Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia's $200 GTX 460 Ups Bargain Performance
NervousNerd writes "Nvidia's first DirectX 11 offerings ran hot and offered a negligible performance difference compared to ATI's Radeon HD 5800 series for the cost. Also missing was the $200 mid-range part. But that stopped when Nvidia released the GTX 460 based on a modified version of their infamous Fermi architecture. The GTX 460 offers incredible performance for the price and soundly beats ATI's $200 offering, the HD 5830."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
AMD lowers their prices, which they can do quite easily.
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
Can we have ONE video card news posting discussion without a flood of people preaching how it's supposedly stupid to spend anything more than 100$ on a videocard? Please? People have different needs and expectations.
I don't think it's stupid to spend more than $100 on a video carrd (I definitely have), but it does seem hard to argue that $200 is a bargain priced video card. I would probably call it mid-range?
Did you consult the dictionary before typing that? Bargain isn't related to how much something costs, but how much it is worth compared to how much it costs. This is a bargain.
Well for a hard core gamer that is pretty cheap. I do not spend that much on video cards but if it is your hobby.
Ever see how much golf clubs costs? Or motorcycle gear? How about the cost of gas for a boat?
This isn't that bad in comparison.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
mid-range.
After two Nvidia video cards and one chip-set died early on me from overheating, despite additional cooling, I am not buying their trash again. Maybe "pro-gamers" do not mind an expensive card or main-board dying after 1-1.5 years, but I do mind rather strongly.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I would probably call it mid-range?
So would the TFS, apparently. I guess Taco's got some cash to play with. :)
That said, if it beats out the other cards in it's price range, and has the same price then it's probably fair to call it a bargain within that slice of the market.
Maybe we can call them "Gaming video cards" in which case $200 may well be bargain priced.
Oh, I wouldn't say that. A couple weeks ago I decided to upgrade my 8800GTS. I read a few reviews, saw some benchmarks, and wasn't really impressed with ATI, but was willing to give them a chance. I decided to spend anywhere between $150 and $200.
At my local Microcenter I could get a 5770 for around $179 or a GTX275 for $199. The difference between these cards is night and day. I bought the 4770 and returned it because it wasn't much faster than my 8800. The GTX275 on the other hand, just blows the 5770 away. Sure, I don't get directx11, but I don't have a need for it.
I guess I could have bought a 5830, but that was at least $50 more than I was willing to spend. I'm not sure what "bargain" card ATI has, but from what I can tell, right now, the bang-for-your-buck crown goes to Nvidia.
When a decent computer sells for $500, how is $200 "mid" range?
I must be getting old... I still have to hold my nose to pay more than $100 for a video card.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Remember Nvidia's last great bargain card, the 8800 GT?
You know, the one everyone bought at $200?
You know, the one everyone said was the best value?
You know, the one with the bad bumps?
For GPUs:
If you don't need to play games, go integrated or go with cheap, cheap shit.
If you want to play games, ALWAYS go with a flagship line.
For Nvidia, these have been 6800, 7800, 8800, 9800, 280, 480.
For ATi these have been 9700/9800, x800 x1800, HD 2850, HD 3870, HD 4870.
If you can't afford the latest and greatest, get a used one from the last generation. The flagship cards are the only ones that undergo any worthwhile testing. The flagship cards are the only ones where the OEMs and Nvidia/ATi work together and formulate a gameplan.
If you don't mind the additional heat, noise (due to fan spinning up due to heat), artifacts, crashes (I've yet to meet an overclocker that gets the fact that even though the stress test doesn't crash, that doesn't mean that the crashes in XYZ game aren't overclocking related), void guarantee, reduced lifetime, and other problems associated with overclocking.
Plus, I've yet to see a game which won't run happily on a 9800 GT. There are so many console ports these days that even a card a few years old is plenty (for comparison, the ps3 has a geforce 7800 in it, and the 360 is only slightly more powerful).
Says someone with a GTX 285, a card with similar performance as the 470, and that's roughly twice as powerful as the 9800 GT I mentioned...
The critical difference here is that the other three will at least get you out of the house and into the sunshine and fresh air.
What's your point?
+1 Disagree
In the event of a tie, any card that doesn't require Catalyst is a win in my book.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere