Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 115704	2011-01-31 01:09:00	GTX 460 or 465?	icow (15313)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1173979	2011-02-03 21:45:00	Bear in mind the 460 has enough headroom to o/c to keep up with the 560 too. 560's are priced a tad too high, 380-400 would be a sweet spot... so imo the 460 still represents best bang for anyones buck. The 560 appears to have a bit of OC headroom too ;) The top-end OC'd 460s would probably match a stock 560, but I can't see them keeping up with an OCd 560. But yes, I do think the 460 is still better bang for buck, the 560 is about 40% more expensive for a 25% performance boost. The 6950 is tempting in the 560s price range, too.	inphinity (7274)
1173980	2011-02-03 22:27:00	The 560 appears to have a bit of OC headroom too ;) The top-end OC'd 460s would probably match a stock 560, but I can't see them keeping up with an OCd 560. But yes, I do think the 460 is still better bang for buck, the 560 is about 40% more expensive for a 25% performance boost. The 6950 is tempting in the 560s price range, too. I dont play games enough now to warranty purchasing a new card. If I did, I would shot for the 560, and the wife would probably ok a 460... While the 6950 is a great card, the 1Gb version isnt worth it, so that leaves the 2gb, but this cards strong point is its memory bandwidth at high res an BIOS unlock, so this card is a cheap 6970, however I wouldnt get one. I cant be dealing with hotfixes every other week and changing cat drivers in order to play difference games!	SolMiester (139)
1173981	2011-02-04 01:14:00	This is a good chart that shows performance/cost: www.cpubenchmark.net Sorry but that chart just isn't relevant. It's out of date , doesn't have current models, and is not relevant to NZ prices which are sometimes very different to overseas. As one example the AMD x4 645 is around $200 NZ which put's it about the same price as a i3 550 which isn't on that chart at all. No one is denying that AMD make good CPU's or that they are worth considering compared to comparably priced intel CPU's. But AMD supporters seem to block out the fact that in the performance world AMD currently don't feature. I like AMD, I wish they would make a better CPU, I hope the next gen gives intel a run for it's money, but for now the fastest AMD available manages to match midrange intel CPU's for price and performance. There is no AMD equivalent to an i7 or the faster i5's.	dugimodo (138)
1173982	2011-02-04 01:24:00	But AMD supporters seem to block out the fact that in the performance world AMD currently don't feature. Fully agree, if you're just after pure performance, the i7 series is the way to go. But for most people, that is those falling in the entry- to mid-range segments, both Intel and AMD offer very good options, and in many cases the AMD option is better value for money. Just as the AMD fanboys that constantly think AMD is *the* best option are irritating, so too the Intel fans who seem to think, that just because an i7 Extreme is faster than anything from AMD, that an i3 is also faster than any of AMDs offerings simply by virtue of being an Intel product. Honestly, at the moment AMD are not even attempting to compete at the high-end of the desktop market - it's not worth the effort with their current architecture. I've said it before and I'll say it again, though - if they've met some of their long-standing goals with the platform, Bulldozer will change that and we will for the first time in a long time see two genuinely competitive top-end processors, and that will, hopefully, lead to the top-range no longer being $1500+. An I7 extreme - CPU only - costs more than my whole system cost me, and that's insane. And this from soneone who didn't balk at buying an $1100 GeForce 2 Ultra a decade ago.	inphinity (7274)
1173983	2011-02-04 02:58:00	I only picked AMD for my CPU as they make there components cheap compared to intel. I would have liked an i5 but cost wise it wasn't happening. Anyway I'll go for a Gigabyte 460 GTX OC as apparently OC 460's cards keep up with the 560 stock. Also the extra $100-$150 for a slightly faster card and a higher power consumption made me choose a 460.	icow (15313)
1173984	2011-02-04 04:48:00	It's a ~7% difference in framerate for a 40% increase in price (965BE vs i5-760). Sure, the i5/i7 are better performers, but they're not necessarily the bang for buck option ;) That's why I don't buy Intel. I can't justify a significant price increase just for a few extra frames that won't make any noticeable difference.	Agent_24 (57)
1173985	2011-02-04 04:49:00	I only picked AMD for my CPU as they make there components cheap compared to intel. I would have liked an i5 but cost wise it wasn't happening. Anyway I'll go for a Gigabyte 460 GTX OC as apparently OC 460's cards keep up with the 560 stock. Also the extra $100-$150 for a slightly faster card and a higher power consumption made me choose a 460. Just make sure you've got a reliable PSU along with all that, not some dodgy one that makes whining noises as in your other post	Agent_24 (57)
1173986	2011-02-04 21:36:00	The 560 appears to have a bit of OC headroom too ;) Been following a couple of threads for a few days concerning GTX570 overclocking around 900 GPU killing the cards. www.overclock.net Thought I would mention it as the 560 also has 4 power phases and I suspect we "might" start to see issues with these on higher overclocks. OC GPU's has always been a tad risky but its been a while since we have seen a issue like the 570. The 580 has 6 power phases and is not effected.	Battleneter2 (9361)
1173987	2011-02-04 22:06:00	It's not the clocks killing the 500s, it's the voltages.	inphinity (7274)
1173988	2011-02-04 22:07:00	It's not the clocks killing the 500s, it's the voltages. lol yes but you need the voltages to get the clocks, thats why I posted the link, rather than a 2000 word post.	Battleneter2 (9361)
1 2 3 4 5 6