NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Reference Design Pictured

[Jokerrr]

i can get an overclocked version. in some reviews i saw that 5830 is overclocked over 1ghz on core. so its possible. some versions have voltage control.

I think 5830 is still expensive and 5850 is too expensive. at least in some countries other than USA. i dont know why.

But if ATI and Nvidia dont address their high and bad pricing issues, they will face financian disaster.

Not everyone can afford to buy a $500 card. only a very few people who dont value the money.

its possible to OC 5830 over 1GHZ on core.

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by xtremesv

If you consider 5770 OC capability, don’t forget that 460 will have the same chance and if it overclock as well as 465 then it’ll dominate an OCed 5770 anytime. I expect a big deal of the 460 but I’m not that optimistic as some people believe GF104 would be the next G92. I assume it’ll be a good performer with a more reasonable wattage and temp operation.

btw you missed the most important fact

1. HD 5770 can be had for $150

2. the power consumption its a lot a lower even after Oced (and we know that people that use this kind of card doesn't about PSU and they usually have crappy PSU)

3. lower temperature

4. and IF this thing SUPPOSED to have performance between HD 5830 and HD 5770 then the different would be just lower than 10 FPS

so if NVdia didn't lower the price to $150-$170 then i don't see it can compete HD 5770

[Jokerrr]

i hope that i can play Crysis 2 on very high settings at 1600*1200 with my overclocked 8800GTX.

but im saving up to buy a 5830 or 5850 till then.

even if i get 20fps or over at max settings im happy.

and i just upgraded to Q8400 OCed to 3.00GHZ. i hope a quad core helps in future games regardless.

sadly many people say Q8400 is bad because it has low cache. but if an application is made to use 4 cores, even the slowest quad core would be faster than the fastest dual core just because of the 2 extra cores.

already many games utilize 4 cores fully. such as The Risen, GTA 4, Shattered Horizon, Just Cause2, and some others.

a quad core helps in those games regardless. am i wrong?

[HillBeast]

Originally Posted by xtremesv

1GHz? that's unlikely unless you do some voltage tweaking. But let's suppose you can get a 5830 to perform closer to a stock 5850, you'll have the same dilemma cause you could also overclock the 5850 to get the power of a stock 5870. Practically in that case, the price/performance ratio wouldn't vary that much.

900 - 925 is about the limit of Cypress without voltage increases as far as I'm aware. The 5850 is the best card to get bang for buck. I'd rather get that over anything. 5770s and 5830s may be all well and good but down the track I'd rather have the 5850. I only got a 5870 because I wanted bragging rights.

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by Jokerrr

i hope that i can play Crysis 2 on very high settings at 1600*1200 with my overclocked 8800GTX.

but im saving up to buy a 5830 or 5850 till then.

even if i get 20fps or over at max settings im happy.

and i just upgraded to Q8400 OCed to 3.00GHZ. i hope a quad core helps in future games regardless.

sadly many people say Q8400 is bad because it has low cache. but if an application is made to use 4 cores, even the slowest quad core would be faster than the fastest dual core just because of the 2 extra cores.

already many games utilize 4 cores fully. such as The Risen, GTA 4, Shattered Horizon, Just Cause2, and some others.

a quad core helps in those games regardless. am i wrong?

i think why people said that Q8400 was bad, is because its slower and more expensive than AMD PII.

btw i doubt you can MAX Crysis 2 with 8800 GTX at any reasolution,

[Jokerrr]

lets be positive and hopeful that Crysis 2 will be maxed out with a 8800GTX. since its better optimized.

as i said, as long as i get 20fps maxed out im very happy. im not picky about frame rate.

so far i can play any games maxed out. even though in some demanding games i dont get a constant 30fps but low fps dont bother me.

[Jokerrr]

and if Crysis 2 cant be maxed out with 1 GTX 460 or one 5830 then the game isnt worth paying for and i wont buy it.

they should have learnt something from their mistake.

the reason people pirate is that the game is too demanding so therefore not worth buying.

they will face piracy and low sales if their game is too demanding and is made only for a handful of high end users. BIG MISTAKE.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by Jokerrr

and if Crysis 2 cant be maxed out with 1 GTX 460 or one 5830 then the game isnt worth paying for and i wont buy it.

they should have learnt something from their mistake.

the reason people pirate is that the game is too demanding so therefore not worth buying.

they will face piracy and low sales if their game is too demanding and is made only for a handful of high end users. BIG MISTAKE.

I don't agree with that statement at all and it's the same crap that happened with Crysis 1. As long as you can play Crysis/Crysis2 with the same eye candy as all other games at the same framerates it is worth paying for it. In fact it is worth much more, because you will be able to max it out in the future and will not be outdated so soon. If your card can't max it out, "lower"* some settings like lighting, shaders and shadows to the same level as the other games (every other one including Farcry2, BC2... it doesn't matter, pick one, all of them are technically inferior in many things) and that's it. Blaming a game for offering you with more graphical OPTIONS is not only unfair, it's blatantly stupid!

But let's not go off-topic, and sorry for this post, but I'm just fed up of the anti-Crysis crap.

*lower in relation to Crysis' max setting, making it equal to the max settings from the rest of games.

[Jokerrr]

in the future? like when? another 20 years?

crysis 1 isnt yet playable on max settings. so we should wait for another 10 years to play at on max settings?

this is just stupid.

but luckily there is only 1 stupid company like that and that is Crytek.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by Jokerrr

in the future? like when? another 20 years?

crysis 1 isnt yet playable on max settings. so we should wait for another 10 years to play at on max settings?

this is just stupid.

but luckily there is only 1 stupid company like that and that is Crytek.

First of all, how much do you have to wait is irrelevant. Crysis 1 released 3 years ago and is still the best looking game. So yes it's more than justifiable if it still needs a better card to play it on max settings. Warhead plays much better and there, I will admit that Critek has not done well in not patching the original Crysis to take advantage of newer cards or multiGPU setups as much as with Warhead. But they've done so with Warhead, so it's a 50/50 good/bad situation. If it takes 10 years for games to catch up to Crysis' levels, yes, it's going to be just as justifiable as it is now if GPUs can't max it out.

It's not Crytek's fault if GPU development has slowed down so much. It's taken 4 years to release 2 true generations* and it's been just a ~50% improvement with each new generation, instead of the 100% increase we were all used to. When Crytek was developing Crysis they were thinking about a -until then- normal evolution and by now they were expecting about a performance level where a GTX480 would be a mainstream/performance part. Also by the time that Crysis was released the GTX2xx and HD4xxx cards should have been out, instead of the 8800GT/HD3xxx.


*yes! your card has 4 years. Mine which is already 3 years old too is not faster than yours, and it was high-end when I bought it. I don't know how long have you been playing PC games, but try taking a 2002 card and playing any graphically stunning 2005 game. Best of luck, and that's 3 years not 4. FYI it took as many or more GPU generations to play Unreal maxed out, or Doom3, or many many others and even Half-Life1/2. The difference is that at that time we had a card every year and the new ones were twice as fast. More so it was usual for the new midrange card to surpass the 1 year old high-end card. i.e 6600GT vs FX59xx/9700/9800 Pro, 7600GT vs 6800 Ultra... And now? The best deal on midrange is HD5770 which costs more than previous generation high end cards and is significantly slower. And let's not talk about previous gen either...

EDIT: Until my current card I have owned whichever was the fastest card on every single generation (sometimes having to buy 2 cards in same year) and I did so, because that was the only way to play MOST games at max settings. Now with my 3 year old card I can play every game except 2-3 at max settings. It's not Crysis that asks for too much, it's the all other watered down crappy console ports which have changed the landscape.

[Jokerrr]

maybe we should blame Nvidia and ATI for releasing slow cards at cheaper price and fast cards at very high price now.

a 5770 is slow and yet expensive for its performance. i dont know if that would be the case for 460 or not.

but 5850 is a high end card and not mainstream and expensive.

in here where i live a 5850 is $500 at least and a 5770 is $250 at least. and im not interested in 5770.

but the question is that a 5850 is worth buying at $500 or $400???????? thats alot of money just for a video card.

i still like PC gaming, but the high cost of upgrading has been an issue for me as for the mainstream gamers.

and maybe this high cost is what will destroy the PC gaming eventually.

[xtremesv]

Originally Posted by Jokerrr

maybe we should blame Nvidia and ATI for releasing slow cards at cheaper price and fast cards at very high price now.

a 5770 is slow and yet expensive for its performance. i dont know if that would be the case for 460 or not.

but 5850 is a high end card and not mainstream and expensive.

in here where i live a 5850 is $500 at least and a 5770 is $250 at least. and im not interested in 5770.

but the question is that a 5850 is worth buying at $500 or $400???????? thats alot of money just for a video card.

i still like PC gaming, but the high cost of upgrading has been an issue for me as for the mainstream gamers.

and maybe this high cost is what will destroy the PC gaming eventually.

Actually, the problem for us, the people living in second or third world countries are the extensive supply chains that exist between the factory which makes the card and the final user, to that we have to add that some countries have big duty taxes.

Many of the tech retailers in my country don't import directly from China or India but they are forced to import the items from distributors in Miami, so what could be a simple business from China to X country, has been corrupted with many large distributors in between gaining their juicy margins, then that is why we are offered a GTX285 for $475 or a $500 5850. So for that reason I prefer buying my hadware on internet and making the duty payments myself (I avoid using Fedex, UPS and such cause they charge a lot for their duty services).

PC gaming won't die as long as the biggest game market in the world (US) receives the better HW prices.

[Jokerrr]

In here where i live there are some counter-feited hardware that are being sold at much cheaper prices like software.

so maybe we can buy those counter-feited video cards at much lower price???

if Nvidia and ATI dont care about their budget and mainstream customers then why should we care about them???

their goal is to keep milking their customers. i wont let them to abuse me like this and take money out of me like this.

[Jokerrr]

a GTX 460 should be able to max out every game. if not then its not worth buying. end of story.