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

[Castiel]

When compared against its immediate competition, the GTX 560 Ti simply steamrolls the HD 6870 1GB at the resolutions which most gamers use and even runs neck and neck with the higher priced HD 6950 1GB. These statistics may look great but its performance against the GTX 470 is what really shows the kind of strides NVIDIA has been making with their refreshed cards.

By now it should be obvious that a 2GB frame buffer just isn’t needed on a card in the sub-$300 market but what this seems to be lacking is bandwidth. Even though the battle between the HD 6950 1GB and GTX 560 Ti swings back and forth from one game to the next, the NVIDIA card almost always looses out in bandwidth limited situations. In our opinion, GF114 has the Cayman Pro beat hands down from an architectural perspective but it lacks a real finishing punch at slightly higher resolutions.

It is important to remember that high resolution gaming isn’t usually on the minds of people looking at $250 graphics cards. Because of this, NVIDIA decided to focus their performance aspirations towards gamers using sub-27” monitors and ended up producing a highly versatile product that posts absolutely impressive numbers at key resolutions. From a performance per dollar standpoint, the GTX 560 Ti even makes the $289 HD 6950 2GB look like an overpriced also-ran instead of a market leader. Even the launch of 1GB Cayman Pro cards does nothing to shake the feeling that GF114 is the right architecture being introduced at the great time with a highly competitive price. Sure, the HD 6950 1GB gives the GTX 560 a run for its money but the NVIDIA card still edges it out in the overall cost category, surefire availability and its ability to overclock like no-one's

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review-20.html

 

[Ryan Smith]

No, Anand is not using AA at 1680 x 1050:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4135/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-ti-upsetting-the-250-market/10

He is at all the other resolutions though, not sure why he's doing that . . .

Considering we use that game and resolution on a wide range of cards, I chose to skip AA so that we'd see a playable framerate on slower cards like the GTS 450 and Radeon 5670. Otherwise I'd have to use a separate benchmark, which makes it that much harder to compare those cards in Bench.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I don't understand the comments in this thread. The 6950 is in the same price range and performs better. Why is the 560 considered so great? All the reviews indicate it's between a 6870 and 6950 in performance.

What am I missing here? The 6950 1gb seems like a damn good value.

They are both good values, so they are both great. That's how I see it. It's like the 4800 vs 200 days.

The gtx SOC is 279$ shipped and slaughters the 6950 1gb. Look at posts above.

You have a funny definition of slaughter. I looked at the review and it isn't quite a slaughter. The 6950 performs right in between the 560 and the 560-OC, and it's priced that way.

But really, this is groundbreaking!

This make the gtx570/6970 at 350$ look like crap. hehehe.
And for 12$ less (168$ shipped at the egg) the 6950 1gb gets slaughtered.

The 570 and 6970 also cost more, as they can overclock too. What happens if you compare the 570 overclocked to a 560 overclocked? The 560 would get "slaughtered" (by your definition).

Anand is using 4XAA, I didn't say they weren't. Hardware Canucks is using same and gets 61, whereas BitTech is using 0 and still only gets 71.

All of those but bit tech and Tom's are using same reso and AA as Anandtech...

Well the best explanation is that they are using two tests. Meaning AT and the other sites aren't testing the with same things happening on screen. Perhaps those other sites are testing under a more demanding scenario. More explosions, more people, more debris, etc.

Or yeah, he isn't using AA!

 

[thilanliyan]

Here's the [H] review:
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/01/25/galaxy_geforce_gtx_560_ti_gc_video_card_review/1

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Considering we use that game and resolution on a wide range of cards, I chose to skip AA so that we'd see a playable framerate on slower cards like the GTS 450 and Radeon 5670. Otherwise I'd have to use a separate benchmark, which makes it that much harder to compare those cards in Bench.

All(well, all the ones I have personally seen anyway) previous 1680 numbers from previous reviews show 4Xaa and they had the same FPS numbers as shown in today's review(like 6950 review from DEc. showed 107 and still 107 today). Possibly the old reviews said 4Xaa when it was really 0 aa? And the one for today is now correct in not showing AA?

 

[happy medium]

What happens if you compare the 570 overclocked to a 560 overclocked? The 560 would get "slaughtered" (by your definition).

But the difference is it cost 75$ more, so it should slaughter it correct? Another difference is the 1000 core gtx560 is garaunteed just like the gtx570 stock core. And both cards will still overclock futher.

 

[wanderer27]

I didn't catch that, so either he isn't using 4XAA or didn't put it. However, check this out:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4061/amds-radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950/18

This review does state 4XAA at 1680. And again, major FPS increases compared to other reviews. At 1680, at least, I don't spend any time comparing other resolutions. Edit: FPS numbers from the old 6950/6970 review which stated 4XAA are the same as those used for today's review which didn't specify 4XAA. Is it possible they never use AA at that resolution but that's always been put that they are?

Moving to 1920 and 4XAA:
Anandtech 61.7
Techpowerup 58.5
Hardware Canucks 49.22
PC Perspective 84(WTF??)

It looks like Anandtech might have specifying 4Xaa for previous reviews at 1680 but not actually using it?

Hmm, it gets even more confusing now:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4137/...-6950-1gb-xfxs-radeon-hd-6870-black-edition/5

New review just up comparing the 560 to the 1GB 6950.
Pretty much same slide for 1680 x 1050, but this time 4AA is stated.

