How fast are my GTX460 Cyclones at 900Mhz?

[Serradifalco]

What current single card solution would the Cyclones in my sig compare to? This is a curiosity question more than an upgrade question. I game at 1080p.

 

[FalseChristian]

I've got 2 GTX 460 1GBs overclocled to 870mHz. I'd say its a bit faster than a GTX 470 at stock.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Have you tested them for errors with occt gpu tester?

 

[notty22]

Imo, its just under a gtx 580. I'm not going to say its always as good. Single cards have less baggage. There are articles comparing gtx 460sli to 5970.
http://www.techspot.com/review/309-geforce-gtx-460-sli-performance/

 

[tviceman]

A gtx460 at 900mhz is about equal to a gtx470 at stock speeds.

 

[happy medium]

2 gtx460's in sli @ 900 core? There is no single gpu card that fast. Even a gtx580 would be 10/15% slower.

 

[SickBeast]

This is an interesting thread. I'm thinking about adding another MSI Cyclone to my rig. The thing is, I find a single 460 at 950mhz is good enough for all current games aside from Crysis and Metro 2033.

If Crysis 2 is a good game and needs it, I'll probably add another one.

From what I've read, so long as you're not memory limited, 2 GTX 460's in SLI are faster than a single GTX 580. The problem is that once you enable a meaningful amount of AA, you'll be limited by the memory, unless you game at lower resolutions. I have a feeling that future games like Crysis 2 will exasperate this problem.

 

[Arkadrel]

2x 460 stock in SLI is slower than a single 580 by abit.
Since your 460s are overclocked, Im gonna say... your 460 SLI setup is abit faster than a 580.

 

[Serradifalco]

Have you tested them for errors with occt gpu tester?

45 minutes of Kumbustor @1080p and AA=16XQ. Max temp = 62. Also several hours of Crysis game play. No errors or crashes.

 

[Serradifalco]

This is an interesting thread. I'm thinking about adding another MSI Cyclone to my rig. The thing is, I find a single 460 at 950mhz is good enough for all current games aside from Crysis and Metro 2033.

If Crysis 2 is a good game and needs it, I'll probably add another one.

From what I've read, so long as you're not memory limited, 2 GTX 460's in SLI are faster than a single GTX 580. The problem is that once you enable a meaningful amount of AA, you'll be limited by the memory, unless you game at lower resolutions. I have a feeling that future games like Crysis 2 will exasperate this problem.

The difference has to be extreme. These cards scale at over 90% in SLI. My computer monitor is a 46" Sharp LCD. I think for my case at 1080p there won't be an issue.

 

[RussianSensation]

A gtx460 at 900mhz is about equal to a gtx470 at stock speeds.

Review

At 900mhz, it's actually faster than a GTX470 and often beats the HD5870.

Since your 460s are overclocked, Im gonna say... your 460 SLI setup is abit faster than a 580.

In this review, GTX460s @ 810mhz are easily faster than a single 580. In Metro 2033 and Dirt 2, the performance advantage is 15-19%. So 900mhz GTX460s will be ~20-25% faster than a single stock 580, which is a lot more than "a bit faster".

 

[ArchAngel777]

The difference has to be extreme. These cards scale at over 90% in SLI. My computer monitor is a 46" Sharp LCD. I think for my case at 1080p there won't be an issue.

I ran the numbers last week and average scaling was betwen 70 and 75%. Good look up AT's review and get out a calculator, you will find that they don't scale 90%.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Review

At 900mhz, it's actually faster than a GTX470 and often beats the HD5870.



In this review, GTX460s @ 810mhz are easily faster than a single 580. In Metro 2033 and Dirt 2, the performance advantage is 15-19%. So 900mhz GTX460s will be ~20-25% faster than a single stock 580, which is a lot more than "a bit faster".

Not when you consider the potential pitfalls for multi-gpu. As others have noted, 80fps in SLI/Xfire appears to be around 60fps in a single gpu. More consistent performance.

 

[WelshBloke]

Op why don't you post some benchmarks, then we'd know exactly how fast your cards are.

I've always wanted to use that smilie.

 

[happy medium]

from review..

"Because SLI scales so well, giving two GeForce GTX 460 1GB graphics cards a 90% performance boost over a single card, the value for two cards together is very similar to what earned the single GeForce GTX 460 1GB its previous Recommended Buy award."


"The GeForce GTX 460 SLI configuration absolutely obliterates the GeForce GTX 480’s performance scores, landing a 26% performance coup de grace upon its big brother after continuously battering it with wins in every benchmark at every setting"

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-sli-geforce-gtx-480,2694-11.html

At 900 core the sli gtx460's would own a gtx580 easily.

 

[ArchAngel777]

from review..

"Because SLI scales so well, giving two GeForce GTX 460 1GB graphics cards a 90% performance boost over a single card, the value for two cards together is very similar to what earned the single GeForce GTX 460 1GB its previous Recommended Buy award."


"The GeForce GTX 460 SLI configuration absolutely obliterates the GeForce GTX 480’s performance scores, landing a 26% performance coup de grace upon its big brother after continuously battering it with wins in every benchmark at every setting"

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-sli-geforce-gtx-480,2694-11.html

At 900 core the sli gtx460's would own a gtx580 easily.

