NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 460: The $200 King
by Ryan Smith on July 11, 2010 11:54 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- GeForce GTX 400
- GeForce GTX 460
- NVIDIA
Wolfenstein
Finally among our revised benchmark suite we have Wolfenstein, the most recent game to be released using the id Software Tech 4 engine. All things considered it’s not a very graphically intensive game, but at this point it’s the most recent OpenGL title available. It’s more than likely the entire OpenGL landscape will be thrown upside-down once id releases Rage next year.
Light on the shader use, this game is more about the ROPs, which returns unsurprising results. The 1GB GTX 460 enjoys an 8% lead over the 768MB version, while the 768MB version enjoys a 7% lead over the 5830. Overclocking is fairly effective here, with the factory overclocked EVGA GTX 460 pulling ahead of the 1GB reference GTX 460.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
Howard - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
What?Zok - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
Excellent writeup! I really enjoyed you going into depth on the architectural changes. I couldn't agree more that it's superb to see NVIDIA get back into the efficiency game - whether it be performance/price or performance/watt (and, by extension, temperature). Here's to hoping that AMD was sitting on something to combat this!P.S. Small typo: For everything but the high-end, this year is a feature yet and not a performance year.
thekimbobjones - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
Let the price war begin.homerdog - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
"Here we use the DX11 renderer and turn on self shadowing ambient occlusion (SSAO) to its highest setting, which uses a DX11 ComputeShader."I don't think that's what SSAO stands for. Sorry for the nitpick.
chizow - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
Yeah I believe the proper term is Screen Space Ambient Occlusion but self shadowing is how its often explained to give an idea of what it is.gentlearc - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
The graphs shown are leaving out too many new derivatives of cards, making is good for contrasting results, but poor for consistent data comparison. Conveniently left out are many cards in one graph that are in another. I'm disappointed in your presentation and find you've concentrated too much on the presentation of your article.Ryan Smith - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
Out of curiosity, what's not in our graphs that you'd like to see? At 2560 we run a limited number of cards because most cards are too slow to post a passable framerate, otherwise at 1920 and 1680 we have the complete 5700/5800/5900 series, GTX 400 series, GTX 200 series, and Radeon 4800 series, along with a 3870 and 8800GT. Is there something else you would like?SpaceRanger - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
What I'd like to see is the ATI card that is in direct competition with this highlighted as well. Having to search for the 5830 or 5850 out of all those bars turned me off.estaffer - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
need some cheese with your whine?SpaceRanger - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
Sure.. a good Gruyère please...