GTX480 / GTX470 Reviews and Discussion

Page 86 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Good luck tri-SLI-ing those 460s. :lol:
 


WHOA!

I didn't see this originally (was on the road in Rotten Monkey Hut) but seriously? WTF!?! :heink:
Did you not read what I was replying to, just saw the pretty pictures and clicked the reply button? [:bohleyk:5]

Seems pretty specific what he said, and what I was focusing on in reply to that, not as an overall comparison between the two;

resreply.jpg


Guess that specificity slipped by you, eh! [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

I ignored the rest of what you wrote because it was likely as poorly researched. :pfff:
 


Willful misinterpretation. I call BS. Do we need a poll to show how many people think 'high' resolution doesn't start at 2560?

Also, the absolute best value I've ever seen in graphics goes to an ancient ATI 3D Rage something something I got for free. It gets just slightly better than zero fps across all modern games and resolutions and cost me zero dollars, placing it completely off the charts at infinite percent performance-per-price relative to any of the graphics solutions being fought over here.

 

Zomg. I've been out of the loop for too long... you can't tri-sli 460s? Lame... guess I'm keeping the 480s lol. Would be sweet if someone can swing tri 460s somehow....



Yeah, TGGA, you're being fairly selective with your settings and resolutions, when he just said "high res", "AA", and "AF". That can mean 1900x1200 2x AA to a LOT of people. And even at 2560 the 460, especially the 1GB one can still trade punches. At 1900 and lower it generally is superior, which is still in high resolution territory.

I myself was talking about across the board reviews. And in 99% of the reviews I've read, everyone would take the 460 over the 5770, 5830, AND 5850 a lot of the time, especially if they were going SLi because of their 90% or whatever insane scaling average. I'm just repeating what I've read, not my personal opinions on the matter. The fact that two 460s can destroy a 5970 in every way for hundreds less in cost is pretty funny in itself though.
 



A 5970 might be (as far as numbers are concerened a bit out of sli 460s range. but even then for the price diff ill take 2 460s. 😀
I wonder if tom will do a surround 460 review and pit it against a 5870 eyefinity
 




You're both missing the point, which isn't surprising of course. :sarcastic:
You can call BS all you want, and in return I call willful ignorance & blindness on both your parts. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

If someone says says in reply to it being a good card and still competitive for the money that it sucks at high res and AA, this is now a statement of "it sucks at slightly higher resolution and AA as long as you don't go even higher res & AA"? :heink:

I didn't see any qualification in that statement or the one that lead to is specifically about the 768 model for $50 more, not the 1GB model for $75+ more at the time, and at that level the it sucks as badly as the other, the 1GB model is the way to go no candy-coating the 768 version. :pfff:

Whereas as RR noted the 1GB version is a much better choice... except that's not the one he was talking about, and it's more than $50 more than the HD5770, so it pulls further away from that less than $150 range. So the HD5770 is also a good buy, and the statement about hi res & AA as some type of detraction from that is funny when the card being commented on doesn't excel in that area at all.

The GTX 460 is good, but both are limited when the settings get pushed and when you SLi them, that's not going to help those limitations much because it's not shader limited so much where it benefits most, and remember SLi won't help the memory either.


Anywhooo..... sure make up your own caveat and excuses as to why "high res with AA and AF" isn't high res, and that HD5770 and mid-range buyers should worry about AA let alone high res when looking at their cards. People made the same comment when it was being compared to the HD4850, when it's complex shader power even outpaced the HD4890, but it was criticized for not performing in old games with high resolution and high levels of AA.

Same thing here, trying to justify $50 more for the crappy GTX-768 due to high res and AA an area it obviously struggles in is simply laughable, and your attempt to defend it by trying to redefine high res to avoid that glaring hole is just ridiculous. :pt1cable:
 


No need to get snarky, just trying to discuss a copper stripped board with some semi-conductors on it 😛



We're not though, you are. Most people would consider 1920x1200 high resolution, as well as 2560x1680. You're ignoring that point.

