Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 465 vs. GTX 460

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Which card "Performs" better for a gaming computer?

Total: 23 votes (5 blank votes)

  • Zotac Geforce GTX 460
  • 95 %
  • Zotac Geforce GTX 465
  • 6 %
December 27, 2010 3:33:46 PM

Hey everybody, I know this question has been asked a lot but I can't find the answer that I am looking for. I recently built a Gaming Computer with the following specs:

1- Mother Board: Intel DX58SO (from the extreme series)
2- Processor: Intel Core i7 950 @ 3.07 GHZ
3- Memory (RAM): 16GB DDR3
4- Power Supply: 720 watts

I just wasn't lucky with my current graphics card ("ATI Radeon HD5770") and I'm planning to change it (in the coming 2 days). I actually have 2 choices, either the "Zotac Geforce GTX 465", or the "Zotac Geforce GTX 460". I already know the Price difference, and that the "GTX 465" needs more power than the "GTX 460". But why does the "GTX 460" perform better than the "GTX 465"? and why is it cheaper?

For a gaming computer, which one is truly better? (disregarding Noise and Heating issues...)

May you please provide some evidence :)  on your answers?

Thanks, hope you reply soon...

More about : gtx 465 gtx 460

a b Î Nvidia
December 27, 2010 3:43:27 PM

The GTX 460 is a slightly different core layout, the GTX 465 uses the GF100 that the GTX470 and GTX 480 use, but the GTX 460 uses the GF104 layout while yields slightly better performance and reduced power consumption over the GTX 465. The new layout gave it a slight reduction in stream processors but a significant increase in texture units. Check out the GTX 460 review for a comparison between it and the GTX 465.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-gf1...
a b Î Nvidia
December 27, 2010 3:45:14 PM

16gb of ram?? :heink: 

The GTX 460 1gb and GTX 465 are basically equal in performance with a very slight edge going to the 460. It is better in every other way(noise, heat, power efficiency, price) because it was designed for that performance level and uses a smaller processor instead of being a cut down GF100(GTX 470/80) like the GTX 465.
Related resources
December 27, 2010 4:04:53 PM

@ hunter 315
:p  Not sure I understood every single detail in the review but I got the point... Thank you for the fast reply
(Don't worry I understood some :p )

@ jyjjy
Ya 16GB of ram xD , that's because I really want to have the "ultra-gaming" PC :p  , thanks for your reply
a b Î Nvidia
December 27, 2010 5:04:12 PM

Hunter hit the nail on the head.

As for 16GB of RAM, honestly anything above like 8GB is almost useless. Didn't Toms do an article a couple months ago about this topic?

Here it is!
Memory Upgrade: Is It Time To Add More RAM?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,...

a b Î Nvidia
December 27, 2010 6:26:44 PM

saadeddin94 said:
@ jyjjy
Ya 16GB of ram xD , that's because I really want to have the "ultra-gaming" PC :p  , thanks for your reply

16gb of ram will accomplish 2 things;
A) For people with some but not much knowledge of computers it will sound impressive.
B) For people with good knowledge of computers it will let them know that you fall into category A)
a b Î Nvidia
December 27, 2010 7:05:16 PM

jyjjy said:
16gb of ram will accomplish 2 things;
A) For people with some but not much knowledge of computers it will sound impressive.
B) For people with good knowledge of computers it will let them know that you fall into category A)


LOL So it's like an ID card.
December 27, 2010 7:16:03 PM

HAHA funny :non: 
So can we get back here? I guess I'm going to get the 460.
Did I mention that sometimes I run it as a server? :whistle: 
I should have told you :pfff: 
December 27, 2010 7:50:58 PM

Easy on me :na: 
It's over, I already have the 16GB :) 
I also use it for rendering 3d scenes using 3dsmax (I don't have to tell you everything I do on my PC :heink:  ), that's why I want a good graphics card and a good performance computer. :) 
a b Î Nvidia
December 27, 2010 10:04:08 PM

Yeah, scale back to 12gb at least so you are running triple channel. Otherwise the extra ram may actually hurt performance.
December 28, 2010 5:39:17 AM

Really :(  ? my motherboard actually comes with 4 slots for memory, and since it supports up to 16GB of ram, I thought that was the only logical way to achieve that :sweat:  , so I guess the choice is between the "12GB, triple channel" and "16GB, dual channel".



