• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GTX570 vs GTX560Ti 448 vs 6950 vs 7850

zijin_cheng

Member
May 11, 2012
183
3
81
This is yet another thread on the above 4 cards.

Right now in Canada there is a "sale"

Galaxy GTX570 732MHz, 3.8Ghz $239
Gigabyte GTX560Ti 448 $259 regular price,probs go down to $229 soon
XFX 6950 $229
Various 7850s $259 regular price, also down to $229 soon

Since they are all about the same price, which one do you recommend I get? I know the geforces have 1.2Gb which is not as future proof as the 2gb 6940 or 7850. However, which ones are better stock and which ones perform better when OCed?
If all of them are stock, what is the hierarchy of fastness between these cards?

Oh yes, I bought an IB, if PCI 3.0 ever factors into this discussion

Also, another thing to take into consideration is that when I look for deals on a certain card, eg a 6950, I get the cheapest one no matter which dealer it came from (except powercolour), is that a bad way to go about things? I mean why pay $50 more for a card with a super cooler if you not gonna overclock like a boss?
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
Wut, 3.8GHz 570? You want that one. Oh that's the ram :thumbsup:

I'd either wait for the 7850 to come down in price, or get the 570 at those prices.
 

zijin_cheng

Member
May 11, 2012
183
3
81
Wut, 3.8GHz 570? You want that one. Oh that's the ram :thumbsup:

I'd either wait for the 7850 to come down in price, or get the 570 at those prices.
http://www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=67660&vpn=57NKH3HS4GXK&manufacture=Galaxy Technology&promoid=1069

here is the link, what so great about a 3.8Ghz anyway? arent 6950s clocked at 5.0Ghz stock anyways?

and when you say come down in price do you mean like a 1 time super sale or the nonsale prices get lowered like forever?
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
Nothing, ram speed pretty much meaningless here.

The 570 is faster than the 7850 at stock, overclocked they'd both be pretty close but I'd give the edge to the 7850.

7850 has more vram, and better perf/watt.

I wouldn't consider the 6950 that those prices.

Actually I'd get the 7850 probably, but I'd wait for a sale price that is considerably closer to $200.


Stock performance 570 > 448 > 7850 > 6950.

Overclocked performance 7850 > 570 > 448 > 6950 Hard to say here, because a lot of the 7850s performance from overclocking really depends on the card. If you get a dud it might actually be slower than a decent 570 and on par with a 448, however if you get a good one I'd give it the edge by a few percent.
 
Last edited:

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
7
91
7850. There is no other card worth consideration between $150 and $350.
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
Stock vs stock 570 is 5%+ faster when VRAM is not an issue. Once both are Oced there is no competition, 570 oc < 580 stock. 7850 oc = 580 oc plus 2 gb VRAM
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
1.28GB is typically enough vram for cards of this performance caliber in gaming. In fact I'd go so far as to say the fact that AMD gives more is just part of their marketing.



Granted there are a few exceptions, Skyrim with a ton of unneeded 4k mods for instance. However given the actual performance the cards in question can actually provide the vram nvidia offers is practical, while as with the 6xxx series, it was pure marketing.



1GB 5850 CF is only able to produce 60 FPS in BF3 without AA at 1920x1200. Having more vram would not have helped here, because the cards are simply incapable of running high enough fps with AA in the first place, just as the single 670 is, despite it's 2GB of vram it has no actual benefit.

There are times when having more vram is a benefit, but they're an exception to the rule and not something that should ultimately be used when making a purchasing choice. Most notably when you increase your gpu power, for instance in CF or SLI, more vram can be a benefit - the additional gpu power may allow higher modes of AA which are quite costly for their benefit. Extreme resolutions with multiple - three to four card setups can and should also factor in vram as well.

If you are considering SLI or CF down the road then the 2GB of the 7850 should play a small role in your decision making, however then so too should the current state of AMD's woeful CF support. The biggest difference here is going to be cost/price, the Nvidia cards are providing similar performance at a lower initial cost. However they will cost more to operate. It could take a long time to make up the initial cost difference, or it may not, that would depend on your usage. However it is probably the biggest difference between your options.
 
Last edited:

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
Games which will be released in the next 9-18 months will need at least 1.5-2gb to max out, at least some intensive games. They just done need it right now. Just like a 768mb 460 is no loner enou while a 1gb one is much better
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/509?vs=518

Already started to happen with 570, till 1080p the 6970 is way behind, but 570 fps are halved sorts at 1600p while 6970 drops just 30% or so which makes the 6970 playable while the 570 isn't playable

Currently it is this game at 1600p without mods

Within 12-18 months there will be at least 3-5 games and some perhaps even at 1080p with or without msaa perhaps.

