The "Future-Proofing" Argument

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

doogansquest

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
86
0
18,630
One GTX 480 vs. 2 GTX 460 in SLI mode.

This is a frequented Google topic and Youtube video extravaganza. We've probably all read the benchmarks over and over again. There's no question that 2 460's in SLI defeat the GTX 480 in every which way: performance, power consumption, noise level, and sometimes even price. I haven't fully decided, yet, which one i want, however, as I keep hearing the argument for "future-proofing."

I was committed on two different occasions to purchase 2 460's until a few people here, and at various other locations on the interwebs, swore I had to get the GTX 480 so that I could buy another one down the road to better future-proof my system for the next generation of DX11 games. My problem with this argument is the fact that it MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE!!! For one, all of the current games run better on 2 GTX 460's in SLI than on the GTX 480. So I'm set for the current crop of high-end games. Furthermore, the next generation of games - meaning ones that will be troublesome for the current crop of GPU's - are about 18 months (or more) away. By that time, there will be a new generation of graphics cards, thus rendering the Nvidia 400 series (and the ATI 5000 series) obsolete anyway.

In other words, upgrading with a 2nd GTX 480 later is a completely wasted prospect when the next line of graphics cards will likely blow that configuration away at the same price point. By the time I have the money to upgrade my graphics solution(s), I will likely buy all new.

As an aside: if I had the money, I'd get two GTX 480's now; but I don't, so I can't.

By the time there are games that will completely chew through a configuration of 2 GTX 460's in SLI, they will chew through the 480's as well and there will be better, more cost-effective graphics options available from both Nvidia and ATI.

So, if YOU are going to buy a GTX 480, that's fine. They are a powerhouse, they gain on the 460 SLI setup at extreme resolutions, and they look freaking cool. If you are going to buy it for "future-proofing," then it's my opinion (based on research) that you are wasting your efforts and your money. Again, by the time you've saved up again to upgrade your configuration, there will be newer, better options at that price point.

-The Doog
 

bertimus

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2010
128
0
18,690
There are actually some instances in which buying a single GTX 480 is a better option than using 2 460's. For example, if you are a big MMO fan, games like World of Warcraft have huge problems with SLI/CF, and actually run better on one card. So, getting 1 card that is really powerful is advantageous in that situation.

 


WoW works well in SLI, its just a PITA to get it working out-of-the-box. Many users tend to slap a second card and expect the game to perform flawlessly, you need to adjust a few settings in order to get it working properly.
 
I still think one OCed GTX 470 for now is more than enough at your resolution. The only games in which something more than that will be of any real benefit are Crysis and Metro 2033 and in those the difference will just be mainly about what level of AA you can apply. If you upgrade the monitor or want to go for a 3 monitor setup you can always add another. It's a smart choice financially and from an upgradeability perspective. It also might leave room in your budget for fancy stuff like a solid state drive or bluray burner that will be much more useful than maxing out AA in two games.
 


WoW might not have used to support SLI/CF, but it does now. I have confirmed this as I do have a CF'ed setup.

However, many people, like myself, enjoy to play it in windowed mode, so you can monitor ventrillo, and check wowwiki when doing new boss fights. In windowed mode, CF does not work.
 
@ doogansquest
Plain and simple, you already know based on what you have posted that a single card is the way to go and you just want someone to tell you that you are right and you wont loose out on "possible" performance gains of a dual card set up.
Well im here to tell you that you are right.
Take this scenario as a for instance, it actually happened as well. You just got a new dual card set up that rocked and owned every single card set up that existed. Now what happens is that a new system killer of a game gets released that is the dogs dangly bits and your alright because no one has more graphics grunt than you do right ? WRONG the game in question was Crysis and it didnt actually support dual cards out of the box so you had to wait for a patch,

Mactronix :)
 

notty22

Distinguished
Whats the status with Dirt2, anyone with SLI ?, does the game now support it fully.
I know with the demo, it didn't , then it did. Then with the final game, something changed, I know that would have been frustrating for me.
EDIT: Nevermind, TH, tested Dirt 2 in dx11 SLI with the gtx 460's, it was one of the cards higher points.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-sli-geforce-gtx-480,2694-7.html
 
@ OvrClkr
Mate if you dont konow how to size your Pics then please use links instead, its not nice having to scroll 3-4 pages and its actually detrimental to the forum.
Most other forums i use go mental if you use a full link never mind 3 fullpages of needless pictures.

