PNY GTX 460 OC

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2011 3:11pm #1

Well my shiny new GTX 460 arrived!

Only had in installed, and gave it a quick boost to 810 core, 1620 shaders, and 1025 Mem (4100 effective).

Time for benchmarks!

1st up, 3D Mark 11

P3332

Bare in mind the CPU tests make a huge different in 3D Mark 11, so taking that into consideration, here's my specs:

AMD Phenom II x3 720BE @3.5Ghz
4GB DDR II @800
PNY GTX 460OC @ 810 core, 1620 shaders, and 1025 Mem (4100 effective).

On Win 7 Ult x64 with 263.14 drivers.

If I had a faster CPU & Ram, the score would jump a fair bit, plus, there's a LOT more overclocking in this card. Seriously. It doesn't break a sweat at that OC.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Playing BC2 @ 19x10, everything maxed, 8xCSAA & 16x AF I get roughly 50-60FPS nearly constantly.

I'll do some more throughout the day, maybe 3D Mark Vantage & Unigine Heaven.

Next - Unigine Heaven Benchmark

Settings: DX11, Tesselation: Normal, 4xAF, no AA, 1920x1080

Average FPS: 37.4
Score: 941

challengemaster · 01-01-2011 3:26pm

Looks bloody good and you have me excited to get back and play with mine! (my card, before anyone gets the wrong end of that stick :pac:)

Looks like you're definitely being CPU limited on 3dmark11, but still a fairly good result!

Funny, actually, when I was looking up reviews of the card, the only thing stopping it from being overclocked more was the software...it maxed out with 2 different ones (nTune (or whatever it is now) & MSI afterburner)

Hank Scorpio · 01-01-2011 5:19pm

Push it up to 1.087v in MSI afterburner and you should be able to get close to 900mhz on the core(mines currently at 875). Thats the max stock voltage so its not dangerous or anything.

You can flash the bios too, seen people using 1.21v and having there cards basically on 1000mhz on the core!

Mine came at exactly 1 volt(asus) stock, but alot of them seem to ship at 0.97v, or something similar.

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2011 5:45pm

nuxxx wrote: »

Push it up to 1.087v in MSI afterburner and you should be able to get close to 900mhz on the core(mines currently at 875). Thats the max stock voltage so its not dangerous or anything.

You can flash the bios too, seen people using 1.21v and having there cards basically on 1000mhz on the core!

Mine came at exactly 1 volt(asus) stock, but alot of them seem to ship at 0.97v, or something similar.

Yeah I havent pushed it at all.

Stock voltage is 0.975 on mine, and havent changed it to get the current OC, and its rock solid stable. Runs cool anyway, so I'll defo push it further.

Will do a bit more OCing on it, and run a few benches and post the results.

dwighet · 01-01-2011 6:20pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yeah I havent pushed it at all.

Stock voltage is 0.975 on mine, and havent changed it to get the current OC, and its rock solid stable. Runs cool anyway, so I'll defo push it further.

Will do a bit more OCing on it, and run a few benches and post the results.

you know you want to!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCadcBR95oU

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2011 6:47pm

dwighet wrote: »

you know you want to!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCadcBR95oU

lol

Just ran it to 850/1700/4100 with 1v to ensure stability and recorded

P3436

Now thats more like it!!

dwighet · 01-01-2011 6:57pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

lol

Just ran it to 850/1700/4100 with 1v to ensure stability and recorded

P3436

Now thats more like it!!

im just jealous.... just built a new rig and bought a 6870 and cant mess with the voltage on it. but xfire will sort that out... Im kind of like pushing things to the max..... just ask my Mrs:eek:

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2011 9:15pm

Ok, 3D Mark Vantage

P18601 (using GPU for Physx)

GPU =15823.44

850/1700/4100

Using CPU for PhysX:

P13196

GPU = 15749.99 (roughly same in both runs)

Hank Scorpio · 01-01-2011 9:16pm

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/331908?show_ads=true&page=%2F3dm11%2F331908%3Fkey%3DvrWb7cUe2X4hu0NBAAAB930wvCPxnj

Theres mine fwiw running @ 875 on the core

Not sure why others with the same setup as me, or weaker ones are getting higher scores. I guess they must be running ssds or have better memory.

