Official GTX560 Review Thread (updated with 17 reviews at this time)

[cusideabelincoln]

Hmmm.. according to their conclusion.

That doesn't contradict anything Skurge said.

And look at the 6870 Black Edition (an overclock any 6870 should achieve) is ahead of the 560 Ti in their index, and it's quieter.

Now that's impressive performance from a 255mm^ chip.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The power consumption, temps, and noise, are mostly acceptable for all these cards until you overclock. This is where the gtx560 pulls ahead.

I think we can all accept that.?

No, we can't, because there has not been any solid, consistent, or thorough evidence to support this. So far the closest thing to go by is the TechReport review, which has the Gigabyte card actually using more power (at it's stock overclock) than the reference GTX 570. And it's using much more power than a 6970.

So an overclocked GTX 560 needs similar a GTX 570 to get similar performance. An overclocked (or unlocked) 6950 should follow the same trend: It will use similar power consumption to get similar performance to the 6970. Thus if the 6970 uses less power than a GTX 570, then an overclocked 6950 will need less power than an overclocked 560. This is a theory from a decent TR review, not some shoddy Guru3D review (not that the entire review is bad, but parts of it - the parts you are using - are).

And of course everything has to be taken with an asterisk, because not all cards are the same and your mileage will vary with both vendors. But clearly the trend shows AMD having better performance per watt.

 

[Trombe]

Picked up one of those Galaxy GTX460 768MB and didn't open it yet because I wanted to see how the 560 would turn out. At 1680x1050 (paired with a Phenom II X4 @3.5GHz) I take it there's no real reason to return it to grab a 560?

 

[happy medium]

No, that's for the specially binned gigabyte card, not the average 560.

300W for a "maximum overclocked, overvolted 6950"? What exactly is that a 1.5v 1500mhz overclock?

Seems a bit odd that you would compare an overvolted card with a stock volted card.

FYI a 6950 will do over 900mhz with stock volts IIRC.

We were talking about the gtx SOC and its great price/performance, thats why used it as a example. And who says they are specially binned? Gota link?

300 watts was for a 6950 at 1060 core, at 1.4 volts. Thats maximum voltage and max overclock.

Yes some 6950's will do over 900 on stock volts , but to get them higher you REALLY have to give them voltage and this is the problem.

My point was you can max both the 6950 and gtx560 's clocks and the gtx560 will come out ahead in every category, price ,performance, noise, temps.

I believe overclock vs overclock the gtx560 IS the better card.

 

[happy medium]

Picked up one of those Galaxy GTX460 768MB and didn't open it yet because I wanted to see how the 560 would turn out. At 1680x1050 (paired with a Phenom II X4 @3.5GHz) I take it there's no real reason to return it to grab a 560?

Na your good. Did you pick it up for 110$ or less?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Picked up one of those Galaxy GTX460 768MB and didn't open it yet because I wanted to see how the 560 would turn out. At 1680x1050 (paired with a Phenom II X4 @3.5GHz) I take it there's no real reason to return it to grab a 560?

Well the 560 will certainly be faster, but not by a huge margin:

Roughly 33% faster. It's probably not worth the 100% price increase, unless you really need extra performance.

 

[busydude]

And who says they are specially binned? Gota link?

You cannot be serious. How else could they OC that chip at 'stock voltages' that you were referring to.

 

[happy medium]

LOL, are you still using 195 watts that Guru3D got as Gospel? Their power consumption testing methodology is a joke compared to other sites.

So far you have been giving BAD REVIEWS EXCUSES for every good point we have for the gtx560.

Does this mean everytime a AMD card loses, your OPINION about a web sites testing methods is gona be your excuse?

Stop derailing our thread with this opinionated crap please .
Thanks

 

[Skurge]

We were talking about the gtx SOC and its great price/performance, thats why used it as a example. And who says they are specially binned? Gota link?

300 watts was for a 6950 at 1060 core, at 1.4 volts. Thats maximum voltage and max overclock.

Yes some 6950's will do over 900 on stock volts , but to get them higher you REALLY have to give them voltage and this is the problem.

My point was you can max both the 6950 and gtx560 's clocks and the gtx560 will come out ahead in every category, price ,performance, noise, temps.

I believe overclock vs overclock the gtx560 IS the better card.

Like most of these card makers, Gigabyte cites several factors that purportedly contribute to its product's superiority over the average reference design. Those include higher-quality components, rigorous testing of chips during their sorting into different speed grades

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20293/13

No, thats false. a 1hgz 560 barely beats a stock 6950.

