Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GTX 460 2GB: worth the wait?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 3, 2010 10:12:32 PM

So most of the manufacturers of the GeForce gtx 460 fermi cards have 768MB and 1GB versions released.

Now several of them are prepping non-reference 2GB versions.

Are these worth the wait, performance boast and price increase?


Anyone care to guess as to how much more these things should cost and relative performance inc.?

More about : gtx 460 2gb worth wait

a b Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 10:17:18 PM

2GB is likely not going to have any REAL benefit on a GTX 460. To consume 2GB at this point, you'd have to be using a 2560x____ monitor resolution anyhow, and the GTX 460 won't perform at those resolutions.

Waste of money in my opinion. Even 2GB on a GTX 470 or ATI 5850 would seem fairly pointless today. In the future perhaps, but with current game titles there's no need for 2GB in my experience.
August 3, 2010 10:18:16 PM

If you plan on sli and game at 1920X1080 or higher it would be worth buying.
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 10:21:16 PM

jerreece said:
2GB is likely not going to have any REAL benefit on a GTX 460. To consume 2GB at this point, you'd have to be using a 2560x____ monitor resolution anyhow, and the GTX 460 won't perform at those resolutions.

Waste of money in my opinion. Even 2GB on a GTX 470 or ATI 5850 would seem fairly pointless today. In the future perhaps, but with current game titles there's no need for 2GB in my experience.


what jerreece stated, its a marketing gimmick. maybe if you where a programmer the memory could be useful....but then you would not be asking the question from us...
a b Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 10:23:12 PM

killerchickens said:
If you plan on sli and game at 1920X1080 or higher it would be worth buying.


save your money, or better yet send it to me....that way you would get the same performance and I would be happier :lol: 
a b Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 10:31:13 PM

ct1615 said:
save your money, or better yet send it to me....that way you would get the same performance and I would be happier :lol: 


LOL +1

Sort of the 2 + 2 = 4... just like 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. No matter how you do the math, it's the same results. I was gaming with a guy on Bad Company 2 last night and chatting over Teamspeak. He's got a Quad SLI GTX 480 setup. But why? He can't really harness that kind of power anyhow. LOL
a c 168 Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 10:38:51 PM

I would rather have a 460 with all it's cores enabled but maybe that's just me.
a b Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 11:04:54 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I would rather have a 460 with all it's cores enabled but maybe that's just me.


You mean a GTX460 that's 'hacked' or 'flashed' to act like a 470/480? :) 

- Oh Way, the Quad SLI GTX 480 guy is running a Core 2 Quad Extreme -
August 3, 2010 11:32:30 PM

ct1615 said:
save your money, or better yet send it to me....that way you would get the same performance and I would be happier :lol: 


Oh I must have been stupid when I bought my 2gb 4850 x2 instead of the 1gb version 1.5 years ago its not like newer games started using more memory or anything crazy like that no that would never happen. :lol: 
a c 168 Î Nvidia
August 3, 2010 11:39:50 PM

jerreece said:
You mean a GTX460 that's 'hacked' or 'flashed' to act like a 470/480? :) 

- Oh Way, the Quad SLI GTX 480 guy is running a Core 2 Quad Extreme -

No, your thinking of the 465, I'm talking about only 336 of the 384 cores being available on this version/edition of the GF104.
a b Î Nvidia
August 4, 2010 1:28:01 AM

killerchickens said:
Oh I must have been stupid when I bought my 2gb 4850 x2 instead of the 1gb version 1.5 years ago its not like newer games started using more memory or anything crazy like that no that would never happen. :lol: 


...the 4850 x2 2GB runs at 1GB per GPU....ATI already had 4850 1GB cards out since they where able to utilize the ram...how does that prove the GTX 460 is fast enough to utilize 2GB of RAM? :ange:  :whistle: 
August 4, 2010 2:44:25 AM

ct1615 said:
...the 4850 x2 2GB runs at 1GB per GPU....ATI already had 4850 1GB cards out since they where able to utilize the ram...how does that prove the GTX 460 is fast enough to utilize 2GB of RAM? :ange:  :whistle: 


As I said in my first comment you would have to buy another for sli eventually. A single 4850 cant use 1gb of ram you need 2 in crossfire.
a b Î Nvidia
August 4, 2010 3:05:24 AM

killerchickens said:
As I said in my first comment you would have to buy another for sli eventually. A single 4850 cant use 1gb of ram you need 2 in crossfire.


