Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Technology

Nvidia's $200 GTX 460 Ups Bargain Performance 197

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the pixels-and-profits dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nvidia's $200 GTX 460 Ups Bargain Performance

Comments Filter:
  • Bargain? $200? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ajlitt (19055) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:03AM (#32874674)

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • Re:Bargain? $200? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dnaumov (453672) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:06AM (#32874714)

      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.

      • Re:Bargain? $200? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by yincrash (854885) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:08AM (#32874744)
        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?
        • by dnaumov (453672)

          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?

          If 200$ is mid-range, what does that make 300$ and 400$ videocards, assuming we call 500-600$ videocards the high-end?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by yincrash (854885)
            mid-range.
          • by radicalpi (1407259) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:15AM (#32874818)

            If 200$ is mid-range, what does that make 300$ and 400$ videocards, assuming we call 500-600$ videocards the high-end?

            Upper middle class with distinction

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by tsalmark (1265778)
            Maybe we can call them "Gaming video cards" in which case $200 may well be bargain priced.
          • I can only speak for myself (different needs as has been mentioned already) but I think of $500-600 video cards as fucking insane. A $400 video card is (again, just "in my eyes") plain ridiculous and buying a pair of them to connect for even "MORE EXTREME VIDEO!!!!!!" is functionally retarded. Somewhere around my 40th birthday I decided this was all just a big scam and can no longer bring myself to pay more than $100 for a video card.
        • Re:Bargain? $200? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MonChrMe (1849782) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:17AM (#32874844)

          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.

        • by Kamots (321174)

          It's a bargin priced performance video card not a bargin priced video card. Interestingly enough, "bargin performance" is the phrase used in the summary.

          You're not going to get solid performance at a respectable resolution in modern video games for below $150-200 or so. If you spend below that you're either having to drastically cut resolution or you're cutting way back on the settings. The $200ish range of cards will let you run with most all of the pretty stuff turned on at approximately 1080p resoluti

      • by DarthVain (724186)

        Also not everything is about speed or horsepower but capability.

        I would buy the ATI card all things being equal for the "Eyefinity" technology alone.

        It would let me use 3 monitors not just 2 (tho one needs to be a special new one with a "display port" apparently)
        It would also let me set different resolutions on my different monitors.

        With my current setup I would likely have HD 1080 resolution set on my 37" HD TV DVI-HDMI 16:9 connection, and then run my 4:3 normal LCD monitors at a more usable resolution.

        Wi

        • by Golddess (1361003)
          What is your current video card? Because for me, with my GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 7600 GT, GeForce 6600 GT, GeForce FX 5600, and even my GeForce 256 from way back in 2000, I never had a problem setting different resolutions on multiple monitors.
        • by Kesch (943326)

          nVidia actually just came out with their eyefinity rival called nVidia Surround. It isn't as good as eyefinity though, since it only drives up to six monitors, and you'll need 2x cards in SLI. I'm also not sure if it can do different resolutions on different displays.

          The one advantage it has is that it can do 3d on the displays if somehow have the cash to spend $200 on the glasses setup, and whatever it costs to get 3 identical versions of one of the supported 120hz monitors.

      • You realize thats as silly as arguing some people only need a windows 95 machine, right? Why would that kind of article be exciting?

        You shouldn't even need to spend anything on a video card, everything now-adays has something integrated, from laptops to desktops there is always some form of output. That would fit most people's needs.

        People who need stronger video cards should be expecting to shell out a bit of money.

        • by tepples (727027)

          You shouldn't even need to spend anything on a video card, everything now-adays has something integrated, from laptops to desktops there is always some form of output. That would fit most people's needs.

          VESA isn't good enough, and neither is integrated graphics if you want to run games or CAD apps from past the Voodoo3 era. (Like Voodoo3, Intel GMA 950 lacks hardware vertex processing.)

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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.

        It's not about whether it's stupid, it's about the definition of the word bargain. Frankly, even $100 is stretching the term in this economy, but we're still so awed by not-even-raytraced 3D graphics in realtime that we're willing to accept that we should be grateful to pay a hundred bucks for a couple wafers of fiberglass with some plastic-packed chips of interestingly impure sand that we're going to replace in a few years at most* anyway. And I say that as someone who was grateful to get a GTS 240 for $10

        • by drsmithy (35869)

          You can buy a whole PC capable of playing a generation-ago's games at medium quality for that, shipped!

          From where ?

        • by AdamThor (995520)

          It certainly isn't cheap, but if the performance / dollar ratio is comparatively high (it may well be) then one might call it a bargain. Independent of what you want to spend or if you think it is important.

          How about a car analogy? A $2 million Ferrari for $250,000 is a bargain, even if you can't afford it.

      • by cynyr (703126)
        how about the need for a fermi card that only needs 1 PCI-E power connector. even if it was $250 and had less performance, than the gtx460, i'd still be interested, Hard to find SFX PSUs that will provide 45amp on the 12 volt rail.
    • Re:Bargain? $200? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:08AM (#32874746)

      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.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        I didn't see a scatter plot of price vs fps. Does this $200 card get you twice the fps of a $100 card? What do you get for the extra hundred that's actually worth an extra hundred?

    • Re:Bargain? $200? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:08AM (#32874750) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        Compared to the cost of hookers and blow, it's a downright bargain!
      • This is a fair comment and it is how I base my spending decisions. I guessimate I spend less on my high powered gaming rig than :-

        - A golfer(club costs, Green Fees)
        - Weekend car enthusiasts($1200 to upgarde their brakes, petrol for the Saturday hoon, then theres next weeks mod cost)
        - Boating (Docking fees, an engine service is thousands)
        - Woman at work comment they spend half their weekly pay on clothes (eg $300 - $600) *every week*.

        The common factor in all the above would be the influence of dep
    • by Chrisq (894406)

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      No it does. When you use this card you have to negotiate with it for it to decide what performance it will give, and what you will do for it in return.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by CAIMLAS (41445)

      Why is this modded funny? He's right - $200 isn't a "bargain price". I don't think I've paid that much for a video card ever - and if I have, it was back around 2001, and only once.

      A "bargain" card is under $100, at most. To most people, that's what the cost of an upgrade (to pretty much anything) should cost. Most products try really, really hard to get in under that $100 mark on account of people trying to not spend more than that amount on a given item.

      In my book, a "bargain" card is $50 or less. You kno

      • by gblackwo (1087063)
        Maybe you forgot that price points are not based on U.S. currency only. 100 may be a nice round number in dollars but it is certainly not such a nice number in other currencies.
      • by vadim_t (324782)

        Something is a "bargain" when it has a very good price/value ratio.

        A full frame DSLR camera for $1000 would be a bargain, though you can get a DSLR for $400 easily, and if you're not picky and just want any digital camera at all you can get it for $50.

  • AMD lowers their prices, which they can do quite easily.
    • by paeanblack (191171) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:47AM (#32875144)

      AMD lowers their prices, which they can do quite easily.

      Whichever company restores sanity to their chipset numbering scheme will get my money.

      "Bargain" or not, it's simply not worth my time to investigate each card and decipher how a 460 GTX would perform compare to my 8800 GTX. My four year-old card has so far handled every game I've thrown at it at 1920x1080 without giving me the impression that I'm lacking on the eye-candy.

      I have the money to spare, but I no longer have the free time to make a hobby of staying up to date on all the graphics card releases. All the manufacturers are failing to sell me on how returning to a more frequent upgrade cycle would improve my life, and they certainly aren't making it easy (in terms of time) to find out the relevant details.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770)

        ATi's numbering has been pretty easy to follow lately. The first number is the series, this tells you the basics in terms of features, process, and so on. 5 series are DX11 40nm parts, 4 series are DX 10.1 40nm parts, etc. The next number tells you the major performance class. The ones they seem to like to use are 9 for their high end dual boards, 8 for their high end single boards, 7 for their midrange boards, and 5 (and sometimes 6) for low end boards. The final two numbers are the sub category for perfor

        • With video cards you have to turn your brain on a bit and do some research to determine what you are really getting. No way to give you a single, universally applicable, number.

          From an engineering viewpoint, that statement is absolutely true. The end user, however, doesn't spend their day benchmarking...they care about one thing: does X card run Y game at Z settings?. At one time I cared about clock speed, memory speed, pipelines, etc, but not any more.

          What I'm saying is that my money is up for grabs for t

          • Benchmarks are easy to find. If you are interested in latest greatest, go to HardOCP. They bench new cards in a highly realistic manner. You can then compare that to what you get on your current card and see if you like the upgrade. For bigger benchmark sets that do multiple generations of hardware, go look at Tom's Hardware's charts. They have a bunch of cards running something and show you the results, though they are more synthetic.

        • by djdanlib (732853)

          Thank you for offering clarity in a subject that's frequently confusing to people who don't spend enormous amounts of effort learning the intricacies of the GFX card industry.

        • by MojoStan (776183)

          ATi's numbering has been pretty easy to follow lately.

          I agree, but the key word is lately. I despised product names like Radeon X600 (based on Radeon 9600) and Radeon 9200 (based on Radeon 8500).

          The first number is the series, this tells you the basics in terms of features, process, and so on. 5 series are DX11 40nm parts, 4 series are DX 10.1 40nm parts, etc.

          Still mostly true. My heart broke a little when I read about Mobility Radeon HD 5165/5145 [amd.com], which are DX 10.1 parts.

    • by afidel (530433)
      I hope AMD does lower their prices because the HD5750 has actually gone UP about 10-15% in the last 8 months! I'd love to get something with more capability than my 9600GSO but because my HTPC is on 24x7 I don't want a power sucking monster so the 5750 is the best bet, unfortunately it's still out of the price range where I can justify it to myself.
  • by gweihir (88907) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:15AM (#32874824)

    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.

    • I've had about 10-12 nvidia cards in my personal workstation - never had a single issue with any of them drawing a single pixel wrong - currently have 2x GTX 280's in a 2x quad core xeon machine and they are working perfectly and generating a lot of heat but apparently dissipating it properly.

      Now ATI cards - I had the problem documented here: http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1288 [frostytech.com] - after 6 cards (not even kidding) die in less than 24 hours of use I finally sent the last one back and told

      • by Nicolay77 (258497)

        Workstation being the key word there.

        nVidia had some extremely bad mobile chipsets and mobile video cards when the 8800GT reigned on the desktops.

        By bad I mean that the solder stopped working after some time.

        It still haunts them today.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      I'm guessing you just have had bad luck. I've had 7 Nvidia based video cards and 3 mobo chipsets. Never had one die on me yet. Only card I've ever had die on my was a 3dfx Banshee based card.

    • nVidia makes the chips, not the board they are on.

      That isn't to say they couldn't still be responsible, but the only problems I've had with nVidia video cards were when I bought the really cheap ones from an unknown vendor... and that was ages ago (during the GeForce 2 line).

    • Everyone's experience is different, I suppose. I have a GeForce 5200 that's been in operation for over 7 years now, and it's still going strong.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:20AM (#32874886) Homepage

    They are months too late, and ATI's next offering will be released (or at least announced) relatively soon, given their track record. I'm glad to see Nvidia releasing something that gives ATI a run for their money in the budget arena, but still...I think that advantage is going to disappear once ATI updates their line again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830)

      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

      • I bought the 4770

        I'm assuming you meant 5770 here and that the 4 was a typo, since the other time the card number is mentioned, it's the 5770.

      • by Kjella (173770)

        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.

        As always, check the benchmarks for the game you play. They're close in many games, but a few go exceptionally one way or the other. Mass Effect 2 for example is a very good game for the GTX275 compared to the 5770, other games not so much.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:52AM (#32875184)

      An announcement doesn't mean much without a release. Also, I'd guess that nVidia will be offering updates fairly soon as well. Basically updates to cards are generally either because there's a new architecture, which isn't happening for either company in this case since that take a much longer time, or a new lithography process. I'm not sure what the companies are looking at next, but Global Foundries has a 32nm node online now. They could be looking at using that.

      You have to remember that development continues all the time, and even as a card is being released the next gen, and the gen after that and probably even more than that are being worked on. Takes a long time to bring something from idea to released silicon. So this isn't a race where a company get ahead and the other one can never catch up. Were that the case, well then ATi would be long behind now, because the 8800 series was completely unexpected, and had performance ATi could not match. They had to delay their launch a cycle and still their hardware wasn't a match for it. However, as time went on, they caught up and now have exceeded nVidia in many regards (certainly in being first with DX11).

      The only way this would be "too late" in any respect is if ATi already had a better card out. Remember that people do not wait forever to buy parts. You can't say "But something better will come in a few months!" because something better will ALWAYS come in a few months. Do that and you'll never have a system. If someone buys a computer now, and wants to spend $200ish on a video card, the 460 is a realistic choice.

      Also note that despite the 480s being hot, and late to the game, it isn't a failure. They moved plenty of units. Not near as many as they'd like I'm sure, but people bought those things left and right.

  • by dward90 (1813520) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:22AM (#32874908)
    Soundly beating the 5830 is a stretch at best. On Tom's Hardware's Benchmark Results [tomshardware.com], the 460 is outperformed by the 5830 in every benchmark, Crysis, and AvP test. It loses sparingly in the rest of the games, but calling it the clear better of the 2 is just isn't realistic.
    • by TheKidWho (705796) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:24AM (#32874936)

      The GTX460 is an overclocking monster, you can bring it to within GTX470 speeds for 2/3 of the price.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 plent

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheKidWho (705796)

          The GTX460 runs cooler and produces less noise than a GTX470... Even overclocked...

          EVGA also warranties their cards even if you overclock them.

        • by kalirion (728907)

          Plus, I've yet to see a game which won't run happily on a 9800 GT.

          That really depends on the game settings, resolution, etc.

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        Sure, it will be within GTX470 speeds for at least few days before it burns up...
        • by TheKidWho (705796)

          Where's your proof? I run a vast majority of my gear over clocked, and have so for years without issue.

    • by StikyPad (445176) on Monday July 12, 2010 @02:23PM (#32876934) Homepage

      In the event of a tie, any card that doesn't require Catalyst is a win in my book.

  • by Vigile (99919) * on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:39AM (#32875056)

    http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=954 [pcper.com]

    This review also has a page that attempts to compare the new GF104 architecture on a clock per clock basis with the original GF100: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=954&type=expert&pid=12 [pcper.com]

  • The summary reads like it was written by someone at nVidia; based on the summary you'd think this card could do cold fusion and mow my lawn at the same time while creating mind-blowing graphical displays.
    • The summary reads like it was written by someone at nVidia; based on the summary you'd think this card could do cold fusion and mow my lawn at the same time while creating mind-blowing graphical displays.

      Well damn, that pretty much settles the above debate about it being a bargain card as far as I'm concerned.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Are current ATI graphics cards, especially the cards with 1GB RAM, comparable or better than current Nvidia cards for PC gaming? I've heard for years people calling out ATI drivers as *^#@, convince me otherwise. This isn't a troll, it's a call for opinions from someone who would rather avoid an Nvidia purchase, even though game title after title splash the Nvidia logo in your face when you launch them. How are ATI's drivers now, how well do these cards "game"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by InvisiBill (706958)
      http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-radeon-hd-geforce-gtx,2676-7.html [tomshardware.com]

      That's not the end-all, be-all for all comparisons, but it gives you a good idea how the different brands and generations compare to each other in general. Before Nvidia released the GTX400 series months later, ATI had the two fastest video cards available (the HD5870 and the dual-GPU HD5970 which is still the fastest single card).

