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

[MentalIlness]

The GTX 570 is a beast of a card.

Ill agree on something. The quoted post above is the most sensible one yet in this thread.

 

[Skurge]

Yet the 890Mb? GTX260 could give payable rates....but you are right, I imagine it would, though it already has the textures in memory to render twice!

Yeah, it could give playable framerates in left for dead 1. a 5770 could get the same framerates with 3 1920x1080 monitors in left 2 dead 2. So there.

 

[Skurge]

Are there any gtx560 surround/ 3d reviews out there?
If so I missed them. little help?

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...d-sli-performance-bad-company-2-surround.html

Here you go.

 

[happy medium]

now look at the 560 benches and cut all the framerates in half and you get the 3d performance

Ok I looked at the framerates for Dirt 2 @ 1600x1050 with 4x aa/16xaf at ULTRA quality at ANANDTECH with a gtx560 and they were 95fps. Now switch that to high quality and that gives you about 50fps in 3d with a gtx560.

The benches you showed at kitguru for dirt 2 were at high quality, not ultra.

I didn't see the review for the 1600x1050 x3 eyefinity benches with the 6950 1gb. You said it gets 50fps.
gotta link? how about a 2gb 6950 link?

 

[badb0y]

Ok I looked at the framerates for Dirt 2 @ 1600x1050 with 4x aa/16xaf at ULTRA quality at ANANDTECH with a gtx560 and they were 95fps. Now switch that to high quality and that gives you about 50fps in 3d with a gtx560.

The benches you showed at kitguru for dirt 2 were at high quality, not ultra.

I didn't see the review for the 1600x1050 x3 eyefinity benches with the 6950 1gb. You said it gets 50fps.
gotta link? how about a 2gb 6950 link?

Performance hit for eyefinity ranges from 30-50% about the same as running a game in 3D. If you are going to write of eyefinity as a gimmick and say it's impossible with a single card I think you should do the same with 3D. Also AMD does do 3D I don't know why SolMiester is arguing here.

 

[Skurge]

Ok I looked at the framerates for Dirt 2 @ 1600x1050 with 4x aa/16xaf at ULTRA quality at ANANDTECH with a gtx560 and they were 95fps. Now switch that to high quality and that gives you about 50fps in 3d with a gtx560.

The benches you showed at kitguru for dirt 2 were at high quality, not ultra.

I didn't see the review for the 1600x1050 x3 eyefinity benches with the 6950 1gb. You said it gets 50fps.
gotta link? how about a 2gb 6950 link?

1st you need to tell me what resolution we are comparing. 16x10 or 19x10?

Eyefinity benches are in the post you quoted. Dirt 2 at Ultra, 6870 gets just over 40fps. while a 560 would get 42.5 in 3D. a 6950 gets just under 50fps. add 4xAA and you will get mid 40s

EDIT: The hit for 3D looks like 60% not 50

 

[happy medium]

Performance hit for eyefinity ranges from 30-50% about the same as running a game in 3D. If you are going to write of eyefinity as a gimmick and say it's impossible with a single card I think you should do the same with 3D. Also AMD does do 3D I don't know why SolMiester is arguing here.

I agree, they are both gimmicks and are only good for the 5% of the world that uses it. They both should be used with higher end dual graphics cards also.

Mabe next year it will become more mainstream but for now ,for most of us, it's just tooo dam exspensive.

Can we get back on topic now or did we run out of real things to talk about

 

[badb0y]

I agree, they are both gimmicks and are only good for the 5% of the world that uses it. They both should be used with higher end dual graphics cards also.

Mabe next year it will become more mainstream but for now ,for most of us, it's just tooo dam exspensive.

Can we get back on topic now or did we run out of real things to talk about

:thumbsup:, So GTX 560 is awesome in my opinion. Anything that shifts pricing in the 200-300$ range is a damn good card IMO.

 

[SolMiester]

No, you need a smooth framerate. Those with 16x10 monitors need 120hz monitors and even those have crappy response times.

I don't understand your reasoning, you make seem like eyefinity can't be done with 3 16x10 monitors.

With those that game will run much faster than a 560 with 3d.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/AMD_Radeon_6970_6950_-_Featured_Review_Page_5

with 3 16x10 monitors a 6950 gets just under 50fps in dirt 2.



now look at the 560 benches and cut all the framerates in half and you get the 3d performance.
http://www.techspot.com/review/359-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560ti/page4.html

Thats even before you run out of memory, which i'm sure is possible.
You still think 3D is more viable than eyefinity?

I dont know what you were looking at, but those figures suggest if 3D costs 50% then 16x10 3D is viable....I said there were 2 out of 6 games from widescreengaming that show payable rates on a 2Gb 6950, never did I say it wasnt possible......the benchies you link suggest 3D 8AA 16x10 is viable on GTX560 even before ocíng to 570 levels.
3D uses the same texture twice IIRC, whereas eyefinity uses more for the large res, therefore 1GB 6950 will run out of memory in 3 x 16x10 before 560 16x10 3D if you ask me....

 

[SolMiester]

Yeah, it could give playable framerates in left for dead 1. a 5770 could get the same framerates with 3 1920x1080 monitors in left 2 dead 2. So there.

Wah!....whats with the childish spite?, did I slag you off?

 

[badb0y]

Wah!....whats with the childish spite?, did I slag you off?

You keep trolling and spinning which has brought us to this point. The point is if you are going to write off Eyefinity as something not achievable with single cards, do the same with 3D vision.

That should end this mult-page squabble we got into.

 

[thilanliyan]

Review with a MSI 560 OCed to 1027MHz:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx560_twinfrozr_2/3.htm

 

[SolMiester]

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...d-sli-performance-bad-company-2-surround.html

Here you go.

There is something wrong with the figures in those marks, check it out. Civ V at Anand @ 19x10 =49.9 4AA, there it is 103 with 8aa?....for the Ti560...6870 is at 35 for same setting yet 16 in CF!!?/
whats with the AMD background, badges and such all around the place?....someone check those for me??

 

[SolMiester]

You keep trolling and spinning which has brought us to this point. The point is if you are going to write off Eyefinity as something not achievable with single cards, do the same with 3D vision.

That should end this mult-page squabble we got into.

Trolling?.....are you Skurges PA or something?....Never did I post in anything but a respectful manner in this thread yet I count several times from you already.....
As for writing off Eyefinity, I thought I was discussing it and given my opinion, not slagging posters off because they disagree!

Oooooh, the higher ground can be so enjoyable!

 

[SolMiester]

1st you need to tell me what resolution we are comparing. 16x10 or 19x10?

Eyefinity benches are in the post you quoted. Dirt 2 at Ultra, 6870 gets just over 40fps. while a 560 would get 42.5 in 3D. a 6950 gets just under 50fps. add 4xAA and you will get mid 40s

EDIT: The hit for 3D looks like 60% not 50

Strange that doesnt marry with the figures at widescreengaming? someone has it wrong!

 

[Skurge]

Wah!....whats with the childish spite?, did I slag you off?

Really? That's the only part of my post you saw? I meant to show you shouldnt take left 4 dead as an example that 3d is viable as even a 5770 can run that game (actually the 2nd more demanding game) in eyefinity. That's with 3 1920x1080 monitors. not 3 16x10 which would make that game even playable. Last time I checked a 5770 is as fast a 260. So any game that makes eyefinity playable, would make 3D unplayable.

There is something wrong with the figures in those marks, check it out. Civ V at Anand @ 19x10 =49.9 4AA, there it is 103 with 8aa?....for the Ti560...6870 is at 35 for same setting yet 16 in CF!!?/
whats with the AMD background, badges and such all around the place?....someone check those for me??

It's been shown from the start of this thread that CIV5 is all over the place across sites.
Hardwareheaven rotates their backgrounds all the time. Sometimes its nVidia, sometimes its XFX, sometimes its sapphire. So they are pretty legit to me. The 560 just doesn't have the bandwidth or fillrate to run surround well, even with 2 cards. I suspect it is the same for 3d. With a 6950 if you aren't satisfied with you framrates, you can get a 2nd one and that will make any game playable. Not so for the 560 in surround.

 

[Skurge]

Strange that doesnt marry with the figures at widescreengaming? someone has it wrong!

Actually it does.

4800x900, which should be used to compare a 560 running a 16x9 monitor in 3D.

If you look at the 5760x1080 then you compare it to a 560 running a 19x10 monitor in 3D.

 

[MentalIlness]

There is something wrong with the figures in those marks, check it out. Civ V at Anand @ 19x10 =49.9 4AA, there it is 103 with 8aa?....for the Ti560...6870 is at 35 for same setting yet 16 in CF!!?/
whats with the AMD background, badges and such all around the place?....someone check those for me??

So you are trying to say that the site is an AMD fan so they skewed the results ? If you are, that is the first time i've ever heard of a site doing it for AMD. When in the past it has always been sites that favor NV.

Just because you word it differently, doesn't mean other posters are blind to what your actual question is.

And anyway, it don't matter anyway. Because I see exactly 3 NV ads on my page.

 

[badb0y]

Trolling?.....are you Skurges PA or something?....Never did I post in anything but a respectful manner in this thread yet I count several times from you already.....
As for writing off Eyefinity, I thought I was discussing it and given my opinion, not slagging posters off because they disagree!

Oooooh, the higher ground can be so enjoyable!

No, look what you did here will you?

While AMD's 3 monitor support in cool, a single 6950 is IMHO not enough to support eyefinity at decent frame rate.
The 560 has the extras of 3D, CUDA and PhyX and while many may waffle over their value, I would buy the 560 over the 6950 due to the usable extras, brand customisations and an eye on future game titles, of which the 560 is better prepared.

Then when I proved that the hit for eyefinity and 3D is pretty much similar, you changed your stance and said:

Its not the performance % hit that matters, its whether or not the FPS are playable!, or do you not agree with that statement.

Oh really SolMiester? Performance hit doesn't matter it's only playable framerates? So let's say whatever GTX 560 gets in Crysis divided by 2 (53/2=26.5). 26.5 FPS is playable now is it? Please.

That's why I called you a troll cause all your doing it baiting and switching.

My stance has been firm and concise, if you write of eyefinity, do the same for 3D Vision since performance hit for both is similar, why does there have to be a double standard for eyefininty and 3D Vision when the performance hit is the same.

 

[Lonbjerg]

While you guys duke it out over 3 watts here, $5 there and WTFBBQ anything else you can dream up, could we have another thread for the GTX560 that only has serious discussion? In other words, none of this drivel allowed?

If you ignore the people arguing over 3 Watts/$5 the threads get a lot better to read...just a suggestion

 

[SolMiester]

Really? That's the only part of my post you saw? I meant to show you shouldnt take left 4 dead as an example that 3d is viable as even a 5770 can run that game (actually the 2nd more demanding game) in eyefinity. That's with 3 1920x1080 monitors. not 3 16x10 which would make that game even playable. Last time I checked a 5770 is as fast a 260. So any game that makes eyefinity playable, would make 3D unplayable.



It's been shown from the start of this thread that CIV5 is all over the place across sites.
Hardwareheaven rotates their backgrounds all the time. Sometimes its nVidia, sometimes its XFX, sometimes its sapphire. So they are pretty legit to me. The 560 just doesn't have the bandwidth or fillrate to run surround well, even with 2 cards. I suspect it is the same for 3d. With a 6950 if you aren't satisfied with you framrates, you can get a 2nd one and that will make any game playable. Not so for the 560 in surround.

Dont answer the question then!

As for SLI and 560, I have already said I think CF is scaling better than SLI, however am waiting for Anandtech review of the new drivers...I think you are right about the bandwidth issue...as for the site, it was a question, I dont frequent it....

 

[SolMiester]

Actually it does.

4800x900, which should be used to compare a 560 running a 16x9 monitor in 3D.

If you look at the 5760x1080 then you compare it to a 560 running a 19x10 monitor in 3D.

Okay, I now understand your post better, i had understood your post as 40 at 5760x1080for the 6870

 

[SolMiester]

So you are trying to say that the site is an AMD fan so they skewed the results ? If you are, that is the first time i've ever heard of a site doing it for AMD. When in the past it has always been sites that favor NV.

Just because you word it differently, doesn't mean other posters are blind to what your actual question is.

And anyway, it don't matter anyway. Because I see exactly 3 NV ads on my page.

I was asking a question regarding the figures and curious as to the advertising.....I could give a monkeys on how you see it!

 

[SolMiester]

No, look what you did here will you?

Then when I proved that the hit for eyefinity and 3D is pretty much similar, you changed your stance and said:

Oh really SolMiester? Performance hit doesn't matter it's only playable framerates? So let's say whatever GTX 560 gets in Crysis divided by 2 (53/2=26.5). 26.5 FPS is playable now is it? Please.

That's why I called you a troll cause all your doing it baiting and switching.

My stance has been firm and concise, if you write of eyefinity, do the same for 3D Vision since performance hit for both is similar, why does there have to be a double standard for eyefininty and 3D Vision when the performance hit is the same.

Dude, you seriously need to take a break and have another look...NOT once did I question performance % hits!, thats was you FW....Check out the 1st and 2nd paragraghs, did I mention anything but playable rates?...

Now I understand that you have a 6950 and IYO, the sun shines out its ass, but please, take a breath, have I once slagged the product?...eh?

Functionally is not about writing off one feature to the other, I am discussing, questioning and stating my opinion as is my prerogative, if you have issues with that?, that is your problem not mine. Now stop acting like your username, join in the discussion and cease being a fanboy or ah heck off!

 

[MentalIlness]

Which means since they advertise AMD ads, the results are skewed...since there is no other way of taking "regarding figures" to "curious advertising" besides the way it was taken.

Anyway....

While I have read almost all reviews for the 560 this evening, I must say...it is a damn good performing part against the 6870. To me ? The 560 and 6950 is a wash because I game at 1080.

But, at 1080...I'd choose the 560.

If I were to go up to 25xx resolution...id go with the 2 gig card 6950.

Some charts in that review, even show 6870 Crossfire outpacing the GTX 560 SLI. Truth/believable ? Don't know. But noone can say for certain.

And think there is a link at the top of the main page, that allows the background image to be changed.