If you want to talk about the SOC only then fine. The 6950 is cheaper, uses less power, is also quieter.

If you want to talk about the 560 in general. A 900mhz 6950 with stock volts, is faster and uses less power than a 1ghz 560.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_asus_gtx560ti/5.htm

 

[Trombe]

Na your good. Did you pick it up for 110$ or less?

It was one of the $110 AR deals, yes. I'm only considering the move because I don't like to think of AR prices but rather what comes out of pocket. That still makes it $150 vs $250 though. Thanks for the advice; I'll just hang onto this and enjoy it for what it is until it's rebuild time around Ivy Bridge or so.

 

[happy medium]

You cannot be serious. How else could they OC that chip at 'stock voltages' that you were referring to.

I'm no engineer, ask Gigabyte. Binned or not they are avalable and at 1000 core for cheap. Who cares if they are binned, show me a factory overclocked (binned) 6950 @ 1000 core and I'll give it a best buy award also.

 

[Wreckage]

Two failures here:

1. Xbit is using a synthetic test, OCCT, and that is not indicative of the real world because Nvidia artificially limits their cards under OCCT:

Anandtech was using Furmark, which AMD limits their cards under.

So...nope.

 

[Skurge]

I'm no engineer, ask Gigabyte. Binned or not they are avalable and at 1000 core for cheap. Who cares if they are binned, show me a factory overclocked (binned) 6950 @ 1000 core and I'll give it a best buy award also.

I don't know how you can say the SOC is best buy when it cost more than a 6950 and is about neck and neck with it except a few select games. The 6950 is also faster in a a few other games. The SOC might be faster overall, but it also costs more. It also has NO headroom. The 6950 has about 200mhz to give.

I would say its a wash between the two cards.

 

[Skurge]

I also think the reason the 560 doesn't scale so well with overclocks its because of its limited bandwidth.

 

[SolMiester]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20293/13

No, thats false. a 1hgz 560 barely beats a stock 6950.

If you want to talk about the SOC only then fine. The 6950 is cheaper, uses less power, is also quieter.

If you want to talk about the 560 in general. A 900mhz 6950 with stock volts, is faster and uses less power than a 1ghz 560.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_asus_gtx560ti/5.htm

Not according to Teaktown reviews...its has the SOC all over an OC 6950, i wont bother putting up the graphic, you can check for yourself....
edit - your talking about reference..nevermind

 

[busydude]

I'm no engineer, ask Gigabyte.

Each chip is different from the other.. which include stock voltages and OC head room.

 

[happy medium]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20293/13

No, thats false. a 1hgz 560 barely beats a stock 6950.

If you want to talk about the SOC only then fine. The 6950 is cheaper, uses less power, is also quieter.

If you want to talk about the 560 in general. A 900mhz 6950 with stock volts, is faster and uses less power than a 1ghz 560.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_asus_gtx560ti/5.htm

Waaaaaaa the chips are binned, waaaaaa it uses 10 more watts, waaaaa the review is bad, waaaaa it cost 13$ more.

Pleeeease, the gtx560 SOC is a excellent value with performance up to a gtx570, runs cool, runs quiet even when overclocked, is power efficient, will overclock well beyond 1000 core, and cost 13$ more then a 6950 1gb.

Those are the facts and if the 6950 does not get a price drop soon it will be a exspensive fact for AMD and there market share.

 

[happy medium]

Each chip is different from the other.. which include stock voltages and OC head room.

ok I agree. Now go email AMD and tell them to sell some binned 6950 cards at 1000 core for 275$, then we all will be happy.

or they need a price drop.

Fair is fair. until then, the 6950 loses in my opinion.

edit: now excuse me I'm expecting a wall of text from some fanboys.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

So far you have been giving BAD REVIEWS EXCUSES for every good point we have for the gtx560.

Does this mean everytime a AMD card loses, your OPINION about a web sites testing methods is gona be your excuse?

Stop derailing our thread with this opinionated crap please .
Thanks

What? You have to be joking. Have you even looked at the Guru3D testing methods? They aren't bad, they simply aren't consistent.

Actually, forget that. Their method isn't that bad; I was mistaken here. They even claim it's an "ESTIMATED TDP" yet you are using it like it's official, and it's not. This is the real issue I have. It's with you, and not with Guru3D. To get TDP you have to measure the card by itself under a situation where the drivers aren't throttling the card, and this is what TechPowerUP does (and Xbitlabs does not, since they use OCCT [EDIT: I was mistaken, they test both OCCT and Crysis, but they don't show any of the detailed graphs for their 6950 results).

