570 GTX vs 6950 Toxic

[Orija]

Getting a 6950 Toxic had been almost a sure thing for me but I've heard that ATI's cards suck at Tesselation and Powered by Nvidia games, and that AMD releases somewhat mediocre drivers compared to Nvidia.

Do you guys think that I should prefer the 570? Which of these cards gives more value for money?

I game on 1920x1200, my cpu is the i5 2500k. I plan on playing resource heavy games like BF3, Metro and Crysis.

 

[RussianSensation]

It depends on the price.

The GTX570 is about 15-16% or so faster than the HD6950 at 1920x1080/1200. So it will definitely be faster than the 6950. It will also be significantly faster in Crysis 2:

Source

In Metro 2033, they'll perform about the same.

If the price difference is $50 or less, and you want to use Tessellation, I'd lean towards the GTX570. If the price difference is $100 or so, I'd take the 6950 2GB and just sell that card in 12 months and get something even faster.

 

[Leyawiin]

The HD 6950 Toxic is excellent bang-for-the-buck as it can beat a stock HD 6970 and (if you can actually find one on sale) goes for around $270 with MIR. I personally prefer Nvidia cards, but I don't think you're making a bad move at all if you can snag a Toxic. Its a good card.

 

[blackened23]

Compare middle column to right column. The far left column is using old drivers, the middle column is catalyst 11.8 which is the most recent and most optimized. The gap
between 6950 - 570 is about the same as 6970 and 580 shown above.

I should add that the Zotac 570 AMP is on sale at newegg today only for 264$ after MIR. Thats a hell of a deal, considering the 6950 toxic costs more!

http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellS...0-_-09232011_2

 

[The Ultimate]

Compare middle column to right column. The far left column is using old drivers, the middle column is catalyst 11.8 which is the most recent and most optimized. The gap
between 6950 - 570 is about the same as 6970 and 580 shown above.

I should add that the Zotac 570 AMP is on sale at newegg today only for 264$ after MIR. Thats a hell of a deal, considering the 6950 toxic costs more!

http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellS...0-_-09232011_2

Interesting, never though that AMD drivers were able to improve the Thread Level Parallelism in the Cayman Architecture even though it has less shaders than previous generations of AMD cards.

 

[blackened23]

Interesting, never though that AMD drivers were able to improve the Thread Level Parallelism in the Cayman Architecture even though it has less shaders than previous generations of AMD cards.

AMD has been spot on with drivers, i've noticed consistent performance improvements with every application profile and driver release. If there's a performance deficiency it usually gets fixed within a week with a new application profile.

My gtx 580 system is hella fast but I still get stuttering in Bad Company 2 (even though the overall framerate is high). I'd have to give AMD the upper hand on drivers. Nvidia obviously has the upper hand on hardware at the moment (when comparing 6970 to GTX 580)

It'll be interesting to see how the next generation of cards pans out.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Getting a 6950 Toxic had been almost a sure thing for me but I've heard that ATI's cards suck at Tesselation and Powered by Nvidia games, and that AMD releases somewhat mediocre drivers compared to Nvidia.

Do you guys think that I should prefer the 570? Which of these cards gives more value for money?

I game on 1920x1200, my cpu is the i5 2500k. I plan on playing resource heavy games like BF3, Metro and Crysis.

really the bad rap AMD has regarding drivers isnt really deserved in modern times.

6950 or 570 are great choices. BF3 isnt out yet so we dont know what GPU would perform best. Metro and Crysis should be pretty close with these two cards.

28nm is right around the corner so if you can hold out that would be the best time to buy as the 6950 and 570 would be discounted, and new options will be available then.

 

[happy medium]

The 6950 toxic is more $ than the gtx570 Amp? The gtx570 is the better choice and is in stock. A gtx570 Zotac AMP should easily hit 860 core which = a gtx580 also.

 

[Firestorm007]

Go for the 6950 Toxic. I bet it'll be back in stock soon. That thing comes real close to 6970 level performance, while costing a lot less; and the 6970 is already pretty darn close to a 580 gtx in terms performance, regardless of what anyone else tells you.

 

[happy medium]

Go for the 6950 Toxic. I bet it'll be back in stock soon. That thing comes real close to 6970 level performance, while costing a lot less; and the 6970 is already pretty darn close to a 580 gtx in terms performance, regardless of what anyone else tells you.

WHy would you buy a card thats slower and cost more?
A gtx570 AMP is faster than a 6970 at stock, which still be faster than a unlocked 6950. A 6970 is 13% slower than a gtx580 as well as a 6950 Toxic when overclocked and unlocked, which by the way is not garaunteed.

The gtx 570 AMP for 10$ less than a toxic card is by far the better choice.
Even if you unlock theToxic card and overclock it ,it still only = a gtx570 AMP.
When you overclock the AMP, it will leave the 6950 in the dust, unless the op has a 30 inch monitor @ 2500x1600, and even then they would be about =.

