facebook rss twitter

NVIDIA's unreleased GeForce GTX 460 poses for the camera

by Tarinder Sandhu on 24 June 2010, 10:27

Tags: GeForce GTX 460, NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qayur

Add to My Vault: x

A Far Eastern rumour site has come up with pictures that claim to be of NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce GTX 460 video card.

Expreview, by way of pcinlife, reckons that NVIDIA's mid-range Fermi card will be based on a revised GF104 die, which is smaller and less power-hungry than the GF100 used for the GeForce GTX 480, GTX 470, and GTX 465 GPUs.

Two GeForce GTX 460s

Rumoured to be released as two different GPU models, the GeForce GTX 460 is to ship with clock speeds 675MHz core, 1,350MHz shaders and 3,600MHz GDDR5 memory. What differentiates the two is frame-buffer and memory-bandwidth, apparently, as the lower-specified model makes do with 768MB through a 192-bit interface and the second, more powerful GTX 460 runs with 1,024MB and 256-bit memory-bus width.

Said to be equipped with 336 CUDA cores and set to be priced at $230 and $250 for the 768MB and 1,024MB versions, respectively, NVIDIA may well be on to a winner, especially if the GTX 460 overclocks well.

Pictures

GTX460
GTX460
GTX460
GTX460
Assuming that these pictures are real, the GTX 460 PCB is shorter than the GTX 470/465's. A shot of the rear indicates that the GPU is slightly smaller, although one cannot infer too much from looking at the layout.

The GPU's TDP remains unknown but we can see the solder points for two six-pin power connectors on the left-hand side of the PCB. A single SLI connector limits multi-GPU usage to two cards, which shouldn't be a problem for most, and the rear outputs are the same as the other Fermi-based cards, that is, two dual DVI and mini-HDMI.

A street price of $230-$250 would put the GTX 460s directly in the crosshairs of the anaemic Radeon HD 5830 and well below the Radeon HD 5850. We reckon the 1,024MB-equipped GTX 460, if it exists, will be the one to go for.

HEXUS Forums :: 6 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by keasla - Thu 24 Jun 2010 10:39
looks like it still uses 2 x 6 pin power connectors so if you add all the wattage up the most it should be is 225 (75+75+75)
Posted by dfour - Thu 24 Jun 2010 12:53
Looks like it could be a good card even if the naming of the series is getting a bit tight. What going to be next the 450 and 455 just to be real cozy???

I hope it forces ATI to reduce the prices on there 5850's, its good that amd's making money but any reduction in the price is good for the consumer (me).

The 5830 is a bag of bile that cant even beat out the 4890 in most tests. They crippled it to far adn will lose badly against the 460. Should have made it 20 rops instead of a crippled 16 :(
Posted by echn111 - Sat 26 Jun 2010 12:38
> The 5830 is a bag of bile that cant even beat out the 4890 in most tests.
Dude, the 4890 is supposed to be faster than the 5830. Complaining that the slower card is…slower is silly.
Posted by dfour - Sun 27 Jun 2010 00:11
echn111
> The 5830 is a bag of bile that cant even beat out the 4890 in most tests.
Dude, the 4890 is supposed to be faster than the 5830. Complaining that the slower card is…slower is silly.

How is it supposed to be slower?? Why make a card with more shaders and vertex processing power slower then the old top of the range card and charge so much for it???
Posted by kalniel - Sun 27 Jun 2010 08:34
dfour
How is it supposed to be slower??
In AMD numbering schemes the final two digits represent the performance level of the card within a series. So 90 would be at or near the top of the performance scale, while 30 would be at or near the bottom. The jump in performance between series is somewhat variable, in this case the 5800 series is generally faster than the 4800, but not so much that the bottom of the 5800 should be faster than the top of the 4800.

Why make a card with more shaders and vertex processing power slower then the old top of the range card and charge so much for it???
The 5830 is infinitely faster than the 4890 in anything that requires dx11. How much would you pay for something that's infinitely faster? But don't forget that the dx11 capable shaders are slower at dx9/10 than the 4890's non-dx11 shaders.

SEE NEWER »