@ malmental & jyjjy

You shocked me! :whistle:  , if I use 12GB instead of 16GB will I feel the difference? and trust me I am definitely learning new things, thank you for drawing my attention to this point... :) 
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 6:00:03 AM

No,12GB is more than enough.You aren't going to see a noticeable difference between 12GB and 16GB in games.
December 28, 2010 6:05:50 AM

saadeddin94 said:
Really :(  ? my motherboard actually comes with 4 slots for memory, and since it supports up to 16GB of ram, I thought that was the only logical way to achieve that :sweat:  , so I guess the choice is between the "12GB, triple channel" and "16GB, dual channel".



@ malmental & jyjjy

You shocked me! :whistle:  , if I use 12GB instead of 16GB will I feel the difference? and trust me I am definitely learning new things, thank you for drawing my attention to this point... :) 

If it has four slots, than it has no triple channel. Triple channel has three or six slots. Maybe it is a socket 1156 board?
December 28, 2010 6:13:04 AM

Just looked at Intel's site. It is a dual channel board. So, for you it is ether 8 or 16 GB.
December 28, 2010 6:13:14 AM

@ Maziar
Aha so I guess I'm gonna keep the 16GB, thanks for the reply :) 

@yyk71200
Actually the board has 3 triple channel slots, and 1 single channel slot. Not sure why :na: 

So it's the last call, I choose to go with the Geforce GTX 460, anything I should know that might change my mind? :p 
December 28, 2010 6:19:57 AM

saadeddin94 said:
@ Maziar
Aha so I guess I'm gonna keep the 16GB, thanks for the reply :) 

@yyk71200
Actually the board has 3 triple channel slots, and 1 single channel slot. Not sure why :na: 

So it's the last call, I choose to go with the Geforce GTX 460, anything I should know that might change my mind? :p 

I see, the one that is colored differently. Odd.
December 28, 2010 6:41:58 AM

By running memory in single channel you are getting only 1/3 performance out of it. You may ran run some benchmarks such as SiSoftware Sandra in your current configuration and then in configuration without a stick in the single channel slot. See if it makes difference.
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 6:45:00 AM

saadeddin94 said:
@ Maziar
Aha so I guess I'm gonna keep the 16GB, thanks for the reply :) 

Maziar was saying you won't see any benefit from the extra 4 gigabytes, not that running the ram in triple channel won't be faster. He just worded it poorly.
As for the video card as we have all said the GTX 460 is superior. The only theoretical advantage of the GTX 465 is that some models can be unlocked into a GTX 470. This is not always the case and the process is semi-risky even on cards of the right type.
December 28, 2010 6:58:41 AM

Aha ok, so I'm getting the GTX 460 :bounce: 

As for the RAM,does it mean that I will notice a better performance if I run the triple channel using 12GB (4GB x 3) instead of dual channel using 16GB (4GB x 4) ?? Because you know I already bought it...and I just want to make sure... :sarcastic: 
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 7:09:00 AM

Yes, there should be at least a small performance boost when using triple channel vs basically no improvement when going for 12 to 16gb of ram.
You could ebay the extra 4gb... perhaps put the money towards a better card like the HD6870 or GTX 470 or get a decent fan/heatsink for the processor and overclock it up to 4ghz.
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 7:58:31 AM

By saying 12GB is more than enough,I meant there is no need for anything more than that.Sorry if I made any confusion in my statement :) 
December 28, 2010 11:55:29 AM

@ Maziar
No problem at all... :p 

Thank you everyone, this thread was really helpful...and the RAM info was a double advantage. :) 
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 12:37:20 PM

actually if only the blue slots are used it will run in triple channel, see page 38 of the manual
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/18128/eng/DX58SO_Produc...
Quote:
Optimal memory performance can be achieved by installing three matched DIMMS of equal speed and size in the blue DIMM slots (Channel A, DIMM 0, Channel B, and Channel C) as shown in Figure 18.

