2.0, the GTX 480 out scores the 5870 by a wide margin. The reason is that benchmark has a very heavy tessellation mode, and the 480 has some heavy hitting tessellation hardware. Ok, but that only tells the story for something that heavily uses tessellation, which at this time games don't, though the might later. For, say, Bad Company 2, the difference is much smaller, both cards are rather similar when working on the problem it presents.

With video cards you have to turn your brain on a bit and do some research to determine what you are really getting. No way to give you a single, universally applicable, number.

However, if you don't want to do that, you don't have to. What you do is figure out what you are willing to spend every 12-18 months on a video card. Then, spend that. Video card technology moves fast, so frequent upgrades are better than big infrequent upgrades. So if $200 is what you are willing to spend, then keep an eye on video card releases and after about 12 months, start looking. When a new launch happens with a card you like for that price, get it. Repeat the process 12-28 months later.

Re:NV has it made until... (1)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876170)

With video cards you have to turn your brain on a bit and do some research to determine what you are really getting. No way to give you a single, universally applicable, number.

From an engineering viewpoint, that statement is absolutely true. The end user, however, doesn't spend their day benchmarking...they care about one thing: does X card run Y game at Z settings?. At one time I cared about clock speed, memory speed, pipelines, etc, but not any more.

What I'm saying is that my money is up for grabs for the video card manufacturer that is willing to maintain a database that answers the only question that matters: will it work? Beyond that, I just don't give a fuck anymore. I've seen the forest for the benchmarks.

Re:NV has it made until... (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876712)

Thank you for offering clarity in a subject that's frequently confusing to people who don't spend enormous amounts of effort learning the intricacies of the GFX card industry.

It took over 9 months... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32874742)

But it seems like they finally have a decent performing (temperature, power use and of course, in-game) card.
The 5830 is a terrible card. Maybe now ATI will lower the prices (they could probably afford a $200 5850 and a $300 5870).

Re:It took over 9 months... (0, Redundant)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874960)

Maybe now ATI will lower the prices

Ofcourse, just after pushing news or release of the "next generation" card.
Then, Nvidia will be like "oh no way! you mofferuckers!"
And release their own shiny new nextgeneration DirectHDSuperplus vision in 4D XL video card, they have been making in a secret monkey lab and has been animal tested by suicidal Japanese childlabourers, to cut costs to give you a "bargain";

'we really want you to play with our hardware, man. I'll give you a cheap price, because I have a good heart", and once you fork out, they smile at you "this one goes faster ;) But, man, I know you want to play with our stuff and make things look shiny... I'll cut you in.. Just 10% off man.. you can get the money, it's a bargain.. ".

.
"Woah! Woah!", will ATI scream, "no way! you are busting our balls here Nvidia!"

ATI will relabel or redesign their architecture, while they're secretly working on their n-D SuperFantastic alternative reality renderer, trying to divert attention away from it by coming out with the dud-kindof refurbished graphic card.

Nvidia will think "ha!ha!ha! Your puny card! Our 5D, handcrank accellerated M-based probability engine makes your piece of hardware look Mexican...

Until ATI releases and Nvidia is all like "ok, that's pretty awesome.. but we are now using dolphins and sharks for our assembly, how much cooler can you get?"

Then Matrox sends out some PR, and people wont care:
"Oh hai, who are you?"
""it're those guys for professionals stuff I cannot afford."
"oh, don't care. Give me the card assembled by SHARKS!"

(I think Matrox has to rework PR, really.)

tl:dr; it's been that game for decades and you're buying it as an industrial or corporate opera show.

NVidia engineering sucks badly (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874824)

After two Nvidia video cards and one chip-set died early on me from overheating, despite additional cooling, I am not buying their trash again. Maybe "pro-gamers" do not mind an expensive card or main-board dying after 1-1.5 years, but I do mind rather strongly.

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875090)

Just know that graphics developers everywhere hate you for buying an ATI card.

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (2, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875716)

Why?

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876770)

Well then, maybe they should take it up with nVidia's quality control department, for basically forcing the hand of us folk who don't enjoy cards dying early no matter how pure and nice the feature set and/or API is, and ATI's engineers, for making their feature set and/or API ugly. I'm betting neither department is willing, agile or unrestricted enough to make the changes you want.

You can't sell me some supposed "holy grail" of accelerator technology if it's not going to last as long as the competition. That instead would be the holy grail - a long-lasting, fully-featured card.