Dublin_Gunner · 02-01-2011 1:11am

nuxxx wrote: »

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/331908?show_ads=true&page=%2F3dm11%2F331908%3Fkey%3DvrWb7cUe2X4hu0NBAAAB930wvCPxnj

Theres mine fwiw running @ 875 on the core

Not sure why others with the same setup as me, or weaker ones are getting higher scores. I guess they must be running ssds or have better memory.

CPU, CPU speed, drivers, memory etc all play a part.

What voltage you runnin it at?

Hank Scorpio · 02-01-2011 2:53pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

CPU, CPU speed, drivers, memory etc all play a part.

What voltage you runnin it at?

1.087, i dont think its worth flashing the bios for an extra 5 fps, too risky

challengemaster · 02-01-2011 4:13pm

You should be able to get 900 core clock @ 1.087mV

Dublin_Gunner · 02-01-2011 4:28pm

challengemaster wrote: »

You should be able to get 900 core clock @ 1.087mV

Not every gf104 will OC to 900mhz stable.

Nuxx - defo wouldn't bother flashing it. if 875 is stable, that's plenty for any game out there (apart from maybe metro 2033 lol)

Hank Scorpio · 02-01-2011 4:34pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Not every gf104 will OC to 900mhz stable.

Nuxx - defo wouldn't bother flashing it. if 875 is stable, that's plenty for any game out there (apart from maybe metro 2033 lol)

Ye, the class thing is they scale incredibly well, 460s in sli => alot of high end gpus

challengemaster · 02-01-2011 9:51pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Not every gf104 will OC to 900mhz stable.

Nuxx - defo wouldn't bother flashing it. if 875 is stable, that's plenty for any game out there (apart from maybe metro 2033 lol)

True :P

I'm finally home, and i'll have mine installed by tomorrow hopefully... few things to do first

challengemaster · 03-01-2011 8:32pm

Er... Am I right in thinking there's a small issue here?

5EAFD830B80F40E59A98A408D4C4E8C0-0000315821-0002107288-00800L-A68ABFB065CC443EA3ACF16EF0B6423C.png

5EAFD830B80F40E59A98A408D4C4E8C0-0000315821-0002107288-00800L-A68ABFB065CC443EA3ACF16EF0B6423C.png

Hank Scorpio · 03-01-2011 8:54pm

challengemaster wrote: »

Er... Am I right in thinking there's a small issue here?

Yes lol. What core speed is gpuz reporting?

challengemaster · 03-01-2011 8:56pm

A more normal 765/925/1530

Hank Scorpio · 03-01-2011 8:57pm

challengemaster wrote: »

A more normal 765/925/1530

You could download asus smartdoctor and see what its reporting, thats strange though

Dublin_Gunner · 03-01-2011 9:36pm

get a new version of afterburner. youre using a fairly old build

challengemaster · 04-01-2011 8:29am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

get a new version of afterburner. youre using a fairly old build

Aha! Funnily enough, twas like the 2nd or 3rd google result! :rolleyes:

challengemaster · 05-01-2011 1:44am

Funny...Here's the comparison between myself and Dublin_Gunner's 3DMark11

http://3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/347843/3dm11/329590

Looks like PhysX and Combined (ie. processor involved) is where my bottleneck is

Also, just did far cry 2 benchmark

1440x900 @60Hz
Dx10 everything set to high

* Average Framerate: 42.06
* Max. Framerate: 64.48
* Min. Framerate: 28.55

Dublin_Gunner · 05-01-2011 2:37am

challengemaster wrote: »

Funny...Here's the comparison between myself and Dublin_Gunner's 3DMark11

http://3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/347843/3dm11/329590

Looks like PhysX and Combined (ie. processor involved) is where my bottleneck is

Also, just did far cry 2 benchmark

1440x900 @60Hz
Dx10 everything set to high

* Average Framerate: 42.06
* Max. Framerate: 64.48
* Min. Framerate: 28.55

You used my early result. Use the one I did at 850Mhz like yours.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/330905

challengemaster · 05-01-2011 2:49am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You used my early result. Use the one I did at 850Mhz like yours.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/330905

Sorry

http://3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/330905/3dm11/347843

