1 Gig GTX460's Still worth it??

[G.Freeman]

Those links are more than you offered.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7790-bonaire-performance,3462-4.html

 

1GB version has terrible FPS range on medium settings, which is directly linked to the Vram buffer.  I can run high settings in similar FPS with a 2GB version...

?

[Tr3vor]

Says who ? I got the links to professional sources plus my own experience that says there is no tangible detrimental performance impact to cards that are running a single 1080P monitor or lower rez on 1GB Vram.

I don't think anyone needs links that tell you that technology progresses.

If you think about it, I most likely couldn't run today's games @480p with a 128mb of vram (not that you'd want to because the game would run so slow, or not at all. this is hypothetical. Lets say that the GPUs were powerful enough, but had very small amounts of ram.)

Also, remember when 1280x1024 was hot shit? remember when you dreamed about playing games at that resolution? Now that resolution is no longer desirable. Its still going, eventually 1080p will be phased out for higher resolutions.

I'm pretty sure that in the future, I couldn't tell you how long, that 1gb will not be enough for 1080p.

[G.Freeman]

I don't think anyone needs links that tell you that technology progresses.

If you think about it, I most likely couldn't run today's games @480p with a 128mb of vram (not that you'd want to because the game would run so slow, or not at all. this is hypothetical. Lets say that the GPUs were powerful enough, but had very small amounts of ram.)

Also, remember when 1280x1024 was hot shit? remember when you dreamed about playing games at that resolution? Now that resolution is no longer desirable. Its still going, eventually 1080p will be phased out for higher resolutions.

I'm pretty sure that in the future, I couldn't tell you how long, that 1gb will not be enough for 1080p.

How is current games and 1080P outdated now LOL ?

[Tr3vor]

How is current games and 1080P outdated now LOL ?

 

 

Did I say now? No. Reread what I said. You're just trolling now.

[MegaTechPC]

I don't think linking to "professional reviews" is necessary to know that 1GB soon will not be enough VRAM for even 1080p gaming.  Once the new consoles release games will dramatically begin utilizing higher GPU memory and 1GB will not be enough.  For now, sure 1GB is still OK, but by next year and especially the year after that 1GB of VRAM will be badly outdated...

[G.Freeman]

Did I say now? No. Reread what I said. You're just trolling now.

Ok no I am not trolling but perhaps I did not understand. I think that if a new game comes along that can use large amounts of Vram that cards like these will be underpowered anyway regardless of Vram count.

[Tr3vor]

I don't think linking to "professional reviews" is necessary to know that 1GB soon will not be enough VRAM for even 1080p gaming.  Once the new consoles release games will dramatically begin utilizing higher GPU memory and 1GB will not be enough.  For now, sure 1GB is still OK, but by next year and especially the year after that 1GB of VRAM will be badly outdated...

 

Yeah, the PS4 has 8gb gddr5 shared between the CPU and the GPU. I'm guessing the most it will use is around 1.5 to 2gb @1080p and leave the rest to the CPU. 

[G.Freeman]

Yeah, the PS4 has 8gb gddr5 shared between the CPU and the GPU. I'm guessing the most it will use is around 1.5 to 2gb @1080p and leave the rest to the CPU. 

The problem with adding to much Vram to a weak GPU core is that the core is not even fast enough to use the whole Vram buffer. I doubt the Ps4 Will have 8gb Vram even just on the fact that it would cost to much money to produce and I would be surprised if it had even 2gb Vram.

[Emkryan]

I'm rocking my 1gb 460, and it's holding up fine med/high settings @1080 with at least 30 fps on my newer games (FC3,Hitman Absolution). For me it's fine since i still play mostly source games and I can max those out no problem.

[MegaTechPC]

Sure the 460 is still a good card especially considering how cheap you can find them these days...

[G.Freeman]

Sure the 460 is still a good card especially considering how cheap you can find them these days...

Exactly +1^

[Tr3vor]

The problem with adding to much GPU to a weak GPU core is that the core is not even fast enough to use all the Vram. I doubt the Ps4 Will have 8gb Vram and I would be surprised if it had even 2gb Vram.

Its been confirmed that the PS4 will have 8gb GDDR5 shared between the GPU and CPU, which means that the devs can use hover much they want for GPU, and however much they want for CPU. So Theoretically the PS4's GPU could use 6gb or more if they wanted it to, even though it won't be pretty at all.

 

Yeah, in the future the 1gb cards will probably be too weak to run 1080p games, but I'm saying that eventually 1080p will use more than 1gb of vram and eventually 1080p won't be a resolution that you'd want to game at.

[G.Freeman]

Its been confirmed that the PS4 will have 8gb GDDR5 shared between the GPU and CPU, which means that the devs can use hover much they want for GPU, and however much they want for CPU. So Theoretically the PS4's GPU could use 6gb or more if they wanted it to, even though it won't be pretty at all.

 

Yeah, in the future the 1gb cards will probably be too weak to run 1080p games, but I'm saying that eventually 1080p will use more than 1gb of vram and eventually 1080p won't be a resolution that you'd want to game at.

The problem is that the GPU on the Ps4 will be very weak and not able to even use the graphical fidelity that the massive Vram buffer would otherwise enabled if the GPU could keep the framerate up without plummeting. In other words it imbalanced and not cost effective. Also it's not the 1GB Vram that makes the card fast or slow it's the GPU core that makes it fast or slow.

[Tr3vor]

The problem is that the GPU on the Ps4 will be very weak and not able to even use the graphical fidelity that the massive Vram buffer would otherwise enabled if the GPU could keep the framerate up without plummeting. In other words it imbalanced and not cost effective. Also it's not the 1GB Vram that makes the card fast or slow it's the GPU core that makes it fast or slow.

If the official specs released by sony are true, the PS4's GPU will be able to output 1.8TFLOPS, which is around the same as a GeForce GTX 660, so its not quite a weak GPU, but its definitely no high end GPU. Most of the ram on the PS4 is gonna be used by CPU anyway.

 

I know that the GPU will be far too weak to keep up with a game that uses 6gb of vram, but its theoretical. I get what you're trying to say about the vram, its like how its stupid to put 2gb of vram on a GT 630 or something wimpy like that, it doesn't have the GPU power to run a game that takes 2gb of vram at playable framerates, it might not even work at all.

[G.Freeman]

If the official specs released by sony are true, the PS4's GPU will be able to output 1.8TFLOPS, which is around the same as a GeForce GTX 660, so its not quite a weak GPU, but its definitely no high end GPU. Most of the ram on the PS4 is gonna be used by CPU anyway.

 

I know that the GPU will be far too weak to keep up with a game that uses 6gb of vram, but its theoretical. I get what you're trying to say about the vram, its like how its stupid to put 2gb of vram on a GT 630 or something wimpy like that, it doesn't have the GPU power to run a game that takes 2gb of vram at playable framerates, it might not even work at all.

Exactly what I am saying. But I still do not think that Sony could get that much ram in the system without it having to be really overpriced. Besides properly developed and coded games do not need to use much Vram but that's an optimization thing.

[Tr3vor]

Exactly what I am saying. But I still do not think that Sony could get that much ram in the system without it having to be really overpriced. Besides properly developed and coded games do not need to use much Vram but that's an optimization thing.

Yeah, I'm also questioning Sony's decision to use GDDR5 instead one pool of GDDR5 (maybe 1.5-2gb) for the GPU and maybe 6gb of DDR3 for the system ram. I'm also questioning their use of a netbook CPU in the console. 

 

Anyway, getting off topic.

 

1GB 460x2 is worth it, but eventually it will probably run out of framebuffer, and G.Freeman should agree. By the time that one 460 1gb runs out of framebuffer, the GPU wouldn't be powerfull enough to run the games at playable framerates, but since there are 2 460s, the GPU horsepower might be there, but not the vram.

[G.Freeman]

Yeah, I'm also questioning Sony's decision to use GDDR5 instead one pool of GDDR5 (maybe 1.5-2gb) for the GPU and maybe 6gb of DDR3 for the system ram. I'm also questioning their use of a netbook CPU in the console. 

 

Anyway, getting off topic.

 

1GB 460x2 is worth it, but eventually it will probably run out of framebuffer, and G.Freeman should agree. By the time that one 460 1gb runs out of framebuffer, the GPU wouldn't be powerfull enough to run the games at playable framerates, but since there are 2 460s, the GPU horsepower might be there, but not the vram.