      Nvidia seems to throw more money at developers with their The Way It's Meant To Be Played program, bu

    • by Ecuador (740021)

      For drivers:
      ATI (AMD now) has not had a problem with drivers for some years now and they are considered at least on par with nVidia. Where nVidia has a slight advantage is that for the titles that they pay (The Way It's Meant To Be Played) they have excellent support from day 1. For ATI in some cases you will have to wait for the next driver update for e.g. eyefinity to work properly, although as I said the good quality of the drivers generally leads to newly released games having no problems. Also, note th

    • by djdanlib (732853)

      I don't have any problems with ATI drivers. I suspect some of the people complaining are doing some odd things, like overclocking various components past the limits of their particular hardware (some units perform better than others at this obviously) and/or using cheap components elsewhere in their systems - e.g. built-in sound, low cost "Value" RAM, factory seconds from a computer fair, etc... All of these things contribute to instability. It's also possible that yet others were using off-brand bargain AT

  • by fredjh (1602699) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:52AM (#32875192)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      I'm confused that some people call $200 a bargain for a videocard alone and then turn around and say that $700 for a Mac is way too expensive.

      • by Runefox (905204)

        I'm not. The major reason why $200 is a bargain for a video card is because that adds capability to the computer - Compare it to buying a game console. As far as a Mac goes, you're paying more for virtually the same machine but for running a different OS - Hell, even the hardware other than the processor in a Mac are generic OEM parts, like for example Hitachi hard drives. Considering the "$500 for a decent computer" remark, saying that a Mac costs $700 (they don't - Try $1300 for an iMac) means that, for t

        • by Yvan256 (722131)

          I wasn't talking about you specifically, sorry if it sounded that way. Yes a Mac is 99% the same as a PC as far as hardware goes, but that gets you Mac OS X too, which I am indeed counting. As for the $700 Mac, look at the Mac mini.

    • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Monday July 12, 2010 @12:40PM (#32875682)

      In much the way $600 is cheap for a SLR camera, but $50 is cheap for an average home camera.

      The $200 mid range for a card for a gaming rig, not mid range for an e-machine or other generic computer 'decent enough to use for most stuff' computer you get from a big box store.

      If you aren't into high end gaming with the latest graphics crunching game, at really high resolution and fps, that's fine. Other folks are and have a different definition of what's 'mid' range for a gaming machine than you have for a generic machine.

      In other words, this article isn't aimed at you. That's ok. Not every one has to be.

      • by fredjh (1602699)

        Ahh... but I do play games (sometimes), and I also do video editing (which, granted, doesn't require a lot of 3D performance). I don't buy $30 video cards, I buy cards that are actually quite good in the $100 range.

        I understand the scale... if the high end of consumer cards is $400 or more, then $200 is more mid than high end, but the article frames this as being a "bargain" card.

        If, on the other hand, you were to look at the median price paid for a new graphics card, I think it would be far below $200, in

        • by LurkerXXX (667952)

          If I can get the features and framerate of cards that normally cost $500 for $250, that's a bargain.

          First you were complaining $200 wasn't mid range by your definition, now you are complaining a bargain isn't a bargain unless it's in your price range.

          Once again, you are not the target market for this article. That's ok.

    • by Runefox (905204)

      I'm not sure I'd call a $500 computer a "decent" computer in any respect (these are typically the disposable cameras of the computer world), but $200 for a video card isn't too out of touch. If you consider that you're buying a computer anyway and that you'll be getting a base level of value out of the computer whether or not you added that video card, you end up with adding a $200 piece of hardware to the machine in order to play games on it. Considering that the cheapest of consoles on the market right no

      • by dward90 (1813520)
        A $500 computer, if you build it yourself, can be a superb machine for 90% or more of users. I recently specced a $500 machine with an Athlon II x4, 6GB ram, discrete graphics, and TB storage. It's not "state-of-the-art", but it will be able to play almost any current game with modest settings, while watching an HD movie on a second monitor, while compressing a copy of that movie into an archive. I'm not sure what your definition of "decent" is, but I don't see most users needing more power than describe
  • by sexconker (1179573) on Monday July 12, 2010 @11:57AM (#32875238)

    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.

    • by radish (98371)

      OK, a question for you as I've been trying to figure out the answer to this for a while :) Maybe you'd be so kind as to offer a bit of advice.

      I currently have a 7800GT which is basically fine for me performance wise, but I'd like to get some of the nice stuff like HD video and Photoshop acceleration which newer cards have. I don't really game heavily on the PC but I do sometimes fire up something like Audiosurf or Civ so I'd like something better than integrated graphics. Otherwise, my main concern is power

      • by Runefox (905204)

        Well, HDMI is generally compatible with DVI via a relatively inexpensive adapter (which I think most cards come with). So a card with one of each DVI, HDMI and VGA ports actually has the capacity for two DVI devices (or two HDMI devices). I'm fairly sure this is the case with the GT 240; In Zotac's case [zotacusa.com], they actually include an HDMI to DVI cable (it's just a dongle, shown here, but should do the job [zotacusa.com]).

        For a while, I was running my X-Box 360 Elite via an HDMI to DVI converter on my 22" monitor; Interestingly

    • by TheKidWho (705796)

      Genius, the cards with the bad bumps were the mobile GPUs, not the desktop chips.

      Also the 8800GT was the best value card. I'm still running one and it runs great.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      For Nvidia, these have been 6800, 7800, 8800, 9800, 280, 480.

      An Nvidia 250GTS *is* a 9800 with slightly less power consumption. If you can't afford a 280, a 250 is a reasonable purchase. Makes more sense than buying a 9800 today.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        An Nvidia 250GTS *is* a 9800 with slightly less power consumption. If you can't afford a 280, a 250 is a reasonable purchase. Makes more sense than buying a 9800 today.

        I've been seeing 9800s for around $80, so depending on what titles you want to play it might be fine. I bought a GT240 which is 3/4 the processors of a 250, it is a little more than 3/4 the card for around 1/2 the wattage. [wikipedia.org] right now newegg has it for $69.99 after MIR [newegg.com] and $6.98 shipping. It's non-SLI, it goes with my GA-MA770-UD3P and Phenom II X3 720, all (relatively) low power. And mb/cpu/vid each cost $100 when I got them which is my personal maximum, and the board while slightly warty (black screen on XP

        • Actually, I bought a GT240 (for $10 more than this, but it was 6 months ago and had a free Capcom game (I chose Resident Evil 5) with it). The difference is that there were two models for the same price: a 1GB DDR3 model and a 512MB GDDR5 model... and one of my friends warned me that the GDDR5 model was probably the better buy, simply because the memory clock speed was more likely to be a bottleneck before the memory amount was.

          Speaking of which, that exact card [newegg.com] as well as its 1GB DDR3 edition [newegg.com] are $64.99 o

      • by cynyr (703126)
        but what if i have a total power requirement, the 280 requires too much current on the 12 volt rail to work in some of the smaller cases. silverstone SG05/SG06 for example. Thats where nvidia is failing at the moment, their highest performance card that only needs a single PCIE power connector is the GTS250... i'm hoping they put out a GTX450 at ~9"-10" and needs a single pcie power connector.
    • by kalirion (728907)

      Wait, the 8800 GT is part of the flagship line, is it not? I mean you included the 8800 in the flagship list without specifying GTX....

  • Off-topic pedanticism here: "Infamous" means that something or someone is famous for negative reasons or for having a very bad reputation, along the lines of "notorious". Methinks that it really isn't the word you were looking for, and that "famous" or some synonym would do nicely.
    • It is somewhat infamous, mostly due to being vastly over-hyped -- running comparably to ATI's six-month-old cards at the time of its release was not worthy of the hype machine Nvidia had going throughout the several delays.

  • Here's a story about a video card and I don't see any posts on how it works with Linux.

    And the number of "new, weird and/or funky Linux distro" stories has fallen to less than one per week. There used to be two a day.

    My, how times have changed.

  • As well as being a relative bargain, this is the quietest GPU in its power range, especially considering it uses the Fermi architecture.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/16 [anandtech.com]

    It's going to be a great boon for those who would like great GP-GPU performance too. Custom raytracing, and scientific research is going to get a kick from this.

Old programmers never die, they just become managers.

Working...