Same thing, though! Graphics tests are pretty much identical. It's the processor related ones where you win

Hank Scorpio · 05-01-2011 5:34am

challengemaster wrote: »

Funny...Here's the comparison between myself and Dublin_Gunner's 3DMark11

http://3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/347843/3dm11/329590

Looks like PhysX and Combined (ie. processor involved) is where my bottleneck is

Also, just did far cry 2 benchmark

1440x900 @60Hz
Dx10 everything set to high

* Average Framerate: 42.06
* Max. Framerate: 64.48
* Min. Framerate: 28.55

Deffo cpu bottleneck @ far cry 2. I get like 85 fps average @ 1080p on ultra high settings.

Dublin_Gunner · 05-01-2011 10:14am

well it shows that 3d mark 11 is definitely not cpu bound even at low res, unlike fc2.

my extra core and 400mhz do make a difference. funnily i would have thought id win the gfx tests by a greater margin. so this must show driver differences as well as the core 2's power to feed a gpu

visco · 07-01-2011 3:01am

Just received mine today, hopefully the rest of the parts will come by Monday and i shall post my results when i put the whole rig together

visco · 10-01-2011 7:51pm

Well, finally received my PSU and put together my whole rig.

Here is the score with everything at stock clocks:

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/396231;jsessionid=ECF9540090A3DD425918C30777B0CA7C?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/396231%3Fkey%3DtU6q4KMJCjXLhdwAjw5SDVy0bjhfRM

And here it is after some over-clocking:

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/397313;jsessionid=54BEF3BC8DD7FB73E4A552865F8C1DF7?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/397313%3Fkey%3DtVmt7FcHP48EpmmX0WDstRUBVcePEr

And GPU clocked at what seems most people use here at 850/1700/2000:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/397408;jsessionid=AFF07035864003ED98D4050E02019AC7?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/397408%3Fkey%3DQeNJy6EHCQdwC8hJ7pUSUZzX0q5aC9

A hefty increase in performance i reckon.

darconio · 14-01-2011 1:01pm

So I was persuaded by this post and by the bargain price of this card and I went for it.
Very impressed so far, I've been an Nvidia junkie for ages now, the only problem is the scaling issue on the latest drivers, hopefully it will be soon fixed

Dublin_Gunner · 14-01-2011 1:06pm

visco wrote: »

Well, finally received my PSU and put together my whole rig.

Here is the score with everything at stock clocks:

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/396231;jsessionid=ECF9540090A3DD425918C30777B0CA7C?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/396231%3Fkey%3DtU6q4KMJCjXLhdwAjw5SDVy0bjhfRM

And here it is after some over-clocking:

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/397313;jsessionid=54BEF3BC8DD7FB73E4A552865F8C1DF7?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/397313%3Fkey%3DtVmt7FcHP48EpmmX0WDstRUBVcePEr

And GPU clocked at what seems most people use here at 850/1700/2000:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/397408;jsessionid=AFF07035864003ED98D4050E02019AC7?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/397408%3Fkey%3DQeNJy6EHCQdwC8hJ7pUSUZzX0q5aC9

A hefty increase in performance i reckon.

Nice score, the OC'd quad really makes a difference. I only get 3500~ with my x3 at 3.5

darconio wrote: »

So I was persuaded by this post and by the bargain price of this card and I went for it.
Very impressed so far, I've been an Nvidia junkie for ages now, the only problem is the scaling issue on the latest drivers, hopefully it will be soon fixed

Scaling? Did you get 2 for SLI?

darconio · 14-01-2011 1:13pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Scaling? Did you get 2 for SLI?

I probably didn't use the correct terminology, apologies if that is the case.

What I meant is that every game I play need to be set to the native monitor resolution ([EMAIL="1920x1080@60mhz"]1920x1080@60mhz[/EMAIL]) in order to have it full screen otherwise it will show black bars on the left and right sides of the game.

That is fine with the newest games but if you play an old game that doesn't support that resolution you might as well resume an old CRT monitor and have the same effect.

I know this as being reported as a bug by several people on the official nvidia forum.

I am on Win7 64Bit

EDIT : I didn't answer your question

. No I just bought 1 of them

PNY GTX 460 OC

Comments