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875324)

I've had about 10-12 nvidia cards in my personal workstation - never had a single issue with any of them drawing a single pixel wrong - currently have 2x GTX 280's in a 2x quad core xeon machine and they are working perfectly and generating a lot of heat but apparently dissipating it properly.

Now ATI cards - I had the problem documented here: http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1288 [frostytech.com] - after 6 cards (not even kidding) die in less than 24 hours of use I finally sent the last one back and told them to really take their time (I had bought a Nvidia 59xx by then) because I really didn't care about the card anymore and that one worked like a top (took them a solid month to get one that worked I should mention). Sold it on eBay to someone in Australia and never bought an ATI video card again. I'm sure they are just fine - especially as now they allow 3rd party OEM's to make them, but back in the day their quality assurance was horrible.

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (1)

soupbowl (1849394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875570)

After two Nvidia video cards and one chip-set died early on me from overheating, despite additional cooling, I am not buying their trash again. Maybe "pro-gamers" do not mind an expensive card or main-board dying after 1-1.5 years, but I do mind rather strongly.

I am with you, I have had 4 Nvidia cards and the only one that doesn't overheat, I spent 100$ on a new heat sink and another 25$ on a good quality fan.

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875926)

I'm guessing you just have had bad luck. I've had 7 Nvidia based video cards and 3 mobo chipsets. Never had one die on me yet. Only card I've ever had die on my was a 3dfx Banshee based card.

Re:NVidia engineering sucks badly (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876868)

nVidia makes the chips, not the board they are on.

That isn't to say they couldn't still be responsible, but the only problems I've had with nVidia video cards were when I bought the really cheap ones from an unknown vendor... and that was ages ago (during the GeForce 2 line).

There's only one problem (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874886)

They are months too late, and ATI's next offering will be released (or at least announced) relatively soon, given their track record. I'm glad to see Nvidia releasing something that gives ATI a run for their money in the budget arena, but still...I think that advantage is going to disappear once ATI updates their line again.

Re:There's only one problem (2, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875024)

Oh, I wouldn't say that. A couple weeks ago I decided to upgrade my 8800GTS. I read a few reviews, saw some benchmarks, and wasn't really impressed with ATI, but was willing to give them a chance. I decided to spend anywhere between $150 and $200.

At my local Microcenter I could get a 5770 for around $179 or a GTX275 for $199. The difference between these cards is night and day. I bought the 4770 and returned it because it wasn't much faster than my 8800. The GTX275 on the other hand, just blows the 5770 away. Sure, I don't get directx11, but I don't have a need for it.

I guess I could have bought a 5830, but that was at least $50 more than I was willing to spend. I'm not sure what "bargain" card ATI has, but from what I can tell, right now, the bang-for-your-buck crown goes to Nvidia.

Re:There's only one problem (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875184)

An announcement doesn't mean much without a release. Also, I'd guess that nVidia will be offering updates fairly soon as well. Basically updates to cards are generally either because there's a new architecture, which isn't happening for either company in this case since that take a much longer time, or a new lithography process. I'm not sure what the companies are looking at next, but Global Foundries has a 32nm node online now. They could be looking at using that.

You have to remember that development continues all the time, and even as a card is being released the next gen, and the gen after that and probably even more than that are being worked on. Takes a long time to bring something from idea to released silicon. So this isn't a race where a company get ahead and the other one can never catch up. Were that the case, well then ATi would be long behind now, because the 8800 series was completely unexpected, and had performance ATi could not match. They had to delay their launch a cycle and still their hardware wasn't a match for it. However, as time went on, they caught up and now have exceeded nVidia in many regards (certainly in being first with DX11).

The only way this would be "too late" in any respect is if ATi already had a better card out. Remember that people do not wait forever to buy parts. You can't say "But something better will come in a few months!" because something better will ALWAYS come in a few months. Do that and you'll never have a system. If someone buys a computer now, and wants to spend $200ish on a video card, the 460 is a realistic choice.

Also note that despite the 480s being hot, and late to the game, it isn't a failure. They moved plenty of units. Not near as many as they'd like I'm sure, but people bought those things left and right.

Soundly beats the 5830? (5, Informative)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874908)

Soundly beating the 5830 is a stretch at best. On Tom's Hardware's Benchmark Results [tomshardware.com] , the 460 is outperformed by the 5830 in every benchmark, Crysis, and AvP test. It loses sparingly in the rest of the games, but calling it the clear better of the 2 is just isn't realistic.