I think maybe he mixed some graphs up between to two articles.
A near double in FPS between 1920 x 1200 vs 1680 x 1050 seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Yea it definitely looks like he never used AA at 1680 but that graphs intermittently show 4Xaa, probably a typo.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

So basically you can buy a 560 for $250 and oc the heck out of it and it smokes anything AMD has? Big trouble for amd if that's the case.

 

[happy medium]

Hmm, it gets even more confusing now:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4137/...-6950-1gb-xfxs-radeon-hd-6870-black-edition/5

New review just up comparing the 560 to the 1GB 6950.
Pretty much same slide for 1680 x 1050, but this time 4AA is stated.

I think maybe he mixed some graphs up between to two articles.
A near double in FPS between 1920 x 1200 vs 1680 x 1050 seems a bit of a stretch.

He answered you in post #152. Ryan wrote the article.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

He did answer, but didn't acknowledge that some reviews do in fact say 4XAA, so I guess we just have to assume those were typos or copy/paste, oops forgot to shave off the AA.

 

[wanderer27]

He answered you in post #152. Ryan wrote the article.

Yeah, saw that after I posted, but the new article has the same graph but with 4AA on it and the FPS are the same.


Thanks Ryan for the follow up.

 

[happy medium]

He did answer, but didn't acknowledge that some reviews do in fact say 4XAA, so I guess we just have to assume those were typos or copy/paste, oops forgot to shave off the AA.

ok, cool, can we move on now?

Thanks.

 

[Ryan Smith]

Yea it definitely looks like he never used AA at 1680 but that graphs intermittently show 4Xaa, probably a typo.

Bad CSV files tend to lead to bad graphs, which in turn lead to bad CSV files thanks to our export function. The offending CSV file has been sacked.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

ok, cool, can we move on now?

Thanks.

Of course! I'm ready to spend some money after no upgrades in a while, it's got me in overdrive

 

[jonks]

So basically you can buy a 560 for $250 and oc the heck out of it and it smokes anything AMD has? Big trouble for amd if that's the case.

Looks like lots of 3rd parties are gonna ship with a 1ghz clock out of the box. Perf appears to approach but not quite hit 570 levels. For $100 less...think I'm ready to upgrade my gtx260c216 now.

 

[Skurge]

But the difference is it cost 75$ more, so it should slaughter it correct? Another difference is the 1000 core gtx560 is garaunteed just like the gtx570 stock core. And both cards will still overclock futher.

lol.

The 1000mhz is neck and neck with a 570. overclock that 570 and the 560 wont get anywhere near it. Don't compare the 2, they are in different leagues.

 

[Zebo]

So basically you can buy a 560 for $250 and oc the heck out of it and it smokes anything AMD has? Big trouble for amd if that's the case.

AMD cards don't OC? Or unlock like 6950? Or +20% power limit?

They do. http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159

I'd have a hard time choosing between 6950 and 560. These cards pretty much takes 570, 6970 and 6870 off the table though for tweakers.

 

[Castiel]

AMD cards don't OC? Or unlock like 6950? Or +20% power limit?

They do. http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159

I'd have a hard time choosing between 6950 and 560. These cards pretty much takes 570, 6970 and 6870 off the table though for tweakers.

I don't think i've ever seen a member with a 6950 flashed over 1ghz core post any results

 

[Zebo]

1000Mhz is not guaranteed either. TPU for example only got 943Mhz OC.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti/30.html

 

[AtenRa]

Forget OC for a moment, take two cards at default factory settings like GTX 560 Ti SOC and GTX570 (non OC model). You have almost same performance and less power usage with less heat and it cost less.

For people that don’t OC, the GTX560 Ti SOC is better and cheaper.
Situation changes if we OC both cards and everyone knows that GTX570 will be the winner.

 

[brencat]

Looks like lots of 3rd parties are gonna ship with a 1ghz clock out of the box. Perf appears to approach but not quite hit 570 levels. For $100 less...think I'm ready to upgrade my gtx260c216 now.

In same boat as you. Been waiting for this day but I'm going to take my time and make sure I get the right one. Still reading...

 

[Castiel]

1000Mhz is not guaranteed either. TPU for example only got 943Mhz OC.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_560_Ti/30.html

That's reference which doesn't matter to be because i'd never buy a reference 560.

Asus 560 went to 1060, MSI 560 went to 1070. Never really see any overclocked results for a 6950. Let me do some digging and see if i can find some.

Here we go.. 6970 at 1015 core

 

[happy medium]

Forget OC for a moment, take two cards at default factory settings like GTX 560 Ti SOC and GTX570 (non OC model). You have almost same performance and less power usage with less heat and it cost less.

For people that don’t OC, the GTX560 Ti SOC is better and cheaper.
Situation changes if we OC both cards and everyone knows that GTX570 will be the winner.

Hurray, someone got it. thank you.

Now of coarse the overclocked gtx570 will be the winner, it should, it cost much more.

now we just need a 6950 1gb (for 13$ less at newegg compared to the SOC gtx), with a garaunteed factory overclock at 1000 core, for 275$, to compare the gtx560ti SOC.

Anyone?

 

[Skurge]

That's reference which doesn't matter to be because i'd never buy a reference 560.

Asus 560 went to 1060, MSI 560 went to 1070. Never really see any overclocked results for a 6950. Let me do some digging and see if i can find some.

Here we go.. 6970 at 1015 core

Unlocked

A 6970

So all these cards can overclock. Locked or unlocked.