• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Which card is better?

K

kdw1975

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
142
I have two video cards. Which do you think would perform the best in my primary gaming machine at 1920x1200?

Card 1: PNY Signature GTX 470
Card 2: MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozer II 768 Meg.

The MSI card sure is quiet.
 
kdw1975 said:
I have two video cards. Which do you think would perform the best in my primary gaming machine at 1920x1200?

Card 1: PNY Signature GTX 470
Card 2: MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozer II 768 Meg.

The MSI card sure is quiet.
Click to expand...

Use the GTX 470 as your primary and the GTX 460 as a physX dedicated.
 
I thought the 470 was faster but the 460 is running stable at 900MHz where as the 470 doesn't like going much over stock.
 
Just because the clocks are faster doesn't mean that the 460 is the faster card. There is more to it than that.
 
Hedghawg71 said:
Just because the clocks are faster doesn't mean that the 460 is the faster card. There is more to it than that.
Click to expand...

I dunno at around that speed the performance of a GTX 460 reaches that of a GTX 470 and even beats it slightly. Not disagreeing completely, but if that 470 is stuck at stock frequencies then I'm thinking the GTX 460 he has may be the way to go because

+/- 5% of GTX 470 @ stock
Alot Quieter than GTX470 at stock
Pulls slightly less power than a 470 even overclocked that high.
Runs cooler than a GTX 470

GTX 470, however has more vram and higher memory bandwidth. Higher res scenarios with high IQ will favor the GTX 470, however op is gaming at 19x12 so 99% of the games he'll play will be fine using the 256bit 1gb on the GTX 460.

Edit, I didn't notice it was a 768 meg version. I would recommend the GTX 470 then. Especially for 19x12
 
Last edited:
kdw1975 said:
I have two video cards. Which do you think would perform the best in my primary gaming machine at 1920x1200?

Card 1: PNY Signature GTX 470
Card 2: MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozer II 768 Meg.

The MSI card sure is quiet.
Click to expand...

define better. the 470GTX even at stock is going to provide a higher level of game play then the 460. no matter how fast the gpu clock will go that is a crippled card and is memory limited. (all things equal the 768mb is always slower then a 1gb version due to the first having a smaller bus width) this will limit AA and some other higher settings. so even a stock 470 is going to beat it OCed. If you had the full version it does come close but that is mostly in benchmarks.

Having said that the 470GTX is a crappy card. its hot, noisy, power hungry, and isn't any faster then a 6870. esp if it doesn't OC.

I would actually take the quieter card myself. but that is a personal preference. and if you need more performance a second 460 768 is pretty cheap right now. you may still miss out on AA but its not a bad setup otherwise. it really up to what you value more in the card. personally I would not go with either if I could sell them off and get a better single card. (high end 460 if cheap enough, 6850 or if you have the money 6870)
 
Get the GTX470. Unless the thing has been abused to hell. I don't ever see the GTX460-768MB version being able to compete. If it were the 1GB version, I'd maybe have to pause and think about it.
 
768MB GTX460s are slow, and they take a lot of overclocking (typically at least a 35% increase in clocks) to match a 470. Remember 768MB 460s are not as fast as their 1GB counterparts. At such an enormous overclock, you'll be putting 250W or so through the card, so its power consumption will be similar to that of the 470. With the 470 you have more video memory, so this it works out the better options. They're both horrendously inefficient cards, but the 470 is probably the lesser of two evils.
 
GTX 460 768MB should be around 950MHz to perform more or less equal with GTX 470.

So you should really put 470 in main rig.
Give it a slight voltage nudge, OC and you'll have GTX 480 level card.
 
samuelmorris said:
768MB GTX460s are slow, and they take a lot of overclocking (typically at least a 35% increase in clocks) to match a 470. Remember 768MB 460s are not as fast as their 1GB counterparts. At such an enormous overclock, you'll be putting 250W or so through the card, so its power consumption will be similar to that of the 470. With the 470 you have more video memory, so this it works out the better options. They're both horrendously inefficient cards, but the 470 is probably the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't know anything about the 768 460? it's like 5% slower in real world gameplay behind the 1GB. It also overclocks better and runs alot cooler.

Having said that, I just switched my 768 460 to a 6850 and the gameplay is a lot smoother. Every time I thought I got the stuttering licked, it seemed to show up in something else. None of that now. Probably wouldn't recommend the 460 at this point, as nVidia is obviously not interested in fixing it.
 
My daughter got the 460 and I am keeping my 470 in my machine. I would love to try an AMD GPU again but have to pass them by until their F@H performance improves.
 
kdw1975 said:
My daughter got the 460 and I am keeping my 470 in my machine. I would love to try an AMD GPU again but have to pass them by until their F@H performance improves.
Click to expand...

that isn't going to happen. other distributing programs work find on AMD, the fault pretty well lies with Stanford here. I am sure it has nothing to do with dedicating buildings to Jen-Hsun.
 
kdw1975 said:
I have two video cards. Which do you think would perform the best in my primary gaming machine at 1920x1200?

Card 1: PNY Signature GTX 470
Card 2: MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozer II 768 Meg.

The MSI card sure is quiet.
Click to expand...

768MB isn't enough to game reliably at 1920x1200. I game at that resolution and I notice my VRAM usage can hit around 1300MB on some games, though more typical usage is around 800-900 (still well over 768 though).
 