And the 768MB version does fine at 1920x1200, compared to 2560x1680 which most people don't care about anyways. I'm not trying to defend the 460 768MG anyways, I'd MUCH rather buy the 1GB myself as would most other people likely for the extra $29, I'm just simply pointing out that you are making it sound like worse of a card than it is. The 768 is still a fantastic card for 90% of the people that would need a 460, and I would think most people would still consider the extra $50 over a 5770 worth it.

If you have a 1920x1200 monitor you simply spend the extra $29 and buy the 1GB version....

The 5770 was a great card, and at its price point is still fairly nice, but I think that the fact that 460s have more future expandability (better SLi scaling), better overclocking capabilities (according to the reviews I've read, not personal experience), and just flat out crushing performance for its price point, along with being just as cool and quiet as the 5770, will sway more people to it than the 5770, even at $50 more, or even $79 more for the 1GB version (that part is actually my speculative opinion 😛).
 


Sure, try to back-peddal that stance after your opening snarky comment weeks after the previous post. :sarcastic:
You say I'm selective and then you don't have anything to show it's incorrect or in some way not related to the statement that was made, instead you want to redefine what is high res and AA into just your definition. Talk about hypocrisy. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

We're not though, you are. Most people would consider 1920x1200 high resolution, as well as 2560x1680. You're ignoring that point.
Click to expand...

I don't ignore that 19x12 and 25x16 are both 'high' res, but that the GTX460 does poorly at 25x16 means it does poorly at high resoution, especially when it struggles against the HD5770 let alone the HD5830 which is a generally worse buy, and thus shows it's not just the HD5770 that 'sucks at high res'. Your trying to limit high res to just 19x12 doesn't change that fact, but show you're trying to be far more selective in your defense of it. I have always said that the HD5770 and other mid-range are aimed at people not using top end gear, but don't pretend the GTX-460 doesn't suffer from the same issue.

The rest of your post is as lame a justification as someone saying that the HD5750 is a great buy because if you Xfire it it's better than the GTX-460 and HD5850, and for less money, but it doesn't matter to the statement that was made, it's not about the overall value of the 1GB model which is good and which I've said was good, it's to the statement that was made.

If you can't figure that out, that's your myopic problem, not mine. :pfff:
 
I wasn't being snarky at all? Wtf? I just said I thought you were being selective, no need to get defensive now. And I'm not backpedaling either, I'm saying the same thing I've said the whole time, both 1920x1200 and 2560x1680 are both high resolution, not one or the other, the 460 768MB does alright at 1920x1200 poorly at 2560x1680, therefore it is merely "meh" at high resolutions.

I never said it didn't suffer from this, I merely said that it is still a better buy than the 5770 despite this issue, as they both share a similar issue at high resolutions.

And I'm not redefining "high" resolution at all. Take a poll, I would bet money that 90% of people that own computers would consider a 24" monitor high end, let alone 30" which most would probably consider ultra-high end. I'm not redefining anything, you are just selectively ignoring 1920x1200.

And I listed other things than good SLi SCALING (key word: scaling, not the feature itself) that make it a great sell.

You seem to get worked up over things for odd reasons beyond me. I'm not sure why you are making this argument so personal 😵, I'm just trying to argue merits and what constitutes "high resolution", can we stick to that and not the personal pot shots?

Side note: I am actually myopic and wear glasses 😛
 


So you know this, but you can't figure out why it's relevant to the previous discussion, whereas the cost/value discussion is a totally different issue? :heink:

You say I'm being selective, yet you're not being selective enough, obviously unable to stick to the one topic of that discussion without going onto the irrelevant sidebar issue of value as if that had anything to do with the comment of high res and AA.

I'm done arguing with you on whatever side argument you think you were having (I can only think it was about value which I never questioned) because it's not relevant to the quote/graphs you were taking issue with which was specific to the statement of high resolution + AA performance that you agree they both share. Maybe it's the time lapse between your post and everyone else's or your other limitations, but if you say 'they both share a similar issue at high resolution' then you are agreeing with what I was showing, but just aren't smart enough to equate why it was shown. [:fisshy:2]
 
Oh god. Fight it, Minus. Fight it! Don't get drawn int...


Let's keep it simple. We all seem to at least claim that 1920x1080 is "high" resolution. We also all seem to agree that both the 5770 and 460-768 suck at resolutions higher than that. So let's cut out the resolutions at which both cards produce virtually unplayable results and focus on the "high" resolution where there's actually a difference between the two.

Here are some comparisons taken from guru3d's compiled charts found in its review of the Asus Axle GTX 460-768MB(http://www.guru3d.com/article/axle-geforce-gtx-460-review/9):

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2
# 4x Anti-Aliasing
# 16x Anisotropic Filtering
# All settings maxed out
460: 87 fps
5770: 76 fps


Battlefield Bad Company 2 DX11
# DirectX 11 enabled
# 8x Multi-sample Anti-aliasing
# 16 Anisotropic filtering
# All image quality settings enabled at maximum

460: 32 fps
5770: 28 fps


Colin McRae Dirt 2
# 8x Anti-Aliasing
# 16x Anisotropic Filtering
# All settings maxed out

460: 46 fps
5770: 45 fps


Far Cry 2
# high-quality DX10 mode
# 8x AA (Anti-aliasing)
# 16x AF (Anisotropic Filtering).

460: 55fps
5770: 32 fps


Metro 2033

...HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
"Image quality settings are maxed out, we are in DX11 mode and have AAA anti-aliasing activated. "
460: 14 fps
5770: 11 fps

This... this doesn't matter.


Anno 1404 - Dawn of Discovery
# enable everything
# enable the highest possible image quality settings.
# DirectX 10 mode
# 4x Anti-Aliasing enabled.

460: 46 fps
5770: 40 fps

Crysis WARHEAD
# Codepath DX10
# Anti-Aliasing 2x MSAA
# In game quality mode Gamer

460: 33 fps
5770: 26 fps


Resident Evil 5 (DirectX 10)
"We test at 4xAA with all settings maxed activated, including BLUR."

460: 76 fps
5770: 63 fps



So. Here's how I interpret this data.
Metro doesn't matter because it's unplayable anyway. CoD:MW2 doesn't matter either because both are pretty far over 60 fps average. It's like Left4Dead, we just don't care because no one will notice a difference between the two. And then Dirt 2 is basically a tie.

RE5, both average over 60, though the minimum fps on the 5770 is likely more noticable.
Far Cry 2, no discussion needed.

Three ties and two victories for the 460, one major one minor, going into the final three matches. The big questions:
Is 33 fps significantly better than 26 fps in Crysis WARHEAD?
Is 32 fps significantly better than 28 fps in Battlefield Bad Company 2 with DX11?
Is 46 fps significantly better than 40 fps in Anno 1404 - Dawn of Discovery?


Eh... I'm guessing TGGA says "no", RealityRush says "yes", and Minus says "I don't play those games anyway."
If you say "yes" and want to play the games where there's a difference, you may want to pay extra for a GTX 460-768MB.
If you say "no", OR only play the games where the difference doesn't matter, you may want to buy a cheaper Radeon 5770.

No rational human being can possibly disagree with this assessment.

Are we done? Is it over? Or do we go fight about AvP now too?
 


And you still don't understand why the data was posted, wow you're really 'special'. :pt1cable:
Not to say A>B, but to prove false the statement that it's only A that suffers from issues at high resolution when compared to that other solution being posted (the only reason the $50 being mentioned is not for value, but to define between the 768MB / 1GB models in the terms used in the previous posts).

Thank you for both agreeing with that, yet not being able to understand that that was the point, despite you having 3 previous opportunities to have that clarified for you. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

Are we done? Is it over?
Click to expand...

I don't know, are we.., is it.., or are you still having difficulty using that lump three feet above your a$$? :hello:
 


Pretty quick with the insults there, Ape. I'm not... getting to you, am I?

Let's review and see who's really special.

Begin. You responded to this:
"My problem with the 5770 is how it runs games. It fails to run a lot of games on high or max detail now, which makes it very hard to recommend if you consider the demands of future games", a critique of one product's absolute performance numbers and near-future viability
with this:
"Same thing with the GTX460 768, and the limit of 1GB of memory on its brother. And even if you only look at highest settings, the HD5770 is still high up, further even; "

That's a very special quote for a couple reasons. 1.) We seem to agree that at the highest resolutions those products are special anyway and their results should be ignored, and 2.) You then referenced one of those special 'Performance per Dollar' graphs which I already said is dominated by my special ATI 3D Rage something something, which you didn't object to because, woo, ATI.

Then you tried to show that the 5770 can compete with a more expensive product by using some special graphs that show them both failing specially. :non:

So RealityRush suggested we focus on only the special 'high' settings where there's actually a difference between the two products. 😱 :ouch:

This took you by surprise and may have hurt you a bit. I can tell by "WHOA!" and "but seriously? WTF!?!". Special.

I called BS on your handling of the above. Possibly because I'm special, but I don't know. :pt1cable:

You replied with five emoticons, and stated what seemed to be your goal in all this: to show that high resolutions and anti-aliasing are no reason to spend an extra $50 on a GTX 460 when you can get a 5770 instead, which is a bit different than "to prove false the statement that it's only A that suffers from issues at high resolution when compared to that other solution being posted". :heink: :sweat: :heink:

So your latter goal is accomplished rather vacuously by showing that there are, in fact, other video cards on the market that take performance hits when forced to do more work, and the rest of us take you even farther away from your former goal with some more numbers from Anandtech:

Mass Effect 2
#1920x1200 - High Quality - 4X AA
460: 51 fps
5770: 39 fps.

$50 bucks gets you some really nice performance over an 'eh..' experience here. That's too bad. I heard this game was good. :pfff:

BattleForge DX11
#1920x1200 - Maximum Quality
460: 33.2 fps
5770: 24.6 fps

$50 bucks actually makes this game playable over the Radeon's slideshow. Damn, that's like a 35% performance increase. Why buy a special 5770 for DX11 if it can't handle having DX11 turned on? 😗

H.A.W.X.
#1920x1200 - 4x AA - DX10 - low Ambient Occlusion
460: 84 fps
5770: 60 fps

Whoa, I actually play this game sometimes. And the 5770's average of 60 means it probably spends some time below 60? Guess I should avoid it then. My extra $50 will be well spent avoiding screen hiccups in a dogfight with eighty missiles locked onto my special a$$. :hello:
 


Nah, I'd have to respect you for that to matter, and I don't. :pfff:

Begin. You responded to this:
"My problem with the 5770 is how it runs games. It fails to run a lot of games on high or max detail now,...

..."Same thing with the GTX460 768...

That's a very special quote for a couple reasons. 1.) We seem to agree that at the highest resolutions those products are special anyway and their results should be ignored,
Click to expand...

In no way did I say their results should be ignored, only you would say that since they don't match what you want to say as an A > B comparison.
You never ignore results, you can give them weight in decision making, but you never ignore them, and that's why you don't get it. It's not a question of saying results should be thrown out to fit a better conclusion that you want to fabricate on your own, it's a question of comparing the options especially as it relates to the limits of both the fact that they are both limited is important, something that has great value, so you don't ignore that, nor do you pretend it's just one, and not the other. The main point you still continue to miss. Which is why many tests will show the HD5770 to be limited and other will show the GTX460 to be limited, and THAT'S the point of that original post, which you still don't get.

and 2.) You then referenced one of those special 'Performance per Dollar' graphs which I already said is dominated by my special ATI 3D Rage something something, which you didn't object to because, woo, ATI.
Click to expand...

Different discussion, and irrelevant to the issue at hand, relevant to that specific issue in another discussion about the G92/GTX460, not the HD5770/GTX460, many other free cards even in the forum giveaways beat that, so woot to the last giveaway.

Then you tried to show that the 5770 can compete with a more expensive product by using some special graphs that show them both failing specially.
Click to expand...

Nah, you obviously can't read. Where exactly did I say it can compete with the more expensive product, and how are the graphs in any way special? :heink:

They're the THG reviews I didn't even have to go to another site, unlike you. :pt1cable:

So RealityRush suggested we focus on only the special 'high' settings where there's actually a difference between the two products. 😱 :ouch:

This took you by surprise and may have hurt you a bit. I can tell by "WHOA!" and "but seriously? WTF!?!". Special.
Click to expand...

Nah, what took me by surprise is that someone would wait 3+ weeks to reply to the thread an make comment to question the motivation, instead of doing it at the time, which is pretty cheap.

You replied with five emoticons, and stated what seemed to be your goal in all this: to show that high resolutions and anti-aliasing are no reason to spend an extra $50 on a GTX 460 when you can get a 5770 instead,
Click to expand...

Show me the quote that said that, said anything about getting an HD5770 instead?
Show me exactly instead of making things up that weren't there because you don't understsand the comment. :non:

My post was pretty short an sweet yet you and RR still seem unable to comprehend that it was about the comment about high res and AA as if it were exclusive to one solution. You can try to position it like I was recommending the HD5770 over the GTX460, but it's pretty straight forward as to what it specifically pointed out, even the graphs were pretty self-explanatory, so your inability to understand that shows just how special you are. :miam:
 


Let's see... where did you make any comment about a 5770, or "B" as I guess we're calling it now, in relation to a GTX 460...

Oh, I get it. You didn't say it could compete because you didn't actually use the word "compete". Clever. Weird though that you'd nitpick that detail after being so vague in your opening paragraph.

You said this:
"Yeah, it's terrible compared to that $50 more GTX460-768 at high res with AA. 😗 "

Well.. ok, technically you didn't say that at all. You typed it. But the rest of us understand what "said" generally means in the context of a text-based forum. Unless you use voice recognition software, in which case you really did say it.
Anyway, you "said" that in response to "Maybe at Low Res but absolutely sucks at high res with AA and AF", which in turn was said in response to "It is high and mighty.", which itself was a response to a B not being 'high and mighty'. So regardless of whether you were aware of it or not, you were talking(typing, etc.) about a Radeon B.

Then you later said, still with B in mind judging by the $50 reference, this:
"trying to justify $50 more for the crappy GTX-768 due to high res and AA an area it obviously struggles in is simply laughable".

Sounds like a competition between B and A to me. But we've already established that I'm too special to 'get it'. All I did was actually show some numbers we can use to differentiate A and B so people can decide for themselves whether or not $50 more for the crappy A is actually justifiable. Why is that so hard to swallow?

 


After the fact, when you guys took it on the detours trying to justify it with sidebar issues like the 1GB model and your Rage3D, not from me starting that discussion in that direction.

Like I said to RR in the first post before that detour clearly stating "Seems pretty specific what he said, and what I was focusing on in reply to that, not as an overall comparison between the two", yet you too also obviously missed the original point which was not A vs B but showing those truisms being used are overstated for the 768MB card (unlike the 1GB card which fares much better as I also stated).
Also like I pointed out to you already the $ value reference was in direct reply to the thread of that conversation where it was initiated by the previous poster AMW (to whom specifically I was chatting with) with his comment "The GTX 460 maxes most games for only $50 more and has the advantage of SLI scaling for the future" in reply to the value chart once again posted in reply to his previous statement.

Now AMW may have been trying to put them in direct competition, but I was showing that the reasoning behind both arguments was flawed as the GTX460 is neither the equivalent of the G92, nor was a 768MB card good for maxing games as if the HD5770 was exclusive in sucking at high res and AA, and nor was it going to do well with SLi being held back by it's weak back-end.

But of course you like RR missed that point completely and focused solely on the reply because you didn't figure out the context of the discussion, obviously if you want to randomly start deciding on high res along with RR, and not that there was an issue with 768MB version dropping off.
You can blame it on either time or a lack of faculties on your part.

But we've already established that I'm too special to 'get it'.
Click to expand...

Yep, I guess we answered the question of which of the two it was for you and established that you are 'too special' to get it. :miam:

On the other hand I'll attribute RR's response to the time lapse between the post, since he deserves the benefit of the doubt. :hello:

 



You are also missing a point here, Ape. The whole point of me calling BS on you earlier was that whether or not those truisms are overstated depends entirely on the user's interpretation of 'high settings'. Remember? The BS thing? :pfff:

 
Man you two are going at this like a pack of rabid Hyenas.

Minus, just forget it man, we all obviously have a different perspective on the context of certain posts. And while I agree with you, don't give TGGAs insults credibility by responding to them, especially while returning the condescending attitude yourself, as you are lowering yourself to the same level.

I think if we just agree to disagree with TGGA and leave it at that, we can all go home content, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom