Its circumstantial as to how the 460s and the 5830 compare, depending on resolutions, AA/AF, detail levels and tessellation. IMO the 5830 slots between the two 460s nicely overall, and its recent price cuts (as low as 180 for the sapphire with a $20 MIR) but it back into the hunt for price/performance ratios.
Overall the 4601gb model is superior to the 5830, but the 768mb model (more differences than just memory capacity) is the one competing on price with the 5830, and it doesn't do nearly as well. When overclocking is brought in, the Nvidias pull far ahead, but on a stock v stock basis, it is not so, due to the 5830s much lower relative OC ceiling.
Nice job using only 1680x1050 results, really unbiased there. Now why don't you link the pretty graphs that show the 5830 slotting between the two cards often at 1900x1200, and even showing above the 4601gb in a few titles? I didn't claim the 5830 was superior based on those specific conditions, did I?
Thats why I mentioned the conditions when comparing the cards. The 768mb version starts to show signs of choking at 1920x1080, and the 5830 shows a more robust showing in all the higher resolution tests. OVERALL, the 3 cards are the same tier, and the 5830 is the cheapest of the 3.
the 460 also runs cooler, quieter, and uses less energy. it scales way better than the 5830, and it overclocks way better too. the 5830 doesnt really have a place, it loses to the 768 mb version fairly consistently, and tbh, id always recommend to spend the tiny bit more for the 1 gig version, which beats it pretty much entirely.
And i have to agree with Ares in that the 460's are gunna pwn overall. but not by so much that i'd wanna switch brands.
but in looking at the charts, i've noticed that the 4890 actually is better pound for pound than either the 460 or the 5830, and blatantly beating the 5830 despite being cheaper. conceptually my 4850 would handle a second or third monitor, so the need for eyefinity is moot.
so in the end the 4890 meets my needs best overall.
and don't get so angry over opinions dudes, no need to get so worked up!
for 200, you can get the 768mb gtx 460, which vastly outperforms the 4890. personally, id say the 1 gig version is a better buy, but it also costs 30$ more than the 768mb version. I have a 4890, and im about to switch to a gtx 460, that should say something.
Yeah, the HD4890 is old tech and I would avoid it unless you find a great deal. Performance wise it is basically equal to the 768mb GTX 460 and lags a small amount behind the 1gb card. The GTX 460 is much better in every other aspect however.
The HD4890 uses a full 4 times more power at idle and 40w more under load. It is also DX10.1 instead of DX11 like the GTX 460 which will be important going forward. It also has more current A/V playback features and if you are interested in a dual card setup in the future SLI scales much better than crossfire and also the power heat difference becomes twice as important.
If you are going to overclock the GTX 460 is also much better for such. If you are quite lucky you can raise the HD4890 up to 1ghz from the stock 850mhz which is 17%. The GTX 460 can often get up to 900mhz from the stock speed of 675mhz which is a 33% increase.
the average ive seen it clock to is 850 MHz on the 460, but still, same point. the 460 is superior in every single way, from tesselation, to temps, to power consumption, to power. if you can get a 4890 for below 150$, then yes, get that, but at 200 bucks, the 4890 is a bad deal.
This review OCs pretty much all of the 768gb cards; http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-460-review/24
It is kind of confusing though. For reasons unstated they only up the voltage on the MSI card while making statements indicating they could but didn't for some of the other cards. Like about the Gigabyte card they say;
"Still, we were nearing 900 MHz, and settled at 861 MHz 100% rock steady stable. No GPU voltage was applied, so there's room left for more."