But 2gb will last you a good 1-1.5+ years comfortably for sure
 

Dark Shroud

Golden Member
Mar 26, 2010
1,576
0
0
Granted there are a few exceptions, Skyrim with a ton of unneeded 4k mods for instance.
So you've been appointed the high king of gaming and now dictate how people should play and mod their games?

However given the actual performance the cards in question can actually provide the vram nvidia offers is practical, while as with the 6xxx series, it was pure marketing.
And you're spouting pure BS. The HD 6900 cards run Skyrim pretty well thanks to the extra memory when paired with a nice CPU.

It's always a gimmick or not needed until Nvidia does it.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/509?vs=518

Already started to happen with 570, till 1080p the 6970 is way behind, but 570 fps are halved sorts at 1600p while 6970 drops just 30% or so which makes the 6970 playable while the 570 isn't playable

Currently it is this game at 1600p without mods

Within 12-18 months there will be at least 3-5 games and some perhaps even at 1080p with or without msaa perhaps.

But 2gb will last you a good 1-1.5+ years comfortably for sure
?? If it's vram limited the fps tank, 9 at best, 2-3 most likely..

GF110 is texture (edit: fillrate) limited, going from 1080p to 1600p just adds more textures. It has nothing to do with vram.

Vram will go up, your gpu power will not. What uses vram isn't what makes games demanding, texture packs do not reduce performance.

Point I'm trying to make here is that Nvidia has enough vram for the gpu power they have, which is actually more at stock than the 7850 provides.

Could there come a time when an extra 500-750mb of vram might allow the 7850 to run slightly better looking textures? Sure, but there will not come a time when what actually makes games demanding run better on the 7850 than it would the 570 or 448.
 
Last edited:

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
136
106
Running a 7850 at 1200mhz just to match a 580 is iffy on stock cooling and you'll eat into those power consumption gains pretty good. 570/448 are a bad idea because they're vram limited .... tough call. 6950 is out of the question considering the 7850 is the same price. I wouldn't buy any of those cards right now, but if I *HAD* to I'd just grab the 7850 and crossfire in a year when they're selling for $100.
 

T_Yamamoto

Lifer
Jul 6, 2011
14,999
772
126
Running a 7850 at 1200mhz just to match a 580 is iffy on stock cooling and you'll eat into those power consumption gains pretty good. 570/448 are a bad idea because they're vram limited .... tough call. 6950 is out of the question considering the 7850 is the same price. I wouldn't buy any of those cards right now, but if I *HAD* to I'd just grab the 7850 and crossfire in a year when they're selling for $100.
+1 same
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
Even if you forget the VRAM point, 7850 OC beats a GTX 580 stock and competes with 580 OC. A 570 OC loses to 580 stock leave alone competing with 580 OC. I would anyway choose in this order;
7850>560 Ti 448>6970>570>6950 2gb>560 Ti (not 448)
 

Jaydip

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,691
20
81
Even if you forget the VRAM point, 7850 OC beats a GTX 580 stock and competes with 580 OC. A 570 OC loses to 580 stock leave alone competing with 580 OC. I would anyway choose in this order;
7850>560 Ti 448>6970>570>6950 2gb>560 Ti (not 448)
If memory serves me right 570 is faster than 560 Ti 448 only if slightly.
 

Jaydip

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,691
20
81
So you've been appointed the high king of gaming and now dictate how people should play and mod their games?



And you're spouting pure BS. The HD 6900 cards run Skyrim pretty well thanks to the extra memory when paired with a nice CPU.

It's always a gimmick or not needed until Nvidia does it.
That's entirely untrue.If u run Skyrim with a 2 GB 6450 will it run fine?The memory bandwidth is far more important than extra memory.The 6900 cards run it fine because of their strong GPU not because of extra vram.Well unless AMD collaborates more with the game devs NV is pretty much running the show.So yeah NV dictates what u will need for some time.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
If memory serves me right 570 is faster than 560 Ti 448 only if slightly.
They're all about 5% slower clock for clock.

580 -5% = 570 -5% = 448 (clock for clock)

Both the 570 and 448 can pretty easily exceed stock 580 performance.

Pretty much all GF110 are going to cap out between 900 and 950 on air, leaving the difference between a 570 OC 5% slower than a 580 OC, and a 448 OC about 5% slower than the 570 OC and 10% slower than the 570 OC.

One of my 470s on water at 950 core is easily within a few hundredth points of a 1300Mhz 7850 - it's also faster than a 580 stock at those clocks, but slower than a 580 @ 950MHz by about 10%.

So my thought is 448 at a high OC would be right around 7850 OC performance, a 570 should be as fast, if not faster but only ever so slightly, while a 580 would probably be faster but not a whole heck of a lot. They're all going to EoL around the same time vram won't make a bit of difference when the rendering loads continue to increase through various DX11 technique improvements. Which is a seperate issue than vram, which basically holds textures and the difference in IQ between 700mb isn't going to be earth shattering, there are diminishing IQ returns to consider. Which follows the same principle of the other settings such as shadows and lighting, the difference between very high and high and even medium is minor, but the performance impact is quite large.


Then again since we're talking overclocking there isn't much assurance for any of them, a 7850 is slightly slower than a 448 at stock though I'm pretty sure of it - and that's the only guaranteed speed you get.
 
Last edited:

zijin_cheng

Member
May 11, 2012
183
3
81
That's entirely untrue.If u run Skyrim with a 2 GB 6450 will it run fine?The memory bandwidth is far more important than extra memory.The 6900 cards run it fine because of their strong GPU not because of extra vram.Well unless AMD collaborates more with the game devs NV is pretty much running the show.So yeah NV dictates what u will need for some time.
So that's my question. Will it be more future proof to get the 7850 with 2gb vram so that in future games when textures become "bigger", the 7850 actually has a serious performance advantage considering right now their performance is quite equal? Or at this level of graphics cards the speed of the cards is more the limiting factor than the RAM?

Because I was the "foremost expert" on graphics cards back in the 9600GT, 5200FX days. Because I am still the most familiar with them, I will attempt to give an example. A 9600GT 512mb and a 3850 1gb during their time, 512mb was more than enough. By the time games required more than 1gb to run, the 3850 was already too outdated and slow to even use that 1gb effectively, so I might as well get the 9600GT if its 5% faster. Correct?

?? If it's vram limited the fps tank, 9 at best, 2-3 most likely..

GF110 is texture (edit: fillrate) limited, going from 1080p to 1600p just adds more textures. It has nothing to do with vram.

Vram will go up, your gpu power will not. What uses vram isn't what makes games demanding, texture packs do not reduce performance.

Point I'm trying to make here is that Nvidia has enough vram for the gpu power they have, which is actually more at stock than the 7850 provides.

Could there come a time when an extra 500-750mb of vram might allow the 7850 to run slightly better looking textures? Sure, but there will not come a time when what actually makes games demanding run better on the 7850 than it would the 570 or 448.
Also, I'm much more familiar with CPU OC than GPU OC. Is there much different? Which is easier? If GPU OC is too hard or dangerous then I won't overclock and go with the fastest stock.

Also, which card do you think will drop the fastest? Also, when someone I forget who mentioned to wait for a card, well i just bought a barebones dessktop with no card, and I would wait if its maybe a month or so, but you mean wait for the gtx660?
 
Last edited:

Jaydip

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,691
20
81
So that's my question. Will it be more future proof to get the 7850 with 2gb vram so that in future games when textures become "bigger", the 7850 actually has a serious performance advantage considering right now their performance is quite equal? Or at this level of graphics cards the speed of the cards is more the limiting factor than the RAM?

Because I was the "foremost expert" on graphics cards back in the 9600GT, 5200FX days. Because I am still the most familiar with them, I will attempt to give an example. A 9600GT 512mb and a 3850 1gb during their time, 512mb was more than enough. By the time games required more than 1gb to run, the 3850 was already too outdated and slow to even use that 1gb effectively, so I might as well get the 9600GT if its 5% faster. Correct?



Also, I'm much more familiar with CPU OC than GPU OC. Is there much different? Which is easier? If GPU OC is too hard or dangerous then I won't overclock and go with the fastest stock.

Also, which card do you think will drop the fastest? Also, when someone I forget who mentioned to wait for a card, well i just bought a barebones dessktop with no card, and I would wait if its maybe a month or so, but you mean wait for the gtx660?
U are spot on.
 

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
136
106
Nope. A highly oced 7850 is still less power consuming than a 570 oc or 580, much less.
And a big part of that is because 7850's are slower, my 480 beats a 1200mhz 7850 at anything. Lower power, lower performance in this case. 7850's get smacked around pretty hard by 580's in a *lot* of titles, and a 570 is only 32 shaders shy of being a full blow 580 so they're not that much different performance wise, oc'd or not.

You'd need a 7870 to match 570/580 performance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY