Gtx560 confrmed at 820 core,launching on 25th,at 180 watts (KG)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
edit; if you look at the link you posted you will see the 6870 closes in on the 6950 at higher res. What load are you talking about?

Are we looking at the same graphs here?

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/images/perfrel_1024.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/images/perfrel_1280.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/images/perfrel_1680.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/images/perfrel_1920.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/images/perfrel_2560.gif

The gap widens.

Also, look at metro2033, Its 50% faster than a 6870 in the most demanding game there.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
I've noticed a pattern every time either AMD or NVDIA is close to releasing a new card. The card always costs just a bit more than the forum members predictions. I could almost believe that the companies read these message boards, read what people are willing to spend, and then add 5 to 10 percent just so potential buyers will say, "Hmmm, maybe i could scrape together a few more dollars."

OF course, the pricing could be determined by market researchers running advanced statistics as well. But that's crazy talk.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
I've noticed a pattern every time either AMD or NVDIA is close to releasing a new card. The card always costs just a bit more than the forum members predictions. I could almost believe that the companies read these message boards, read what people are willing to spend, and then add 5 to 10 percent just so potential buyers will say, "Hmmm, maybe i could scrape together a few more dollars."

OF course, the pricing could be determined by market researchers running advanced statistics as well. But that's crazy talk.

Don't give them any ideas.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
I've noticed a pattern every time either AMD or NVDIA is close to releasing a new card. The card always costs just a bit more than the forum members predictions. I could almost believe that the companies read these message boards, read what people are willing to spend, and then add 5 to 10 percent just so potential buyers will say, "Hmmm, maybe i could scrape together a few more dollars."

OF course, the pricing could be determined by market researchers running advanced statistics as well. But that's crazy talk.

I think your sig says it all.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126

1600x1050 is a 11% gap for the 6870

perfrel_1680.gif


1900X1080 IS A 12% GAP for the 6870 ,woopee a whole 1% more
perfrel_1920.gif


2500x1600 is a 3% more gap then @ 1900x1080, but who buys a gtx560 or 6870 to play at this res.?

If you look at the charts the gtx460 gets faster from 1600x1050 to 1900x1080

So to answer your question. No a gtx 560 will not lose a beat at LOAD to the 6950 in the 1900x1080 res. It should lose 5% at 2500x1600, but who buys a mid range card with a $1000 monitor?
Please don't start talking about the 2gb of ram that means absolutly nothing with a gpu this slow except for eyefinity..
 
Last edited:

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,274
41
91
1600x1050 is a 11% gap for the 6870

Click this bar to view the full image.

1900X1080 IS A 12% GAP for the 6870 ,woopee a whole 1% more
Click this bar to view the full image.

2500x1600 is a 3% more gap then @ 1900x1080, but who buys a gtx560 or 6870 to play at this res.?

If you look at the charts the gtx460 gets faster from 1600x1050 to 1900x1080

So to answer your question. No a gtx 560 will not lose a beat at LOAD to the 6950 in the 1900x1080 res. It should lose 5% at 2500x1600, but who buys a mid range card with a $1000 monitor?
Please don't start talking about the 2gb of ram that means absolutly nothing with a gpu this slow except for eyefinity..
Do you even know how to read those graphs? Earlier you clearly said the 6870 closes the gap to the 6950 and here you admit you are wrong... except you downplay it to some absurd degree.

And THEN you say "If you look at the charts the gtx460 gets faster from 1600x1050 to 1900x1080". What? No it doesn't. Relative to the 6950, the GTX 460 gets slower at higher resolutions. At 1680 it's 76%. At 1920 it's 73%. It gets slower, not faster.

GPUs this powerful can utilize more than 1GB of RAM, don't kid yourself. And with SLI/Crossfire, the VRAM is even more important.


Guys let's cool it with the rhetoric and hyperbole for a bit please. This is escalating and it needs to stop.

I'll be back to see if you guys heeded my warning.

Moderator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Well, if we are comparing to a 6950, people would use that card at 2560*1600. They'd also use it for multi-monitor. (Those are the reasons it has 2gig of RAM.) That's a benefit it has over the 6800's that commands a higher price. It will run at higher res.

The statement that the performance gap widens at higher res is accurate. I've seen the claim that one graphics card wipes the floor with another card over differences of a few %.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
So you're going to spend the next months recommending it in every thread and not buying one despite the great deals, only to start the cycle again when the 660 launches?

Using /ignore will save some bandwith :)


I think it will be a shame if the 560 doesn't come in right around the $200 mark.

We can already pay more for more performance with options greater than the GTX460, i'd like to see a performance increase in the GPU slot the 460 makes up.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Using /ignore will save some bandwith :)


I think it will be a shame if the 560 doesn't come in right around the $200 mark.

We can already pay more for more performance with options greater than the GTX460, i'd like to see a performance increase in the GPU slot the 460 makes up.

That makes more sense. If not then, just go out and buy a 5870 for ~$200, when the next deal pops up.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
GPUs this powerful can utilize more than 1GB of RAM, don't kid yourself. And with SLI/Crossfire, the VRAM is even more important

You were right about the gtx460 it is 3% slower , my bad.
The 6950 will not use 2gb of ram just like the 5870 could not, (there only 5% apart) this is where you are wrong. Except of coarse like I said with eyeinfinity.
 

