dust
Golden Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 1,328
- 2
- 71
You're kidding right?
You can unlock it AND OC it after and get 580ish performance for the similar amount spent( as for the 560), high resolution included.
You're kidding right?
You can unlock it AND OC it after and get 580ish performance for the similar amount spent( as for the 560), high resolution included.
dust
Golden Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 1,328
- 2
- 71
Skurge
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 5,195
- 1
- 71
http://techgage.com/article/amd_hd_6950_1gb_vs_nvidia_gtx_560_ti_overclocking/3
Thats without an unlock.
Last edited:
dust
Golden Member
- Oct 13, 2008
- 1,328
- 2
- 71
There aren't any "legit" charts that I know of, but I do trust some of the posters here and their benchmarks with the 6950, e.g. badboy : http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2140202
It comes exceedingly easy to accept his results once you google the unlock rate for the 6950's.
Some people prefer the OC results vs unlocked, but not me.
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
Those charts proves my point again, that the OCED GTX 560 only matches the stock HD 6950, and the OCED HD 6950 matches the GTX 570, all in the highest load at 2560x1600.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
An overclocked 560 can surpass a 6970
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2138790
A lot of people on various forums have been complaining about artifacting when trying to overclock an unlocked 6950. Probably because a true 6970 has an 8 pin + 6 pin power connector while the 6950 only has 2 6 pin connectors. Buyer beware.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2138790
A lot of people on various forums have been complaining about artifacting when trying to overclock an unlocked 6950. Probably because a true 6970 has an 8 pin + 6 pin power connector while the 6950 only has 2 6 pin connectors. Buyer beware.
Last edited:
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
Wrong again, you can't compare the results of a random poster against the results of professional websites who dedicates themselves to hardware reviews and analysis. Even worse that HAWX 2 is known to have performance issues with AMD cards, very nice way to paint nVidia in a good light mate!!
Read and educate yourself.
Do you actually believe results from a random poster instead of a website that dedicates itself to do hardware reviews? Talk about double standards here.... again
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...cking_review/3
When it comes down to performance it seems the overclock helped quite a bit. You should see around a 12-17% performance improvement with the video card overclocked to 1015MHz GPU/2030MHz shaders and 4.34GHz memory. At this overclock, it seems to match the Radeon HD 6950 quite well. That is the catch though, it takes pushing the Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 Ti GC to its limits in order to achieve Radeon HD 6950 performance.
We are operating the Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC at a very high voltage, and a whopping 135 more system Watts compared to the Radeon HD 6950. This higher voltage and higher power requirement also requires a robust cooling solution as the heat output increases also. The Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC uses a custom cooling device which works great. It has two big fans, and those two big fans were running at 100% automatically to make this overclock happen. We are reaching quite far with the GTX 560 Ti, reaching into its limits with power draw, thermal abilities, and clock frequencies. The point is, it takes all of this for the GTX 560 Ti to reach Radeon HD 6950 performance while the Radeon HD 6950 is sitting there nice and pretty running with a much lower power consumption, and at stock frequencies.
Can the GeForce GTX 560 Ti match Radeon HD 6950 performance? The answer is yes, but it takes running the GPU to its limits in order to do so; whereas the Radeon HD 6950 has headroom to grow. The Radeon HD 6950 can also be over-volted and overclocked with many manufacturers supporting custom coolers. The Radeon HD 6950 can be pushed farther, increasing its performance beyond the stock frequencies also. When that is done, performance once again turns in favor of the Radeon HD 6950. So what it means, in essence, is that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti will never honestly catch up to the Radeon HD 6950, cause the GTX 560 Ti is at its limits where the HD 6950 is just getting started.
Worth mentioning as well is that many Radeon 6950 owners have "unlocked" their cards to enabled 1536 stream processors while attaining stock 6970 core and memory speeds.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...onclusion.html
The first thing which we have to say about the Inno3D GTX 560 Ti is that out of the box it is the fastest version of this new GPU we have seen so far. It exceeds the speed offered by ASUS and Palit (as two examples) by 50MHz on the core which is a significant amount. Throughout the review it performed well when compared to the 6870 and often matches the 6950.