Valset said:
that isn't going to happen. other distributing programs work find on AMD, the fault pretty well lies with Stanford here. I am sure it has nothing to do with dedicating buildings to Jen-Hsun.
Click to expand...

Surely that hasn't caused any favoritism. Though it does look kind of bad if you ask me. ;)
 
kdw1975 said:
Surely that hasn't caused any favoritism. Though it does look kind of bad if you ask me. ;)
Click to expand...

I am suspicious person, but the fact remains that other programs like folding at home work great on AMD cards, the limitation of the Stanford program does seem to either be deliberate indifference or out right rigged. I will leave it up to you to decide but I have a hard time swallowing it. one or two releases but still? if stuff like this didn't work well on AMD cards that would be one thing but others DO very well on AMD cards.
 
TomGreen321 said:
You clearly don't know anything about the 768 460? it's like 5% slower in real world gameplay behind the 1GB. It also overclocks better and runs alot cooler.

Having said that, I just switched my 768 460 to a 6850 and the gameplay is a lot smoother. Every time I thought I got the stuttering licked, it seemed to show up in something else. None of that now. Probably wouldn't recommend the 460 at this point, as nVidia is obviously not interested in fixing it.
Click to expand...

How it can run "alot" cooler with only a 10-15W lower power output is beyond me. Also, if the GTX460 1GB can clock from 675mhz to 940mhz, I don't see how the 768MB can really overclock better than that, as I haven't seen any 768MB cards clocked much in excess of that.

This smacks of someone who regrets buying the cheaper 460 and is trying to defend their decision.
 
samuelmorris said:
How it can run "alot" cooler with only a 10-15W lower power output is beyond me. Also, if the GTX460 1GB can clock from 675mhz to 940mhz, I don't see how the 768MB can really overclock better than that, as I haven't seen any 768MB cards clocked much in excess of that.

This smacks of someone who regrets buying the cheaper 460 and is trying to defend their decision.
Click to expand...

It can hit that but most people don't get there on the 1GB. More people were having luck getting over 900 with the 768. Having owned a 460 I spent quite a bit of time searching for fixes to the various problems so I read pretty much every "overclock you 460" thread out there.

I actually had a 1GB 460 that had the typical welcome screen crash/freeze before switching it out for the 768. I don't see why I would try to justify/defend my purchase of the cheaper model of the card AFTER replacing it.. The 1GB 460's were the ones that typically had the VRM overheating issues, which limited the overclock for many people.

Like I said, if you knew anything about the 460's you would know what made them tick. Clearly you don't.
 
Personally, I'm loving my GTX460. Runs solid and stable, no issues at all. I can't speak to the GTX470, but if you plan to OC I'm assuming the 470 would be the better choice. If you don't OC you would probably notice only a negligible difference.
 
Surely though, since the VRM cooling differs from non-ref card to non-ref card (All the going 460s appear to be non-reference).

I haven't personally owned a 460, as I don't have the privilege of buying every card there is out there, but I have done enough research that shows the 1GB 460 overclocks sufficiently well that you aren't going to see overclocks on the 768MB that are sufficiently higher that make up the not insubstantial performance increase between the two variants. Couple that with a pretty limiting amount of memory, and the 768MB 460 makes a very poor comparison to the GTX470, which is the actual point in debate here.

Take this graph for example:
avp-1920.gif

It takes the maximum overclock on the 1GB card (39%) to get 2% above the GTX470, a neglible difference.
Meanwhile the stock 1GB 460 sits a full 14% ahead of the 768MB version. Add that to the overclock it took to get the 460 1GB to match the 470, and you're looking at a 58% required overclock. Ain't gonna happen, nowhere close. I have never seen 768MB GTX460s anywhere near as high as 1060mhz.

In addition to this, in this test the GTX460 1GB is using about 145W at stock, versus 135W on the 768MB, that's a fair way off maximum power draw, as both cards can easily exceed 150W.
At the modest 850mhz clocks you typically see the 460 1GB is already up to 170W. At the speed it took to catch the 470 (which is using 200W here), the 460 1GB has jumped to a considerable 225W.
Applying that in broad terms to the 460 768MB, you're going to be seeing at least 210W out of it at 940mhz, and it'll still be more than 10% behind the GTX470. What you'd have to put through it to get it to match the 470 I don't know, but I don't like the thought of it running through the relatively basic power regulation and small cooler on the 460s. I think it's a pretty foregone conclusion that a card at such speeds wouldn't last.
Above all this, the 470 isn't even remotely a good card either, so it makes clocking the 460 look very poor indeed.
 
I ran 3dMark 11 on my machines and the 470 is a lot faster. Surprisingly the 920 is also faster than the 2500k, which is running 600MHz faster, at physics tests. Here are the results with everything at stock speeds and running Win 7 64 bit and at 1920x1080.

2500k/460 First #
i920/470 Second #


Graphics Test 1
4.89

6.3

FPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


GraphicsTest2

4.97

6.39

FPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


GraphicsTest3

4.67

6.01

FPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


GraphicsTest4

2.9

3.80

FPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PhysicsTest

20.55

21.32

FPS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CombinedTest

5.43

7.02

FPS
 
Why are all the frame rates single digits? That's not how I remember 3dmark11 running. Granted, I'm running more powerful hardware, but not by a factor of 10, which is how much higher I remember the frame rates being. Does 1920x1080 versus 1280x720 really have that much of an effect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top