text:
NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 460: The $200 Kingby Ryan Smith on 7/11/2010 11:54 PM EST
- Posted in
- GeForce GTX 400
- GeForce GTX 460
- GPUs
93 Comments
Back to Article
san1s - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI hope this is the card that finally brings price drops, they have been stagnant for far too long. Reply
JGabriel - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link
It should. The 768MB version seems to perform about 5% better than the 5830, and the 1GB version comes to ~90% of the 5850.
Just on a performance per dollar basis, that means ATI should drop the 5830 to $189 max, with somewhere in the $170-$180 range being more reasonable, and the 5850 needs to drop down to about $249. Basically, we should be looking at 10%-20% price cuts for the 5670, 5750, 5770, 5830, and 5850.
It should force the GTX 470 under $300, too.
. Reply
medi01 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkBest way to drop prices would be to ramp up production. Now, if what I've heard is true (fab treats nVidia as a preferred customer, unlike AMD) we will get yet another round of unfair competition, which in the end will hurt us, customers. :(
Is it me, or articles on this side seem quite a bit to be more positive on what nVidia does, than what would feel neutral? Marketing hints like "it's not a simple reduced version of GF100 like what AMD did" all over... :( Reply
jonup - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkIt is you! Only need to go to the GTX465 review to disptove your point. Reply
teohhanhui - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkGiving credit where it is due? Reply
nafhan - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkRyan said that because the GF104 isn't a simple reduced version of GF100. Did you notice the part of the article where they talked about superscalar processing? That's not only a marketing bullet point, it's a pretty big change from an architecture point of view, too! Reply
medi01 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkAnd this detail brings what particular benefit to the user? In particular, contrasting it with competitors (otherwise superior, cooler and faster) solution? Someone makes something wrong, then he has to rework it (the competitor, that did it right from the beginning, doesn't) and this somehow makes he deserve "some credit"? Reply
Ben90 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkAbout that "marketing" comment about not a shrink of GF100, its completely true and how does that make this site pro-NVIDIA?
You should check out the next article; very first paragraph:
"In 2007 we reviewed NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GT. At the time we didn't know it would be the last NVIDIA GPU we would outright recommend at launch." Reply
medi01 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkIt's completely true, yet it is confusing at best. Piece of silicon is "praised" for something, that has no practical value to the consumer.
And please, don't compare nVidia article to nVidia article, compare it to AMD:
When 5830 was reviewed, and mind you, it's a nice card that runs cooler, has eyefinity, but is a tad slower than older 49xx, this fact was PUT INTO TITLE, mind you. It was mentioned in the very NAME of the article, that new 200$ card is a tad slower than older ones. (basically the only "bad thing" that one could say about the card)
In case of 465 it's barely mentioned "oh, it's slower than older 200$ cards".
=( Reply
Lonyo - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkAnandtech is a tech site that often goes more into the under the hood bits.
On some sites you will see them calculating performance per currency numbers, or performance per watt.
On Anandtech you will have them discussing things like changes to the architecture, the way the threading works etc.
That's not a new thing, and it's not a biased thing, that's just what they do here at AT in their reviews. It just so happens that the GTX460 has some of those under the hood changes compared to the earlier cards based on the same architecture, so they are discussed in the article.
If you don't care too much about that sort of thing, you can just skip to the benchmarks. If you are interested in it, then it's a nice addition. Reply
medi01 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkIt was like that some day. But now I see more and more troubling signs. iPhone dissapearing from comparison photos ("oh, I've forgotten, it should have been in my pocket") when it has huge disadvantage, but always shown where it has advantage. (and happy readers crowd not "noticing" such "unimportant detail")
AMD's 5830, the 200$ card with the same "it's slower than older... but it has some features" got serious beating right in the title. (guess what, it was actually cooler than older cards, so it had one advantage more than that of nVidia). On the other hand nVidia's 200$ card that is EXACTLY in the same positoin, got PRAISED in the title.
How on earth could that be called neutral? Reply
ViRGE - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkThe 5830 launched at $240, not $200. In that respect the GTX 460 is not only launching at that cheaper price, but it's faster than the 5830 (and the 4890 the 5830 failed to beat). Reply
maxpain12 - Friday, September 17, 2010 - linkI agree with Lonyo, they are simply pointing out the technical aspects of the silicon. It gives those that follow the latest and greatest developments in chip architecture some food for thought. It was never intended to mislead a customer, the performance numbers are enough evidence to give the customer a decent understanding of what to expect in the real world application of the chip in consideration. Reply
Quidam67 - Saturday, July 17, 2010 - linkYou're being a bit a of a fan-boy in my opinion. The article is very well balanced. Seriously, the 460 is the first good card from nVidia in a long time, and at a genuinely afordable price. ATI finally have some real competition on their hands. Up till now they have owned this generation. And the 5830 was always an odd fit for that market sector. Really, it was just an afterthought on how to repurpose 5870 rejects. It filled a hole, but now that hole doesn't exist anymore. It's the one ATI card from this generation that I really didn't like. Reply
Zendax - Saturday, July 31, 2010 - linkWhen the 5830 was released there was no current generation competition, so the only point of comparison was the past generation of cards.
