The GTX 460 is an slow & obsolete graphic card. It can't run Battlefield 3 at high setting without getting a massive hit on frame rate. Even at the time of the 400 series the GTX 460 was not known for being powerful. The GTX 480 fared better. Long ago I used to own (2) Sapphire Radeon HD 4870X2 (dual GPU) running it at quad xfire. The 4870X2 was more powerful than the GTX 480 but even with such power it's impossible to run even a game like MOH 2010 )which has an older & less power hungry Frostbite engine) without crashing & burning at higher setting. The GPU will get so hot that if you don't stop gaming after 5 minutes you'll get a massive hit on frame rate & will get BSOD.
Depends on what your version of 'running' is and if it's a solid 60 FPS then no a GTX 660 won't sustain 60 FPS on HD 1920x1080 @ MAX 8xMSAA. A GTX 760 or R9 280X will barely hold 60 FPS @ MAX in Ghosts; mins will drop below and you'll be stuttering. I can't imagine Ghosts being 'less' demanding than BO2. Now in contrast low-medium settings somewhere in the 2xMSAA range you should be able to keep your low FPS above 60.
As far as BF4 LMAO if you even think HD 7870 or GT 660 is a 'good' idea. Certainly not based upon the beta I tried.
In FPS the advantages go to the player that can nail 120+ FPS and without stuttering all over the place. In my case I'm going to be running GTX 770's in SLI driving a QHD (2560x1440) monitor and I seriously doubt @ 8xMSAA in Multiplayer.
120 frames does nothing if you game on what is probably most common, a 1080p at 60 Hz. As long as you can stay at a steady 60 doubling it does nothing for you except having a higher number.
Nope you're wrong here, it's the mechanics of the Multiplayer @ 120 FPS and higher. Trust me you're unnecessarily losing too many gunfights.
I think you fail to understand how fps/refresh rate actually works then. If you think you are going to get more frames to appear than you are sadly mistaken.
Refresh rate is typically measured in frequency (Hz) which translates into the number of times per second your monitor can redraw the entire screen. Thus a refresh rate of 60Hz means that your monitor can redraw the entire screen contents 60 consecutive times during a single second; 85Hz is 85 times, and so forth. This is fairly straightforward, but remember, this is how fast your monitor can refresh the image on the screen, not how many FPS your system is actually producing or displaying. Let's examine the difference.
You're trying to tell someone like me about refresh rates, really?!
The mechanics of the game has zip to do with what your monitor can display; 60 Hz (60 FPS)/120 Hz (120 FPS)/144 Hz (144 FPS)/etc. It's how the game responds with higher FPS and even with 200 FPS the rate of fire (fire rate - which I personally haven't noticed myself). Some folks you see flying around often use a FPS Hack to remove the ~200 FPS cap, and yep many get banned for doing it to.
Again, it's the mechanics and in particular you do NOT want Stuttering which is worst. Today, compare setting your FPS to 60 and 120 and then compare, and lower you MSAA to even off ... then let me know.
Can I get a link to this? I have never seen anything that states getting higher frames than your monitor can display per second is of any kind of value in a real world setting.
EDIT: not being sarcastic, I would love to read up on the tech of it. I'm a nerd.
Trust me I loath playing anything less than 120 FPS. My current GPU's (pair of GTX 560's) is a problem, I can get 200+ FPS but since they stutter I use 120 FPS. When I'm buttery smooth and don't stutter I r@pe. So new for Ghosts I'm going for a pair of GTX 770's on my new 2560x1440 monitor.
Try a 120 FPS max setting IF you have a 'good' GPU or GPU(s).
Your GPU is better than mine combined now. As long as you have no Stuttering you're golden!
I'm just waiting for the damn prices to drop on the GTX 770's, hopefully very soon, since the 290X release...