It's all about balance and consoles are very balanced and the developers optimize and tailor make the code just for the console so it's highly optimized. Look at the Xbox hardware imagine trying to run with that hardware on a PC it would not even run Half Life 2 a 30fps @ 720P but because the code is optimized to run on the console it runs fine. Ports from consoles always are a mess.

 

1GB Vram for SLI GTX 460 is balanced imo because the graphics cores run out of steam around the same time the framebuffer fills up.

[Bhups]

I think the one thing you guys are missing is that the lower the performance of the GPU the less vram it will need, for example the 460 gpu simply cant draw the same amount as a 680 gpu therefore with the 1gb vram on the 460 the card is more likely to be bottle necked by the actual power of the GPU than the amount of Vram it has.

 

saying running battlefield 3 on a 680 uses 1.5gb of vram if the 460 only has enough power to render enough to use 600mb (random number for an example) of vram is irrelevant. . 

 

The texture settings you run on a 460 to get a playable fps will pretty much never exceed 1gb in my books. 

 

I know nothing about the workings of GPU's by the way, this just seems like logic to me. If anyone bar Mr Freeman has an opinion I would like to hear it.

[Bhups]

Yeah, I'm also questioning Sony's decision to use GDDR5 instead one pool of GDDR5 (maybe 1.5-2gb) for the GPU and maybe 6gb of DDR3 for the system ram. I'm also questioning their use of a netbook CPU in the console. 

 

Anyway, getting off topic.

 

1GB 460x2 is worth it, but eventually it will probably run out of framebuffer, and G.Freeman should agree. By the time that one 460 1gb runs out of framebuffer, the GPU wouldn't be powerfull enough to run the games at playable framerates, but since there are 2 460s, the GPU horsepower might be there, but not the vram.

 

sorry i missed this, but this is what i mean, i think you will only have an issue with an SLI setup.

[G.Freeman]

I think the one thing you guys are missing is that the lower the performance of the GPU the less vram it will need, for example the 460 gpu simply cant draw the same amount as a 680 gpu therefore with the 1gb vram on the 460 the card is more likely to be bottle necked by the actual power of the GPU than the amount of Vram it has.

 

saying running battlefield 3 on a 680 uses 1.5gb of vram if the 460 only has enough power to render enough to use 600mb (random number for an example) of vram is irrelevant. . 

 

The texture settings you run on a 460 to get a playable fps will pretty much never exceed 1gb in my books. 

 

I know nothing about the workings of GPU's by the way, this just seems like logic to me. If anyone bar Mr Freeman has an opinion I would like to hear it.

So I am not allowed to agree with you now LOL ?

[Godlygamer23]

I have a 1gb 550 Ti, and i usually run games @1080p with most settings High/very high and medium/high on the newest of games, and I never seem to pass 500mb. I don't see games @1080p and high/very high settings using over 1gb for the next year at least.  Its probably a different story at resolutions higher than 1080p.

Tomb Raider even below 1080p uses more than 1GB of VRAM.

[Godlygamer23]

It's all about balance and consoles are very balanced and the developers optimize and tailor make the code just for the console so it's highly optimized. Look at the Xbox hardware imagine trying to run with that hardware on a PC it would not even run Half Life 2 a 30fps @ 720P but because the code is optimized to run on the console it runs fine. Ports from consoles always are a mess.

 

1GB Vram for SLI GTX 460 is balanced imo because the graphics cores run out of steam around the same time the framebuffer fills up.

Sorry, but consoles do not run games at 720p. They run video games @ sub-HD levels. Just look at Black Ops II. The developers stated that the game runs @ sub-HD with the details turned down on both consoles.

[G.Freeman]

Tomb Raider even below 1080p uses more than 1GB of VRAM.

It does not mean that the game is unplayable or even choppy. The 550ti is to slow to warrant more than a gig Vram to begin with.

[Godlygamer23]

It does not mean that the game is unplayable or even choppy.

Prove it.

[G.Freeman]

Sorry, but consoles do not run games at 720p. They run video games @ sub-HD levels. Just look at Black Ops II. The developers stated that the game runs @ sub-HD with the details turned down on both consoles.

They still look dam good for the hardware they have. Take the highly optimized console hit's such as Forza Motorsport, Grand Turismo, and Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid I mean they look stunning just because they are optimized.