Keep Gigabyte 560 Ti 900Mhz OC? or send back to wait on 79XX's?

[JBT]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125363

My wife and I just had our x-mas (early due to traveling to see family on the real x-mas)

Any way she got me the video card above. I am stoked as I've got a 4980. Though I was really planning on waiting for the 7950 or maybe even 70... Its still sealed in the package... she would be okay with sending it back as she knows I'm very particular and had mentioned the 79XX series a few times (after she had ordered unknown to me of course)

I run the system in my sig and run at 1080p. I like high quality settings when I game, the past few years has been rough on any of the newer titles.

I play mostly Lord Of The Rings: Online but I've recently gotten BF3, and possibly Skryrim and DIII in the future.

Don't get me wrong its an awesome card, I was just looking to try to stay ahead of the curve. I don't get to upgrade my rig very often anymore... Like once every 3-4 years. (I just got the new mobo, cpu, ram, a month ago)


So what do you all think? send it back and wait it out another couple of days/weeks? I also got in one the $20 for $40 newegg coupon the other day but she didn't make use of it.

 

[lavaheadache]

Good Card...


I would want more though

 

[JBT]

I know that's where i'm at too. I am really tempted to open it up and use it, but being so close to quite a bit faster cards right on the horizon is too tough!

 

[T_Yamamoto]

i would keep it.

its from your wife.

a happy wife is a happy family

 

[Majcric]

Lol, I would wait until nvidia releases newer drivers to see if they can get their fermi architecture staightened out, as of right now, it is problematic for many users.

Edit: another thing I should mention with the 1gb vram it will only play bf3 on the high settings, not ultra.

 

[tviceman]

Lol, I would wait until nvidia releases newer drivers to see if they can get their fermi architecture staightened out, as of right now, it is problematic for many users.

Edit: another thing I should mention with the 1gb vram it will only play bf3 on the high settings, not ultra.

The drivers are fine, and 1gb VRAM will not limit him from playing on Ultra. Overall GPU performance will though. The only two cards that can play BF3 on all ULTRA settings with decent frame rates are slightly OC'd gtx570 and gtx580. But even the gtx570 will have slow down sometimes in the multiplayer.

OP: Hold on to it until the 7900's come out. If the price rumors are true, then you'll have to pay almost double what you got the gtx560ti for. Overclock your current card some more and have some fun with it.

 

[chimaxi83]

1gb won't limit him from ultra? When ultra on my (and everyone elses) 2gb card sometimes utilizes ~1.8gb? Try playing ultra settings at 1080p and let me know how it performs.

Now, if you're talking about no MSAA, then that 560ti will work fine, averaging maybe 45-55 at 1080p. But no MSAA means its not ultra

 

[wand3r3r]

The drivers are fine, and 1gb VRAM WILL limit him from playing on Ultra with ANY AA. Overall GPU performance will though. The only two cards that can play BF3 on all ULTRA settings with decent frame rates are slightly OC'd gtx570 and gtx580. But even the gtx570 will have slow down sometimes in the multiplayer.

OP: Hold on to it until the 7900's come out. If the price rumors are true, then you'll have to pay almost double what you got the gtx560ti for. Overclock your current card some more and have some fun with it.

My gtx 560 ti 1 gb memory is full (= limitation) and cannot run everything on ultra. Granted enabling AA drops the framerates so I don't use it, but 1 GB is not enough for maxed settings.
@1680x1050 with a couple settings reduced but otherwise the rest ultra will play smoothly and is from 45-120 FPS averaging probably over 70.

 

[Crap Daddy]

First, the 7950 will be much more expensive than your current card, let alone the 7970. Those 2 cards will be considerably better than what you have now still unpacked. They will be available maybe in one month. At the same pricepoint as the 560Ti we really don't know now what performance the new Radeons will have. You decide.

 

[wand3r3r]

First, the 7950 will be much more expensive than your current card, let alone the 7970. Those 2 cards will be considerably better than what you have now still unpacked. They will be available maybe in one month. At the same pricepoint as the 560Ti we really don't know now what performance the new Radeons will have. You decide.

Exactly... The HD 7950 price will at least be 60% more minimally $350 (vs. ~$200 gtx 560 ti). Rumors are flying everywhere even putting it up to $500 but even if it ends up at $350 the performance will need to justify the extra cash. It very well may be 2x faster then the 560 ti but are you willing to pay double vs. the 560?