 

[blackened23]

WHy would you buy a card thats slower and cost more?
A gtx570 AMP is faster than a 6970 at stock, which still be faster than a unlocked 6950. A 6970 is 13% slower than a gtx580 as well as a 6950 Toxic when overclocked and unlocked, which by the way is not garaunteed.

The gtx 570 AMP for 10$ less than a toxic card is by far the better choice.
Even if you unlock theToxic card and overclock it ,it still only = a gtx570 AMP.
When you overclock the AMP, it will leave the 6950 in the dust, unless the op has a 30 inch monitor @ 2500x1600, and even then they would be about =.

The newegg shell shocker has sold out so, the 570 is not cheaper than the 6950. The price listed was a 1 day special. Also they are pretty close to even unless you're comparing a game that was practically coded by nvidia (ergo crysis 2).

On average, the gtx 570 costs about 100$ more than the 6950.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102949

230$ 6950

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127552

GTX 570

I own both nvidia and AMD cards, a 580 in one and a crossfire 6970 in the other. For the most part, from what I can tell the AMD's lose less frame rate from high resolution, while nvidia doesn't incur as much of a performance hit with SSAA / FXAA / other eye candy. Nvidia obviously has better shader performance. But with all that said, 6950 / 570 are pretty close with the latest catalyst drivers and application profiles - the 6950 toxic oc's to 6970 levels fairly easily.

 

[RussianSensation]

On average, the gtx 570 costs about 100$ more than the 6950.

Newegg still has the Galaxy GTX570 for $280 with Batman game. That's only $55 more than the Sapphire card you linked, not $100 more.

But with all that said, 6950 / 570 are pretty close with the latest catalyst drivers and application profiles - the 6950 toxic oc's to 6970 levels fairly easily.

Depends on the game. Best case scenario for the HD6950 is to be close to a stock GTX570, once in a while edging it by 10% if it's overclocked to HD6970 speeds.

But what happens in games that run faster on the NV card? It slaughters the 6950. There is not a single game where an HD6950 slaughters the GTX570 this much!

Source

Source

Source

It was much much harder to recommend the GTX570 over the HD6950 when GTX570 was hovering at $320-330 for the most part. Now with GTX570s often coming down to $260, and shipping with Arkham City (most likely at least an 8.5 game), and add to this at least another 15% overclocking headroom, the HD6950 @ $225 is no longer such a great deal, especially at resolutions 1920x1200 or below.

 

[blackened23]

AMD released an application profile last week to fix hard reset, and performance went up quite a bit according to various reports -- and we know about nvidias dealings with crysis 2. (ie, crippling it on non nv hardware) Anyway, 260 The link you posted is 329.99$. Generally speaking, 6950 is much cheaper than gtx 570. But if a 570 is around cheaper than 240$-250$ (price of sapphire 6950), get it by all means. Thats a no brainer. Anyway, I suspect the F1 result is driver related because AMD released an application profile for F1 a while ago, and the benchmarks you posted aren't using updated application profiles. The results at AB show AMD in a slight lead in F1.

Difference between 580/6970 == difference between 570/6950. The toxic overclocks to 6970 levels very easily, so what you see in the above chart is representative to how a toxic would perform.

Nothing against the 570, its a fine card. I think on average the 6950 is far cheaper, but if you can find a 570 cheaper than 6950's i'd get it. Some 570's can oc to 580 levels. The newegg link I posted a couple of days ago is dead, but if you can find a 570 cheaper than a 6950 its a no brainer -- the improved shader / SSAA performance of the 570 would make that choice easy.

 

[toyota]

AMD released an application profile last week to fix hard reset, and performance went up quite a bit according to various reports -- and we know about nvidias dealings with crysis 2. (ie, crippling it on non nv hardware) Anyway, 260 The link you posted is 329.99$. Generally speaking, 6950 is much cheaper than gtx 570. But whatever floats his boat, his money not mine

Also, those benchmarks are using old drivers and old application profiles. The gap in F1 is pretty close, with AMD pulling a slight lead according to benchmarks posted at alienbabel.

it says was $329.99 now $309.99 and $259.99 AR.

 

[blackened23]

it says was $329.99 now $309.99 and $259.99 AR.

Ahh, I see. Just checked again, its 279.99 after MIR. I was never much of a MIR guy, last one took 4 months to reach me.

Still, definitely a good deal !....would probably shift the decision towards the 570 in my eyes

 

[Silverforce11]

F1 2011: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMwODcyNzM2OUhNZnQ3S0lxWmJfNV80X2wuZ2lm

Russian, dunno whats wrong with your bench, but sounds like a biased config against the AMD cards, CPU combos etc. The 6970 is significantly faster than the 570. A 6950 toxic is essentially a 6970.

 

[blackened23]

F1 2011: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMwODcyNzM2OUhNZnQ3S0lxWmJfNV80X2wuZ2lm

Russian, dunno whats wrong with your bench, but sounds like a biased config against the AMD cards, CPU combos etc. The 6970 is significantly faster than the 570. A 6950 toxic is essentially a 6970.