And it was ran stable at 1GHz, yet it couldn't outperform the HD 6950 consistently.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...i-1gb-review/9
As impressive as the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB’s stock-speed performance is, the MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II/OC improves upon this even further. The factory overclock might not be earth shattering, but it allows the card to close the gap to the GeForce GTX 570 1.3GB, and in some cases the two cards performed identically despite the £75 price difference.
He said in some cases, and considering that the HD 6970 is slightly faster than the GTX 570, means that you have to overclock the hell of the GTX 560 to 1GHz, increasing the power consumption and heat dissipation just to match the GTX 570 in rare circumstances? While it is impressive as is a cheaper card, does it worth the savings for increased power consumption, heat dissipations and chances to burn the card? Doubtfull, may be in your mind.
PS: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...total-war.html <<Look at that review, the HD 6950 constantly snipping the heels of the GTX 570, imagine the performance of such card unlocked and overclocked? It will easily beat the GTX 570.
The HD 6950 is the better card, period. Its performance matches the heavily overclocked GTX 560 which consumes over 135W more power for similar performance, dissipating more heat. So overclocking and unlocking an HD 6950 will simply underscore its supremacy against the GTX 560 OC edition. The artifacting issue only affects less than 5% of those SKUs and are related to PSU issues than videocard issues, specially when the HD 6970 doesn't consume a lot more power than the HD 6950. The HD 6950 is guaranteed to run unlocked at HD 6970 speeds, that's a lot of power, faster than the GTX 570!
Last edited:
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Isn't that what Drivenbyvoltage just did? Why not jump on him for it? Oh. Either way I'm guessing 11.2 will be out soon and this thread will be of no further use.
http://www.techspot.com/review/359-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560ti/page12.html
Here's a professional website for you. Overclocked 560 beating a 6970. Game, set, match.
Last edited:
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
Funny stuff, I posted you lots of different links and you decide to post only one which was cherry picked, funny!!
http://techgage.com/article/amd_hd_6950_1gb_vs_nvidia_gtx_560_ti_overclocking/3
" NVIDIA's GTX 560 Ti keeps ahead of AMD's HD 6950 1GB at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080, but the tables turn at 2560x1600. With AMD's overclock, the card reaches the same performance as the HD 6970, while NVIDIA stays a bit behind the GTX 570."
Watch and learn mate.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
You posted 2, how is that lots of links?
Fine.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review-19.html
Bam 560 beating a 6970. :thumbsup:
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,329
- 126
560 is a decent card, unfortunately it has to be overclocked to the maximum to even catch the 6950. Making the 6950 a much better buy, no need to hope you can overclock it as it already performs like a max clocked 560. And you can still unlock and overclock the 6950 bringing it close to a 580 and leaving the 560 in the dust.
Hopefully nvidia can fix all their driver issues too and the problems they have causing so many windows crashes.
Hopefully nvidia can fix all their driver issues too and the problems they have causing so many windows crashes.
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
Look at the results of Wreckage's techspot article.
Look at the results from your link.
Dirt 2 = When testing Dirt 2 at 1920x1200 we had the new GeForce GTX 560 Ti performing 10% faster than the GTX 470 and Radeon HD 6950 graphics cards, averaging 79fps. The GTX 560 Ti was 19% slower than the more expensive GTX 570, but 20% faster than the Radeon HD 6870.
F1 2010's performance at 1920x1200 was not nearly as impressive as the Dirt 2 results. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti was just 18% slower than the GTX 570, but also 18% slower than the old GeForce GTX 470, which is a little puzzling. << How come? 18% slower than the GTX 570, but also 18% slower than the GTX 470, does the GTX 570 and GTX 470 are even in performance?
Moreover, it was 21% slower than the Radeon HD 6870 and a whopping 26% slower than the HD 6950.
Modern Warfare 2 - When testing at 1920x1200 the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 63fps, which made it just 15% slower than the GTX 570 while it also trailed the Radeon HD 6950 by a 6% margin. Despite this it was 11% faster than the old GeForce GTX 470 and 13% faster than the competing Radeon HD 6870.