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Exactly... The HD 7950 price will at least be 60% more minimally $350 (vs. ~$200 gtx 560 ti). Rumors are flying everywhere even putting it up to $500 but even if it ends up at $350 the performance will need to justify the extra cash. It very well may be 2x faster then the 560 ti but are you willing to pay double vs. the 560?

sli 560 tis :$

 

[wand3r3r]

sli 560 tis :$

Yeah, but even then when the FPS gets high enough, you still can't enable AA fully. The 1 GB limitation still exists.

 

[lavaheadache]

Yeah, but even then when the FPS gets high enough, you still can't enable AA fully. The 1 GB limitation still exists.

I have a 460 sli setup that can't run AA @ 1080p in Skyrim with texture mods, not even 2xAA. Lets not even get started on my U3011.

 

[Puppies04]

OP said he liked to run on high settings, why people are talking about ultra i really don't know. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference beteween the 2 90% of the time even though it needs 50% more GPU to run it.

Keep the card, if you want a faster card return it and buy a 570/580 but at the moment the 560ti is the sweet spot on price/performance

 

[JBT]

I REALLY like AA. So if the 1GB is going to limit it that much I think I am going to wait. $350 or higher doesn't scare me on the new cards. I've spent more than that in the past on new cards. If its much more than that well maybe I'll check out the 78xx's.

 

[Grooveriding]

I REALLY like AA. So if the 1GB is going to limit it that much I think I am going to wait. $350 or higher doesn't scare me on the new cards. I've spent more than that in the past on new cards. If its much more than that well maybe I'll check out the 78xx's.

I love AA too. Return and get a card with more memory and more power and take the wife out for a nice meal in case it does bother her and she's not saying so.

As far as BF3, a 1GB card is not good enough to run the game on Ultra with no AA, much less if you want to try and use MSAA. That said, if you are after that, you need not only more memory but a more powerful card as well.

 

[tviceman]

1gb won't limit him from ultra? When ultra on my (and everyone elses) 2gb card sometimes utilizes ~1.8gb? Try playing ultra settings at 1080p and let me know how it performs.

Now, if you're talking about no MSAA, then that 560ti will work fine, averaging maybe 45-55 at 1080p. But no MSAA means its not ultra

Battlefield 3 utilizes as much vram as is available to it.

My gtx 560 ti 1 gb memory is full (= limitation) and cannot run everything on ultra. Granted enabling AA drops the framerates so I don't use it, but 1 GB is not enough for maxed settings.
@1680x1050 with a couple settings reduced but otherwise the rest ultra will play smoothly and is from 45-120 FPS averaging probably over 70.

I really don't feel like searching the web for BF3 benchmarks, but find some with SLI results and you will see that a gtx560ti in SLI gets very good scaling with ultra settings up to 1920x1080. If the card was hitting a vram wall, it wouldn't scale with any significance.

 

[toyota]

Battlefield 3 utilizes as much vram as is available to it.



I really don't feel like searching the web for BF3 benchmarks, but find some with SLI results and you will see that a gtx560ti in SLI gets very good scaling with ultra settings up to 1920x1080. If the card was hitting a vram wall, it wouldn't scale with any significance.

at 1920x1080, if you turn on AA its done though and performance will drop significantly.

 

[IAteYourMother]

keep it and make your wife happy. It's worth it rather than the hit you'd take by reselling that 560ti down the road.

 

[lavaheadache]

OP said he liked to run on high settings, why people are talking about ultra i really don't know. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference beteween the 2 90% of the time even though it needs 50% more GPU to run it.

Keep the card, if you want a faster card return it and buy a 570/580 but at the moment the 560ti is the sweet spot on price/performance

lol, He didn't specify "high" settings specifically. He said He likes to play with high settings. Most people would take that as to mean the top click in the settings menu, not some generic term a developer uses to denote the highest.

They could have used the term soooper doooper.

 

[wand3r3r]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The pricing on the 7970 doesn't seem to be much of a mystery anymore. 500euros without tax, 625 with tax.

 

[wand3r3r]

Battlefield 3 utilizes as much vram as is available to it.



I really don't feel like searching the web for BF3 benchmarks, but find some with SLI results and you will see that a gtx560ti in SLI gets very good scaling with ultra settings up to 1920x1080. If the card was hitting a vram wall, it wouldn't scale with any significance.

Ultra without AA, but not technically ultra. Speaking from experience. If it can't handle 1680x1050 it certainly can't handle 1920x1080 with the default AA in ultra. Well, I guess it never drops below 30 or so with 2xAA but certainly stutters in large maps with action.

Maybe in some benchmarks in single player mode, or certain maps, but not across the game.