.....care to explain that comment a little further in detail....especially the part of "single 4850 cant use 1gb of ram you need 2 in crossfire"....
August 4, 2010 3:17:44 AM

ct1615 said:
.....care to explain that comment a little further in detail....especially the part of "single 4850 cant use 1gb of ram you need 2 in crossfire"....


If you have a single 4850 it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth to use 1gb of ram but if you put 2 4850s in crossfire it doubles the memory bandwidth so it can use the extra ram. It works the same with sli.
a b Î Nvidia
August 4, 2010 3:47:14 AM

killerchickens said:
If you have a single 4850 it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth to use 1gb of ram but if you put 2 4850s in crossfire it doubles the memory bandwidth so it can use the extra ram. It works the same with sli.


you totally edited your answer once you realized you had no clue what you where talking about :lol: 
August 4, 2010 3:53:37 AM

The 2GB on GTX460 sounded like another marketing stunt by an avid nVidia partner working too hard to try and stand-out from the rest of the pack (read MSI, eVGA). But then I started reading news of nVidia partners having difficulties getting their hands on the GF104 processors - seems they can't build them fast enough to satisfy the demands. So why a 2GB version, and when will it be available? Is it even useful, or is an nVidia partner just trying to make a name for itself?

If the card does come out I guess some minor benefits would occur, for those using SLI, playing at very high resolutions, or with a 3 monitor layout. Then again, those are probably better off waiting for the more powerful 475/485/495(???) cards to be released.

In the end it all comes down to $$$$$$. If the 2GB card is only $15/$20 more expensive it will sell. If they have to enter into the realm of the 470 (~$280) it's useless - more, If they have to go near the ~$250 price the card will never be released...if it is, well I guess "there's one born every day"...
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 4, 2010 4:09:13 AM

There are only two reasons for more than 1gb of video ram atm. If your resolution is extremely high (higher than 1920x1200) or even at 1920x1200 only if you wish to use SSAA and I'm not even sure Nvidia offers SSAA.
August 4, 2010 4:14:40 AM

ct1615 said:
you totally edited your answer once you realized you had no clue what you where talking about :lol: 


No actually I just really suck at typing/writing and try to fix all my mistakes any changes I make are added information or grammatical corrections. Thank god for spell check. :) 
a c 168 Î Nvidia
August 4, 2010 7:24:50 PM

I would want to see the benchmarks that show 2GB of RAM having a significant benefit before I laid out any cash for the hardware.
August 4, 2010 7:40:36 PM

So will this play Crysis or even GTA4 at Ultra High specs?
August 4, 2010 8:34:09 PM

HavoCnMe said:
So will this play Crysis or even GTA4 at Ultra High specs?



No. You will also need a motherboard, CPU, RAM, PSU, HDD, keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
August 4, 2010 8:44:00 PM

RAM isn't the thing getting in the way of ultra high settings. You want number crunching power, aka a better GPU core.

2GB is a lot, more than you can use for a buget monitor resolution and the GTX 460 core is low end. An intel core 2 with 12GB of RAM would not beat out an i7 980X with even 3GB of RAM. Storing more information than you can crunch isn't very helpful.
August 4, 2010 8:53:52 PM

killerchickens said:
If you have a single 4850 it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth to use 1gb of ram but if you put 2 4850s in crossfire it doubles the memory bandwidth so it can use the extra ram. It works the same with sli.


Bandwidth and quantity are mutually exclusive. Care to explain? The former being how much data can move. The latter obviously being basically a buffer. If you have a lot of bandwidth, but not a lot of storage, you're slow. If you have the opposite, it's a waste but only as fast as your bandwidth. This is why you see a performance bump, for example, with the 8800GTSs between 320 and 640MB variants. Same BW between them. The former wasn't enough memory to get the most out of it.

And since when does memory bandwidth double? The card's BW is static. You have two cards doing essentially half the work (with a lot going on in the background) but your BW stays the same.
August 6, 2010 11:05:34 PM

I can see a 2 GB Palit at the same price as Overclocked 1 GB version. (£185)
I'm actually going to put my hands on a Gainward 1GB GLH version (£196). It seems to be the fastest GTX460 1GB version right now.

I haven't seen any review of the 2GB version yet but I see a few stores already selling them.
a b Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:19:25 PM

rofl_my_waffle said:
RAM isn't the thing getting in the way of ultra high settings. You want number crunching power, aka a better GPU core.

2GB is a lot, more than you can use for a buget monitor resolution and the GTX 460 core is low end. An intel core 2 with 12GB of RAM would not beat out an i7 980X with even 3GB of RAM. Storing more information than you can crunch isn't very helpful.


what??!! are you insane? i keep reading all these posts on this forum of how more video ram = better performance at higher resolutions!! how the GT240 1GB is better then the 9800GT 516mb, how the 9500GT 1GB will give 3x the performance of the 9500GT 256mb at 1920x1200 res. I was looking at a GTX460 768mb SLI build but with all this great advice im going with the CF 4350 1GB set up! I'm thinking 125FPS in crysis, if not more.....oh will that run with my athlon XP CPU and 300w PSU?? ;) 



a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:25:28 PM

ct1615 said:
what??!! are you insane? i keep reading all these posts on this forum of how more video ram = better performance at higher resolutions!! how the GT240 1GB is better then the 9800GT 516mb, how the 9500GT 1GB will give 3x the performance of the 9500GT 256mb at 1920x1200 res. I was looking at a GTX460 768mb SLI build but with all this great advice im going with the CF 4350 1GB set up! I'm thinking 125FPS in crysis, if not more.....oh will that run with my athlon XP CPU and 300w PSU?? ;) 


Tom's Hardware did an artical on ram less than a year ago. They tested 256mb to 1gb of video ram. What they found was that at lower resolutions, there was no benefit going from 512mb to 1gb of ram.

When you see the newer benchmarks that include these 2560x1600 resolutions, you'll also find that the 1GB cards start to choke, and the new 1.5GB nvidia cards perform very well. Especially when AA is on.

I've also found from personal experience, when at 1920x1200 and trying to use Supersampling AA beyond x4, my system just can't handle it. This is because supersampling increases the resolution then shrinks it in order to perform AA. It works great, but requires a lot of video ram.
a b Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:31:23 PM

killerchickens said:
If you have a single 4850 it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth to use 1gb of ram but if you put 2 4850s in crossfire it doubles the memory bandwidth so it can use the extra ram. It works the same with sli.

This is not the case. A single HD4850 does see some benefit from 1gb over 512mb when running at high resolutions. In crossfire each card uses it's own memory so the memory subsystems and associated bandwidth and quantity are redundant. While the dual processor cards are marketed as "2gb" and that is technically correct it is really exactly the same as running 1gb HD4850s in crossfire. Perhaps in crossfire that extra memory is more useful as that setup can handle higher resolutions and settings that can take better advantage of 1gb of memory but it has nothing to do with the bandwidth being doubled because it isn't.
Anyway, this is not relevant to a discussion of a 2gb single GPU card like a 2gb GTX 460 would be. I imagine in a single card the 2gb would be basically useless but if you were to put it in SLI with another and use a high resolution monitor(like 2560x1600) or a 3d Vision setup then you will actually see some benefit. Whether it is enough to justify the extra cost is another question entirely.
a b Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:43:36 PM

bystander said:
Tom's Hardware did an artical on ram less than a year ago. They tested 256mb to 1gb of video ram. What they found was that at lower resolutions, there was no benefit going from 512mb to 1gb of ram.

When you see the newer benchmarks that include these 2560x1600 resolutions, you'll also find that the 1GB cards start to choke, and the new 1.5GB nvidia cards perform very well. Especially when AA is on.

I've also found from personal experience, when at 1920x1200 and trying to use Supersampling AA beyond x4, my system just can't handle it. This is because supersampling increases the resolution then shrinks it in order to perform AA. It works great, but requires a lot of video ram.


you still need a card capable of utilizing the RAM, slapping more RAM on a video card and calling it faster at higher resolutions means nothing. The Nvidia 8800GT 256mb will outperform the 8500GT 1GB at 2560x1600. doubling each card's RAM will only increase the performance of one of the cards, the one capable of handling the extra RAM.
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:49:39 PM

ct1615 said:
you still need a card capable of utilizing the RAM, slapping more RAM on a video card and calling it faster at higher resolutions means nothing. The Nvidia 8800GT 256mb will outperform the 8500GT 1GB at 2560x1600. doubling each card's RAM will only increase the performance of one of the cards, the one capable of handling the extra RAM.


I'm not sure about that. (I'm not sure either way.)

Essentially it works something like this: To display resolutions over 1280x1024, you need 512mb of video ram, or it starts having to access your CPU ram, and radically reduces performance. To display 1920x1200, you need closer to 1GB of video ram, or it has to steal from your system RAM also radically reducing performance.

Using AA without enough ram adds an increased hit on performance as well.

The question is, just how much of a hit does it take to use system ram compared to the performance increased by having a faster core. It's definately a balance. I'll try the find the artical on video ram needs.
a b Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:54:48 PM

bystander said:
I'm not sure about that. (I'm not sure either way.)

1280x1024, you need 512mb of video ram, or it starts having to access your CPU ram


soooo playing Sims 2, Civ III or Deus EX at 1280x1024, I require 512mb RAM............interesting theory there............
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 6, 2010 11:57:04 PM

ct1615 said:
soooo playing Sims 2, Civ III or Deus EX at 1280x1024, I require 512mb RAM............interesting theory there............


It obviously varies from game to game, and how much textures you need. There is a lot to it all, but most games today, you don't really need much more than 512mb at 1280x1024, but you'd start having issues at 1920x1200. Not all games are alike and want the same amount of memory.
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 12:08:29 AM

I found the artical I was looking for. I didn't remember it 100% accurately, but as you can see, at 1920x1200 and up resolutions 512MB will hinder your ability to use AA. At 2560x1600 resolutions, 1GB can hamper your ability to use AA. (I didn't recall it being a problem with just AA on, but I think most of us like AA anyways).

"For the gamer, there are three main factors that have the most influence on how much graphics RAM you'll need: resolution, visual quality detail settings, and AA. For the most part, 512MB of RAM seems sufficient to push one of these factors to the limit, and in most cases, it can handle two of them at once. But if you plan to maximize all three--the highest resolutions, visual quality settings, and AA--then more video RAM than 512MB is a good idea."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2...
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 3:15:02 AM

bystander said:
I found the artical I was looking for. I didn't remember it 100% accurately, but as you can see, at 1920x1200 and up resolutions 512MB will hinder your ability to use AA. At 2560x1600 resolutions, 1GB can hamper your ability to use AA. (I didn't recall it being a problem with just AA on, but I think most of us like AA anyways).

"For the gamer, there are three main factors that have the most influence on how much graphics RAM you'll need: resolution, visual quality detail settings, and AA. For the most part, 512MB of RAM seems sufficient to push one of these factors to the limit, and in most cases, it can handle two of them at once. But if you plan to maximize all three--the highest resolutions, visual quality settings, and AA--then more video RAM than 512MB is a good idea."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2...


its done with an ATI 4870, a card capable of utilizing more then 512mb. hence my point of its not the RAM its the entire video card. try the same test on an ATI 4670, you find very different results!!


a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 3:19:46 AM

ct1615 said:
its done with an ATI 4870, a card capable of utilizing more then 512mb. hence my point of its not the RAM its the entire video card. try the same test on an ATI 4670, you find very different results!!


I'm not sure you saw all the tests. Take a look at GTA and you'll see the 512MB version can't even play at high res and details. Regardless, he's looking at a 460 anyways.
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 3:24:33 AM

bystander said:
I'm not sure you saw all the tests. Take a look at GTA and you'll see the 512MB version can't even play at high res and details. Regardless, he's looking at a 460 anyways.


because the ram bottlenecks the rest of the card, the card is fast enough to utilize more RAM. that was Rofl point and he hit the nail on the head. I'm amazed how few people have an understanding of that. you go to best buy and the sales rep says here is athlon II x2 with 8GB of RAM and its much faster then the Phenom II x4 with only 4GB of RAM, most people would laugh at him. when it comes to video cards, then basically say the exact same thing and think of it as fact :non: 
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 3:38:14 AM

ct1615 said:
because the ram bottlenecks the rest of the card, the card is fast enough to utilize more RAM. that was Rofl point and he hit the nail on the head. I'm amazed how few people have an understanding of that. you go to best buy and the sales rep says here is athlon II x2 with 8GB of RAM and its much faster then the Phenom II x4 with only 4GB of RAM, most people would laugh at him. when it comes to video cards, then basically say the exact same thing and think of it as fact :non: 


Now this response baffles me. The post I original quoted of yours, was in response to a post almost exactly like you just posted now.

You called a guy insane for telling us that more ram beyond 3GB won't make a system faster.

Then you went on a rampage about how ram doesn't make a difference. I did however show that more video ram can make a system perform better in some situations. Mostly extreme situations, so hopefully the OP can make a real decision. (If it were me, I'd get the 1GB card unless he's playing at 2560x1600, then I "might" consider 2GB so I can us high AA as well).
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 3:58:34 AM

bystander said:
Now this response baffles me. The post I original quoted of yours, was in response to a post almost exactly like you just posted now.

You called a guy insane for telling us that more ram beyond 3GB won't make a system faster.

Then you went on a rampage about how ram doesn't make a difference. I did however show that more video ram can make a system perform better in some situations. Mostly extreme situations, so hopefully the OP can make a real decision. (If it were me, I'd get the 1GB card unless he's playing at 2560x1600, then I "might" consider 2GB so I can us high AA as well).


my response to rofl was sarcasm, he was dead right ;) 
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 4:30:13 AM

I think for the most part we agree, but not exactly in the way you are describing it.

A low in GPU with more video ram is not likely going to be used for high resolution with high details and AA on. The card would not have the power for those settings with enjoyable results. As a result, you would not use the extra ram if used normally.

However, if you were to use those high end settings on the low end card with extra ram, it would perform a lot better than the same card with a lot less ram. But it would suck regardless. (That is, extra ram where it would add a benefit as the benchmarks showed with the higher end card. Not just in general).
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 4:44:03 AM

bystander said:
A low in GPU with more video ram is not likely going to be used for high resolution with high details and AA on. The card would not have the power for those settings with enjoyable results. As a result, you would not use the extra ram if used normally.
the low end card would not be able to effectively use the RAM

bystander said:
However, if you were to use those high end settings on the low end card with extra ram, it would perform a lot better than the same card with a lot less ram. But it would suck regardless.


this contradicts what you just stated above. an ATI 4670 512mb has the same performance as the 4670 1GB, the low end card can not use the ram effectively.


a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 5:07:21 AM

ct1615 said:
the low end card would not be able to effectively use the RAM.


Have you tested this? The things I've read, would suggest otherwise. The ram is used to have the high detail textures loaded, multiple frames loaded, and tracking different elements. Being a slow card would not change the fact that at high detail settings, it needs the ram to have all that loaded.

ct1615 said:

this contradicts what you just stated above. an ATI 4670 512mb has the same performance as the 4670 1GB, the low end card can not use the ram effectively.


How so? I said that the card would be too slow to enjoyably use the high detail settings that would require more vram. That doesn't mean that if you attempted to use high settings, the extra vram wouldn't result in more performance.

edit: sorry for the quoting issues. These are different tags than most boards use.
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 5:30:13 AM

bystander said:
Have you tested this? The things I've read, would suggest otherwise. The ram is used to have the high detail textures loaded, multiple frames loaded, and tracking different elements. Being a slow card would not change the fact that at high detail settings, it needs the ram to have all that loaded.



How so? I said that the card would be too slow to enjoyably use the high detail settings that would require more vram. That doesn't mean that if you attempted to use high settings, the extra vram wouldn't result in more performance.

edit: sorry for the quoting issues. These are different tags than most boards use.


several benchmarks for cards including the 9600GT 512 & 1GB, 8800GT/9800GT 512mb & 1GB cards and 4670 512mb & 1GB cards

just fall out 3 alone @ 1920x1200 8AA / 15AF

8800GT 1GB is .5 FPS higher then 512mb
9600GT 1GB is .5 FPS higher then the 512mb
4670 512mb is 3 FPS higher then the 1GB

at just 1920x1200 with no AA or AF, some of the 512mb beat the 1GB (although nothing major as above) in all the other games the difference is the same, often less then 1FPS with some having the 512mb beating the 1GB. they simply lack to the muscle to utilize the extra RAM. I don't understand why so many people fail to wrap their heads around that FACT

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-radeon-gefor...



a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 5:40:12 AM

bystander said:
Have you tested this? The things I've read, would suggest otherwise. The ram is used to have the high detail textures loaded, multiple frames loaded, and tracking different elements. Being a slow card would not change the fact that at high detail settings, it needs the ram to have all that loaded.



it can store 20GB of information, the video card still need to access it. hence the CPU & RAM examples from above. a video card gets bottle necked just like a PC. if I have a single core 3ghz cpu and 4GB of RAM, will adding another 4GB of RAM make it faster? or will adding a dual core CPU @ 3ghz??
a c 168 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 9:39:14 AM

ct1615 said:
several benchmarks for cards including the 9600GT 512 & 1GB, 8800GT/9800GT 512mb & 1GB cards and 4670 512mb & 1GB cards

just fall out 3 alone @ 1920x1200 8AA / 15AF

8800GT 1GB is .5 FPS higher then 512mb
9600GT 1GB is .5 FPS higher then the 512mb
4670 512mb is 3 FPS higher then the 1GB

at just 1920x1200 with no AA or AF, some of the 512mb beat the 1GB (although nothing major as above) in all the other games the difference is the same, often less then 1FPS with some having the 512mb beating the 1GB. they simply lack to the muscle to utilize the extra RAM. I don't understand why so many people fail to wrap their heads around that FACT

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-radeon-gefor...

Guru3D to the rescue! 1GB is not always useful and I still feel that it's a bit of a myth that every card needs that much at 19 x 10.
a c 80 Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 2:57:04 PM

ct1615 said:
several benchmarks for cards including the 9600GT 512 & 1GB, 8800GT/9800GT 512mb & 1GB cards and 4670 512mb & 1GB cards

just fall out 3 alone @ 1920x1200 8AA / 15AF

8800GT 1GB is .5 FPS higher then 512mb
9600GT 1GB is .5 FPS higher then the 512mb
4670 512mb is 3 FPS higher then the 1GB

at just 1920x1200 with no AA or AF, some of the 512mb beat the 1GB (although nothing major as above) in all the other games the difference is the same, often less then 1FPS with some having the 512mb beating the 1GB. they simply lack to the muscle to utilize the extra RAM. I don't understand why so many people fail to wrap their heads around that FACT

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-radeon-gefor...


That's an interesting link, that showed exactly what I'm talking about.

Look at the bottom. The 8600 GTS 512MB beats out the 8800 GTS 320MB version.

I think you are misunderstanding me here.

I'm not saying you should get a bunch of extra v-ram on these low end cards. I'm not recommending 2GB on the 460, and I'm not recommending 1GB on a 8600 GTS.

I'm not saying these low end cards would use the settings needed to require that amount of v-ram in todays games.

What I was trying to say was the card can use the ram from a technical standpoint, just fine. It doesn't take extra bandwidth it doesn't have, to move the information. They just lack computational power to allow you to up the settings to the point of needing the v-ram.

So in essence, you wouldn't have any use for the extra v-ram.
August 7, 2010 6:53:32 PM

I have a 8800GT with a DD Ione on it and I run it at 750/1700/2200(1100). And my card is STILL unable to match the power of a GTX 285. And a GTX 460 1GB card beats out a GTX 285 in everything that I have seen them compared in. EVGA made a GTX 285 2GB version and I saw this card run GTAIV at 1920x1200 with all settings maxxed out!! (You can only max out GTAIV settings with a 2GB card, that is a proven fact).

I game at 1920x1080, I turn off AA and AF as I'd rather have the speed over the little bit of visuals with the big performance hit that having them enabled produces.

I KNOW that a GTX 460 2GB card would allow me to Run GTAIV @ 1920x1080 with all settings maxxed out. And I would like to experience this game and the new GTA stories in this fashion. Then, there is Metro 2033, 1920x1080 is what I want to run it at, granted I will have to turn down some visual settings. But, my 8800GT runs it at 1920x1080, but at a bismal 18-25fps and that is with a heavy OC.

Also, remember that these GTX 460 cards OC like mad!! So matching if not surpassing (default) GTX 470 performace is easily obtainable.


So bottom line is, more vram doesn't make the video card "faster" what is does is makes the card more capable. Just like adding more system ram enables your system to become more responsive and capable of handling more actions at once. So, does an increased amount of vram. More vram allows the card to handle larger textures and more of them at once. The GTX 460 GPU is MORE than powerful enough to handle gaming at 1920x1080(1200) and giving a playable framrate (>40fps).
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2010 8:01:12 PM

When it comes to memory it is better in the long run to have and not need then it to be the other way around. Some of us do make an extra effort to get more than two or three years worth of life out of a system. Some of us still got DOS era machines that are still running. The G92 on up has what it takes to use 1GB of vram while the higher end parts 2GB will extend the useful life of a card for quite some time to ware the card is hopelessly out dated. The cards that have double than usual vram have to be looked at a different way they are not meant for just fps but quality of settings and long term use through several generations while still being able to at least achieve minimum requirements long after being obsolete.
a c 168 Î Nvidia
August 8, 2010 12:07:18 AM

nforce4max said:
The G92 on up has what it takes to use 1GB of vram

I would dispute that mate, take a look at the old chart from Guru3D. The 8800GT (G92) shows no improvement at all at 19 x 10 with a gig of Vram.
a b Î Nvidia
August 8, 2010 12:55:32 AM

Mousemonkey said:
I would dispute that mate, take a look at the old chart from Guru3D. The 8800GT (G92) shows no improvement at all at 19 x 10 with a gig of Vram.



I don't use charts I write from experience that I have gained over the years. If people only look at fps then they're not going to understand the whole picture.
a c 168 Î Nvidia
August 8, 2010 1:01:49 AM

nforce4max said:
I don't use charts I write from experience that I have gained over the years.

I do the same, which is why I don't hold to the myth that every card used at a resolution of 19 x 10 needs a gig of Vram.
a b Î Nvidia
August 8, 2010 2:05:34 AM

Mousemonkey said:
I do the same, which is why I don't hold to the myth that every card used at a resolution of 19 x 10 needs a gig of Vram.



Not every one is playing at that resolution. Personally its 32x sli aa with large textures in Oblivion along with other mods and I do enjoy playing GTA IV and GTA Liberty City stories so I need all I can get. I don't look at fps but image quality of what I am playing. One has to figure in texture memory which no one pays any attention to but it is important and with out it modern gaming wouldn't be possible.
!