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
The 6950 will not use 2gb of ram just like the 5870 could not, (there only 5% apart) this is where you are wrong. Except of coarse like I said with eyeinfinity.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

34628.png


With 2GB of RAM our AMD cards finally break out of the minimum framerate crash Crysis experiences with 1GB AMD cards.
 

badb0y

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2010
4,015
30
91
How come you keep mentioning OCing as a feature of GTX 560 yet you completely ignore the fact that 90% of AMD 6950s will unlock to a 6970? I am willing to bet you have a better chance of unlocking a 6950 than of OCing a GTX 560 given that AMD won't start laser cutting shaders ( IMO they will not do this, if they wanted they could have done this from the beginning).
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
How come you keep mentioning OCing as a feature of GTX 560 yet you completely ignore the fact that 90% of AMD 6950s will unlock to a 6970? I am willing to bet you have a better chance of unlocking a 6950 than of OCing a GTX 560 given that AMD won't start laser cutting shaders ( IMO they will not do this, if they wanted they could have done this from the beginning).

That, and we seem to be back on the, "It don't matter if it sucks @ 2560*1600" band wagon. If it's close to the price of a 6950, it'll be priced too high. The 6870 is the obvious target. Same performance for less money or better performance for the same money, or it serves no real purpose in the market, IMO.
 

calvin0416

Member
Jan 3, 2011
90
0
0
You think anyone from the NVIDIA marketing dept is reading this? :D
I bet they are. Hey you!, I know you're working for Jen!!

You better make it under 200!! Or we're not buying. Seriously.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
And this just goes back to what Happy was saying earlier: no one with a 2560x1600 monitor is going to buy a gtx560 and then run games with 4x AA. Just not going to happen.

Thats not even on enthusiast. Metro2033 and stalker and AVP will easily go over 1GB at 1920x1080 with 4xAA.

Or are you gonna tell me no one who will buy a gtx560 will play with AA? Crysis 2 could very well use more than 1gb at that res. Happy was wrong when he said it would never use more than 1gb of ram, no need to make excuses for him.

I'm not even going to start with the whole misreading the graphs.
 
Last edited:

kaytaro

Member
Mar 6, 2010
53
0
0
And this just goes back to what Happy was saying earlier: no one with a 2560x1600 monitor is going to buy a gtx560 and then run games with 4x AA. Just not going to happen.

I have a dell 30" and I have 2 460's in sli oc's to 900mhz at 2560x1600. I have no problems at all even with 4x AA on. The only game that give me trouble with any AA is FFXIV. I looked at picking up 2 6950's but i can justify it. I had to cross reference benchmarks because i cant find one with 460's in sli @ 2560x1600 vs any of these new cards.

Also in heaven benchmark I can match what people get for dual 470's.

oh and btw I'm gonna buy 2 560's and i know I will be very happy.
 
Last edited:

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,110
1,260
126
I have a dell 30" and I have 2 460's in sli oc's to 900mhz at 2560x1600. I have no problems at all even with 4x AA on. The only game that give me trouble with any AA is FFXIV. I looked at picking up 2 6950's but i can justify it. I had to cross reference benchmarks because i cant find one with 460's in sli @ 2560x1600 vs any of these new cards.

Also in heaven benchmark I can match what people get for dual 470's.

oh and btw I'm gonna buy 2 560's and i know I will be very happy.

Nonsense, I had two 5870s on a 30" screen and constantly ran into VRAM bottlenecks using AA in many games.

And the 5870s have the same VRAM as your cards, but were more powerful overall.

Crysis, Metro, Stalker are three titles I can say 100% need more than 1GB of VRAM at 2560x1600.

I'm not sure where you are getting your context on your experience gaming at that resolution with 1GB from, there are also endless benchmarks that show 1GB as a huge bottleneck for 2560x1600.

I would have to assume that you are not running games on their highest settings, as well as not using AA in demanding titles, such as the ones I listed before; in order to feel the way you do about 1GB being enough.
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,274
41
91
You were right about the gtx460 it is 3% slower , my bad.
The 6950 will not use 2gb of ram just like the 5870 could not, (there only 5% apart) this is where you are wrong. Except of coarse like I said with eyeinfinity.

5% difference is a difference, so even by your own claim the 5870 could indeed use more than 1GB of VRAM. Are games going to use the entire 2GB? No, but there are situations where games will use more than 1GB and that is the issue here. And the 6950 is faster than the 5870.

If you run into the 1GB limit there will be a hard crash in framerates. It will probably only be momentary, and as such wouldn't reflect heavily on average framerates. This is where time graphs would help us understand the benefits of extra VRAM.

This is going to turn out exactly like the 4870 512MB vs 1GB. The 512MB definitely provided and still provides acceptable performance, but the 1GB just provides a much more consistent performance and is much better suited for Crossfire. But it's not going to turn out as bad as the 256MB 8800GT vs 512MB - where the 256MB fell of the wagon so quickly.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
81

I certainly doubt that in modern games, the GTX 560 at stock can really match the HD 6950, the GTX 460 was quite behind of the HD 5850, an unlocked one plus higher clocks without architectural tweaks can give you some good gains, but not enough to even match the HD 5870, but it is a midrange card, we can't expect GTX 580 performance plus due to the partially superscalar approach of the GF104 aka GF114, the performance gains are more unpredictable.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
5% difference is a difference, so even by your own claim the 5870 could indeed use more than 1GB of VRAM. Are games going to use the entire 2GB? No, but there are situations where games will use more than 1GB and that is the issue here. And the 6950 is faster than the 5870.

i think you missed some of the conversation, we were talking about 1920x1080 res.
So you do think you need 2gb of ram for this res. or is 1gb sufficient?
If we now need 2gb of ram for 1080P, what game was the turning point? Did I miss something?

I have been told up until about 2 weeks ago that no modern card at 1920x1080 4xAA needs more then 1 gb of ram for todays games. True or false?
 
Last edited: