Pondering returning this card...see why inside!

[happy medium]

That creates the assumption that AMD is faster for every non-TWIMTBP game. Your logic is ridiculous.

Yea , Dirt 2 would be a good example. That game was released and packaged with AMD cards and is now somehow faster on Nvidia cards. :hmm:

 

[toyota]

I'm sorry, mommy.



Yeah, I tried that...wasn't much more difference. 5830 3DVantage scores w/unsupported (Catalyst 11.3) driver
I'm still trying to figure out why the link I posted for the scores showed a different core clock than what Afterburner & GPU-z was showing.
I guess I really need to decide if the extra $40 I spent over the 5830 is worth it for a card that has a smaller size, slightly faster speeds & not so noisy.

*EDIT*

what the heck are you rolling your eyes about? you should NOT have bought the card if you were expecting a noticeable increase in performance. maybe next time you should ask mommy to show you reviews first so you wont waste your money.

 

[badb0y]

LOL at this post. Essentially, a 560Ti = a 6950. Yet, a 560Ti isn't good enough, and a 6950 is.

:awe:

Depends on the price of the cards at the time. If it came down to GTX 560 Ti and a HD 6950 2 GB and a difference of say 10$ in price, I would get the AMD 6950 2 GB.

 

[postmortemIA]

it's dumb to try to upgrade when you don't have enough/ don't want to spend $ to actually buy the upgrade. then you end up with two of same things.

 

[MangoX]

Outside of TWIMTBP games the 560Ti is closer to a 6870 than the 6950.

 

[notty22]

Outside of TWIMTBP games the 560Ti is closer to a 6870 than the 6950.

I disagree, but noticed the 6950, often performs the same as the 5870.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/11.html

 

[Spikesoldier]

Yea , Dirt 2 would be a good example. That game was released and packaged with AMD cards and is now somehow faster on Nvidia cards. :hmm:

i think the reason why dirt2 was packaged with the amd cards was that it was the only dx11 game out at the time and nvidia didnt have fermi out yet.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I disagree, but noticed the 6950, often performs the same as the 5870.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/11.html

Gotta love the 5870, just look how fast that beast of a card is.

On topic: well GTX 460 are great cards, specially when overclocked, see if you can push that baby a bit to unclock it's full potential or just return it if you not into oc. Get a 560 or a 6950. Both will be a better upgrade, the 6950 more so.

 

[Gikaseixas]

i think the reason why dirt2 was packaged with the amd cards was that it was the only dx11 game out at the time and nvidia didnt have fermi out yet.

yep, agree. They only had AMD to work with at that time.

 

[pugh]

what the heck are you rolling your eyes about? you should NOT have bought the card if you were expecting a noticeable increase in performance. maybe next time you should ask mommy to show you reviews first so you wont waste your money.

Got to be honest on that. I would have not even post I did it. Quiet return and cased closed.

 

[96Firebird]

Depends on the price of the cards at the time. If it came down to GTX 560 Ti and a HD 6950 2 GB and a difference of say 10$ in price, I would get the AMD 6950 2 GB.

Ok, but I was just pointing out the fact that he said a 560Ti wasn't good enough, and a 6950 2GB was, when they bench the same overall.

 

[mosox]

Ok, but I was just pointing out the fact that he said a 560Ti wasn't good enough, and a 6950 2GB was, when they bench the same overall.

They bench the same only because many reviewers use lots of TWIMTBP games in their reviews (for no reason at all but to suit Nvidia).

Memory bandwidth (6950 1GB vs 560Ti)
160000 MB/sec vs 128256 MB/sec
Texel rate
70400 Mtexels/sec vs 52608 Mtexels/sec
Pixel Rate
26304 Mpixels/sec vs 25600 Mpixels/sec

I have yet to see Anand or Techpowerup's reviewers justifying their choices for the list of games benchmarked in the reviews, nobody gives a transparent justification for that (most popular games or such) - they all trot the same TWIMTBP stuff over and over again - and they get away with it.

Because nowadays the reviews are not made to inform the users but to promote this or that hardware company they sold to.

Anand went far in this direction for the CPU reviews as well when they benched the 2500/2600 Sandy bridge in gaming only at 1680x1050/low settings in order to make the Phenom II X4 look bad. The same in their famous all CPU benchmark - we don't even know what video card they used.


So, the customer shouldn't know that at 1920x1080 with a good video card the Phenom II X4 is only slightly inferior in gaming to the Intel, otherwise he would figure out that a Phenom II X4 + a HD 6950 is far better in gaming than a i-5 2500K + a 550 Ti (both same price, not even counting the fact that the Intel mobos are more expensive).

The customer should see in the graphs that the AMD is far worse in gaming than the Sandy Bridge so AMD is not an option even if on a budget allows a much better video card - that's the whole idea of the review in the first place.

I see on daily bases dudes who are on a budget for a gaming rig and they want nothing but Sandy Bridge and they cite Anand's benchmarks. Lots of them bought 1155 quads with crappy video cards or dual cores with average video cards and they're wondering why this or that game doesn't work well.

I ask again, what is the criteria in here for selecting the games featured in the video cards' reviews? Emails from Nvidia?

 

[load81]

Yeah Nvidia should be handicapped in benchmarks for doing better in certain games. Forget the people who care about those games. Same with benching at 1680x1050 in the Intel/Phenom II X4 review I mean its only one of the most popular resolutions. Forget those people too. And I think AMD had more to do with Dirt 2 than having the only DX11 card out at the time. They even have a Radeon car in the game. Too many excuses.

 

[96Firebird]

Yeah Nvidia should be handicapped in benchmarks for doing better in certain games. Forget the people who care about those games. Same with benching at 1680x1050 in the Intel/Phenom II X4 review I mean its only one of the most popular resolutions. Forget those people too. And I think AMD had more to do with Dirt 2 than having the only DX11 card out at the time. They even have a Radeon car in the game. Too many excuses.

This basically sums up my response to mosox. :thumbsup:

mosox - Reread your own post and tell me it makes sense. And I've read this a lot here - because a game runs better on Nvidia hardware, it should be banned from reviews.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yeah Nvidia should be handicapped in benchmarks for doing better in certain games. Forget the people who care about those games. Same with benching at 1680x1050 in the Intel/Phenom II X4 review I mean its only one of the most popular resolutions. Forget those people too. And I think AMD had more to do with Dirt 2 than having the only DX11 card out at the time. They even have a Radeon car in the game. Too many excuses.

Game selection does matter. Resolution chosen does matter. AA level does matter.

 

[96Firebird]

Game selection does matter.

Indeed it does, so why not test a bunch of games and the reader can decide which charts to concentrate on? Not "ban" games from being reviewed, or saying a review site is biased because they include games that work better on one company's hardware.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Indeed it does, so why not test a bunch of games and the reader can decide which charts to concentrate on? Not "ban" games from being reviewed, or saying a review site is biased because they include games that work better on one company's hardware.

Indeed.

But maybe with AMD "getting great developer relations" as well, we might see some Gaming Evolved titles being benched alongside TWIMTBP games.

 

[mosox]

Yeah Nvidia should be handicapped in benchmarks for doing better in certain games. Forget the people who care about those games. Same with benching at 1680x1050 in the Intel/Phenom II X4 review I mean its only one of the most popular resolutions. Forget those people too. And I think AMD had more to do with Dirt 2 than having the only DX11 card out at the time. They even have a Radeon car in the game. Too many excuses.

I suppose you game at 1680x1050 no AA/AF on your rig? What's the use to bench very good CPUs and video cards at those settings and those settings only? Who benefits from those benches, the regular guy who checks the reviews or some HW company who looks good in them?

 

[mosox]

This basically sums up my response to mosox. :thumbsup:

mosox - Reread your own post and tell me it makes sense. And I've read this a lot here - because a game runs better on Nvidia hardware, it should be banned from reviews.

Because a game is irrelevant for most of the gamers - that's why it shouldn't be in the reviews. If you have 10 games in a review better be the most popular 10 games not some Ubisoft crap that's in there only to make Nvidia look better.

Who demanded the Hawx 2 bench to be included in the reviews (and it was)? Ubisoft? Nope, Nvidia demanded that. Now, why would a HW company try to promote some other company's stuff? One doesn't have to be Einstein to connect the dots.

And when you see in those games that are not very popular the AMD cards lumped together at the bottom with a 5 fps difference between the high-end ones and the cheap ones, again you don't have to be a genius to see why that game is included in the review.

Bottom line, Nvidia wants that game and not only in the reviews and the review sites oblige. And I ask why. What's next, Nvidia making the reviews themselves and sending the results to the HW sites to be published?

 

[Skurge]

Indeed.

But maybe with AMD "getting great developer relations" as well, we might see some Gaming Evolved titles being benched alongside TWIMTBP games.

it doesnt matter if the game is twimtbp or gaming evolved. Civ5 and dirt2 are gaming evolved titles, but nvidia is faster. Crysis and metro2033 is twimtbp, but amd is faster. There are a lot more gaming evolved titles in reviews than people know. In the AT review we have dirt2, civ5, mass effect 2 and stalker:cop. In most reviews theirs AvP, f1 2010, dragon age 2, shogun 2. Im sure there are some im missing. So the twimtbp is no excuse. Resolution and AA change the pecking order much more than the game selection does.

 

[GaiaHunter]

it doesnt matter if the game is twimtbp or gaming evolved. Civ5 and dirt2 are gaming evolved titles, but nvidia is faster. Crysis and metro2033 is twimtbp, but amd is faster. There are a lot more gaming evolved titles in reviews than people know. In the AT review we have dirt2, civ5, mass effect 2 and stalker:cop. In most reviews theirs AvP, f1 2010, dragon age 2, shogun 2. Im sure there are some im missing. So the twimtbp is no excuse. Resolution and AA change the pecking order much more than the game selection does.

What I was saying is that maybe the reason there are more TWIMTBP titles in reviews is because there are overall more titles.

 

[Neurotic_X]

why the heck would you upgrade from a 5830 to a gtx460 anyway? you are talking like 15-20% difference in performance.

Granted if it really is 15-20%, that's a lot. At least to me. And the GTX 460 has a lot of headroom for overclocking.

 

[load81]

Game selection does matter. Resolution chosen does matter. AA level does matter.

Yeah I know but those reviews you posted are in a resolution that matter to almost no one. Its not helpful to the majority who play lower resolutions and makes the 6870 look equal to the 560. I guess that was your point?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yeah I know but those reviews you posted are in a resolution that matter to almost no one. Its not helpful to the majority who play lower resolutions and makes the 6870 look equal to the 560. I guess that was your point?

I didn't find a Mafia one where there wasn't APEX involved.

 

[notty22]

You can cherry pick Nvidia wins to
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...560-ti-roundup-asus-evga-gigabyte-msi-10.html