The TechReport numbers are contradictory to Guru3D's findings, and I simply find them more consistent because they actually tested everything under the same conditions at the same time for their review, if you look at it. Besides, Guru3D still shows the 6950 using less power than the 560, but they don't show any overclocked figures so you can't really make your claims of certainty like you are doing.

If I were a dick I'd point out you haven't countered any of the real arguments I've made. Oh wait, I am dick .

It's not really a de-rail. I'm simply calling you out and providing counter-points to what you're saying, because what you're claiming isn't indicative of reality. What I'm doing is a reality check.

We were talking about the gtx SOC and its great price/performance, thats why used it as a example. And who says they are specially binned? Gota link?

300 watts was for a 6950 at 1060 core, at 1.4 volts. Thats maximum voltage and max overclock.

Yes some 6950's will do over 900 on stock volts , but to get them higher you REALLY have to give them voltage and this is the problem.

My point was you can max both the 6950 and gtx560 's clocks and the gtx560 will come out ahead in every category, price ,performance, noise, temps.

I believe overclock vs overclock the gtx560 IS the better card.

Well now the fun begins. Let's look at some consistent numbers:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_6950_Twin_Frozr_II/31.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti/30.html

The 6950 goes from 950 MHz to 1030 MHz. System power goes from 365W to 515W.

The 560 goes from 955 Mhz to 985 Mhz. System goes from 375W to 460W.

Looks like the 6950 does better here. It reaches a higher speed, thus it will be faster. And if you look at the graph, it looks like the system is only drawing 450W when the 6950 is at 1000 Mhz. At 985 MHz it looks like the 6950 in their system uses 400W. That seems like a better overclock-power-performance ration than the 560 to me.

 

[Skurge]

Not according to Teaktown reviews...its has the SOC all over an OC 6950, i wont bother putting up the graphic, you can check for yourself....
edit - your talking about reference..nevermind

Not sure which games I should be looking at. As Most of the games there aren't really relevant.

Batman AA, Mafia2 and AvP are all really close. As for RE5, street fighter4 and HAWX2, I'm not even going to say how useless those benchmarks are.

 

[Castiel]

I love a good 560 vs 6950 war

If i was buying today and i'm not i would so go with the Asus 560 over an Asus 6950. Why? I'm not really sure why i favor the 560... Maybe it's the 1070 core clocks.... maybe it's the sexy look of the card... Hell it may be because i'm an Nvidia Fanboy at heart... :whiste: :biggrin:

6950 alittle faster? Yeah but i'd want to have some fun pushing 1070 core and overclocking the crap out of the card.

 

[busydude]

ok I agree. Now go email AMD and tell them to sell some binned 6950 cards at 1000 core for 275$, then we all will be happy. or they need a price drop. Fair is fair. until then, the 6950 loses in my opinion.

I never talked about 6950, and I don't give a damn. If you are so inclined to prove others wrong be my guest.

 

[happy medium]

Got my wall of text and graphs... I'm hungey time to feed myself for a change.

I posted another review, that makes 16, is that some kind of record for a card release.?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Anandtech was using Furmark, which AMD limits their cards under.

So...nope.

...

Anandtech uses Crysis, and the AMD cards still use less power. Can you make yourself look like more of a fool? Anandtech and Furmark really don't have anything to do with the argument I was making. Red herring: a worthless and irrelevant counter point.

I also think the reason the 560 doesn't scale so well with overclocks its because of its limited bandwidth.

I think you are right. It's performance scaling isn't as impressive as the GTX 460's and HD 6950's.

Waaaaaaa the chips are binned, waaaaaa it uses 10 more watts, waaaaa the review is bad, waaaaa it cost 13$ more.

Pleeeease, the gtx560 SOC is a excellent value with performance up to a gtx570, runs cool, runs quiet even when overclocked, is power efficient, will overclock well beyond 1000 core, and cost 13$ more then a 6950 1gb.

Those are the facts and if the 6950 does not get a price drop soon it will be a exspensive fact for AMD and there market share.

So you have to resort to acting like a baby because we are making valid points?

The GTX 560-OC is a good card. We can all agree here. But it is not godly, like you are making it out to be. And you seem to be using the Guru3D benchmarks as conclusive evidence, as I've already pointed out they aren't that conclusive because they are using older drivers for their other cards. Techreport is using the latest drivers, so you know they re-tested everything for this review.

 

[happy medium]

I never talked about 6950, and I don't give a damn. If you are so inclined to prove others wrong be my guest.

Did you miss the words "I agree" . That means, ok your right.