Overclocked 460M vs other cards

I'm wondering what performance a SAFELY overclocked 460m would have in comparison to a 485m (or ati 6970m) with no overclock. Around 75%? less? What kind of results have people gotten with them

 

probably around 50-60% less at worst. It obviously won't be able to top the 485 or 6970, but it doesn't lag too far behind. I would ask somebody with a clevo or sager that went from a 460 to a 485, or ask one of the r3 owners for benchmarks to compare with 485m benchmarks online

 

What a coincidence! I was just searching online and reading forums and articles for almost 3 hours now on overclocking the 460m gtx and not to much info out there on the mobile version.

Anyway I have the Toshiba X505 Q892 with an intel i5 460m and the GTX 460m. With stock clocks running at 675/1350/1250 (core/shader/mem) I score 12,619 in 3dmark06, compared to my overclock of 800/1600/1480, which increases my 3dmark06 score to 13,281.

Mind you, I've only run the 3dm6 benchmark once for both stock and overclock. I'm new to overclocking and just copied another 460m users overclock, so I never tried going any higher.

After a couple hours gaming, playing BFBC2 my GPU temp using the overclock reaches a max temp of 71C and with the extra increase in frames per second BFBC2 plays like a dream with settings all high 4xaa 8xaf HBAO on.

Don't know if you can use this info as any help, but as I was comparing my results to some other manufacturers results on notebookcheck.com, I think Alienware with the 460m scored about the same as mine with stock clocks in the 13k.

 

I would use vantage to compare that class of GPU, 06 is a bit too old in the tooth. It looks like your CPU limited.

 

for the purposes of the OP it works well if you take my score of an overclock which is 13,281 then compare it to the stock clock benchmark of 3dm6 referenced at notebookcheck the 485 GTX score 19,465 and the ati 6970 scores 17,041.

Although the Alienware M17x with 460m running stock clocks benchmarks 14,086 in 3dm6, and the weird thing is that besides 675/1350 for core and shader default, the M17x default memory clock is dialed to 625. strange..

 

Yet those scores will be with a faster CPU most likely rendering the comparison pointless. Again vantage or even 11 is better.

 

The average results I found for the GPU score in Vantage of the 485m were about 12,000. The average results for GPU in Vantage for the 6970m were about 11,500. Both of those are at stock. My GPU rings in at about 8800 GPU/Vantage with daily gaming overclocks.

 

So that comes out to being about a 3rd faster in vantage, correct? doesn't seem to bad at all for a 460m. My math could be off though

 

It's about a 26% difference from 460m-->485m, and about a 23.5% difference from 460m-->6970m.

 

I'm right with Dane on the 8800 GPU score in Vantage running gaming clocks. The cool thing is that it is very close to a 470m stock vantage score for hundreds of dollars less. Overall the 460m is a great higher end GPU, but with all the newer shiny GPU's out on the market, it makes me want to upgrade now.....but that's just me.

 

my 5870 in the signature at those safe/stable clocks get around 9300 Vantage GPU score.

 

I'm around 9800 GPU score with my 5870, at the highest overclock I can do stable ( 910/1075 ) with modified voltage.

 

Is it on that 1366x768 screen?

If so that will be inaccurate.

 

Well, my score with 900/1035 is around 9300, so who knows if it is the res, drivers, extra clocks, or massively more powerful cpu. Or all of the above.

Still, a 9300+ vantage score is not the only indicative. Those scores are at a 1280x1024 resolution, and the higher end GPUs (485m and 6970) will throrouly eat a 460m of HD5870m at higher res, thanks to their much higher memory bandwidth besides higher computational power. Depending on games, it might be the difference between a choppy experience, from a completely smooth one.

As for 3dmark06, it is not an accurate score (the total) but you can still use the single scores of SM 2.0, SM 3.0 and CPU scores individually to get a better idea. A really fast CPU can make you have a huge score, but gamewise you will be 5% within the competitor.

Vantage is more reliable in such regards, though several nvidia scores are skewed due to physx bumping the CPU score, ending in higher than real scores (total) But the GPU score is entirely reliable.

 

Agreed, you can play all the new games at slightly reduced resolutions to account for the outdated card but the 6970 or 485's will have much better perf at res like 1080P

 

As long as my GTX 460M play games fine at medium on FHD then I'm happy that I saved ~$200 for 20% more performance on a ATI Radeon 6970M.

 

Haha, its way more than mere 20% in most instances, specially if matched with a powerful CPU heh. Unless you overclock, then it will be like 40% or so. Hell, an HD5870m can actually get near that 20% depending on the game!

HD6970m is really a powerful GPU, and depending on the cost, it might be the best bang for buck in notebooks.

That's not to say 460m/HD5870m are bad, but both the 485m and HD6970m are on another level. And then they can be overclocked too, just to leave everything behind eating dust.

But yeah, we still have nice powerful GPUs, good enough to game on.

 

It's on the standard performance setting, the resolution is 1280x1024 ( hooked to external monitor ) as my laptop dont support that resolution

 

The GTX 485M can compete with 2x GTX 460M GPU's in SLI mode and the 6970M isn't far behind, so that 20% more performance you state is actually around 50% or more, then factor in the extra VRAM and higher number of Cores and you have quite a big difference.

The GTX 460M is a great card but even if overclocked, the GTX 485M and the Radeon 6970M are still on a completely different level period. We should also consider an overclocked GTX 485M or a 6970M too.