Re:Soundly beats the 5830? (3, Interesting)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32874936)

The GTX460 is an overclocking monster, you can bring it to within GTX470 speeds for 2/3 of the price.

Re:Soundly beats the 5830? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875270)

If you don't mind the additional heat, noise (due to fan spinning up due to heat), artifacts, crashes (I've yet to meet an overclocker that gets the fact that even though the stress test doesn't crash, that doesn't mean that the crashes in XYZ game aren't overclocking related), void guarantee, reduced lifetime, and other problems associated with overclocking.

Plus, I've yet to see a game which won't run happily on a 9800 GT. There are so many console ports these days that even a card a few years old is plenty (for comparison, the ps3 has a geforce 7800 in it, and the 360 is only slightly more powerful).

Says someone with a GTX 285, a card with similar performance as the 470, and that's roughly twice as powerful as the 9800 GT I mentioned...

Re:Soundly beats the 5830? (2, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875456)

The GTX460 runs cooler and produces less noise than a GTX470... Even overclocked...

EVGA also warranties their cards even if you overclock them.

Another review, with architecture comparison (2, Informative)

Vigile (99919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875056)

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=954 [pcper.com]

This review also has a page that attempts to compare the new GF104 architecture on a clock per clock basis with the original GF100: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=954&type=expert&pid=12 [pcper.com]

Holy Slashvertising Batman (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875096)

The summary reads like it was written by someone at nVidia; based on the summary you'd think this card could do cold fusion and mow my lawn at the same time while creating mind-blowing graphical displays.

Re:Holy Slashvertising Batman (-1, Troll)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875234)

A Slashdot post that is simply a PR post by a paid shill? Say it isn't so!

Re:Holy Slashvertising Batman (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876136)

The summary reads like it was written by someone at nVidia; based on the summary you'd think this card could do cold fusion and mow my lawn at the same time while creating mind-blowing graphical displays.

Well damn, that pretty much settles the above debate about it being a bargain card as far as I'm concerned.

ATI Users: A Question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875142)

Are current ATI graphics cards, especially the cards with 1GB RAM, comparable or better than current Nvidia cards for PC gaming? I've heard for years people calling out ATI drivers as *^#@, convince me otherwise. This isn't a troll, it's a call for opinions from someone who would rather avoid an Nvidia purchase, even though game title after title splash the Nvidia logo in your face when you launch them. How are ATI's drivers now, how well do these cards "game"?

Re:ATI Users: A Question (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875282)

I run a pair of 5770s in Crossfire mode. I game on them daily. I have no complaints other than I spent $800 in video cards over 3mo ago.

Currently playing:

Fallout 3
Bad Company 2
Borderlands
AvP

All at 1920x1080 with high detail textures etc.

Re:ATI Users: A Question (1)

pinkj (521155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875752)

I have a single 512mb 4770 and I'm running Borderlands with everything maxed at 1280X960 (4:3 monitor) on an AM2+ mobo with a Phenom II 965 3.5Ghz BE.

Re:ATI Users: A Question (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875284)

My brother has a laptop that came with a Radeon. He games extensively on top of developing, and hasn't had a lick of trouble with it to date. This is Windows 7 x64 that I upgraded from Vista for him; had to uninstall the Radeon drivers before the upgrade then reinstall them afterwards. What I'm getting at with my rambling is that he's had no more trouble, driver-related or otherwise, than I have with my 9800gt on the same OS.

Re:ATI Users: A Question (2, Interesting)

InvisiBill (706958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875384)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-radeon-hd-geforce-gtx,2676-7.html [tomshardware.com]

That's not the end-all, be-all for all comparisons, but it gives you a good idea how the different brands and generations compare to each other in general. Before Nvidia released the GTX400 series months later, ATI had the two fastest video cards available (the HD5870 and the dual-GPU HD5970 which is still the fastest single card).

Nvidia seems to throw more money at developers with their The Way It's Meant To Be Played program, but I honestly haven't noticed any specific problems after upgrading to my HD5870 a few months ago (after having only Nvidia since buying my GeForce 2 GTS the week they were released). A lot of people seem to be coming to the conclusion that both camps' drivers suck but in different ways. I honestly think that most people running single cards in common configs with popular games will never notice a difference in gameplay either way.