and then the funny part
Quote:
NOTE
Installing memory in Channel A, DIMM 1 may result in less than optimal memory
performance.
and that is the black slot...
What it actually means in terms of channels, i'm not sure. But since channel A uses the black slot and one of the blues, it will mess things up a bit. If the logic is smart enough it would run in dual channel by combining the channels b and c together...
December 28, 2010 1:26:33 PM

One thing to point out, one brand of GTX465 can be BIOS modded to a GTX470.
Google search it.
December 28, 2010 2:09:30 PM

Quote:
Actually the board has 3 triple channel slots, and 1 single channel slot. Not sure why

@malmental
I already said that :p  , I will actually remove the 4GB stick from the single channel slot, and will leave the other 3 4GB sticks in the triple channel slots, which will get the board running triple channel and 12GB :sol:  .

As for the video card, I don't plan to overclock it. In this case, I guess the GTX 460 is a better choice.
December 28, 2010 3:12:32 PM

Yes, the 460 run cooler, consumes less power, and performs better and alot of other things :lol: 
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 9:58:28 PM

23dexter89 said:
This was Very Very Helpful to me.....!!! Thanks a lot mate...... :) 


Glad it helped someone!! :) 
a c 391 Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 10:07:29 PM

Apparently, the only major difference is the GTX465 is MUCH quieter at idle than the Zotac GTX460. After doing some research, I would get the GTX465.





a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 10:09:50 PM

31dbA vs 37dbA isn't very much honestly. Besides, that was the IDLE noise level, note they are the same with load noise (44dbA). The idle noise level can EASILY be adjusted by changing fan speed settings with MSI's Afterburner or something similar.

Human Hearing:


Noise Level Chart: Courtesy of www.Guru3d.com
Quote:
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Jet takeoff (200 feet) 120 dBA
Construction Site 110 dBA Intolerable
Shout (5 feet) 100 dBA
Heavy truck (50 feet) 90 dBA Very noisy
Urban street 80 dBA
Automobile interior 70 dBA Noisy
Normal conversation (3 feet) 60 dBA
Office, classroom 50 dBA Moderate
Living room 40 dBA
Bedroom at night 30 dBA Quiet
Broadcast studio 20 dBA
Rustling leaves 10 dBA Barely audible
a c 391 Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 10:20:02 PM

jerreece said:
31dbA vs 37dbA isn't very much honestly. Besides, that was the IDLE noise level, note they are the same with load noise (44dbA). The idle noise level can EASILY be adjusted by changing fan speed settings with MSI's Afterburner or something similar.

Human Hearing:
http://www.dspguide.com/graphics/T_22_1.gif

Noise Level Chart: Courtesy of www.Guru3d.com
Quote:
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Jet takeoff (200 feet) 120 dBA
Construction Site 110 dBA Intolerable
Shout (5 feet) 100 dBA
Heavy truck (50 feet) 90 dBA Very noisy
Urban street 80 dBA
Automobile interior 70 dBA Noisy
Normal conversation (3 feet) 60 dBA
Office, classroom 50 dBA Moderate
Living room 40 dBA
Bedroom at night 30 dBA Quiet
Broadcast studio 20 dBA
Rustling leaves 10 dBA Barely audible


So you're saying that with all else equal, you would recommend the louder card?

Here is what TechPowerUp has to say about Dba levels. They are saying that a 6 Dba increase is fairly significant:
"Please note that the dbA scale is not linear, it is logarithmic. 40 dbA is not twice as loud as 20 dbA. A 3 dbA increase results in double the sound pressure. The human hearing is a bit different and it is generally accepted that a 10 dbA increase doubles the perceived sound level."
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 10:49:10 PM

What I'm saying is, both achieve (according to that chart) the same maximum Load noise level. The Idle noise level is irrelevant in my mind, because you can easily modify that by reducing the fan speed at a given idle temperature. And realistically, depending on the noise levels of other components in the computer case (CPU fan, case fans, etc) that 31dbA or 37dbA might not even be that noticeable anyhow.

I would recommend the GTX 460 over the 465 anyhow, regardless of noise and such. The 6dbA difference between the two (AT IDLE) is irrelevant in my mind. Why? Because when my PC is on I'm playing games. Therefore, the idle noise level is meaningless because it will hardly ever be at that noise level.

And again, that noise level difference could have a lot to do with where the BIOS is configured as far as fan speeds at the idle temperatures they tested at. Easily remedied.

You have to decide things based on the totality of the circumstances, not just individual factors. Both cards showed a LOAD noise level of 44dbA. That's when it matters.
a c 391 Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 10:56:33 PM

jerreece said:
What I'm saying is, both achieve (according to that chart) the same maximum Load noise level. The Idle noise level is irrelevant in my mind, because you can easily modify that by reducing the fan speed at a given idle temperature. And realistically, depending on the noise levels of other components in the computer case (CPU fan, case fans, etc) that 31dbA or 37dbA might not even be that noticeable anyhow.

I would recommend the GTX 460 over the 465 anyhow, regardless of noise and such. The 6dbA difference between the two (AT IDLE) is irrelevant in my mind. Why? Because when my PC is on I'm playing games. Therefore, the idle noise level is meaningless because it will hardly ever be at that noise level.

And again, that noise level difference could have a lot to do with where the BIOS is configured as far as fan speeds at the idle temperatures they tested at. Easily remedied.

You have to decide things based on the totality of the circumstances, not just individual factors. Both cards showed a LOAD noise level of 44dbA. That's when it matters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 460. But with the load noise the same and the performance the same, why not the 465? You can point to energy consumption, but that is pretty insignificant. I guess the only other difference would be overclocking. I'm not sure which is a better overclocker. Given how evenly matched they are, any advantage either way is a score. If not idle noise levels, then what would separate them? Price?
a c 391 Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 11:09:04 PM

Quote:
I got the giggles....

Take the blue pill next time.
a b Î Nvidia
December 28, 2010 11:41:12 PM

17seconds said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 460. But with the load noise the same and the performance the same, why not the 465? You can point to energy consumption, but that is pretty insignificant. I guess the only other difference would be overclocking. I'm not sure which is a better overclocker. Given how evenly matched they are, any advantage either way is a score. If not idle noise levels, then what would separate them? Price?

Power consumption is directly related to heat given off and is not an insignificant factor at all when considering overclocking and is doubly important if an SLI situation may occur in the future, not just because of the heat but with regards to what kind of power supply is necessary.
As for the fan noise the techpowerup article's on both the Zotac GTX 460 and GTX 465 appear to be using the reference fan and are not necessarily indicative of the models available at this time. Anyway in my experience the idle noise level of a video card is literally imperceptible over the combination of the CPU/PSU/case fan. These cards may be different, I haven't used either, but that is my experience. The main concern I would have about noise is that when you start at "hot and power hungry" like the GTX 465 then bumping up the voltage for a decent overclock means you are going to have to set that fan to levels where it really is legitimately loud. Even without an OC the Zotac GTX 465 has a load temp of 84C.
As for the performance of the two cards the GTX 460 is a small amount faster at high resolutions.
December 29, 2010 6:26:10 PM

Here's the bottom line 352 cores of the GTX465 owns the 336 cores of the GTX 460.

If the clock speeds were the same(GPU,memory, type of memory, cores, etc...) the 465 should be faster but if the 460 is factory overclocked then that might explain why the 460 is faster than the 465.

From looking at newegg there quite a few GTX460's with different clocks.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2010 6:32:27 PM

The two cards have different processors and different reference speeds. The GTX 460 is more often than not sold with a factory OC but even at reference it is a slightly more powerful card than the GTX 465 at high resolutions.
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2010 7:33:58 PM

accolite said:
Here's the bottom line 352 cores of the GTX465 owns the 336 cores of the GTX 460.

