Comparison: Factory-Overclocked Versus Reference Graphics

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I am in the middle of a high end HTPC build and it appears that the new GTX 460 is a card that will finally bridge the gap between low power/low heat/low performance card and high performance gaming card.

It still consumes much more power and generates much more heat, but beyond that what is the exact issue you have other than the slight variability of +/- 5% from model to model, which would be similar to the difference between a brand within the same line due to build differences. Features wise isn't an issue, it's about the OC.

Your complaint is pointless and similar to complaining they didn't compare it to the souped up water-block model. Or that they didn't scrap of the standard TIM and replace is with IC Diamond or something.

The point is to illustrate reference versus factory OC, and it does a good job of that so people get a basic idea about it.

That particular line from Nvidia is also the ONLY way you are going to get 3D Vision gaming and (Most importantly for HTPC) 3D Blu-Ray playback. ATI isn't even in that race and has nothing on the horizon.

Which has nothing to do with this article, once again you're in a pattern there which is outside of the interests of the article, just personal interests.

Jeez it's too bad he didn't consult you before writing the article to find out what resolution you need and what tests to run. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

 

[rfox911]

I would be quite satisfied with a gtx 460 and overclocking it

 

[Guest]

d-block :

What kind of moron puts a 5870 in a 32 bit machine? That test pc setup is complete garbage.


more to the point, who the hell in their right mind buys/uses a 32-bit OS anyways?


--Dude people with older equipment do use 32 bit OS ....... there is nothing wrong with our minds....

I use a P 4 1.9 ghz... with absolutely no graphics cards and it serves my purpose... performs slower than my granny walks...but hell yeah.... its still working 9 years!!!!!! on.....