I didn't look through Tom's review yet. But based on AT's review, this is what it came down to.

Crysis 81%
Battleforce 91%
Metro 2033 66%
HAWX 82%
Bad Company 2 71%
STALKER CoP 75%
Dirt 2 83%
Mass Effect 2 95%
Wolfenstein 57%

Average of ~78% overal

A few titles do really well, some even surprised me that I never looked at before (because I don't play them). Others were decent. I guess I'd be willing to say they scale at around 80%. The problem is, the average doesn't quite work like that in the real world. You get a game you really want to play, and flip a coin to see if the game does great (95%!) or poor (57%!)... And... sometimes not at all.

Edit * Just finished reading the article to Tom's Hardware that was posted above. Not sure what one can say to that, they clearly had better results, but they also tested less games and I believe included a synthetic. I'd personally go with AT's results over TH. But to each their own.

 

[apoppin]

I didn't look through Tom's review yet. But based on AT's review, this is what it came down to.

Crysis 81%
Battleforce 91%
Metro 2033 66%
HAWX 82%
Bad Company 2 71%
STALKER CoP 75%
Dirt 2 83%
Mass Effect 2 95%
Wolfenstein 57%

Average of ~78% overal

A few titles do really well, some even surprised me that I never looked at before (because I don't play them). Others were decent. I guess I'd be willing to say they scale at around 80%. The problem is, the average doesn't quite work like that in the real world. You get a game you really want to play, and flip a coin to see if the game does great (95%!) or poor (57%!)... And... sometimes not at all.

Edit * Just finished reading the article to Tom's Hardware that was posted above. Not sure what one can say to that, they clearly had better results, but they also tested less games and I believe included a synthetic. I'd personally go with AT's results over TH. But to each their own.

Who really cares about Wolfenstein? No one plays the multiplayer (as if they ever did) and Nvidia simply hasn't got around to it yet.

Right now (Cat 11-1a/GF 266.58) i am using 29 games to test SLI vs. CF (GTX 580/GTX 560/GTX 550/GTX 480/GTX 460 and GTS 450 vs HD 6970/6950/6870/5870 and 69x0) and the scaling is freaking *amazing*
:thumbsup:

GTX 460s in SLI - at stock - eat a GTX 580 for breakfast in many games where SLI scaling is excellent; where it isn't, they play in the same ballpark (except for a few games like F1 2010)

 

[drizek]

Should I expect similar scaling from 768MB 460s at 1080p?

 

[apoppin]

Should I expect similar scaling from 768MB 460s at 1080p?

No idea. Probably. i did not get a pair of the 460-768s. i only tested the single GPU performance and overclocking which is excellent. i would say the only place you will have issues is when you try to set AA too high and the lack of vRAM becomes noticeable. Then your framerates tank and you should back off on AA, resolution or details.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Who really cares about Wolfenstein? No one plays the multiplayer (as if they ever did) and Nvidia simply hasn't got around to it yet.

Right now (Cat 11-1a/GF 266.58) i am using 29 games to test SLI vs. CF (GTX 580/GTX 560/GTX 550/GTX 480/GTX 460 and GTS 450 vs HD 6970/6950/6870/5870 and 69x0) and the scaling is freaking *amazing*
:thumbsup:

GTX 460s in SLI - at stock - eat a GTX 580 for breakfast in many games where SLI scaling is excellent; where it isn't, they play in the same ballpark (except for a few games like F1 2010)

If we can arbitrarly choose with games are important, we can easily skew the results. Just because you don't care about Wolfenstein, doesn't mean others do not. I don't care for 75% of the games you test with, but that will not stop be from validating your results. I don't care for 50% of the games AT tests with. The test data is still meaningful.

"nVidia just has not got around to it yet" you are kidding me, right? This is entirely the reason people avoid SLI. Why should I have to wait for nVidia to get around to it? I'll pass.

SLI is great when it works, and it appears to work the majority of the time. But there are times when it does not. I don't particular care for it, despite being tempted to move at times past.

 

[apoppin]

If we can arbitrarly choose with games are important, we can easily skew the results. Just because you don't care about Wolfenstein, doesn't mean others do not. I don't care for 75% of the games you test with, but that will not stop be from validating your results. I don't care for 50% of the games AT tests with. The test data is still meaningful.

"nVidia just has not got around to it yet" you are kidding me, right? This is entirely the reason people avoid SLI. Why should I have to wait for nVidia to get around to it? I'll pass.

SLI is great when it works, and it appears to work the majority of the time. But there are times when it does not. I don't particular care for it, despite being tempted to move at times past.

You may not like it, but that is the way it is. And all reviewers arbitrarily choose games - there are many thousands to pick from. Most reviewers review what they like to play (at least i do), along with games that are new and popular .. along with games that have become "standards" to that tech site's audience.

Nvidia and AMD have to *prioritize* which games get attention from their driver teams. And those games are the newest and most popular .. and then they work backwards

As to poor old unpopular Wolfenstein - which i include because i like it and it is OGL and probably use it until Rage is out - using my GTX 460 at 1920x1200 with completely maxed out in-game settings, i get about 41 FPS. Adding a second GTX 460 in SLI gets me 76 average.

What is not to like about that? And please don't speak for everyone.
:\

 

[maddie]

Who really cares about Wolfenstein? No one plays the multiplayer (as if they ever did) and Nvidia simply hasn't got around to it yet.

Right now (Cat 11-1a/GF 266.58) i am using 29 games to test SLI vs. CF (GTX 580/GTX 560/GTX 550/GTX 480/GTX 460 and GTS 450 vs HD 6970/6950/6870/5870 and 69x0) and the scaling is freaking *amazing*
:thumbsup:

GTX 460s in SLI - at stock - eat a GTX 580 for breakfast in many games where SLI scaling is excellent; where it isn't, they play in the same ballpark (except for a few games like F1 2010)

You may not like it, but that is the way it is. And all reviewers arbitrarily choose games - there are many thousands to pick from. Most reviewers review what they like to play (at least i do), along with games that are new and popular .. along with games that have become "standards" to that tech site's audience.

Nvidia and AMD have to *prioritize* which games get attention from their driver teams. And those games are the newest and most popular .. and then they work backwards

As to poor old unpopular Wolfenstein - which i include because i like it and it is OGL and probably use it until Rage is out - using my GTX 460 at 1920x1200 with completely maxed out in-game settings, i get about 41 FPS. Adding a second GTX 460 in SLI gets me 76 average.

What is not to like about that? And please don't speak for everyone.
:\

"Who really cares about Wolfenstein? No one plays the multiplayer (as if they ever did) and Nvidia simply hasn't got around to it yet.


Sounds like YOU are speaking for everyone.

 

[BD231]

Well obviously you're going to take a hit no matter what you choose OP, 2 very fast modern gpu's vs one faster GPU with the *SAME* architecture is not really up for debate.

Thinking a single GPU can do what two current generation cards can achieve? That's absurd. Just realize nobody needs 2 gpu's to push console ports and go with the fastest card you can find.

 

[ArchAngel777]

You may not like it, but that is the way it is. And all reviewers arbitrarily choose games - there are many thousands to pick from. Most reviewers review what they like to play (at least i do), along with games that are new and popular .. along with games that have become "standards" to that tech site's audience.

Nvidia and AMD have to *prioritize* which games get attention from their driver teams. And those games are the newest and most popular .. and then they work backwards

As to poor old unpopular Wolfenstein - which i include because i like it and it is OGL and probably use it until Rage is out - using my GTX 460 at 1920x1200 with completely maxed out in-game settings, i get about 41 FPS. Adding a second GTX 460 in SLI gets me 76 average.

What is not to like about that? And please don't speak for everyone.
:\

Mark, I expected more from you. Please remain respectful and do not attempt to take my statement out of context. I am speaking for myself mainly as well as some others who have voiced a similar opinion over the years here at AT. Never did I speak for all of them. And you give a blatent double standard by attempting to invalidate my opinion on Wolfenstein's performance.

Mark, here is the difference between you and me based on our conversation: I don't care if people want to run SLI or Xfire. I personally do not wish to run it. I even gave credit that SLI runs great the majority of the time. You, even said the same thing by stating:

GTX 460s in SLI - at stock - eat a GTX 580 for breakfast in many games where SLI scaling is excellent; where it isn't, they play in the same ballpark (except for a few games like F1 2010)

But you act as if you were personally offended when I said I don't particularly care for it. Note the "I"... That means me, not you. I don't agree with you on your metaphysical ideas, but I don't trash you for them, nor do I think any less. But I will start to think less if you don't remain respectful.

 

[Aristotelian]

I hate to butt in, but I think you two (Apoppin and ArchAngel777) are talking past one another in a sense.

ArchAngel777's point appears to be: "Sometimes SLI works very well, sometimes it works okay, and sometimes it doesn't work at all". He points to Wolfenstein as a simple token that represents "working okay".

Apoppin points to a larger sample size (than Anandtech's review data that Archangel777 uses) and argues: "On the whole, SLI works well. There's a game here and there where it doesn't work as well as it might but across this large sample of games it works well. By the way, Wolfenstein's poorer SLI scaling is dwarfed by the fact that SLI works well in many other games (also, nobody cares about Wolfenstein anyway)."

You're talking past each other in a way because it's sufficient for ArchAngel777 that at times, SLI is not as great as it could be. Even if you (apoppin) were to show him that in 95/100 games the scaling was 85% and above that probably wouldn't convince him. He just doesn't care for it as it stands now.

I think ArchAngel's entire point was to argue against happy_medium's 90% scaling quote. On the whole, they obviously do not scale 90%, end of story. Whether or not 80% scaling makes SLI worth it or 85% etc., is up to the consumer. But I agree with the sentiment of ArchAngel777's post that the data is important before we start tossing around "90% scaling" as if it's the norm. It isn't, though it can happen. Go figure that this all starts with some sensationalist post.