Finally a GTX 460 @ 900 core review. Beats both a gtx470 and 5870!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Janooo

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2005
1,067
13
81
I happen to be one of those people that would be quick to dismiss the subject as much ado about nothing.

$33/year for electricity is super silly cheap entertainment in my book.

You already paid how much for the video card? And how much for the computer that houses said video card? And how much are you paying rent/mortgage for the square-footage you are allocating to said computer area? How much to light said computer area? heat? AC? Electricity for everything related to powering up the computer, LCD's, lights etc so you can play your video games? And the expenditures for acquiring said video games?

Add all that up and you still want to make a big deal about a measly $3 a month extra cost that goes towards enhancing the gaming experience that cost you how much once you total up everything I listed above?

Do you analyze/scrutinize every source of power-consumption in your lifestyle? Take super-short showers so your water bill is a few pennies less, heat your food by sunlight instead of using that microwave or oven?

My monthly electric bill is right around $200-$300 month depending on the time of year (higher in the winter). For me an extra $3 a month is unnoticeable.

Heck I spend $3 just buying one gallon of gas that might move me and my mini-van about 16 miles, and my daily driving is around 20 miles.

Not everyone lives the same "luxurious" lifestyle, I'll admit, but from my point of view if your economic situation is such that you can't easily afford an extra $3 month in electricity then you probably have more pressing needs to be spending money towards instead of buying a computer and a GTX460 to game with to being with.
Here is another POV on the $3/month difference. If you got the card for $200 and you keep it for 2 years then it's like you would have paid $260 for the card.
Not that good deal after all.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Pretty impressive performance @ 900MHz. Of course that's probably a pretty hopeful overclock, I imagine that's about as high as they'll go on air. I'm sure many won't get that high. And as said earlier, the other cards overclock as well, so I wouldn't consider them to be 'slower'. But for $200 it's hard to argue with that performance if you can overclock the part.
 

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
Did you notice that the 5870 uses over 150 watts more then the on package i530 GPU? It is obvious now that the only acceptable graphics option is Intel's on package offerings as they are FAR more efficient then AMD's chips. Good to know :)


The POINT is that the ONLY viable choice for optimal power consumption for a desktop PC right now is Intel's graphics. That is the REALITY of power consumption concerns. If you don't like it then you don't get the POINT of how important power consumption truly is.

So you are a champion of Intel's graphics offerings. Either that or you really don't care about power consumption that much at all and were just trolling. Take your pick :)

If you could point these many people out it would be greatly appreciated. I've never met anyone who bought a graphics card in this segment that had power consumption as thier biggest concern. If power consumption is your biggest concern in your video choice, use an i530- it really is that simple. Nothing nVidia or ATi release in the form of a dedicated video card is going to be close in performance per watt. Why not troll some Corvette and Porsche forums and crap in threads with fuel economy ratings? It would be the same thing :)

Totally a troll and should be reported for threadcrapping.

Raising the point that at that performance or OC level, it almost draws as much power as a GTX480, is VERY valid.

You comparing a GTX460/GTX470 or GTX480 to a i5 530 is really silly, yes, silly at best. Trolling another member for sure.
 

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
the first and only person to crap in this thread is you. you are a 100% obvious troll and do nothing but twist comments for your own amusement. no where have I said that power consumption is the biggest concern and you know that. there's no point in repeating the same thing over and over to you since you have your own little trolling agenda.

Completely agree. Ive reported him. Just look at his posts which ive quoted. How can that NOT be trolling. Does having "Benskywalker" as your nick somehow make you immune to moderation?
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
Read my post above

I'm just really cheap but a saving is still a saving :p

BTW nice performance. It really is a nice card for its price. Is there anyone here who has a benchmark of a stock 460 vs OCed 460 in terms of CUDA?

No CUDA (8600GT w/CUDA disabled):

8600GTQ6600StockTwilightZoneTranscode.jpg


Stock OC 725MHz GTX460 1GB w/CUDA enabled:
GTX460Q6600StockTwilightZoneTranscode.jpg


815MHz OC'ed GTX460 1GB w/CUDA enabled:
GTX460Q6600815MHzTwilightZoneTranscode.jpg


So we see adding the GTX460 and enabling CUDA gave me a ~21% reduction in transcoding time.

Further overclocking the GTX460 by 12% (725->815MHz) yielded an additional 7% reduction in encoding time.