The Call of Duty: Black Ops results were considerably different as we saw an average of 103fps rendered at 1920x1200. This had the GeForce GTX 560 Ti pulling ahead the Radeon HD 6950 by a 11% margin. It was also 13% faster than the GeForce GTX 470 and a whopping 29% quicker than the Radeon HD 6870.
In Far Cry 2 the GeForce GTX 560 Ti beat the old GTX 470 by a 12% margin at 1920x1200, while it was about 9% slower than the GTX 570. This also made it 10% faster than the Radeon HD 6950 and 23% speedier than the HD 6870.
Allien vs Predator - The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 32fps at 1920x1200 which placed it on par with the Radeon HD 6870 and 10% faster than the GeForce GTX 470. It was also 24% slower than the Radeon HD 6950 and 26% slower than the GTX 570.
Crysis Warhead - The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 42fps at 1920x1200 when testing with Crysis Warhead, making it 11% faster than the GeForce GTX 470 and just 2% faster than the Radeon HD 6870. It trailed the Radeon HD 6950 by a 9% margin and was 16% slower than the GeForce GTX 570.
When testing with World in Conflict at 1920x1200 we found that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti was able to match the performance of the Radeon HD 6950, making it just 12% slower than the GTX 570 as well as 13% faster than the GTX 470 and Radeon HD 6870.
When testing with Just Cause 2 at 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 36fps, making it 20% slower than the GTX 570. However, it offered 6% better performance than the GeForce GTX 470 and 9% more than the Radeon HD 6950. Even more impressive was its 16% advantage over the Radeon HD 6870.
When testing with Mass Effect 2 at 1920x1200 the GeForce GTX 560 Ti was 19% slower than the GTX 570 and 18% slower than the Radeon HD 6950. Unfortunately, it was also 12% slower than the Radeon HD 6870 despite providing an 18% performance boost over the GeForce GTX 470.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 41fps at 1920x1200 in Metro 2033, making it 13% slower than the GTX 570 and an impressive 32% faster than the GTX 470. The GTX 560 Ti was 13% slower than the Radeon HD 6950, but it managed to defeat the Radeon HD 6870 by a convincing 24% margin.
Call of Prypiat - At 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 53fps, making it 20% slower than the GTX 570 and 15% faster than the GTX 470. It was also 15% slower than the Radeon HD 6950 it and 33% faster than the HD 6870.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 60fps in Battlefield Bad Company 2 at 1920x1200, making it 14% slower than the GTX 570 and just 6% slower than the Radeon HD 6950. Meanwhile, it was 9% faster than the old GeForce GTX 470 and 2% slower than the Radeon HD 6870.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti was again found to be slower than the Radeon HD 6870 when testing with Splinter Cell Conviction at 1920x1200. Here the GTX 560 Ti was 5% slower than the Radeon HD 6870 and 9% slower than the HD 6950. Meanwhile it was 2% slower than the GeForce GTX 470 and 17% slower than the GTX 570.
The GTX 560 seems more of a match for the HD 6870 than for the HD 6950, its performance is inconsistent, and like I said previously Wreckage, look at the several links that I posted.
Do you actually believe results from a random poster instead of a website that dedicates itself to do hardware reviews? Talk about double standards here.... again
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...cking_review/3
When it comes down to performance it seems the overclock helped quite a bit. You should see around a 12-17% performance improvement with the video card overclocked to 1015MHz GPU/2030MHz shaders and 4.34GHz memory. At this overclock, it seems to match the Radeon HD 6950 quite well. That is the catch though, it takes pushing the Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 Ti GC to its limits in order to achieve Radeon HD 6950 performance.
We are operating the Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC at a very high voltage, and a whopping 135 more system Watts compared to the Radeon HD 6950. This higher voltage and higher power requirement also requires a robust cooling solution as the heat output increases also. The Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC uses a custom cooling device which works great. It has two big fans, and those two big fans were running at 100% automatically to make this overclock happen. We are reaching quite far with the GTX 560 Ti, reaching into its limits with power draw, thermal abilities, and clock frequencies. The point is, it takes all of this for the GTX 560 Ti to reach Radeon HD 6950 performance while the Radeon HD 6950 is sitting there nice and pretty running with a much lower power consumption, and at stock frequencies.
Can the GeForce GTX 560 Ti match Radeon HD 6950 performance? The answer is yes, but it takes running the GPU to its limits in order to do so; whereas the Radeon HD 6950 has headroom to grow. The Radeon HD 6950 can also be over-volted and overclocked with many manufacturers supporting custom coolers. The Radeon HD 6950 can be pushed farther, increasing its performance beyond the stock frequencies also. When that is done, performance once again turns in favor of the Radeon HD 6950. So what it means, in essence, is that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti will never honestly catch up to the Radeon HD 6950, cause the GTX 560 Ti is at its limits where the HD 6950 is just getting started.
Worth mentioning as well is that many Radeon 6950 owners have "unlocked" their cards to enabled 1536 stream processors while attaining stock 6970 core and memory speeds.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...onclusion.html
The first thing which we have to say about the Inno3D GTX 560 Ti is that out of the box it is the fastest version of this new GPU we have seen so far. It exceeds the speed offered by ASUS and Palit (as two examples) by 50MHz on the core which is a significant amount. Throughout the review it performed well when compared to the 6870 and often matches the 6950.
And it was ran stable at 1GHz, yet it couldn't outperform the HD 6950 consistently.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...i-1gb-review/9
As impressive as the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB’s stock-speed performance is, the MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II/OC improves upon this even further. The factory overclock might not be earth shattering, but it allows the card to close the gap to the GeForce GTX 570 1.3GB, and in some cases the two cards performed identically despite the £75 price difference.
He said in some cases, and considering that the HD 6970 is slightly faster than the GTX 570, means that you have to overclock the hell of the GTX 560 to 1GHz, increasing the power consumption and heat dissipation just to match the GTX 570 in rare circumstances? While it is impressive as is a cheaper card, does it worth the savings for increased power consumption, heat dissipations and chances to burn the card? Doubtfull, may be in your mind.
PS: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...total-war.html <<Look at that review, the HD 6950 constantly snipping the heels of the GTX 570, imagine the performance of such card unlocked and overclocked? It will easily beat the GTX 570.
The HD 6950 is the better card, period. Its performance matches the heavily overclocked GTX 560 which consumes over 135W more power for similar performance, dissipating more heat. So overclocking and unlocking an HD 6950 will simply underscore its supremacy against the GTX 560 OC edition. The artifacting issue only affects less than 5% of those SKUs and are related to PSU issues than videocard issues, specially when the HD 6970 doesn't consume a lot more power than the HD 6950. The HD 6950 is guaranteed to run unlocked at HD 6970 speeds, that's a lot of power, faster than the GTX 570!
Look at the results from your link.
Dirt 2 = When testing Dirt 2 at 1920x1200 we had the new GeForce GTX 560 Ti performing 10% faster than the GTX 470 and Radeon HD 6950 graphics cards, averaging 79fps. The GTX 560 Ti was 19% slower than the more expensive GTX 570, but 20% faster than the Radeon HD 6870.
F1 2010's performance at 1920x1200 was not nearly as impressive as the Dirt 2 results. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti was just 18% slower than the GTX 570, but also 18% slower than the old GeForce GTX 470, which is a little puzzling. << How come? 18% slower than the GTX 570, but also 18% slower than the GTX 470, does the GTX 570 and GTX 470 are even in performance?
Moreover, it was 21% slower than the Radeon HD 6870 and a whopping 26% slower than the HD 6950.
Modern Warfare 2 - When testing at 1920x1200 the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 63fps, which made it just 15% slower than the GTX 570 while it also trailed the Radeon HD 6950 by a 6% margin. Despite this it was 11% faster than the old GeForce GTX 470 and 13% faster than the competing Radeon HD 6870.
The Call of Duty: Black Ops results were considerably different as we saw an average of 103fps rendered at 1920x1200. This had the GeForce GTX 560 Ti pulling ahead the Radeon HD 6950 by a 11% margin. It was also 13% faster than the GeForce GTX 470 and a whopping 29% quicker than the Radeon HD 6870.
In Far Cry 2 the GeForce GTX 560 Ti beat the old GTX 470 by a 12% margin at 1920x1200, while it was about 9% slower than the GTX 570. This also made it 10% faster than the Radeon HD 6950 and 23% speedier than the HD 6870.