I think he likes playing devils advocate now and then

 

[Silverforce11]

Getting a 6950 Toxic had been almost a sure thing for me but I've heard that ATI's cards suck at Tesselation and Powered by Nvidia games, and that AMD releases somewhat mediocre drivers compared to Nvidia.

Do you guys think that I should prefer the 570? Which of these cards gives more value for money?

I game on 1920x1200, my cpu is the i5 2500k. I plan on playing resource heavy games like BF3, Metro and Crysis.

ATI cards only suck at tessellation IF its a Powered by Nvidia game. In every other game, its great. AMD also have a feature to run tessellation "optimized for AMD" GPUs so even if you play an NV game, you won't have to suffer with poorly optimized tessellation.

Metro and Crysis, both AMD and NV perform well.

BF3 is a "Powered by AMD" game.

 

[toyota]

Ahh, I see. Just checked again, its 279.99 after MIR. I was never much of a MIR guy, last one took 4 months to reach me.

Still, definitely a good deal !....would probably shift the decision towards the 570 in my eyes

he had two different links. its 259.99 for the one he said was 260 and 279.99 for the one he said was 280.

 

[WMD]

F1 2011: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMwODcyNzM2OUhNZnQ3S0lxWmJfNV80X2wuZ2lm

Russian, dunno whats wrong with your bench, but sounds like a biased config against the AMD cards, CPU combos etc. The 6970 is significantly faster than the 570. A 6950 toxic is essentially a 6970.

That was 2010. Russian's link says 2011.

 

[Silverforce11]

That was 2010. Russian's link says 2011.

Russian's link also has a nice section on CPU performance with a gtx590. Clearly CPU limited.

It also doesn't say which cards are paired with which CPU. X6 or I7 with AMD cards? Doesn't say.

http://gamegpu.ru/Racing-Simulators-/-Gonki/Formula-1-2011-test-GPU.html

Edit: Here's a recent 2011 for you, run on the same CPU: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eq-turbo-hd-6950-iceq-x-turbo-x-review-9.html

Edit2: Even with the NV tess-gate Crysis 2, its not as bad as the above benchmark: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...0-iceq-mix-graphics-card-review-crysis-2.html

Would be interesting to see how AMD cards run Crysis 2 with the tessellation slider set to "AMD optimized".

Bias review is bias.

 

[blackened23]

That was 2010. Russian's link says 2011.

Yeah, and that site is also using old drivers/application profiles. AMD released app profiles ages ago that fixed F1, the performance
gains were substantial (as noted in benchmarks documented above)

 

[WMD]

Russian's link also has a nice section on CPU performance with a gtx590. Clearly CPU limited.

It also doesn't say which cards are paired with which CPU. X6 or I7 with AMD cards? Doesn't say.

http://gamegpu.ru/Racing-Simulators-/-Gonki/Formula-1-2011-test-GPU.html

Edit: Here's a recent 2011 for you, run on the same CPU: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eq-turbo-hd-6950-iceq-x-turbo-x-review-9.html

Edit2: Even with the NV tess-gate Crysis 2, its not as bad as the above benchmark: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...0-iceq-mix-graphics-card-review-crysis-2.html

Would be interesting to see how AMD cards run Crysis 2 with the tessellation slider set to "AMD optimized".

Bias review is bias.

Again F1 2010 and F1 2011 are different games. I do know F1 2010 performs better on Amd hardware.

 

[Silverforce11]

Again F1 2010 and F1 2011 are different games. I do know F1 2010 performs better on Amd hardware.

CPU limited on a gtx590 getting less than 60 fps means that any GPU capable of running above this speed cannot do so on that CPU. Did they test AMD GPUs /w Phenom II x6 or i7?

 

[happy medium]

The newegg shell shocker has sold out so, the 570 is not cheaper than the 6950. The price listed was a 1 day special. Also they are pretty close to even unless you're comparing a game that was practically coded by nvidia (ergo crysis 2).

On average, the gtx 570 costs about 100$ more than the 6950.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102949

230$ 6950

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127552

GTX 570

I own both nvidia and AMD cards, a 580 in one and a crossfire 6970 in the other. For the most part, from what I can tell the AMD's lose less frame rate from high resolution, while nvidia doesn't incur as much of a performance hit with SSAA / FXAA / other eye candy. Nvidia obviously has better shader performance. But with all that said, 6950 / 570 are pretty close with the latest catalyst drivers and application profiles - the 6950 toxic oc's to 6970 levels fairly easily.

Why are you linking a cheap 1gb 6950 vs a gtx570 pricewise, and using a overclocked unlocked 2gb 55$ more exspensive 6950 card link for your benchmarks?

The 6950 toxic cost 270$AR (out of stock still) last I checked vs a gtx570 for 268.50$AR.
WHen both are overclocked and/or unlocked (if the unlock works)) the gtx570 still wins @ 1900x1200 easily .