With the 465 the obvious points of comparison are the 5830 and 5850.
I'm not going to say, resolutely, that there's zero bias, but you're clearly LOOKING for an nVidia bias, and when you go about it that way, you're guaranteed to find it. Reply
Goty - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link... meh.
It's a decent card, but it's still months too late. Reply
notext - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI agree. It is good but AMD could easily drop the 5850 down to the 1gb prices and the advantage is gone. Hopefully they will. Reply
Quidam67 - Saturday, July 17, 2010 - linkThat's what I hope will happen, because at the moment my next card is going to be a GTX 460 unless the 5850 price drops a little Reply
DominionSeraph - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkNot all of us scour rumor sites and wait with bated breath for months for the next big thing to come out. For some of us, waiting a few months is no big deal. (especially with the lack of any "must-have" gaming titles. The heyday of PC gaming is long over.)
Since the launch-price 5850's (which didn't last long), the GTX 460 seems to be the first really good buy out there. The 5770 didn't outperform the 4870, the 5830 was an overpriced turd, the price-gouged 5850's and 5870's aren't good price/performance bargains, the GTX 470 and 480 are no better and are power hogs to boot.
THIS has me excited -- especially the SLI scaling. $400-$460 in cards that'll often beat a $700 5970? And they have low idle power consumption and decent load consumption (for the performance)? I mean in that price range is the 5870, GTX 480, and 4870 x2, and GTX 460 SLI beats them all. The 5870 has much lower load power consumption going for it but it's also significantly slower.
Unless you're going to need the power of 5870 in CF, the GTX 460 seems to be the way to go. Reply
Rekdurexu - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link"For everything but the high-end, this year is a feature yet and not a performance year."
Is that "yet" supposed to be year? Reply
Howard - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkWhat? Reply
Zok - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkExcellent 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. Reply
thekimbobjones - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkLet the price war begin. Reply
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. Reply
chizow - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkYeah 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. Reply
gentlearc - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkThe 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. Reply
Ryan Smith - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkOut 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? Reply
SpaceRanger - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkWhat 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. Reply
estaffer - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkneed some cheese with your whine? Reply
SpaceRanger - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkSure.. a good Gruyère please... Reply
Alroys - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkNice review, but i would have liked to see how well they overclock. Reply
beginner99 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkNot a bad card. I ordered a 5850 for my new build. 460 is a little less performing but more quite. The ordered 5850 is out of stock and no due date. However till the 460's arrive it will probably also be a few weeks...Need to wait on price. usually quite a bit higher here. Reply
KITH - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkQuiet and Quite are different words...
460 is a little less performing but more *quiet*
Usually *quite* a bit higher here.
See the difference? You even used both in your own post. Reply
chizow - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkLooks like a great part from Nvidia that seems to hit the same target price and performance markets as the wildly 8800GT before it. Much as the G92 and its derivatives dominated the gaming market while bringing DX10 to the mainstream, GTX 460 may be poised to do the same. Reply
Griswold - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkIts not going to dominate anything but nvidias own lineup. AMD will just - finally - drop prices, and thats that. Reply
james.jwb - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI agree. AMD will either drop the price on the 5850 to make this new card redundant, or not do it and make a major mistake. Reply
chizow - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI doubt they're willing to drop the price on the 5850 enough to truly compete with the GTX 460, especially the 768MB version.. Maybe match the 1GB version's $230 price point by going to $250 but then what does that do to the 5870? Who's going to buy a 5870 at $400 when a 5850 only costs $250? Either way it looks like Nvidia has that $200-$250 market locked tight and in a few months with MIRs that'll shift to the $160-$220 range. Reply
Lonyo - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - linkConsidering the launch prices were $260/$380, there's no reason to imagine a drop to $250 would leave the 5870 at $400.
Maybe we would see something like $250/$350. Finally a drop from launch prices. Reply
papapapapapapapababy - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linki mean why bother? to play ports like "singularity" with bump mapped ( and terrible low res textures?) i mean the pos3 game only uses about 140MB of my video ram! ati, nvidia, intel, amd, no real pc games? > no sale. adeus suckers!
mindbomb - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkWhat does the presence of hdmi v1.4 ports mean?
Does this card have 3d bluray capabilities not seen on other cards? Reply
threedeadfish - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI know you guys are all up in arms when a company releases information about up coming products, but you know that's information that can help a consumer.. I was looking for a card that was powerful enough while being quite and not using too much power. I ended up with a 5770 and I think it's a great product, however this the 460 offers 5830 performance at 5770 power and noise for only $30 more. I would have waited another week if I had any idea this was coming. You can't tell me nobody at Anandtech knew this was coming. Your anti-paper launch campain has a down site, it doesn't give consumers valuable information and as a result the video card I'll be using for the next couple years will be much less powerful then it would have been if the 465 artical just gave me a heads up, or just a little message saying hold off on $200 video card purchases something's coming. I only buy a new video card every few years please give me the information I need to make the best purchase. In this case waiting another week is what I should have done. Reply
notext - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkIf you notice, everyone put out their info on this card today. That is because an NDA. Even suggesting anything about this card without nVidia's permission is a quick way to guarantee you won't get future releases. Reply
Phate-13 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkEuhm, where can you find the "at 5770 power consumption"? The tables are quite clear that it uses 40-70Watts MORE under load then the 5770.
