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

[toyota]

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

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.


While the majority of the dialogue in this thread between you and your fellow forum members walks the fine line between healthy debate and inflammatory rhetoric, this specific post you make here is purely a member call-out and is not acceptable.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[BenSkywalker]

the first and only person to crap in this thread is you.

All of my comments in this thread are replies to you dealing directly and explicitly with the topic you brought up.

you are a 100% obvious troll and do nothing but twist comments for your own amusement.

Still waiting on the list of the many people who bought the 460 because of the power useage. If you aren't trolling this should be trivial to provide proof of.

 

[Rifter]

All of my comments in this thread are replies to you dealing directly and explicitly with the topic you brought up.

Going to have to agree with this, he is only responding to your post. If anything the power consumtion post was more of a troll post. As has been mentioned in this post already people looking for a powerful GPU are not concerned about power consumption, they are concerned about performance.

And also as mentioned if power consumtion is the main point of your GPU purchase the i3 or AMD IGP's are your only real option as far as super low power goes.

 

[toyota]

All of my comments in this thread are replies to you dealing directly and explicitly with the topic you brought up.



Still waiting on the list of the many people who bought the 460 because of the power useage. If you aren't trolling this should be trivial to provide proof of.

this is my last post to you. below is ALL I said in my first post in this thread. notice the part that I bolded even when I originally posted it. anybody with common sense can see that I am referring to the additional power usage required to achieve its better performance. your comment telling me to use integrated graphics was trollish and asinine.

I guess you left out the part where it consumes 100 watts more than a stock gtx460.

now do you think I have a list of people that bought the gtx460 because one of the reasons was efficiency? of course not because again you are just being a troll. anybody with common sense knows that efficiency is ONE of many reasons to buy the gtx460. if it wasnt then everybody would just buy the equally performing gtx465. reality is that the gtx465, even for a lower price, is a hard sale because the gtx460 is much quieter AND efficient.

now clearly you need a new job because your trolling career has not been successful.

Personal attacks and insults are not acceptable.

Re: "now clearly you need a new job because your trolling career has not been successful."

Moderator Idontcare

 

[toyota]

Going to have to agree with this, he is only responding to your post. If anything the power consumtion post was more of a troll post. As has been mentioned in this post already people looking for a powerful GPU are not concerned about power consumption, they are concerned about performance.

And also as mentioned if power consumtion is the main point of your GPU purchase the i3 or AMD IGP's are your only real option as far as super low power goes.

and I guess you are just as poor at reading comprehension as he is. not ONE time did I mention power consumption as being the main concern.

maybe if I use all caps people can comprehend...I WAS SIMPLY SURPRISED THAT THE POWER CONSUMPTION WENT UP THAT MUCH COMPARED TO THE STOCK CARD AND THAT IT USED 34 MORE WATTS THAN A GTX470 FOR THE SAME PERFORMANCE.

 

[BenSkywalker]

"The non linear power consumption when overclocking this part to those levels seems to indicate that nV still isn't yielding chips as well as it may like as we have some clear indication of leakage being a concern. This could help explain why we don't have full SP GF104 core parts yet."

"I guess you left out the part where it consumes 100 watts more than a stock gtx460.

One of those would be trolling, one would not. Can you tell them apart?

 

[ModestGamer]

This is one bad ass 210$ card. Not only does it match both these cards, but beats them rather soundly.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vi...tx460-sonic-platinum-extreme-oc_12.html#sect0

Quote: @1900x1080
"The average performance growth at overclocking is 30% now, the maximum being as high as 43%"

Highs:

•High performance for its price range;
•When overclocked using voltmodding can outperform Radeon HD 5870;
•Wide range of supported FSAA modes;
•Improved CSAA/TMAA quality;
•Minimal effect of FSAA on performance;
•CUDA and PhysX support;
•Fully-fledged hardware HD video decoding;
•High-quality HD video post-processing with scalability;
•HDMI 1.3a support;
•Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio support;
•Acceptable power consumption and heat dissipation;
•Low noise;
•Compact size.

keep that clock for 30 days of use 24hours a day. if the card still works i'd call that a sucess.

 

[toyota]

"The non linear power consumption when overclocking this part to those levels seems to indicate that nV still isn't yielding chips as well as it may like as we have some clear indication of leakage being a concern. This could help explain why we don't have full SP GF104 core parts yet."

"I guess you left out the part where it consumes 100 watts more than a stock gtx460.

One of those would be trolling, one would not. Can you tell them apart?

well I hate to respond to you but obviously you can not connect the dots on your own. the "tone" of my comment was my surprise that it used that much more additional power and the fact that the OP never even mentioned it. he listed nothing but "highs" and not one single downside or "low". 100 additional watts is pretty significant for an otherwise 140 watt card.

 

[bryanW1995]

Yeah, that power consumption increase is obscene.

Still, it's pretty shocking that despite all that extra power, the temperature only goes up 7C (from 72C to 79C). The noise level is only one order of magnitude louder - from 49db to ~53.5db.

Nonetheless, I guess I'm starting to show my age. I'd much rather keep my GTX 460 at stock (and indeed I do keep mine at stock) than overclock and use 100W more power (and pump all that heat into my case/small apartment). Though I guess if I was gaming at 2560x1600 rather than 1920x1200, I might feel differently...

yeah, I was very surprised by my card. I've never seen it over 64c, and that was after an hour + of furmark and oc'ing it to 905/4400. no crazy high fan speeds, just gradual ramping up with temp similar to default afterburner fan profile.

not sure why your feathers are so ruffled toyota, OP made no mention of temp.

If gtx 470 had launched at 230 and quickly fallen under $200 we wouldn't have cared quite so much about the crappy noise/heat/temp/power draw, and on top of that this card has lower heat/temp/noise but draws a bit more power. what did it start at, $350 or so? THAT was the killer. and being 6+ months late, of course. Don't rain on this parade, nvidia needs some good news right now and gtx 460 is worthy of it.

keep that clock for 30 days of use 24hours a day. if the card still works i'd call that a sucess.

I've had mine about a month. bumped it down to 880/4300 still at 1.087 but I have it set to run 2 instances of seti 24/7 except when I'm gaming. It's hard to get seti to load it 100% though 2 instances does much better at it. Anyway, I've had zero issues with it, certainly it has been a more satisfying owner experience thus far than my 3870, 4850 or gtx 260 were, or any card that I've owned for that matter. As I've mentioned before, I probably have an amd bias typically but it's hard not to be excited about a card this cool/quiet/powerful that you can buy for a great price, plus the OP mentioned many other nvidia specific benefits that I've personally experienced. so what if it takes 100w or so more when I oc the crap out of it, I run my i7 920 at 4ghz + and don't worry about that power consumption, either.

 

[toyota]

yeah, I was very surprised by my card. I've never seen it over 64c, and that was after an hour + of furmark and oc'ing it to 905/4400. no crazy high fan speeds, just gradual ramping up with temp similar to default afterburner fan profile.

not sure why your feathers are so ruffled toyota, OP made no mention of temp.

If gtx 470 had launched at 230 and quickly fallen under $200 we wouldn't have cared quite so much about the crappy noise/heat/temp/power draw, and on top of that this card has lower heat/temp/noise but draws a bit more power. what did it start at, $350 or so? THAT was the killer. and being 6+ months late, of course. Don't rain on this parade, nvidia needs some good news right now and gtx 460 is worthy of it.

um the fact that he did not mention it is why I did. he made it sound like there was not one single drawback to getting a gtx460 to match a gtx470. when I saw the additional power consumption I was shocked and also wondered why the OP never mentioned it. anyway my only issue is with BenSkywalker and others that are taking my comment and twisting it into something else.

 

[notty22]

This same site did a article on the 5850's , called hidden threat.
The reference models had voltage control, many non reference DO NOT.
At max overclock the 5850 used 76 more watts of power. Furmark.
Here they measured system power, it used 30 more watts at idle.
76 or 96 some enthusiasts just love the extra gaming power.
My opinion.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5850_11.html#sect0

 

[GaiaHunter]

I understand Toyota position.

People post stuff like this:

"The GTX460 is cooler, quieter, cheaper, consumes less power and OCs great giving it performance of X,Y, Z card".

The problem with posts like this is when you DO THE OC part some of the qualities mentioned vanish.

Russian posted some link, I believe to Xbitlabs, where they showed the power consumption of several cards, including at different OCs. On that chart it was clear that for example a 1GHz 5870 consumed even more than a GTX 470 at stock (which generally generate complains of power consumption, with the associated heat and noise). It was also clear that both the 5850 and 5870 could OC to quite a decent level before reaching the power consumption of a stock GTX470.

This is a similar case - (some) people bash GF100 because of power consumption and praise GF104 because it doesn't suffer the same problems. (some) People also praise the GTX460 for its high OC but they generally forget to mention that reaching the levels of a 5850/5870/GTX470 will require much more power.

Now power consumption is not only related to the bill you pay (or if someone fell for the "green (ecology, not NVIDIA) sensationalism") but to the sub-products of power consumption - heat that needs to be dissipated and considering the process used for these chips is the same, all have the same physical properties. Obviously, different people have different thresholds for things like noise and heating of the surroundings, and different coolers can help managing the noise.

So I don't see where Toyota was trolling.

 

[bryanW1995]

the gtx 460, based upon my personal experience, is cooler quieter and cheaper even after an OC. I get 5850 level + performance out a $150 card, so I'm happy as shit. That card is still cool (64c absolute max load), quieter (at least than my x1950xt, 3870, 4850, or gtx 260), and cheaper than any of those other cards were or anything current with similar performance. The only thing that changes when you OC is that it uses more power and you get better performance on the cheap.

He was trolling b/c the OP said nothing about the power usage, plus his clearly combative posting style was uncalled for in this instance.

 

[toyota]

yeah last time I looked performance, power consumption, price, temps, size were ALL factors in making a video card or almost any other component. depending on the individual, those factors can all weigh differently of course.

if someone is planning to significantly oc their gtx460 then an additional 100 mores watts could be a concern.


EDIT: bryanW1995, there was NOTHING wrong with my original comment in this thread. and I just told you that I mentioned the additional power consumption BECAUSE the op did not. saying that I was trolling just because I mentioned something he omitted is ridiculous.

 

[Sind]

I understand Toyota position.

People post stuff like this:

"The GTX460 is cooler, quieter, cheaper, consumes less power and OCs great giving it performance of X,Y, Z card".

The problem with posts like this is when you DO THE OC part some of the qualities mentioned vanish.

Russian posted some link, I believe to Xbitlabs, where they showed the power consumption of several cards, including at different OCs. On that chart it was clear that for example a 1GHz 5870 consumed even more than a GTX 470 at stock (which generally generate complains of power consumption, with the associated heat and noise). It was also clear that both the 5850 and 5870 could OC to quite a decent level before reaching the power consumption of a stock GTX470.

This is a similar case - (some) people bash GF100 because of power consumption and praise GF104 because it doesn't suffer the same problems. (some) People also praise the GTX460 for its high OC but they generally forget to mention that reaching the levels of a 5850/5870/GTX470 will require much more power.

Now power consumption is not only related to the bill you pay (or if someone fell for the "green (ecology, not NVIDIA) sensationalism") but to the sub-products of power consumption - heat that needs to be dissipated and considering the process used for these chips is the same, all have the same physical properties. Obviously, different people have different thresholds for things like noise and heating of the surroundings, and different coolers can help managing the noise.

So I don't see where Toyota was trolling.

^^^ I don't see how his comment was a troll at all, it's interesting for all cards to see how much power consumption increases due to an OC. The ridiculous replies are uncalled for and nothing but crapping.

Thanks for the link happy, it is interesting to see what potential you can achieve with the OC on the card from that price range versus others that are above it.

 

[GaiaHunter]

That card is still cool (64c absolute max load), quieter (at least than my x1950xt, 3870, 4850, or gtx 260),

For example the 4850 was criticized for being too hot. I've one in my rig. Rarely hits 70ºC at load (only in hot summer days) and is inaudible.

The problem of talking about temperatures at which the cards are operating is that is a function of heat dissipation and noise in cards that consume similar amounts of power is a function of the cooler/fan speed. A extreme example is water cooling - it is quieter, the card works at a lower temperature. None the less, the temperature of your PC room will increase the same amount (and probably faster due to higher efficiency) due to heat dissipation.

He was trolling b/c the OP said nothing about the power usage, plus his clearly combative posting style was uncalled for in this instance.

The link it is provided on the OP does have a power consumption chart.

Additionally, I don't see any "combative style" in is initial post:

I guess you left out the part where it consumes 100 watts more than a stock gtx460.

Or is it because the OP of this thread is happymedium that makes you see this post as trolling? (honest question - imagine it was some random dude)

 

[extra]

Yes because we all know the 5870 can't overclock at all, let alone very well.

And the GTX470 can't oc either.
.

Yeah, the 460 is a good card, but my 470 overclocks like mad, and i'm sure there's way better versions of it out there. I've heard of some that hit 1ghz on water (mine hits 900-ish on water--which is what I'm currently using, used it at 800 on stock cooler, RAM hits 1ghz, but minimal gains over about 900 imho..i just like seeing the nice even 2000 in afterburner lol)... 5770 overclocks super well too, 1ghz is normal, and 1.4ghz on the RAM is normal.

Pretty much all the current gen cards are great overclockers. . .

 

[bryanW1995]

my 4850 was a release card, it had the terrible fan problems and annoying noise from the single slot fan. I liked the 3870 better, in fact went to gtx 260 in large part b/c of the better stock fan setup. Speaking of better fans, put a gtx 260 and a gtx 460 side by side, the gtx 460 is tiny by comparison.

I spoke about temp and noise in response to this :

"The GTX460 is cooler, quieter, cheaper, consumes less power and OCs great giving it performance of X,Y, Z card".

The problem with posts like this is when you DO THE OC part some of the qualities mentioned vanish.

.

my card is STILL cooler, quieter, and cheaper than all of those other cards were for me, and it's also cooler/quieter/cheaper than any cards by either company with similar performance. I'm well aware that an extra 100w will put more heat into my room, I just don't care about that as much as I do about the others. nvidia has done a great job with the stock hsf in this card, kudos to them for it.

Yeah, the 460 is a good card, but my 470 overclocks like mad, and i'm sure there's way better versions of it out there. I've heard of some that hit 1ghz on water (mine hits 900-ish on water--which is what I'm currently using, used it at 800 on stock cooler, RAM hits 1ghz, but minimal gains over about 900 imho..i just like seeing the nice even 2000 in afterburner lol)... 5770 overclocks super well too, 1ghz is normal, and 1.4ghz on the RAM is normal.

Pretty much all the current gen cards are great overclockers. . .

ok, the card was listed at 675, evga oc'd it to 720 b/c the 675 was just too low, then I got it to 905 on air and just...stopped. I didn't hit a wall, temps were fine, I just couldn't believe that I was over 900 core on air at 64c in furmark. 34% oc on the core is just ridiculous, esp for me since I'm typically very easy on my gpus. I wouldn't run it anywhere close to my 24/7 880 if I hadn't seen tons of others doing that. how many gtx 470's get a 34% oc? what about 5850/5870? those are all excellent cards, but gtx 460 is a better overclocker.

 

[zebrax2]

WTF everyone went haywire when power consumption was mentioned. He stated a FACT. If the point he made doesn't concern you then his post isn't intended for you as some people actually care for power consumption(not everyone lives in a place where electricity is cheap). Some of you are even saying that because it is not included in the OP that it shouldn't even be discussed which is.........

 

[bunnyfubbles]

the gtx 460, based upon my personal experience, is cooler quieter and cheaper even after an OC. I get 5850 level + performance out a $150 card, so I'm happy as shit. That card is still cool (64c absolute max load), quieter (at least than my x1950xt, 3870, 4850, or gtx 260), and cheaper than any of those other cards were or anything current with similar performance. The only thing that changes when you OC is that it uses more power and you get better performance on the cheap.

He was trolling b/c the OP said nothing about the power usage, plus his clearly combative posting style was uncalled for in this instance.

pretty sure he did it because Happy Medium is pretty notorious for his bias, for example his original OP he only posts the positive high points of the review's conclusion and fails to post the review's lows:

Lows:

Doesn’t support more than two monitors;
TMU is lacking in some cases;
Worse HD video playback quality compared with the competitors.

of course fighting bias with bias is not the way to make these forums better

 

[blastingcap]

pretty sure he did it because Happy Medium is pretty notorious for his bias, for example his original OP he only posts the positive high points of the review's conclusion and fails to post the review's lows:

of course fighting bias with bias is not the way to make these forums better

OP was fine in posting what he did, if his point was that it was possible to oc/overvolt at least one existing GTX460 in the world that can, in some games and at some resolutions, beat out GTX470/5870, regardless of any negatives like higher wattage. I'm not sure how useful this "news" is, but whatever, I put it in the category as "news" like how you can highly oc 5870s and beat out GTX480@stock. Heck, you could probably even highly oc/overvolt a 5850 and match a GTX480@stock, if you go high enough.

 

[bryanW1995]

pretty sure he did it because Happy Medium is pretty notorious for his bias, for example his original OP he only posts the positive high points of the review's conclusion and fails to post the review's lows:



of course fighting bias with bias is not the way to make these forums better

not sure how lack of 3 monitor support that requires a $100 adaptor or fewer tmu's is relevant, I don't blame happy at all for ignoring that. and what do they mean by "worse hd playback than the competitors? amd doesn't have a 5840, but that would be the card to compete with gtx 460 1gb, so what are it's competitors? gtx 470 and 5870? that is a clear case of the reviewer digging for something to list in the lows. Is happy medium biased? often he is, but not in this case imho. again, it's easy to poo poo this card but I'm telling you guys it's extremely rewarding getting one of these suckers up to 900. it's almost as good as the old days of 100% oc's on pentium E 2140's.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Some of you are even saying that because it is not included in the OP that it shouldn't even be discussed which is.........

The topic is about a heavily overclocked performance part for PCs, which of them don't exhibit massive power spikes? I hate even offering a comparison because the whole line of discussion is so utterly foolish but I guess it is required-

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=24278&page=13

There we see a 211 watt spike for the OC model over the base model. People don't make a big deal about it because those who buy performance parts and then overclock them heavily aren't looking for the ideal solutions in terms of power efficiency. Go into the CPU forum and read the threads dealing with the largest overclocks, how many of the people are investigating their performance per watt? If this were a thread about the general properties of a specific architecture it would be one thing, lamenting the power draw of a heavily overclocked part? Really?

 

[GaiaHunter]

my card is STILL cooler, quieter, and cheaper than all of those other cards were for me, and it's also cooler/quieter/cheaper than any cards by either company with similar performance. I'm well aware that an extra 100w will put more heat into my room, I just don't care about that as much as I do about the others. nvidia has done a great job with the stock hsf in this card, kudos to them for it.

It is great that you are happy with your buy - nothing worse that upgrading and being disappointing.

But in this case we aren't comparing the GTX460 vs a X1900XT, we are comparing it to cards like a GTX465/470/480 and 5870/5850.

More relevant is that the card isn't clocked @900MHz stock, so it is legit to talk about other cards potential OCs.

Again, that doesn't mean the GTX460 isn't an excellent buy at its price, because it is.

But just because it is a great buy it doesn't make it less power hungry when reaching GTX470/5850/5870 performance levels.

And while a single 5850 doesn't make all the 5850 a great price/performance product, a card like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-500-_-Product it let me say that your GTX460 768 is only able to achieve the performance of a card $50 higher, and not $150.

 

[RussianSensation]

I guess you left out the part where it consumes 100 watts more than a stock gtx460.

hehe ya fair point. Of course I've seen people recommending a 5850 with 950/1000 mhz GPU overclocks claiming that Fermi cards are power hogs and shouldn't be considered As GaiaHunter noted, pretty much all cards can be power hogs once overclocked or depending on the power circuitry. Who would have thought that Asus 5870 consumes almost as much power as a 5970? Not me.

The fact that my CPU overclock alone adds +120W of extra power consumption from its 95W TDP is no laughing matter. Once you add Core i7 / Phenom II overclocks in there, you'd be looking at a minimum +200W of extra power consumption from overclocking alone for any enthusiast rig (newsflash everybody!!!) :wub:

I tend to place little emphasis on power consumption, considering I am already coasting @ 3.9ghz on my CPU. Still, it's great that you noted the increased power consumption because people new to PC hardware may not have anticipated the exponential power increase for only a 33% overclock and a slight voltage bump.

I believe power consumption was one of the main reasons why NV didn't clock those GTX460s much higher from the factory. Now imagine 2x GTX460s @ 850mhz for $400 vs. a single 5870 for $350. Pretty sweet bang for the buck.

how many gtx 470's get a 34% oc? what about 5850/5870? those are all excellent cards, but gtx 460 is a better overclocker.

Even if a GTX470 can do 800mhz (+32% OC) with a voltage increase, you'd be relegated to using headphones if you have one with a stock cooler. MSI and Gigabyte GTX460s run uber quiet even when overclocked - that's the beauty of GF104.

BTW guys, the reason Happy medium didn't post the added power consumption as a negative when overclocking was because the Pros/Cons were provided by Xbitlabs, not by Happy medium. So if anything, the author of the original article should have noted it. Don't shoot the messenger!