Allien vs Predator - The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 32fps at 1920x1200 which placed it on par with the Radeon HD 6870 and 10% faster than the GeForce GTX 470. It was also 24% slower than the Radeon HD 6950 and 26% slower than the GTX 570.
Crysis Warhead - The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 42fps at 1920x1200 when testing with Crysis Warhead, making it 11% faster than the GeForce GTX 470 and just 2% faster than the Radeon HD 6870. It trailed the Radeon HD 6950 by a 9% margin and was 16% slower than the GeForce GTX 570.
When testing with World in Conflict at 1920x1200 we found that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti was able to match the performance of the Radeon HD 6950, making it just 12% slower than the GTX 570 as well as 13% faster than the GTX 470 and Radeon HD 6870.
When testing with Just Cause 2 at 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 36fps, making it 20% slower than the GTX 570. However, it offered 6% better performance than the GeForce GTX 470 and 9% more than the Radeon HD 6950. Even more impressive was its 16% advantage over the Radeon HD 6870.
When testing with Mass Effect 2 at 1920x1200 the GeForce GTX 560 Ti was 19% slower than the GTX 570 and 18% slower than the Radeon HD 6950. Unfortunately, it was also 12% slower than the Radeon HD 6870 despite providing an 18% performance boost over the GeForce GTX 470.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 41fps at 1920x1200 in Metro 2033, making it 13% slower than the GTX 570 and an impressive 32% faster than the GTX 470. The GTX 560 Ti was 13% slower than the Radeon HD 6950, but it managed to defeat the Radeon HD 6870 by a convincing 24% margin.
Call of Prypiat - At 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 53fps, making it 20% slower than the GTX 570 and 15% faster than the GTX 470. It was also 15% slower than the Radeon HD 6950 it and 33% faster than the HD 6870.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaged 60fps in Battlefield Bad Company 2 at 1920x1200, making it 14% slower than the GTX 570 and just 6% slower than the Radeon HD 6950. Meanwhile, it was 9% faster than the old GeForce GTX 470 and 2% slower than the Radeon HD 6870.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti was again found to be slower than the Radeon HD 6870 when testing with Splinter Cell Conviction at 1920x1200. Here the GTX 560 Ti was 5% slower than the Radeon HD 6870 and 9% slower than the HD 6950. Meanwhile it was 2% slower than the GeForce GTX 470 and 17% slower than the GTX 570.
The GTX 560 seems more of a match for the HD 6870 than for the HD 6950, its performance is inconsistent, and like I said previously Wreckage, look at the several links that I posted.
Do you actually believe results from a random poster instead of a website that dedicates itself to do hardware reviews? Talk about double standards here.... again
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...cking_review/3
When it comes down to performance it seems the overclock helped quite a bit. You should see around a 12-17% performance improvement with the video card overclocked to 1015MHz GPU/2030MHz shaders and 4.34GHz memory. At this overclock, it seems to match the Radeon HD 6950 quite well. That is the catch though, it takes pushing the Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 Ti GC to its limits in order to achieve Radeon HD 6950 performance.
We are operating the Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC at a very high voltage, and a whopping 135 more system Watts compared to the Radeon HD 6950. This higher voltage and higher power requirement also requires a robust cooling solution as the heat output increases also. The Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC uses a custom cooling device which works great. It has two big fans, and those two big fans were running at 100% automatically to make this overclock happen. We are reaching quite far with the GTX 560 Ti, reaching into its limits with power draw, thermal abilities, and clock frequencies. The point is, it takes all of this for the GTX 560 Ti to reach Radeon HD 6950 performance while the Radeon HD 6950 is sitting there nice and pretty running with a much lower power consumption, and at stock frequencies.
Can the GeForce GTX 560 Ti match Radeon HD 6950 performance? The answer is yes, but it takes running the GPU to its limits in order to do so; whereas the Radeon HD 6950 has headroom to grow. The Radeon HD 6950 can also be over-volted and overclocked with many manufacturers supporting custom coolers. The Radeon HD 6950 can be pushed farther, increasing its performance beyond the stock frequencies also. When that is done, performance once again turns in favor of the Radeon HD 6950. So what it means, in essence, is that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti will never honestly catch up to the Radeon HD 6950, cause the GTX 560 Ti is at its limits where the HD 6950 is just getting started.
Worth mentioning as well is that many Radeon 6950 owners have "unlocked" their cards to enabled 1536 stream processors while attaining stock 6970 core and memory speeds.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...onclusion.html
The first thing which we have to say about the Inno3D GTX 560 Ti is that out of the box it is the fastest version of this new GPU we have seen so far. It exceeds the speed offered by ASUS and Palit (as two examples) by 50MHz on the core which is a significant amount. Throughout the review it performed well when compared to the 6870 and often matches the 6950.
And it was ran stable at 1GHz, yet it couldn't outperform the HD 6950 consistently.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...i-1gb-review/9
As impressive as the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB’s stock-speed performance is, the MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II/OC improves upon this even further. The factory overclock might not be earth shattering, but it allows the card to close the gap to the GeForce GTX 570 1.3GB, and in some cases the two cards performed identically despite the £75 price difference.
He said in some cases, and considering that the HD 6970 is slightly faster than the GTX 570, means that you have to overclock the hell of the GTX 560 to 1GHz, increasing the power consumption and heat dissipation just to match the GTX 570 in rare circumstances? While it is impressive as is a cheaper card, does it worth the savings for increased power consumption, heat dissipations and chances to burn the card? Doubtfull, may be in your mind.
PS: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...total-war.html <<Look at that review, the HD 6950 constantly snipping the heels of the GTX 570, imagine the performance of such card unlocked and overclocked? It will easily beat the GTX 570.
The HD 6950 is the better card, period. Its performance matches the heavily overclocked GTX 560 which consumes over 135W more power for similar performance, dissipating more heat. So overclocking and unlocking an HD 6950 will simply underscore its supremacy against the GTX 560 OC edition. The artifacting issue only affects less than 5% of those SKUs and are related to PSU issues than videocard issues, specially when the HD 6970 doesn't consume a lot more power than the HD 6950. The HD 6950 is guaranteed to run unlocked at HD 6970 speeds, that's a lot of power, faster than the GTX 570!
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
From your own review - When compared against its immediate competition, the GTX 560 Ti simply steamrolls the HD 6870 1GB at the resolutions which most gamers use and even runs neck and neck with the higher priced HD 6950 1GB. These statistics may look great but its performance against the GTX 470 is what really shows the kind of strides NVIDIA has been making with their refreshed cards.
By now it should be obvious that a 2GB frame buffer just isnt needed on a card in the sub-$300 market but what this seems to be lacking is bandwidth. Even though the battle between the HD 6950 1GB and GTX 560 Ti swings back and forth from one game to the next, the NVIDIA card almost always looses out in bandwidth limited situations. In our opinion, GF114 has the Cayman Pro beat hands down from an architectural perspective but it lacks a real finishing punch at slightly higher resolutions.
Which means that overclocked, still not enough to outperform the HD 6950 convincingly, an overclocked HD 6950 will fare better.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
So your own "conclusion" (based on a stock card) that ignores their actual overclocked benchmark is not supported in their conclusion. In fact I wonder why you left this out of the quote.
the GTX 560 Ti even makes the $289 HD 6950 2GB look like an overpriced also-ran instead of a market leader.
In our opinion, the GTX 560 Ti is one of the best cards released in the last year or so. It is literally a perfect sub-$300 product which is quieter and more efficient than the competing AMD cards
Nice try though.
Last edited:
LiuKangBakinPie
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2011
- 3,903
- 0
- 0
They dropped the resolutions whoop a 16 percent performance increase Am I missing something here? 1080p is the border where the cpu still plays a part.
1. I dont see the test rig there. It couldve been a cpu running at 4.4ghz
2. If you want to test the gpu you keep it at 2580 resolutions where the cpu plays a little role.
That 16 percent performance increase aint from the OC of the cards alone. Its a combo of a OC CPU+OC GPU.