And indeed, there is something called and NDA. Reply
Phate-13 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link**** this. I want to be able to edit my posts.
'something called AN NDA.' Reply
Death666Angel - Thursday, July 15, 2010 - linkThis is a review site, not a news or rumours site. If you are interested in the what the next couple of months bring from companies like Intel, AMD and nVidia, you need to start using sites like Fudzilla, that report hardware news and rumours.
And trust me, there was plenty of information on the 460 being in the making and probably outperforming the 465 at a lower price point. :)
And if you regret the purchase of a 9 month old card because one that just got released has higher performance (20%-40%?), while using more electricity (20%), costs more (60% - 130€ to 210€ for the cheapest cards each), you are going to be a very sad PC buyer, because normally, a new product will be faster _and_ cheaper, while now it is just faster, but a hellovalot more expensive too. :-) Reply
Lord 666 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkDefinitely some details missing for a complete picture on this card. Reply
Lonyo - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkThere's more too.
No real discussion of the reduction in polymorph engine to shader ratio, such as tessellation benchmarks (synthetic or otherwise).
Nothing on minimum frame rates (and anything which is put up uses the older 10.3 drivers for ATI).
In addition to the general compute performance benchmarks that you mention.
Nothing about CUDA games (e.g. Just Cause 2) comparing the GTX465 to the GTX460.
No consideration of ROP vs memory changes (i.e. is it memory bandwidth limited or is it purely the ROP reduction causing the performance hit on the 768MB card).
Maybe the cards didn't come out in time. Maybe everything, or more stuff at least, will be covered in Pt 2, but it is somewhat disappointing that so many things are totally missing. Reply
Ryan Smith - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkYou hit the nail on the head with your comment on time. I actually have the data, but with the limited amount of time I had I wasn't able to write the analysis (most of my time was spent on better covering the architecture). That will be amended to the article later today, but for now you can see the raw graphs.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/gtx460_07111017... Reply
Lonyo - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI hope I didn't come off as too harsh. I started writing and then towards the end realised it could be a time thing, and didn't go back to amend what I had written.
After looking at most other sites, their reviews are sometimes even worse, covering only a very small handful of games.
Thanks for the early graphs, much appreciated. Shame NV didn't give more time for proper reviews. Reply
jonny30 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link- maybe in your country my dear friend.......maybe there i tell you ;)
- in my country is 300 you see.......300 as a price start i mean :)
- and for those 100 extra i buy another hdd for example, not another video card if you know what i mean
- so, maybe is worth for you, but for me to jump from 4870 to this......
- i am sorry, but it is not wort it........ Reply
jfelano - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI've already seen 5830's at $170 after rebate. So there goes that short lived Nvidia advantage. Reply
itsmekirill - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkIMO the most important story here is not that it beats the HD 5830 or GTX 465, but that the SLI configuration is trading blows with 5870 CF and 5970.
For ~450 dollars you can get comparable if not superior performance to an $800 CF setup or a $650 dollar 5970. Reply
tcnasc - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkYes, that's what got me too!
My 5870 feels so expensive right now
Should I sell it and buy 2 GTX 460? Reply
fausto412 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linki didn't miss that...i got my 5870 3 weeks ago and i was like "wtf...this is a 200 dolalr card, it shouldn't do that well!" Reply
VIDYA - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkgood review but a bit partial towards the new born child(gtx 460, cant hold that kind of joy).......its pretty much still oranges and apples .....both are good and differ at a few games. Nvidia shouldn't have sold 480, 470, 465 and instead should be waiting back to mature the chip into 104gf.....think about the owners of gf100 chip reading this and cursing themselves for not holding back for a month. But all said and done from both sides, we all know that Nvidia is still no:1 when it comes to drivers and software support updates. Reply
SongEmu - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkThe quality and depth of these articles is exactly why I keep Anandtech bookmarked.
Also, it's good to see nVidia with its headon straight. I was afraid I'd have to give up CUDA and all those other goodies on my next upgrade, because there was no way in GF100-hell I was going to buy a GTX470 toaster. Reply
sparkuss - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI thought I looked at all the charts and I also didn't see any mention in the conclusion of 5850 CF vs the 460 1GB. Then again I'm old and senile so I have that going for me!