If the clock speeds were the same(GPU,memory, type of memory, cores, etc...) the 465 should be faster


Do some research "should be faster" is the key. The number of cores doesn't always equate to anything. Nor do clock speeds. You'll note that most ATI cards have higher clock speeds than nVidia cards. Yet they rival each other performance wise often times. Their architectures are entirely different. It's the same debate between AMD and Intel processors. Intel chips perform better than AMD chips generally, even at the same or lower clock speeds.

Anyhow, based on your comment, those 352 cores int he GTX 465 should "own" a GTX 460 with 336 cores. But, in reality, they DON'T. Why? Two different versions of the Fermi architecture. The GTX 460 is a leaner, more efficient chip, and therefore performs the same or better than the GTX 465 with less cores.
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2010 7:40:29 PM

jyjjy said:
Power consumption is directly related to heat given off


This is exactly right. Although the nVidia cards wear the crown performance wise, the ATI cards are often "more efficient". They run cooler because there is less power/heat loss. This is demonstrated very well to those who've ever changed a light bulb! Traditional incandescent lights are VERY HOT when you touch them. This is because they give off a LOT of energy via "heat". In other words, the vast majority of the electricity they use is LOST in heat discharge as opposed to actual light.

This is why ultra efficient LED or Compact Florescent lights are so cool to the touch. They accomplish the same (or close) light output while using a lot less energy, because they are "efficient". There's drastically less waste.
December 29, 2010 7:56:01 PM

LOL, 16GB of ram with a GTX460...ultra-gaming PC. That should be on a demotivational poster.

The extra money you spent on that useless extra 10GB of that you don't need could have been spent on a much higher end videocard which would give you an "actual" performance increase. Forgot to mention that your ram is dual channel if you got with 16GB, which isn't using all the performance capability.
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2010 7:57:50 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
LOL, 16GB of ram with a GTX460...ultra-gaming PC. That should be on a demotivational poster.

The extra money you spent on that useless extra 10GB of that you don't need could have been spent on a much higher end videocard which would give you an "actual" performance increase. Forgot to mention that your ram is dual channel if you got with 16GB, which isn't using all the performance capability.


Yeah all that was addressed by others in the comments above. :) 
December 29, 2010 9:15:47 PM

jerreece said:


Anyhow, based on your comment, those 352 cores int he GTX 465 should "own" a GTX 460 with 336 cores. But, in reality, they DON'T. Why? Two different versions of the Fermi architecture. The GTX 460 is a leaner, more efficient chip, and therefore performs the same or better than the GTX 465 with less cores.


I have done my research.

It's not a different architecture it's FERMI it might as well be gf100 or gf104 same architecture don't compare AMD and Nvidia GPU they are totally different architecture unlike these two chards which are the same architecture except for some slight changes, like you said they are leaner more and more efficient, but if you read my comment a little closer you would notice I said that if they were clocked identically the 465 would come out ahead why because of the 16 extra cores. clock for clock the 465 will be have more muscle to flex than a more efficient lower core unit.
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2010 9:46:56 PM

The GTX 470 can be had for as little as $209. I just ordered a Zotac reference version for $249 with a $40 MIR. That's $209 for a GTX 470. That's killer performance right there.

But, you can get a GOOD 1GB GTX 460 for as little as $159 these days with rebates.
a b Î Nvidia
December 30, 2010 5:28:11 AM

accolite said:
To me it looks like the 460 is just running higher clocks that's why its faster, but if you overclock the 465 to the 460 clocks and then compare clock for clock the 465 will be faster.

See the specs for yourself.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-460-us...
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-465-us...

Does it matter why it is faster? Both cards can overclock so that is not an advantage for the GTX 465. The opposite in fact because overclocking a card that starts out so hot is a lot more sketchy than doing so on a card that runs pretty cool like the GTX 460. The GTX 465 simply has no advantage over the GTX 460 that I can think of unless you happen to get one of the models that you can try to unlock into a GTX 470 and that is a risky procedure that could brick the card.
!