GTX 460M good enough for?

Almost every laptop that I like have GTX 460M and I hear it's not even fast as the 5870. I'm mainly looking at some Asus, MSI and NP8130. I was a bit worried when I read posts talking about how the 5870 was having some trouble keeping up with some games on 1080p. Since all of these laptops are 1080p native, does it make sense go with GTX 460M now or is it good enough for a while? 1 year? 2?

 

The 6970M is out for 8150s, why not get that?

For the record, the GTX 460M in the 8130/8150 can easily be overclocked and has the same performance as roughly the same as a desktop GTX 285 or HD5830 from my benchmarks.

I can play Crysis with all settings on maximum at 1080p without AA.

Metro 2033 is the only game that has given me trouble.

If you are that concerned with speed, get the NP 8150 with the 6970M.

The key with the 15.6" 1080p notebooks is that the pixel density is incredibly high to fit 1920x1080 pixels onto a 15.6" screen so for most games, you don't need AA. Turn on AA though and you might want to consider the 6970M or the GTX 485M (faster but not worth the extra $ IMHO).

 

IMO,
The GTX 460m and RADEON 5870m are very comparable. Yes, the 5870 is faster, but it's not GTX 485m nor RADEON 6970m faster; I suspect the 5870m is about (5% to 10% faster). The trade off with the GTX 460m is that is runs much cooler than the 5870m; my guess to why ASUS switched from the 5870m to the GTX 460m.

Also, look at this site that compares laptop GPUs: Comparison of Laptop Graphics Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech
RADEON 5870m: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 - Notebookcheck.net Tech
GTX 460m: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M - Notebookcheck.net Tech
Goto the "Game Benchmarks" section at the bottom, and you'll see the fps difference between the GTX 460m and RADEON 5870m is about 1-7 fps.

HOWEVER!!! If your buying a SAGER, spend the extra $300 and get the NP8150 with a RADEON 6970. The performance is drastically better than the GTX 460m [or 5870m for that matter].


Good luck with your purchase; and get the 6970m!

 

I don't think the GTX 460M can match the desktop 5830 or 285. The GTX 485M and Radeon 6970M can barely match the GTX 460 desktop and the GTX 460 is only about as fast as a 275. The 460M is is only slightly more than half the speed of the 485M and 6970M. That means the 460M is only slightly more than half the speed of a desktop 275, yet alone a desktop 285. While benchmarks may put them out to be similar, they aren't the most reflective.

Are there any real world scenarios to prove this?

 

^ You could always youtube games with the graphics card mentioned above and find out for yourself

Mr. Mysterious

 

Sorry, that was a typo on my part, I mean GTX 260.

An HD 5830 and a 260 is the best approximation I could come up with based on Crysis benchmarks alone which I agree, do not account for real gameplay. My 460M is heavily overclocked.

The 460M is slightly faster than the desktop GTS 450 it's based on, at stock, it's closer to a 5770.

Gamers should also keep in mind that if they haven't been on the i7 or 2nd gen i7 (Sandy Bridge) platform before that the CPU is quite powerful for what you get in these laptops. My 2720QM @ 2.2GHz benches over twice as fast as my desktop Q6600 @ 3.6GHz. Again benches, but that's all I can offer.

The CPU power helps quite a bit in games like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and GTA IV, etc.

 

Well, despite all the comments mentionned here... On a non-scientific basis I've found it to be more than adequate for all games I've thrown at it so far.

I have an 8130 with base SB i7.

Crysis: All at maximum no AA 1080p runs great
StarCraft2: All at maximum 1080p runs great
Metro 2033: needs a bit of sacrifices (tessalation, AA), but otherwise runs pretty smooth with most settings on High
Civ V: All at maximum at 1080p, runs great

And as another user mentionned, if you're running the games on the laptop screen, you could lower the resolution a bit without really seeing any degradation of the visuals just because the native resolution is ridiculously high on the 15.6" inch screen (but it's gorgeous).

I'm pretty satisfied with the 460M so far, don't think I'd be able to justify the upgrade to another card at this point.

 

Solitaire.

 

You guys need to provide average framerates.

"Runs great" means little to nothing, in terms of accuracy.

 

I love these side-by-side benchmark comparisons. Just check the box next to the mobile GPUs you care to compare, then click "restrict" button.

And for the same thing showing framerates in different games, check this out.

 

Like I said, nothing scientific... 30fps or more steady.
Can't say I care what the actual FPS number is as long as the game runs smooth as silk.

Anything more is just a pissing match with very little bearing on gameplay.

And yes, I do understand that for some, getting 61 vs. 55fps is a source of pride, but practically speaking it's not really relevant to the quality of the visuals and the gameplay.

 

We aren't paid to do benchmarks like a professional site. We can only offer anecdotal evidence of what we like and don't like about how our systems perform.

"Runs Well" when given the resolution and graphics settings should be good enough for most people. Some hardware sites like hardocp have changed to what amounts to a "highest settings that a games run well at" evaluation method versus canned benches.

The closest thing I have to benchmarks that are easily compared are 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 11 scores at default settings.

 

did u overclock ur gtx 460m?if yes what clocks?

 

460 is weak card get the 6970 who cares about heat as long as it dont touch 90c it should survive a good life.

 

When I took these screenshots I was at 800MHz Core, 1400MHz Memory, 1600MHz Shader.

 

Apologies my friend posting there the gtx 460m is a cool card compared to the 5870 the frames are less yes but you have room to overclock the card and it clocks very well IMO however the 6970 will destroy any game that touches it at the moment if your wanting a system that will last you 2 years go with the I7 SB + 6970 Should be optimal if you like playing games !.

 

I doubt there will be any games in 2 years that will require more power. It is sad but because developers are all tied to console development now, PC users nolonger get cutting edge games. Crysis 2 was graphically less intensive as the original Crysis.

The reason I decided to go with the 460M is that I realized that until we get new consoles around 2014 and 2015, the 460M will be able to play every PC game put out there as long as AA is not turned on.

It saves a lot of money if you go with an 8130 and a 460M versus an 8150 and a 6970M, money that can be spent on something like an SSD.