I know the price differences but I would still like to see the comparison, especially if this could actually cause AMD to lower 5850 prices. Reply
7Enigma - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkAgreed. That would probably be the most common CF setup and certainly the most applicable from a cost-comparison standpoint. Sure it would be $600 vs. $400 but why have the 5870 CF which is even more crazy at $800 vs. $400? Reply
rocky12345 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI read the review & it was pretty good & well written. It is good to see Nvidia get their act together somewhat. I am not a Nvidia fan any more lost faith in them when they started rebranding the 8800 series over & over again & I switched to ATI after that. I still have a 9800GT 1GB in one of my systems which I rebadged myself from a 8800GT 1GB & clocked it at 755Mhz core & 2200mhz memory it is fast enough for my secondary system for when friends come over to game.
This new chip from nvidia makes a lot more sense than what they released a few months ago. Would I own on hell no. I already have enough money tied up in video cards in my main system as I own 2 4870x2 2GB cards highly over clocked crossfired until ATI comes out with a single card that can beat my 2 beasts in quad GPU I am fine with what I have. Reply
Belard - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkRight on, the GTX 460-768 should be a 455, its so NOT the same card.
For the most part... why is idiot-Nvidia even bothering with the "GTX" part since their model numbers don't collide? ie: there won't be a GTX 460 and a GTS 460 or a GT 460... well, maybe... who knows.
The two 460's is designed EXACTLY to do what its going to do. People will buy the cheaper junk card and not get the performance they should get if they only spent $30 more.
Considering the age of the ATI 5000 series... it really should be EASY for ATI to reduce the prices of the line a bit.
The 5850 should be a $200 card by now. 5830 at $150, 5770 at $125... perhaps soon. 6000s come out just before Christmas? Reply
GeorgeH - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI actually think it should be called a 460. People with a reasonable amount of tech knowledge are going to know the difference, and people without it are already trained to think that a bigger RAM number is always better (see the tons of "bargain" cards with 1GB+ of slow DDR.)
Basically, the performance differential here is already clear from the full product name, and we have one fewer model number muddying a GPU market already overflowing with a ridiculous amount of model names that have identical, nearly identical, or completely misleading performance capabilities relative to other model names. Reply
Daeros - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI would agree with you except for the common practice of mfg's doubling up on VRAM. When that happens, there will be 768MB, 1GB, 1.5GB, and 2GB versions, and people will have no idea the 1.5GB will probably be slower than the 1GB version. Reply
tigersty1e - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkThis line made me read it twice.
"This in turn means the blades of the fan sit at the same height as the lip, blocking direct airflow out the back. With this design the card is still exhausting at least some air out of the rear of the card, but it shouldn't be as much as a fully-open card such as our custom Asus GTX 460."
rear and back are the same thing. I think you meant to say the the cover blocks direct airflow out the front. Reply
Ryan Smith - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI define the front of the card to be the side with the display ports, so the cover blocks airflow out of the opposite end, the back. Reply
fausto412 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkWhile a very nice card...too little too late...i got a 5870 3 weeks ago. if you have a high end quad core and want to play BFBC2 in the highest settings only a gtx480 or 5870 will do. i chose the cheaper, cooler and more efficient card. Reply
kumquatsrus - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkor gtx 460 in sli for less? Reply
Jamahl - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkYeah look around, not just at Anand's flawed benches.
TPU shows sli 460's losing to the 5970 by 20% at 1680 and 1920, and a massive 30% at 2560.
They aren't even close, but keep dreaming anyway. Reply
DominionSeraph - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkThe reply was to a 5870, not 5970. Just a matter of $300 difference between the two. Reply
DrMrLordX - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkOn your power consumption + noise charts (at the very least), the Zotac card's results are shown with white text superimposed over a yellow bar on the graph. This makes the white text almost completely unreadable. One can guess at the numbers based on context, but still . . . Reply
bobjones32 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkThe benchmarks look good at first look, but then I realized I purchased my current 4870 for $150 nearly a year and a half ago.
Looking more closely at these benchmarks, the GTX 460 beats the 4870 in most tests, but not by that much, and at lower resolutions the 4870 actually wins.
Shouldn't it be clear-cut that a $200 brand new card from today destroys a $150 card from nearly a year and a half ago? Reply
DominionSeraph - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkNvidia hit a wall with the GF100, and there really isn't much demand for greater than 4870 performance so ATi can sit on its 5000 series.
Wait till the next expansion of WoW comes out and we might see a push for more. Reply
7Enigma - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkI was going to post exactly this. I also built my gaming rig in Jan 09 with a 4870 that I belive was $180 after a $20 rebate, but it was a Sapphire Toxic (factory OC'd with heatpipe).
I was shocked to see how little performance improvement could be had for the same money today. I would have expected at least a minimum of 25% and more like 50% improvement across the board.
And I bought the 4870 when the 4890 was just coming out so it's really 2-2.5 years old tech only slightly being outperformed. Reply
The0ne - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI really appreciate the work done on the tests and especially the charts. I'm glad to see my somewhat aging 4870 on the list for comparison. Seems like I'll be handing it over to my nephews in favor of a 5870 soon. Just waiting and hoping for prices to drop in the next month or so. Crossing fingers! Reply
Interitus - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkThis is my gripe with the reviews lately. Your aging 4870 is on that list, yet we can't get a 5850 CF number??? Really??? There's even a 3870 in some bench charts..
Not like I can't go look it up somewhere else, but it's pretty ridiculous that 5850 CF seems to always be missing. I have one and am considering two. It would be nice to see how 460 1GB SLI fared alongside 5850 CF. Reply
The0ne - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkThe issue you've mentioned plagues many, if not ALL, online reviews. I truly cannot understand why they can't or won't include suitable video cards for comparisons. The only difficulty is to maintain the test setups are the same, otherwise keeping the info in a database and updating it is rational. Even with the charts here, some cards are listed and then not listed in other charts.
I have 30" screens so I mostly view the highest resolution performance charts but even then I have to resort lower resolutions to find cards I'm interested in. I'm just thankful that if Anand is missing what I need, I can go to other sites and pray to God I can find it there AND be able to make a reasonable comparison (test setups and such differing). Reply
Mr Perfect - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkI'm glad to see a component review on AT again. Every day for what feels like an eternity now, it's been nothing but cell phones, laptops, pre-built rigs, and all manner of factory assembled consumer electronica. I'm off to read the vendor-specific 460 article now! Reply
futurepastnow - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkLooks like Nvidia should have called it the Geforce HD 3870 ;) Reply
Hrel - Monday, July 12, 2010 - linkWhy does the 768MB card keep beating the 1GB card? Reply
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkOn which charts are you seeing that? Reply
Poisoner - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkThis makes me wish I had an nVidia based chipset. I guess 2 4870s will have to do. Reply
dumpsterj - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkthe gtx 465 was a joke , especially at the price. however , this 460 looks like a great card at a great price. If this is a sign of things to come from nvidia us guys running ati right now might have to take notice. Reply
Algorithm - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - linkI see a lot of ATI fanboys on here. Read other reviews, a GTX 460 *1GB* OCed past 800 beats a HD5850 and gets in HD5870 territory. In DirectX 11, this 460 really shines over.
Don't forget, the reviews are based on Nvidia drivers that are *1 day old* now. Expect the GTX 460 framerates to increase even more once the drivers mature.
I was almost ready to pull the trigger on a HD5850, but glad I held back (read: I really don't care for either Nvidia or ATI). I really see the GTX 460 being a standard that game software developers will use in the future. Features like CUDA, Fermi and PhysX will play a more significant role in newer games. I just want a card that gives me most for my money. Reply
FuzzDad - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - linkPretty nice price coupled w/performance should make this an SLI powerhouse if you can't afford SLI on the 470/480. My 3x GTX 275 setup is solid...but I'm leaning towards 2X 460 now. Reply
Xpl1c1t - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - linkHow much better it would have been to see the 384SP version on launch day... seriously wtf is wrong with NV&TSMC's circuit design/fab process that makes manufacture of FULL parts so much more difficult than it is for ATI&TSMC? 5770, 4770, and 4750 were all full die parts produced with good yields TSMC. Genuinely, though some may be alright with it, there is no desire for dead silicon. Reply
aussiestilgar - Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - linkYes. Ryan, is there anything on the grapevine that whispers Nvidia releasing the GF104 at full strength? Inklings of when? Cheers. Reply
Sunburn74 - Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - linkPretty impressive gtx 460 crossfire results, trading blows with crossfire setups double its value. Overall a nice card, but shame it wasn't released 6 months ago when a lot of us just got tired of waiting. I probably would have bought it over the 5850 had this card been released in time. Oh well... better luck next year for Nvidia to take my money. Reply
mapesdhs - Monday, July 19, 2010 - link
(I think you mean GTX 460 SLI. ;)
I hate to be a comment repeater, but can 5850 CF results please be
included? The tables are distinctly incomplete without this since the
1GB 460 clearly competes directly against the 5850; the most common
discussion I see on forums is how 1GB 460 SLI compares to 5850 CF. On
price alone, 1GB 460 SLI is definitely better, so no wonder there are
games-bundling deals such as the following now appearing to sweeten
5850 sales:
Ian. Reply
kajzatom - Thursday, August 19, 2010 - linkI want ask how did You make test Badaboom on GTX 460? According to Elemental Technologies inc. currently Badaboom doesn't support GF100,GF104 graphic card. Apps. crashed if try open any video file. Reply
fr500 - Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - linkYou know a thing I would love.
To be able to select the cards you are interested in with checkboxes in the reviews so you can compare the cards easily. I know there is the GPU bench but I can't seem to compare more than 2 gpus at a time. Reply
WiseCow - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - linkFresh levels load very jerky, like steps fwd, as the game begins and causes the first few seconds to halt, halt, halt, until everything loads. My 8800GTX did not do this, everything woud run smooter as the textures loaded. I'm also experiencing long waits for the screen to turn on after time outs or sleep. Black Ops was unplayable and other games that ran smoothly on the 8800 now are jerky. Sniff... Reply
luvupc - Saturday, November 20, 2010 - linkcan i play games with extreme gameplay graphics like crysis2 or gta iv with this gtx460 graphics card ?
i am going to buy a new graphics card and i would like to buy the best one out in the market .
i dont really know much about graphics cards and i would really like some advice on which graphics card i should buy for gaming purposes? Reply
luvupc - Saturday, November 27, 2010 - linkcome on.........someone plz reply.................... Reply
Thunderwood - Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - linkFound this card for a great price!
http://zacharyu.gknu.com/shop/store/shop.php?c=2&a... Reply


text:
Includes digital copy + 1 print. Each additional print is $3.99
Dance With My Father
By Celine Dion - Digital Sheet Music
Product InformationDance With My Father by Celine Dion - Digital Sheet Music
Dance With My Father digital sheet music. Contains printable sheet music plus an interactive, downloadable digital sheet music file.
- Contains complete lyrics
- This product is available worldwide
The Arrangement Details Tab gives you detailed information about this particular arrangement of Dance With My Father - not necessarily the song.
Not the arrangement you were looking for? View All Arrangements
There are no reviews written for Dance With My Father.
In order to write a review on digital sheet music
you must first have purchased the item.
Publishing administered by: EMI Music Publishing

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Plextor M5M (256GB) mSATA Reviewby Kristian Vättö on 4/17/2013 10:20 AM EST
36 Comments
Back to Article
kmmatney - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - link" I strongly recommend having at least 25% free space with the M5M. The more you fill the drive, the more likely it is that you'll face inconsistent performance."
Would this really effect the average user? Do you let the drives idle long enough so the normal garbage collection can kick in? Reply
msahni - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkHi there,
First of all Kristian thanks for the reviews. You've finally answered my queries about the best mSATA SSD to get. (from the Intel 525 review)
Could you please advise what is the best method to leave the 25% free space on the drive for over provisioning to enhance the performance.
Cheers.... Reply
Minion4Hire - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkAnand answered that in another article. I believe you are supposed to shrink the partition, create a second partition out of the unallocated space, then delete the new partition. The act of deleting the partition brings the OS to TRIM that portion of the drive freeing it up for use as spare area. And since you won't be writing to it any more it is permanently spare area (well, unless you repartition or something) Reply
xdrol - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkActually, Windows does not trim when you delete a partition, rather when you create a new one. Reply
Hrel - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkI have wondered for a long time if the extra free space is really necessary. Home users aren't benchmarking, drives are mostly idle. Not often do you transfer 100GB at a time or install programs. Reply
JellyRoll - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkUnrealistic workloads for a consumer environment result in unrealistic test results. How many consumer notebooks or laptops, hell even enterprise mobile devices, will be subjected to this type of load? Answer: Zero.
Even in a consumer desktop this is NEVER going to happen. Reply
JPForums - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkIt was stated a long time ago at Anandtech that their testing was harsher than typical consumer loads for the express purpose of separating the field. Under typical consumer workloads, there is practically no difference between modern drives. I don't know how many times I've read that any SSD is a significant step up from an HDD. It has pretty much been a standing assumption since the old jMicron controllers left the market. However, more information is required for those that need (or think they need) the performance to handle heavier workloads.
Personally, everything else being equal, I'd rather have the drive that performs better/more consistently, even if it is only in workloads I never see. I don't think Kristian is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. He simply gives the readers here enough credit to make up their own mind about the level of performance they need. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkIf the drive is nearly full and there's no extra OP, then it's possible that even normal (but slightly larger/heavier, like app installation) usage will cause the performance to become inconsistent which will affect the overall performance (average IOPS will go down). Performance will of course recover with idle time but the hit in performance has already been experienced. Reply
JellyRoll - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkRunning a simple trace of an application install will show that this is not an accurate statement. This testing also does not benefit from TRIM because there is no filesystem during the test. This ends up making an overly-negative portrayal. Reply
JPForums - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkWhich test in particular are you referring to that has no access to TRIM, that otherwise would?
As far as application traces go, I can confirm Kristian's statement is accurate on both a Corsair Force GT 120GB and a Crucial M4 128GB. Performance drops appreciably when installing programs with a large number of small files (or copying a large number of small files I.E. Libraries). As an aside, it can also tank the performance of Xilinx ISE, which is typically limited by memory bandwidth and single threaded CPU performance. Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkThe consistency testing and all trace based testing used by this site are tested without partitions or filesystems, and no TRIM functionality. This has been disclosed by the staff in the comment sections of previous reviews. Reply
bobsmith1492 - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkHi Kristian,
Let me know the regulator part number and I can calculate the loss in the regulator. The main difference is if it is a switching or linear part. A linear part will waste 100% * (5-3.3)/5 percent of the power, or 34% neglecting the usually small quiescent current. A switcher will waste less, usually 10-20%. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkIt's Micrel 29150 as far as I know. Here's the datasheet http://www.micrel.com/_PDF/mic29150.pdf Reply
Ashaw - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkThat is a linear part. Current in = current out + the ground pin current. See the graph on page 10. The ground current is about 1/50 the output current in this part. so the input current is a good approximation of the output current. Reply
Ashaw - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkSo the powers in the graphs above should be approx 0.41W, 2.75W and 2.98 W respectively. (Maybe slightly less in le lower digit if I were to include regulator losses). Reply
bobsmith1492 - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkAgreed, the SSD is using approximately 66% of the measured power on the 5V rail. Reply
JellyRoll - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkThere are two problems with this statement:
"In our Intel SSD DC S3700 review Anand introduced a new method of characterizing performance: looking at the latency of individual operations over time."
1. Anand did not introduce this testing, another website did.
2. it isnt looking at individual operations, thousands of operations are happening per second, hence the term 'IOPS' (I/O Per Second) Reply
JellyRoll - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkActually there is a third problem with the statement, it isnt looking at latency either. It is looking at IOPS, which is much different than latency. There are no latency numbers in this test. Reply
JPForums - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkThere are no latency numbers displayed directly in the results, but latencies are implicit in the IOPS measurement. You may not be getting individual operation latencies, but IOPS is the inverse of average operation latency. So Just divide 1 by the number IOPS and you'll get your average operation latency.
In general, I give reviewers the benefit of the doubt and try to put aside small slip ups in nomenclature or semantics as long as it is relatively easy to understand the points they are trying to make. That said, you seem to have it out for Kristian (or perhaps Anandtech as a whole), giving no slack and even reading things into statements that I'm not sure are there. I have no vested interest in Anandtech beyond the interest of reading good reviews, but I have to ask, did Kristian kick your dog or something? I'm honestly interested if you have a legitimate grievance. Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkPointing out numerous problems with methodology is simply that, in particular the consistency tests are wildly misleading for a number of reasons, the least of which is an unreal workload. I will not resort to replying to thinly veiled flamebait attempts. Reply
JPForums - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkSorry, I wasn't trying to bait you. The posts just came off as a little hostile. Probably a result of the my morning meetings.
If I'm understanding you correctly, your biggest issue is with the method of consistency. I read in another of your posts that this method is similar to the tests that several large enterprises use. You seem to be familiar with these methods. Is there an alternate (better) method in use that Anandtech could be using? Alternately do you have a superior method in mind that isn't currently in use? I'm guessing (for starters) you'd be happier with a method that measures individual operation latencies (I would too), but I'm unaware any tools that could accomplish this. Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkThe consistency testing and all trace based testing used by this site are tested without partitions or filesystems, and no TRIM functionality. This has been disclosed by the staff in the comment sections of previous reviews.
If you are testing consumer hardware, the first order of the day is to use methods that accurately reflect real workloads. Removing the must crucial component required for performance consistency (TRIM), then testing 'consistency' anyway, is ridiculous. Would you test a vehicle without fuel? Reply
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkTRIM does not affect performance consistency of a continuous write workload. TRIM will only tell the controller which LBAs are no longer in use - the actual LBAs still need to be erased before new data can be written. When you're constantly writing to the drive, it doesn't have time to erase the blocks as fast as new write requests come in, which causes the performance to sink.
If you know methods that "accurately reflect real workloads" then please share them. Pointing out flaws is easy but unhelpful unless you can provide a method that's better. Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkPasted from the Wiki:
"The TRIM command is designed to enable the operating system to notify the SSD which pages no longer contain valid data due to erases either by the user or operating system itself. During a delete operation, the OS will both mark the sectors as free for new data and send a TRIM command to the SSD to be marked as no longer valid. After that the SSD knows not to relocate data from the affected LBAs during garbage collection."
During a pure write workload there is no need for the SSD's internal garbage collection functions to read-write-modify in order to write new data. That is the purpose of TRIM. Without TRIM writes require read-write-modify activity, with TRIM they do not. Very easy to see how it boosts performance. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkYou still have to erase the blocks, which is the time consuming part. Again, there's no time for normal idle garbage collection to kick in. Yes, the drive will know what LBAs are no longer in use but it still has to erase the blocks containing those LBAs. If you let the drive idle, then it will have time to reorganize the data so that there'll be enough empty blocks to maintain good performance but that is not the case in a continuous write workload. Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkIt is removing the 'write' from the read-write-modify cycle. Writing a page smaller than the block requires the SSD to relocate the other data in the block first, adding work for the SSD. Remember, they erase at block level. If it isn't aware that the rest of the block is also invalid (the point of TRIM) it must first move the other data. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkIt's read-modify-write cycle (read the block to cache, modify the data, write the modified data) so the write operation is still there, otherwise the drive wouldn't complete the write request in the first place. You also seem to be assuming that the rest of the pages in the block are invalid, which is unlikely the case unless we're dealing with an empty drive. Hence it's exactly the same cycle with TRIM as you still have to read at least some of the data and then rewrite it. You may have to read/write less data as some of it will be invalid, but remember that garbage collection (with TRIM off) will also mark pages as invalid on its own. That's the reason why performance will stay high even if TRIM is not supported (e.g. OS X), assuming that the garbage collection is effective (there's at least 7% OP so there is always invalid pages). Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkI am not assuming the data is still valid, the SSD does. It has to move the data if it considers it valid. TRIM removes the need to move this 'other' data, thus speeding the drive. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, April 22, 2013 - linkHere are some tests I did with Plextor M5 Pro Xtreme
RAW (no partition): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/128928769/Cons...
NTFS (default cluster size): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/128928769/Cons...
As you can see, there's no major difference. In fact, there's a bigger slowdown with NTFS versus raw drive. Reply
JPForums - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - link1) I was not aware that another website created this method of characterizing performance, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, the statement that Anand introduced it to the standard test suite here at Anandtech in the Intel SSD DC S3700 review is a true statement. Given the context of the original statement, this is more likely the intended interpretation. Out of curiosity, which site did create the method?
2) I'm not sure whether or not the test measures individual operation latencies or not as IOPS is basically the inverse of an average of the those latencies over time. It is kind of like the difference between FPS and Frame latencies. That said, the representation on the graphs is more the inverse of a one second sliding window average. Saying as much is kind of a mouthful, though. How would you phrase it? Reply
JellyRoll - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkSeveral large enterprise websites have used this methodology for years for numerous types of testing. This method does not give an accurate portrayal of latency performance. It merely gives one second intervals with thousands of IOPS each, which hides the maximum results in among thousands of other I/O. Reply
puppies - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - linkSpelling mistake in the 3rd line. Should be controlled not controller.
Great article btw :D. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkFixed! Thanks for the heads up :-) Reply
iwodo - Thursday, April 18, 2013 - linkAnd we have to wait till Broadwell Chipset before we get SATA Express with ( hopefully ) 16Gbps. Reply
abhilashjain30 - Monday, July 29, 2013 - linkYou can purchase online from SSD Portal ( http://onlyssd.com/ssd-brand/buy-plextor-ssd ) Reply
abhilashjain30 - Thursday, September 26, 2013 - linkRecently buy from onlyssd dot com, I got within 2 working days from the order date. Drive working fine....I think in mSATA drive Plextor is better option compare to crucial n more. Reply


text:
Benedetta - Visibly Radiant Moisturizer
It's not often I come across skin care that has such a beautiful affinity with skin and delivers on the radiance it promises. This product is made from biodynamic and organic ingredients and infused with crystal vibrances. Call it psychosomatic if you must, but I can tell you that whenever I use a product that has been 'infused with love' or 'contains crystal radiances', I feel AMAZING from how incredible they smell (the aromatherapy benefits are out of this world) and my skin is visibly improved. Benedetta take their commitment to ultimate skin care and responsible farming of ingredients seriously ... and it shows. This is one beeeeeeeautiful moisturizer!


text:
Don't miss a game. Download your Orioles calendar today!
Android devices, Apple iPhone, Apple iPad, Apple MacBook, Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Yahoo! Calendar
You can also use CSV format
Please note: To display your calendar on your Android device, please ensure that your Google calendar is visible and synced within your device's calendar settings.
Please note: Every Outlook Server's settings are different and some settings may prohibit the download of a subscription-based calendar. As an alternative, the Baltimore Orioles schedule can be downloaded by following the "Download the CSV File" instructions.
Please note: The CSV file will not automatically update game information as it changes/becomes available. To ensure the most up-to-date information, please subscribe using the iCalendar file at the top of the page.


text:
Your cart is empty.
Snack Rewards
earned on this order
Patient Care
Compression & Support Garments
Compression Knee High Stockings
Scott Specialties
Item # MON 53623000 by Scott Specialties (Mfg. Part # 53623000, UPC # 763189602037)
|Receive Betty's Coupons, Special Offers & Promotions!
- My Account
- Company
- Promotions
- Shopping Guides
Unless you are a licensed care provider or similar
qualified entity, a prescription is required
to purchase this item.
Thanks! -- Betty Mills


text:
quote:Originally posted by HawkinOilCountryHawks in 6
quote:Originally posted by Guest2456Very good pick FER and I know its hard for you westerners to pick the Bruins. I cant beleive there are that many people who dont like them.
quote:Originally posted by Guest9626Pens in 6Kings in 7
quote:Originally posted by sharksfan44sorry, missed the deadline, so my sharks/kings picks and my pens/sens wont count but will my hawks/red wings and rangers/bruins picks count still?Sharks in 7pens in 6hawks in 5bruins in 6
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use |
Contact Us |
Home |
Hockey Pool Manager |
Fantasy Pick 'EM |
Forums |
Hockey News |
About Us
Links --
Vancouver Website Design |
Vancouver Dog Walking Pet Sitting |


text:
Other Great 80's Sites
80's, 80's Music, 80's Movies, 80's Trivia, & More!
Your home
for the 1980's and 80's music videos!
of the Stuck in the '80s podcast: '80s music, John Hughes and
big hair
Everything you loved about the 1980's!
80's Arcade, 80's Music, 80's Movies, 80's Television, 80's Toys, 80's T-shirts,
80's Posters, 80's Hair Metal, 80's Pop Culture, and 80's Trivia!
about this site |
contact us |
search this site |
80's bargains