1. I dont see the test rig there. It couldve been a cpu running at 4.4ghz
2. If you want to test the gpu you keep it at 2580 resolutions where the cpu plays a little role.
That 16 percent performance increase aint from the OC of the cards alone. Its a combo of a OC CPU+OC GPU.
you make a good point Liu ... one of the best ways to see a cards performance is the 2580 res so the GPU does most the work. Although, if the card is not built to be used at that res then it kinda renders that res useless as a test basis.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
A more expensive video card with an $80 cooler on it? Has nothing to do with what I am talking about. /end thread.
This is offtopic. I would say take it to PM, but I know how some of you love attention. I won't take the bait any further. :thumbsdown:
Let the 11.2 discussions commence!
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=3867376
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
Now Wreckage, what can you say about it?
Now to underscore it.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...cking_review/3
When it comes down to performance it seems the overclock helped quite a bit. You should see around a 12-17% performance improvement with the video card overclocked to 1015MHz GPU/2030MHz shaders and 4.34GHz memory. At this overclock, it seems to match the Radeon HD 6950 quite well. That is the catch though, it takes pushing the Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 Ti GC to its limits in order to achieve Radeon HD 6950 performance.
http://techgage.com/article/amd_radeon_hd_6950_1gb/11
As we discovered in our launch article for NVIDIA's latest and greatest mid-range offering, AMD edged out just ahead and currently has the more attractive offering. It might cost $20 more, but it's a bit faster, and offers better power efficiency.
Edit: Bug squashed.
MLAA really works great on games like Mafia 2 and Borderlands. I will try it on Dead Space 2 as it uses the same stupid technique of Edge Blurrying as Mafia 2 to see if it makes a difference. In Mafia 2, MLAA wasn't very consistent, in some angles, it looked the same as the Mafia's 2 standard edge AA, but in other angles, it looked perfect, it still better than Mafia 2 AA though.
Last edited:
Apparently you fail at reading comprehension, the cooler included with a HD 6950 is perfectly capable of dissipating the heat put out by my 6950 overclocked, overvolted, and unlocked, the problem for me personally was that the fan profiles used by the HD 6950 is VERY assertive in a sense that it would allow the GPU temperatures to fly upto 80-90 degrees when I put it through Furmark, hence why I purchased the Shaman cooler. If you look at what the card is actually performing against, it shows a massive improvement in performance, at times matching a GTX 580 but mostly trails it by a couple FPS while consistently staying ahead of the 6970/GTX 570.
Even if I factor in 80$ for the cooler it comes out to be cheaper than a GTX 570:
260$ for the card
80$ for the cooler which is approximately 340$.
On sale the Cooler can go as low as 65$ (Saw it on Mwave I believe). And of course ebay has some from time to time at a discounted price, all in all you can get away with spending about 310$-320$ which is still significantly less than a GTX 580.
On top of that, at 1000 core the GTX 560 Ti is all but a lost memory as the HD 6950 jumps a "tier" so to speak to the next level - just like the GTX 560 jumps a "tier" to the GTX 570/6970 when OCed.
So all in all I am saying that ANY card, when OCed, can jump a "tier" to the next level of GPUs and there simply isn't anything amazing about the GTX 560 Ti beating a GTX 570/AMD 6970 when it is OCed.
We are just carrying over the awesomeness from the GTX 460 to the GTX 560 Ti, we have to remember at the time GTX 460 was released it reigned supreme in it's price bracket but GTX 560 Ti has a lot of formidable competition in the AMD 6950 1 GB/2GB and the 6870 which doesn't make the GTX 560 Ti a bad card, but simply does not warrant it to carry the "legendary" status that the GTX 460 earned and many of the people are trying to tag on to the GTX 560 Ti.
According to TPU readers who have responded with their success/failure rate, out of 471 who attempted the unlocking 13 (less than 3%) had rendering errors. 1 couldn't get their card to unlock at all. Doesn't seem like , "A lot of people", at all. I would be tempted to write most, if not all of that, to user error or cards that have other problems anyway.
http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159
AMD has had better drive than NV for some time now, imo. Some people still cling on to the "ATi 's drivers suck" mantra from the old days. Seems pretty funny to me that people are so ignorant.
yes they have had plenty of success, but have you seen the talks there about the cards dying or artifacting after a week or 2 of use.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter