oops, i didn't even realize those were the crippled GF114-based GTX 460's. not to take away from the same sale that i turned you on to, but Larry's cards are looking mighty good from that point of view. i think the pros significantly outweigh the cons in this case. consider a few things first...
the GTX 460's in that FS thread (the GF114-based GTX 460's) are in actuality "twice crippled" GPUs. it is essentially a mildly crippled GTX 560, which in turn is a severely crippled GTX 560 Ti. the GTX 560 is virtually identical to the original GF104 based GTX 460, save for the significantly increased core and memory clocks, which was supposed to give it the performance lead over the GTX 460, while consuming the same (or less) power...i'll get to why that didn't happen shortly. but the GF114-based GTX 460's are really GTX 560's w/ a crippled 192-bit memory bus. i believe the 25% decrease in memory bandwidth will more than offset any advantage of the 11% increase in memory clock, yielding a net negative result. the reason the GTX 560 didn't entirely meet its performance and power consumption goals is b/c nVidia never launched a GTX 560 reference card (and consequently there was no reference GF114-based GTX 460 either). all of them were manufactured by nVidia's aftermarket partners, none of which followed nVidia's specs with respect to things like core clock and memory clock...not to my knowledge anyways. even if you were to take one of the various aftermarket GF114-based GTX 460's/GTX 560's, downclock the factory overclocks to nVidia's official GTX 560 specs of 810MHz core clock and 1620MHz memory clock, you still have to take any comparison between it and an original GF104-based GTX 460 with a grain of salt b/c there was never an official voltage specification for the GTX 560 or the GF114-based GTX 460. consequently, its tough to pin down a GF114-based GTX 460's power consumption, b/c its going to vary from one aftermarket card to the next. so while nVidia rates the GTX 560's/GF114-based GTX 460's TDP at 150W (10W lower than the original GF104-based GTX 460), most of these aftermarket cards are certainly drawing the same if not more power than many GF104-based GTX 460's due to their factory overclocks. if you take a look at Anand's (or more appropriately Ryan Smith's) NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560: The Top To Bottom Factory Overclock article, you'll see that he did just what was described above - he took an aftermarket GTX 560 and downclocked it to nVidia's official specs of 810MHz core clock and 1640MHZ memory clock. and if you take a look at the Power, Temperature, & Noise page of the article, you'll also see that this card (the nVidia GeForce GTX 560 Base*) consumed more power than the original GF104-based reference GTX 460 in most cases...granted, a different GTX 560 w/ a lower factory voltage might have otherwise compared favorably. but the point is that the difference in power consumption between an original GTX 460 and a GF114-based GTX 460 is going to be negligible. truth be told, while they may trade blows in the power consumption department, the original GF104-based GTX 460 will hold a tangible performance lead most of the time, if not all the time when it comes to compute.
sorry for the long-winded response. at any rate, i can vouch for the excellent cooling and noise characteristics of the Gigabyte WindForce cards - i've got a WindForce GTX 560 Ti w/ the same dual fan cooler, and its probably the quietest of any OE dual fan GTX 560 Ti cooler on the market...it puts MSI's Twin Frozr and Hawk dual fan coolers to shame, and even those aren't considered loud to most people...