I should mention my specific filter setup and use with TMPGEnc does not result in fully loading my GPU. GPU-Z shows around 50% loads. My CPU is 100% loaded (Q6600 @ stock) so I am sure a faster CPU would both improve the encoding time as well as improve the CUDA time as well as it would be able to keep the GPU fed and fully utilized.

Here is another POV on the $3/month difference. If you got the card for $200 and you keep it for 2 years then it's like you would have paid $260 for the card.
Not that good deal after all.

Compared to what? A 5850 when you factor in its power-consumption as well?

I have a receding hairline which has unfortunately left me with far fewer hairs to split in my old age. As such, I'm not really inclined to worry about splitting any more hairs on a TCO comparison between GTX460 and any other video card TBH. It's all noise to me at the macro-economic scale of things when you start talking annual expenditures and cashflow.

You know what I did this morning? Spent $3 taking my kids to school, which itself costs me another $42/day, and this afternoon I am going to spend yet another $3 on gas to go pick them up and bring them home.

In the meantime I'm going to spend maybe $0.10 in electricity running CUDA apps on my GTX460.

Do I really care whether my daily expenditure is $46 or $46.10 or $46.20? Do you think I am going to be convinced whatsoever that anyone else in a similar income bracket to myself is going to care? Not at all.

If $30 spread out over the course of an entire year is a steep enough hit to your wallet as to impact your purchasing decisions then I really question whether spending money (and time) on a hobby like computer game playing is really something you can afford to be doing in the first place.
 

Janooo

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2005
1,067
13
81
^
You are right, I just wanted to point out that some people are hypnotized by $20 and $30 savings for more power hungry cards. At the end it costs them more.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
I'm positive there was a user review in another set of forums that compared a heavily overclocked GTX 460, GTX 465, GTX 470, GTX 480, 5850, and 5870, but I can't remember where and I don't have the link. Interesting that a GTX 460 can almost be turned into a GTX 480 (performance, power consumption, and all) just with overclocking.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Awesome performance gains, but bashing toyota was completely uncalled for. He pointed out a perfectly valid fact and that's all. OP listed power consumption as a positive point, which doesn't make much sense considering its power consumption sits between the 470 and 480. I was also surprised that it took similar power draw to attain similar performance considering how the 460 is lauded for being more efficient. It's an interesting observation and nothing more people, calm down. :)

Nonetheless, the potential performance gains are cool to see.
 

Flipped Gazelle

Diamond Member
Sep 5, 2004
6,666
3
81
...

My temps were much higher than those in the review though, I see 83C with this cyclone card. I think the shroud design on the Palit in the review is a much better way to force airflow over the PCB.

That seems awfully (though not dangerously) hot. The Cyclone (860mhz core @ 1.050v, IIRC) in the PC I built for my brother is only ~ 75C during Furmark testing. However, he has 2 low speed 120mm intake fans blowing across the case on roughly the same plane as the Cyclone, and I had knocked out the slot covers on the case so the warm air could evacuate better.
 

Campy

Senior member
Jun 25, 2010
785
171
116
Pretty impressive performance @ 900MHz. Of course that's probably a pretty hopeful overclock, I imagine that's about as high as they'll go on air. I'm sure many won't get that high. And as said earlier, the other cards overclock as well, so I wouldn't consider them to be 'slower'. But for $200 it's hard to argue with that performance if you can overclock the part.

From what i've read and experienced 900 is pretty common. A lot of people are getting completely stable 850core at stock voltage and with a slight bump of like 50mV you get stable at 900core easily.
 

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
From what i've read and experienced 900 is pretty common. A lot of people are getting completely stable 850core at stock voltage and with a slight bump of like 50mV you get stable at 900core easily.


850 completely stable and without adding anything to the heat/noise/fan speed values.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
If $30 spread out over the course of an entire year is a steep enough hit to your wallet as to impact your purchasing decisions then I really question whether spending money (and time) on a hobby like computer game playing is really something you can afford to be doing in the first place.


Could not agree with this post more!!!

we are talking about max overclocking, usually for PC game playing, its a stretch to think people that are into that as a hobby are worried about power consumption and $20-30 a year, they would happily trade $20-30 for a 30% or greater increase in GPU power.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Although it varies from process to process, it bears mentioning that overvolting can shorten the lifetime of your part. E.g., for CPUs: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2468/6 This is why programs like Afterburner is a godsend--set different profiles so if you game an hour a day, you are only overvolting an hour a day and on stock or lower voltage the rest of the day.
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
If $30 spread out over the course of an entire year is a steep enough hit to your wallet as to impact your purchasing decisions then I really question whether spending money (and time) on a hobby like computer game playing is really something you can afford to be doing in the first place.

I don't think the point is that $30 a year is a lot of money, the point is that it's a bit silly to pick a slower card A over a faster card B to save $30 when over the course of a year card A is going to cost you that $30 extra in electricity anyway. Or something along those lines. There are a lot more variables involved than I would care to get into to prove anything either way, but I think it's safe to say that for some people it's possible the "savings" they made by getting an over-clocked 460 instead of a 5850 are actually costing them more money overall.

And of course if you want CUDA you buy nvidia over ATI, that goes without saying, but I think the number of buyers interested in CUDA is smaller than the number who only care about gaming performance.
 

jaydee

Diamond Member
May 6, 2000
4,500
3
81
While the additional power draw probably won't affect the decision to buy in most cases (being an enthusiast card), I highly believe it's worth noting. Almost double the power usage? That's huge IMO.


That being said, this whole test is rather flawed, in that they're comparing an OC'd version of a card to stock reference settings of other cards. I guess "enthusiasts" aren't into overclocking themselves, so they're just going to buy a factory OC'd card?
 

imaheadcase

Diamond Member
May 9, 2005
3,850
7
76
I guess you left out the part where it consumes 100 watts more than a stock gtx460. :eek:

So what? It means little to a gamer. Stop putting power consumption into a conversation on a gaming card. No one buys a gaming card and cries about power draw.
 
Last edited:

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
So what? It means little to a gamer. Stop putting power consumption into a conversation on a gaming card. No one buys a gaming card and cries about power draw.

I don't agree with this. Not saying that power consumption is the most important aspect for higher-end sku's, but there are reasons why power draw is offered by reviewers and to consumers.

For me, it is on the bottom of the totem pole but on the totem pole. Wasn't pleased by performance per watt from Fermi but it didn't stop me from buying a Twin Frozr 2 GTX 470.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,249
136
So what? It means little to a gamer. Stop putting power consumption into a conversation on a gaming card. No one buys a gaming card and cries about power draw.

I think alot of members missed the whole point of why it was brought up in the first place.

Most gamers don't care about power consumption of a video card at all. But on the other hand when a person is putting together a new system and asking for help with components they do factor in things like power consumption when purchasing a power supply and do tend to try and cut corners here and there.

I think toyota's point comes into effect when alot of members suggest the GTX 460 for it's great bang for buck and overclockability. It is often compared to the GTX 470 and the low power consumption and heat is very often preached. At the same time it's overclockability is also preached on how when overclocked it knips the heals of higher priced cards....Very seldom if ever the power consumption at the high overclocked speeds is even brought up at all....Go figure?

Nothing wrong with the GTX 460 other than it's current pedestal status. It's a nice card and has potential but as with everything else in life it's not perfect.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
That seems awfully (though not dangerously) hot. The Cyclone (860mhz core @ 1.050v, IIRC) in the PC I built for my brother is only ~ 75C during Furmark testing. However, he has 2 low speed 120mm intake fans blowing across the case on roughly the same plane as the Cyclone, and I had knocked out the slot covers on the case so the warm air could evacuate better.

It's installed in a Black Pearl case (my case-build thread) and that side-grate definitely lets the heat out.

Like I said in another post, the only thing that struck me as a potential red-flag about the card itself was that the heatsink fins were not level. One side dips down at an angle (very slight, maybe 1-2mm at the edge) towards the capacitors on one side of the card whereas the other side remains perfectly parallel to the PCB.

The heatpipes did not seem crazed or damaged in any way so I assumed it was by design and not because it got smashed and bent at some point.

But she runs hot for sure. Idles at 50C and 60% fan speed.

edit: doh! nevermind on the idle temps...I had a tmpgenc window open in the background and since I use hardware decode it prevents the GTX460 from downclocking to idle speeds. It's now down to 40C and falling with fanspeed at 51% and falling.

edit 2: OK, for the record, ambient room temp is 75F (24C) and my idle temp is 37C with 48% fanspeed.
 
Last edited:

jaydee

Diamond Member
May 6, 2000
4,500
3
81
I think alot of members missed the whole point of why it was brought up in the first place.