Just saying

Mactronix

 
I got a little dare for a few of you out there thinking that their 512mb card is enough for every thing. Run your favorite game in windowed mode then log 3 or more instances of that one game. That is what I do with wow and it takes a 1gb card just to have playable frame rates. 4 accounts at once on my dual display setup. My x1900xt played like my 3870 and my 8800gtx was only a little better till I got desperate only to take my 9800gt 1gb edition out of my main rig :s At least I can quad log now with out lag. Haven't tried 5 or more accounts yet.
 

doogansquest

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
86
0
18,630


I'm starting to like that option more and more. Read my reply to the OCed GTX 470 comment below...



I never play WoW. Don't have the time. I can't commit to a group that plays the drama game over Raid times not being met, refusing to play with you if you aren't level 80 (why even have levels in the game?), and where you have to fit a specific niche within the party's needs to mathematically maximize their ability to do a particular amount of damage in just a particular fashion in order to defeat a particular boss and acquire a particular piece of wargear.

That's not a game. It's virtual socialism. I hate everything about it. I'm not going to tell you that you can't play it, but I will never play it. Or really any MMO for that matter...



This may win best answer. From what I've seen, the GTX 470 can play maxed out Crysis and Metro 2033 on that res without a hiccup, so I wouldn't be too left out, I'm sure. Thanks for the advice!



Interesting take on my situation. Close, but not quite. ;)
 


what do you mean scroll down 3 pages? :lol:

Edit, i guess you mean the pics were not cropped correctly.. My bad, [:lorbat:6]

anyways I edited the post, like it now?
 
I don't really believe in future-proofing, because if you try to, you'll always be surprised at what comes out in 2 years (that goes for both the hardware and the games it will run). It rarely works out exactly the way you'd hoped. Just get what's good and within your price range at the present, is my motto.
 

doogansquest

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
86
0
18,630


That makes the most sense. This is basically what I'm trying to come up with: the best for now. By the time I'm concerned with getting an upgrade, I'm probably getting a new rig.

One more question for you guys (though I'm sure many more will actually follow)...

Q: Is it worth it to save on the processor and mobo by dropping from an i7 930 to say, an i5 750/760, or even a Phenom ii x4 965 BE processor, so that I can buy more GPU and/or monitor? Will this scenario create an unwanted bottleneck with 2x GTX 470's for example?

P.S. I watched a Youtube video of a guy who got the 1156 chipset i7 (860 - I know, not cheaper, but the mobo's are cheaper) with a single 470 to post at around 72 fps on Crysis with max settings (38-40 minimum). He SLI'd a second one and was touching 128-130 max, with minimums in the 50's. So the minimums took a big hit in SLI, but the max was an insane jump.
 

Shirosaki

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2006
192
0
18,690
Wouldn't a single OC 460 gtx easily last 18 months if you're just waiting for the next series of cards? I guess it depends on how important graphics are to you. 470 also sounds like a great option since you're considering getting 2 460's and the 470 is $160 cheaper than that. A 460 is $70 dollars less than a 470. Maybe something to consider.
 

doogansquest

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
86
0
18,630


I want both smooth gameplay (for new and old games), as well as eye candy. I want all settings maxed out (I play mostly FPS and RTS games) without compromising smooth and speedy play.
 

doogansquest

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
86
0
18,630


Right. I wouldn't drop below the i5. Are the Phenom ii's below an i5 these days?

Would an SLI setup be worthless for games that are only graphics-intensive when a million models are on the screen like say, Dawn of War 2 or Starcraft 2? I play RTS's more than anything else (but I will be acquiring Crysis 2), as I still find my 360 to be uber-better at FPS games than even the newest gaming rigs.
 
If you are going with a high end SLI/CF setup, you will end up putting most the stress on the CPU, unless you play at an extreme resolution. To make it worth the investment, I'd make sure you have a high end CPU and OC it. Otherwise, you might as well just get one 460/470.

Look at these benchmarks: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling.html

Notice that many of the benchmarks, once in CF, continue to perform better and better the higher the i7/phenom II systems are OC'ed. This means the CPU is the bottleneck of the system. Also note that in the case where the CPU's are the bottleneck, the i7 pulls ahead of the phenom II's when OC'ed. (the i5 performs on par with the i7 for the most part).
 

The have always been below the i5 processors. They are more AMDs competition for the Core 2 Quads. Here is a comparison of the i5 750 with the 965BE;
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=102
As you can see the i5 is clearly faster but that doesn't tell the whole story. The i5 is running at 2.66ghz while the 965BE is running at 3.4ghz. Once you overclock and set them to a similar speed the i5 would just crush the 965BE.
 

Ug, seriously? The mouse/keyboard combo is so much better for first person shooters it isn't even funny. As for performance/graphics you need to keep in mind that console games at most operate at 720p and even that is rare. When they run at 1080p the image is simply upscaled to that resolution. On the PC the games can operate at the actual resolution of the monitor which is often over twice as high as the real output of the consoles. Add on top of that the extra graphical settings and enhancements of DX10/11 in games that use it and there is simply no comparison.
 


You do have to keep in mind that the 360 will limit the graphical options to settings that your system can handle. PC verions allow settings that are far high in visual quality, because some people can and do take advantage of them.

Most 360 games play at settings that are at best compariable to a PC games medium settings at lower resolutions as well.
 

doogansquest

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2010
86
0
18,630


Ug, seriously. The controller (in my opinion) is far more convenient, sensible, and reaction-friendly than a clunky, spread out keyboard and mouse where one slip means I click a "Q" instead of a "W". I played the keyboard + mouse for years and have never turned back once I grew accustomed to the 360 controller. INFINITELY BETTER than ANY keyboard and mouse setup. Period. Furthermore, there's virtually no load times, absolutely no choppiness in the game play, and the graphics rendering have been better for me than even the crazy 6400x4000 Crysis video running around Youtube.

Features or no, my vision is just about perfect, and my eyes know what they see.

That said, the computer has many uses not available to me on the console. Particulary, RTS, fast internet usage, and *some* FPS's. Plus, I like playing with the hardware (as a hobby). I do want to get the most muscle I can for the budget, however, which is the purpose of this thread. While I will never be as satisfied with a PC as I am with the consoles - I can't wait to see how long it takes PC's to catch up to the next line of consoles, btw - I want them to be as amazing as possible in a certain price-point.

Again, will I be wasting time/money popping for the 2x GTX470 config based on what I want to do? If it's worth the performance/appearance ratio, then I'll do it. I just can't quite do 2x 480's, so the 470 setup is my top of the line. If an i7-930 with a 1920x1080 monitor won't be able to take full advantage of that setup, then I'll pick something else.
 
Well, I can unequivically say you are simply flat out wrong about the graphics compared to to consoles. It's not even something that one can begin to question. If your vision is really alright then all I can think to explain is that you've never played the right games on a sufficiently equipped computer with a decent HD monitor. That seems to be about to change though so perhaps you'll understand soon enough.
As for the controller thing... well I guess it really is a personal preference. FYI your 360 controller can actually be used on a computer. It is even the standard controller for a lot of games these days. I must warn you though you will be raped hard and repeatedly if you attempt to use it vs people using a keyboard/mouse in multi-player first person shooters.
As for the card like I've said all along OCing one GTX 470 would be my recommendation. It really should be great for your resolution. You can always add another if you decide you want to. I'm a big fan of not overspending for something of little practical value. $150 more for just a 7% increase in performance after OCing? Nah. Add another $300 card to max out AA in a few games? I'll pass. That's just me but I always look for the sweet spot in performance vs price. People talk about "future proofing" a lot but I think the best way to do so is to buy smart and keep your options open rather than lock yourself into something for years to come because you spent so much on it. When you drop $600-900 on a graphic card setup you better be ready to stick with that for a long time unless you are rich. It is a very fast moving technology so I think that is a mistake for most people. Who knows what card will be on the market and what they will cost a year or two from now?
 

wh3resmycar

Distinguished


are you living under a rock by any chance? modern games utilize sli/cf. can you also check if your calendar says 2010 not 2006 (the year a statement such as the one you posted made sense).

 
Status
Not open for further replies.