You do get some bonuses like PhysX with Nvidia, but there are open options in the works, and the Radeons are more efficient. The 5870 uses about 15% less power than my old GTX285, and in the GPGPU apps I run (dnetc), it's actually about 6x as fast (and still over twice as fast as an overclocked GTX480, which is a little faster in most games). The efficiency difference probably won't be noticed on your power bill, but it does mean a cooler card, which in turn means less fan noise and less heat in your case/room.

Re:ATI Users: A Question (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876118)

For drivers:
ATI (AMD now) has not had a problem with drivers for some years now and they are considered at least on par with nVidia. Where nVidia has a slight advantage is that for the titles that they pay (The Way It's Meant To Be Played) they have excellent support from day 1. For ATI in some cases you will have to wait for the next driver update for e.g. eyefinity to work properly, although as I said the good quality of the drivers generally leads to newly released games having no problems. Also, note that ATI has a very strict driver release schedule. Once a month. This can be an advantage (no more wondering when a driver will come out) or a disadvantage (say the new game that had the eyefinity problem got released just after the driver update) depending how you look at it.
Also for my Linux multiple-display system I have had no problems with ATI during the last few years, although I haven't tried running anything graphically demanding like games on that system.
For performance of ATI graphics cards:
Until the release of the GTX 460, ATI had at least equal or often better performance/price ratio during this generation compared to nVidia, and even with the GTX 460, ATI still has better performance/watt if you care about that. Now, it seems that at the $200 price point the ATI 5830 1GB trades blows with the nVidia GTX 460 768MB, and the GTX 460 1GB is better (although at an extra $30). I bet ATI did not expect the performance of the new nVidia part, so wait for a few days for the market to adapt, e.g. the superior 5850 dropping price to come closer to the GTX 460 etc

Re:ATI Users: A Question (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876896)

I don't have any problems with ATI drivers. I suspect some of the people complaining are doing some odd things, like overclocking various components past the limits of their particular hardware (some units perform better than others at this obviously) and/or using cheap components elsewhere in their systems - e.g. built-in sound, low cost "Value" RAM, factory seconds from a computer fair, etc... All of these things contribute to instability. It's also possible that yet others were using off-brand bargain ATI cards with drivers that lagged behind the manufacturer's driver, but the off-brand card had a special feature that made it impossible to use the plain drivers. Sometimes, those clearance sales at Best Circuit Fry Egg Mart USA or whatever are NOT THAT GOOD OF A DEAL. "Mega Voodoo Accelerator powered $100 off (KrudCo brand) total price after rebate LESS THAN HALF! VERY QUIET!" should trigger some critical thinking... Maybe this is not as good of a board as it would appear from the specs!

I've also heard from an uninformed nVidia fanboy that you have to pay for old ATI drivers. This is a load of utter crap - all you have to do is visit their website, and all the drivers are available there.

I do recall a patch for UT2004 that replaced the nVidia logo with an ATI one ;)

$200 is "mid" range? (2, Insightful)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875192)

When a decent computer sells for $500, how is $200 "mid" range?

I must be getting old... I still have to hold my nose to pay more than $100 for a video card.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875598)

I'm confused that some people call $200 a bargain for a videocard alone and then turn around and say that $700 for a Mac is way too expensive.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876208)

I'm not. The major reason why $200 is a bargain for a video card is because that adds capability to the computer - Compare it to buying a game console. As far as a Mac goes, you're paying more for virtually the same machine but for running a different OS - Hell, even the hardware other than the processor in a Mac are generic OEM parts, like for example Hitachi hard drives. Considering the "$500 for a decent computer" remark, saying that a Mac costs $700 (they don't - Try $1300 for an iMac) means that, for that extra $200, you could either have added a video card to the computer for gaming purposes, or you could buy a different computer, ill-equipped for the gaming task, simply for the sake of having it and without much extra functionality unless you're counting the OS.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876368)

3. Something offered or acquired at a price advantageous to the buyer.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bargain

The $700 for a mac doesn't get you very much compared to the $200 video card. Bargain is a relative term.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876390)

For some of us, $300 is too expensive for a Mac.

My SE/30 was free. But I run NetBSD on it, so it's worth more than any other Mac I know of anywhere.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (3, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875682)

In much the way $600 is cheap for a SLR camera, but $50 is cheap for an average home camera.

The $200 mid range for a card for a gaming rig, not mid range for an e-machine or other generic computer 'decent enough to use for most stuff' computer you get from a big box store.

If you aren't into high end gaming with the latest graphics crunching game, at really high resolution and fps, that's fine. Other folks are and have a different definition of what's 'mid' range for a gaming machine than you have for a generic machine.

In other words, this article isn't aimed at you. That's ok. Not every one has to be.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (1)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875810)

Ahh... but I do play games (sometimes), and I also do video editing (which, granted, doesn't require a lot of 3D performance). I don't buy $30 video cards, I buy cards that are actually quite good in the $100 range.

I understand the scale... if the high end of consumer cards is $400 or more, then $200 is more mid than high end, but the article frames this as being a "bargain" card.

If, on the other hand, you were to look at the median price paid for a new graphics card, I think it would be far below $200, in the $100+ range (of course, that's just my anecdotal experience). That would make the "average" gamer (yes, gamer, because everyone else is just using their "built in" graphics) have close to a $100 card.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876132)

If I can get the features and framerate of cards that normally cost $500 for $250, that's a bargain.

First you were complaining $200 wasn't mid range by your definition, now you are complaining a bargain isn't a bargain unless it's in your price range.

Once again, you are not the target market for this article. That's ok.

Re:$200 is "mid" range? (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876126)

I'm not sure I'd call a $500 computer a "decent" computer in any respect (these are typically the disposable cameras of the computer world), but $200 for a video card isn't too out of touch. If you consider that you're buying a computer anyway and that you'll be getting a base level of value out of the computer whether or not you added that video card, you end up with adding a $200 piece of hardware to the machine in order to play games on it. Considering that the cheapest of consoles on the market right now retail at $200, you're getting a fair deal for this "mid" range card, which would for all intents and purposes outperform and provide better video quality than what those consoles would offer.

And if you don't want to play games? Don't bother with it. The only reason these cards are "mid range" is because that's where they lie in terms of video performance. Integrated graphics solutions nowadays are generally able to handle your desktop and any kind of multimedia-centric task you can throw at them, so if you don't care about much else, don't go out and buy a video card.

Growing problem with graphics... (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875236)

I know cooling is important to keep things running smoothly but we've gone from video cards to video bricks. I swear I could take a bunch of those things and use them to lay as brick for a house. Next thing you know they're going to put enough cooling hardware on these things to have em the size of cinder blocks.

I'd love it if they could work on the cooling and/or materials to get it back down to a heat sink only, card sized, and still retain great performance.

Remember the LOLAMO (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875238)

Remember Nvidia's last great bargain card, the 8800 GT?

You know, the one everyone bought at $200?
You know, the one everyone said was the best value?
You know, the one with the bad bumps?

For GPUs:
If you don't need to play games, go integrated or go with cheap, cheap shit.
If you want to play games, ALWAYS go with a flagship line.
For Nvidia, these have been 6800, 7800, 8800, 9800, 280, 480.
For ATi these have been 9700/9800, x800 x1800, HD 2850, HD 3870, HD 4870.

If you can't afford the latest and greatest, get a used one from the last generation. The flagship cards are the only ones that undergo any worthwhile testing. The flagship cards are the only ones where the OEMs and Nvidia/ATi work together and formulate a gameplan.

Your first advice is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875350)

Your first advice is bad. DO NOT go integrated. Memory bandwidth and contention will kill you. Go for the bargain basement, even if it uses the same chip as the onboard, you get memory all to itself. NOTE: would love to see sockets to put even ordinary memory for use with the builtin chipset. For some games, the change in speed is completely acceptable.

The second piece of advice is, if anything, worse. GO MIDRANGE. Or wait until the new model set comes out and buy the previous model range's top of the range for 1/2 price. The only reason to go current top of the range or even one step below is if you have money to burn and people to impress.

Integrated can be fine... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875426)

Many builds I've done have used integrated where the toughest task the card would have is compiz/aero/video scaling. Memory bandwidth and contention will only kill you if you do something significantly more than that.

I do agree that the flagship is overrated, and while the 8800* parts were afflicted by poor quality, that is not a good reason to extrapolate across the board on the quality of midrange parts. Generally, the benchmarks are what you get and quality isn't a big problem.

His last point has some merit though, a 4870 can perform admirably against the current generation and can be had at lower prices. Counteracting this though is that for a little more you can have a current midrange that eats less electricity/puts out less heat to get roughly the same performance.

Re:Your first advice is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875600)

DO NOT go integrated. Memory bandwidth and contention will kill you.

Yikes... I knew it could be a performance bottleneck but I had no idea it was fatal. Thanks for the heads up.

The only reason to go current top of the range or even one step below is if you have money to burn and people to impress.

Been there, done that. I was buying a card every other month in the late '90s but since I stopped playing games or running modelling apps I've made do with onboard chipsets (and open source drivers).

Now for the first time in several years, I've started considering graphics cards again. I don't need or want DirectX support, simply a workstation class OpenGL card for WebGL (inc modelling and texture work). Can anybody tell me if there is a vendor currently making reasonable priced cards that'll fit this need?

Re:Your first advice is bad (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875778)

Perhaps you should read my post.
"If you don't need to play games, go integrated or go with cheap, cheap shit."

" If you don't need to play games , go integrated or go with cheap, cheap shit."

As to my second point:
"If you can't afford the latest and greatest, get a used one from the last generation."

Please read next time.
There are very real reasons to avoid refreshes and clock variations. The top of the line crap that comes out soon after the launch of the flagship are simply parts that have been clocked up after some sampling and binning, and a few tweaks to the game plan between Nvidia/ATi and the OEMs regarding power and cooling. These parts DO NOT undergo the same level of testing, and are simply the same silicon with more current pumping through it.
The same holds true for the under clocked, feature-disabled, versions. These are typically BROKEN parts that have been binned down.

Refreshes that come out many months later are even riskier. They represent a complete change in the fabrication process and very little testing to go along with it. This is what caused Nvidia's bumpgate fiasco.

Flagship GPUs are the only GPUs that are reliable.

But I bet you think that the "ZOMG HYPER SPEED" RAM you buy is hot shit, too. Enthusiast RAM is BAD regular RAM with a shiny heatsink, maybe some LEDs, and a higher voltage requirement to get it to behave properly.
The dirty little non-secret is that people buying the expensive shit are idiots. They'll probably never see the memory errors. And if they do, they'll blame it something else, or just accept it.
Those that do jump through the hoops to get the memory replaced are covered by the ridiculous margins, and the fact that the RAM they send back will be sent out to someone else, as new, once the rebate program starts.

Rubbish (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876036)

The bandwidth needed to supply an integrated graphics card is about 0.00001% of what's available in a modern PC. You're just not going to notice it.

Plus ... integrated undergoes an awful lot of testing. eg. Intel drivers are always rock solid, unlike some 'high end' cards I've bought where I had to wait a couple of months before I could even put it in the machine.

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (1)

radish (98371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875566)

OK, a question for you as I've been trying to figure out the answer to this for a while :) Maybe you'd be so kind as to offer a bit of advice.

I currently have a 7800GT which is basically fine for me performance wise, but I'd like to get some of the nice stuff like HD video and Photoshop acceleration which newer cards have. I don't really game heavily on the PC but I do sometimes fire up something like Audiosurf or Civ so I'd like something better than integrated graphics. Otherwise, my main concern is power consumption and noise level (my 7800 has a retrofit zalman cooler on it for noise reasons). I also need 2xDVI outs as I run 2 monitors. I thought the 240 looked good for my needs but they don't seem to have dual DVI, just HDMI & VGA. The 250 is possibly too high end, as it seems to pull a lot of power even when idle and I'm not sure how quiet they can be made.

Any ideas?

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876378)

Well, HDMI is generally compatible with DVI via a relatively inexpensive adapter (which I think most cards come with). So a card with one of each DVI, HDMI and VGA ports actually has the capacity for two DVI devices (or two HDMI devices). I'm fairly sure this is the case with the GT 240; In Zotac's case [zotacusa.com] , they actually include an HDMI to DVI cable (it's just a dongle, shown here, but should do the job [zotacusa.com] ).

For a while, I was running my X-Box 360 Elite via an HDMI to DVI converter on my 22" monitor; Interestingly (and mostly unrelated to your question), it actually treated it as a monitor and not a TV, allowing me to choose the native resolution. Hooray for EDID. :P

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875574)

Genius, the cards with the bad bumps were the mobile GPUs, not the desktop chips.

Also the 8800GT was the best value card. I'm still running one and it runs great.

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (1)

VinylPusher (856712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875674)

Absolute rubbish advice. If a card doesn't work right through defective manufacturing or design, you're due a free repair, replacement or full refund.

Nobody likes getting a lemon, but that's no reason to spend stupid amounts of money on a flagship card from *any* generation.

Getting a previous generation flagship is as dumb an idea. Not only will technological advances be entirely missed (DX11 features, maybe), energy usage will be woefully inefficient compared to a low or mid-range card from the current generation.

If you want an 'always' rule, always buy the card in the very middle of the current generation, or the one below that if your budget doesn't permit. This would mean a 465 from Nvidia (though this is likely due to be dropped, or price dropped very soon).

I speak from experience. I'd never paid more than 100GBP for a graphics card until I decided to buy a 256MB 7800GTX some years ago, when it was the fastest card available. >300GBP and I've got a card which is an OK performer (Half-Life 2 at 1920x1200 with decent quality), but nowhere near as capable as a 100GBP card of today. I should have just spent 100GBP at the time and then upgraded twice more between then and now.

I was thinking of putting an ATI 5670 into a new computer, this year. For various reasons, I want a single-slot card. I'm somewhat hoping that at least one OEM can create a single-slot cooling solution for Nvidia's 460, because it's a much better proposition, performance-wise.

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876100)

For Nvidia, these have been 6800, 7800, 8800, 9800, 280, 480.

An Nvidia 250GTS *is* a 9800 with slightly less power consumption. If you can't afford a 280, a 250 is a reasonable purchase. Makes more sense than buying a 9800 today.

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876692)

An Nvidia 250GTS *is* a 9800 with slightly less power consumption. If you can't afford a 280, a 250 is a reasonable purchase. Makes more sense than buying a 9800 today.

I've been seeing 9800s for around $80, so depending on what titles you want to play it might be fine. I bought a GT240 which is 3/4 the processors of a 250, it is a little more than 3/4 the card for around 1/2 the wattage. [wikipedia.org] right now newegg has it for $69.99 after MIR [newegg.com] and $6.98 shipping. It's non-SLI, it goes with my GA-MA770-UD3P and Phenom II X3 720, all (relatively) low power. And mb/cpu/vid each cost $100 when I got them which is my personal maximum, and the board while slightly warty (black screen on XPwSP3 install on various known good video cards) has every port I desired on the backplane and an absolute raft of USB2 and SATA connectors without sacrificing anything, except some stuff is moved to headers.

Re:Remember the LOLAMO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876352)

You're an idiot.

The sub-$100 market segment utterly destroys every other segment as far as volume and if you think that isn't where they focus most of their attention internally (not in the PR shit they feed gamer retards like yourself) then... well... I've already said it several times.

It's not unusual that going with a used previous generation card will leave you without key features, possibly even the unable to play some newer games at all, that the sub-$100 card would at least have support for.

You need to take a look at benchmarks for the games you want to play at the settings you want and find the card with the best price/performance ratio that also achieves a minimum playable FPS, factor in driver issues (boo ATI on Linux), and take into any other concerns (noise pollution, power supply support, slot support, etc). Then, regardless of the price point or stupid rules of thumb you read on Slashdot, you've found your card.

"Infamous" Fermi architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32875272)

Is the poster one of the three amigos?

A video card that will live in infamy! (2, Informative)

synth7 (311220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32875950)

Off-topic pedanticism here: "Infamous" means that something or someone is famous for negative reasons or for having a very bad reputation, along the lines of "notorious". Methinks that it really isn't the word you were looking for, and that "famous" or some synonym would do nicely.

Cool and fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32876030)

Nice to finally get that from NVidia. Not interested in 200W TPD chips or cooler chips that can't match a G92 from 2007. The 460 hits the sweet spot for me.

Now keep the X server developers on the ball! I'd like to keep buying your products.

How Slashdot has changed (fallen?) (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876190)

Here's a story about a video card and I don't see any posts on how it works with Linux.

And the number of "new, weird and/or funky Linux distro" stories has fallen to less than one per week. There used to be two a day.

My, how times have changed.

Re:How Slashdot has changed (fallen?) (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32876476)

Also, there's a thriving apple.slashdot.org domain.

It's a far cry from the old Slashdot. I blame it on the crowding in of 'IT' types. 'IT' is enhanced file clerking. This site used to be for tech types, who handled code closer to the bare metal, or the bare metal itself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?