Most gamers don't care about power consumption of a video card at all. But on the other hand when a person is putting together a new system and asking for help with components they do factor in things like power consumption when purchasing a power supply and do tend to try and cut corners here and there.

Not only that, but a lot of people are looking at this card as an upgrade. An additional 100W could very well push some of these people out of their current power supply. To go up to an Antec/SeaSonic/Corsair 600+W PSU, will cost some $70-90. Your $210 video card, is now push $300. Then you've got the previously quoted $30/year in additional electricity costs. Not quite the bargain you set out for in this case.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Not only that, but a lot of people are looking at this card as an upgrade. An additional 100W could very well push some of these people out of their current power supply. To go up to an Antec/SeaSonic/Corsair 600+W PSU, will cost some $70-90. Your $210 video card, is now push $300. Then you've got the previously quoted $30/year in additional electricity costs. Not quite the bargain you set out for in this case.
Exactly. Toyota brought a good point, I don't know why there's all this bashing going on, it's video cards people. In the end, this is all useful information that should be considered when purchasing hardware. If someone already has a capable PSU, upgrading to a GTX 460 1GB for sometimes as low as $180 to get GTX 480-like performance is a bargain. However, someone looking at getting that kind of performance out of an HTPC-type setup (cool and quiet type) might look at getting an HD 5850 or HD 5870 instead. Or someone playing at higher resolutions might look at getting a 5850 instead. Each part has it's strengths and weaknesses which must be considered. Ignoring them is foolish just as is attacking someone who points them out.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
People need to look at other reviews as well.
Look at the power numbers VS a 4870, this would be a huge upgrade for a enthusiast both in gaming power and saving electricity.
The 855mhz gtx 460 THE BEAST
perfrel.gif

power_idle.gif

Average: 3DMark03 Nature at 1280x1024, 6xAA, 16xAF. This results in the highest power consumption. Average of all readings (12 per second) while the test was rendering (no title screen).
power_average.gif

Playing a blu ray, normal 2d use, its very efficient. Both of best worlds.
power_bluray.gif

Spotted this in a deals section, backordered now, but a new low price with rebate for a 1gb model.
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=84134
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Did you guys read my earlier post about Core i7 860 adding another 120W of power consumption from a low voltage bump to 1.312V-1.32V to achieve a 3.9-4.0ghz frequency overclock?

So I don't understand why is it fine to overclock Phenom 955/965/X6 Core i5/i7s to the 4.0ghz mark, easily adding 100W watts of power consumption at load and subduing all this heat with our favourite Thermalright and Megahalems and Corsair coolers, but an extra 50-100W on an enthusiast videocard is grounds for buying another brand? Sounds like CPU overclocking rarely gets scrutinized for the massive power consumption increases as long as the temps are controlled. That's what confuses me, really - almost like a double-standard. :hmm:

Also, any videocard outside of the GTX480/4870 X2 can be used with a solid 500W power supply. Therefore, the requirement for 600W power supplies is blown way out of proportion, even today.
 
Last edited:

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Did you guys read my earlier post about Core i7 860 adding another 120W of power consumption from a low voltage bump to 1.312V-1.32V to achieve a 3.9-4.0ghz frequency overclock?

So I don't understand why is it fine to overclock Phenom 955/965/X6 Core i5/i7s to the 4.0ghz mark, easily adding 100W watts of power consumption at load and subduing all this heat with our favourite Thermalright and Megahalems and Corsair coolers, but an extra 50-100W on an enthusiast videocard is grounds for buying another brand? Sounds like CPU overclocking rarely gets scrutinized for the massive power consumption increases as long as the temps are controlled. That's what confuses me, really - almost like a double-standard. :hmm:

Also, any videocard outside of the GTX480/4870 X2 can be used with a solid 500W power supply. Therefore, the requirement for 600W power supplies is blown way out of proportion, even today.

Um, why are you talking about Phenom and Core i5/7? What does that have to do with anything? The CPU subforum is two links up. The only brand vs. brand talk is being done by you and a few others who completely missed the point of toyota's original post. Let me make it more clear for you:

GTX 460 is supposed to be more efficient than the original Fermi, right? It's simply interesting that to achieve 470/80 level performance its power consumption had to go up to their levels as well. One would naturally hope that a more efficient card would require less power to achieve similar performance. That's it! That's all he meant, and it's quite obvious that was all that he was saying.

Sheesh. D: