So I just bought a GTX 560Ti...

[latexblanky]

Thanks for all the advice everyone. I decided on the 6950 2gb so I could save a little money that I'll most likely put towards a SSD in the coming weeks. I'm hoping it will live up to my expectations. Either way, I'm coming from a 4870 so any of the options should hopefully be a nice upgrade.

 

[sk11vengeance]

I done a lot of research before I bought my 6950's, and at the time which was in late Feb, there was barely any fps difference in 1gb vs 2gb cards. I have two XFX 1GB 6950's in xfire and they run everything I throw at them on max in game settings. Even Rage after some tweaking of course runs excellent. If your planning on getting an SSD, go for the 1gb models because they are cheaper. Besides, AMD will be putting out their new line of video cards soon. Oh and by the way, I also read that most Sapphire cards sound like an airplane when their fans kick up the rpm's, but maybe that one you linked to wont sound like that because its a dual fan design, similar to the design of the XFX cards I have, but not all fans are created equal.

This is the link to the model I have:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150527

 

[toyota]

there is no way I would suggest a 6950 1gb card at this point. its pretty easy to go right over 1gb in some current games at just 1920x1080.

 

[BD231]

Hey guys, I purchased a GTX 560Ti from my local compusa store to replace my aging HD4870. The main reason I'm upgrading is to get the best possible visuals from skyrim, BF3, and most other new games at 1920x1200. I haven't opened or installed the card yet because I want to make sure it was a good buy, or should I return it and get a HD6950/70 or a GTX 570. Here's the rest of my system.

CPU- Q6600 G0 @stock (will OC to 3.2-3.4)
Mobo- Gigabyte EP45-UD3P
PSU- 650w cooler master
RAM- 4gb of Mushkin DDR2
Case- NZXT Tempest

Any advice is greatly appreciated. I'd really like to have everything ready to go ASAP so I can play skyrim right away next week. Thanks in advance guys!

I run BF3 fine at the res and the TI should be slight faster than my card. nVidia's drivers are really f cked up right now though, I got great performance gains in BF3 with the latest whql's but it broke video playback which is simply unacceptable for me. Once the new WHQL's come out you'll be a happy camper, and if your board is a dual PCI express you'll be able to grab another 560ti instead of paying out the ass for a 20% performance gain on a single high end card.

 

[notty22]

IMO, 1gb is enough for 1080p.
Would someone be better off buying a 2gb gtx 560ti over a 1.25gb gtx 570 ?
I would say no, not at the same money.
If there is a possibility of going surround resolutions or 2560x1600, then that changes things.
There is more of a chance of using PhysX as a card feature than the extra gb of Vram if choosing between a 560TI and a 69502gb. On a 1080p monitor.

 

[lehtv]

IMO, 1gb is enough for 1080p.

I can max out my VRAM in about 5 games that I've played, and I know many games I haven't played can surpass 1GB at 1080p. 1GB is enough only if you're willing to compromise on the particular image quality settings that use VRAM. It's not really a matter of opinion, it's a fact that 1GB VRAM is limited on 1080p in a powerful GPU like 560 ti or 6950.

Would someone be better off buying a 2gb gtx 560ti over a 1.25gb gtx 570 ?
I would say no, not at the same money.

That's obviously a false dilemma. 560 Ti 2GB does not cost the same money as GTX 570. In addition, 6950 2GB doesn't cost as much as 560 Ti 2GB, and 6950 is faster and consumes less power.

 

[Mistwalker]

I'd agree that 1GB is generally enough for 1080p gaming, but definitely support getting a 2GB card in the OP's case.

BF3 has shown it will use extra VRAM if it's available.

More importantly, SKYRIM. Draw distance, high resolution texture mods, it's inevitable you'll need as much VRAM as possible depending on how much you mod and/or max graphics settings. Unless Nvidia cards blow AMD out of the water performance-wise, I can't see anyone recommending 1GB cards for this title. 6950 2GB or 560Ti 2GB all the way.

 

[notty22]

I can max out my VRAM in about 5 games that I've played, and I know many games I haven't played can surpass 1GB at 1080p. 1GB is enough only if you're willing to compromise on the particular image quality settings that use VRAM. It's not really a matter of opinion, it's a fact that 1GB VRAM is limited on 1080p in a powerful GPU like 560 ti or 6950.

That's obviously a false dilemma. 560 Ti 2GB does not cost the same money as GTX 570. In addition, 6950 2GB doesn't cost as much as 560 Ti 2GB, and 6950 is faster and consumes less power.

Ideally the driver will adjust to the game and use it's full resources. That does not mean you are running out.

Comment from conclusion of review of 6950 1gb card

It looks like AMD has listened to the countless requests for a cheaper HD 6950 card. With just 1 GB of memory, instead of 2 GB, the card retails for around $40 less than its big brother. Even though memory size might suggest otherwise, we have seen absolutely no evidence of reduced performance. In no game, not even in Metro 2033 or Crysis, and no, not even at 2560x1600. This means that 1 GB of video memory is still a viable choice for a high-end gaming card today.

Comment from 2gb gtx 560ti

Palit's GeForce GTX 560 is the only GTX 560 we reviewed today that comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory vs. 1 GB on the reference design. Unfortunately the memory capacity increase can not result in any significant performance difference in our testing. It seems that 1 GB of memory is enough for all our games at resolutions up to 2560x1600. Even if there was a difference at more demanding settings, it would make no sense for a card like the GTX 560. Even if you could somehow crank up settings to see a difference between 2 GB and 1 GB you would also end up with unplayable framerates due to the limited processing power of the GTX 560 graphics processor. This does not mean that the GTX 560 is a slow card, it simply means that the optimum memory configuration for it is 1 GB. Actually I could imagine a hypothetical 768 MB variant end up being competitive considering the reduced price it would come at.

It's ironic that the phrases like "you won't be able to max out BF3 with a 1gb" were being thrown around, and its AMD cards that basically can't use 4xmsaa because of drastic performance reduction.
So, in the end, you can't max out BF3 with most single AMD cards and have acceptable performance , even at 1080p. SHOCKER, you have to make a compromise to settings.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

so in BF 3, you are more comfortable with the SLOWER 6950 2gb just because it has more vram?

the gtx570 EASILY beats the 6970 never mind just the 6950 2gb at 1920x1200 with Ultra settings and 4x AA.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



heck even at 2560 with Ultra settings and 4x AA, the gtx570 is again faster than the both the 6970 and 6950 2gb.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

There is a known issue with AMD cards struggling with MSAA in BF3 for some reason. If you only use Post AA like MLAA for example they perform much better.

 

[latexblanky]

I'd agree that 1GB is generally enough for 1080p gaming, but definitely support getting a 2GB card in the OP's case.

BF3 has shown it will use extra VRAM if it's available.

More importantly, SKYRIM. Draw distance, high resolution texture mods, it's inevitable you'll need as much VRAM as possible depending on how much you mod and/or max graphics settings. Unless Nvidia cards blow AMD out of the water performance-wise, I can't see anyone recommending 1GB cards for this title. 6950 2GB or 560Ti 2GB all the way.

Skyrim is definitely the main reason for my upgrade. Sure, BF3 is another reason as well as many other games, but I just really want Skyrim to look its best on my computer

 

[bunnyfubbles]

570 is a very good card. Does better than the 6950 in some reviews and gets slightly beat in some. Overall if you don't want to wait 570 will cost a bit more but will give outstanding performance.

The 570 matches up against the 6970, not the 6950

 

[Grooveriding]

so in BF 3, you are more comfortable with the SLOWER 6950 2gb just because it has more vram?

the gtx570 EASILY beats the 6970 never mind just the 6950 2gb at 1920x1200 with Ultra settings and 4x AA.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



heck even at 2560 with Ultra settings and 4x AA, the gtx570 is again faster than the both the 6970 and 6950 2gb.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I can post benches that show the 6970 and 6950 being faster. There is no baseline for BF3 benchmarks. Every site is using something different.

Also, BF3 is primarily an online game once the campaign is over, and that is a whole other ballgame and is more demanding than anything in singleplayer with tons of enemies and effects on your screen.

None of those cards can run this game at ultra with 4xMSAA in multiplayer comfortably, in fact there is no single gpu card that can deliver a comfortable MP experience with 4xMSAA and ultra.

Here are results from the same review on High settings without 4xMSAA, settings that would be reasonable to use to expect a comfortable MP experience.

Here the 6970 is faster than the 570 and the 6950 is a little slower, also a good deal cheaper.


I would definitely opt for more VRAM, anyone who wants to run ultra settings should be avoiding 1GB cards.


From the recent dual 560 review here on anand.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5048/evgas-geforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-the-raw-power-of-two-gpus/7

Wrapping things up, the only aspect I feel that EVGA has left underdeveloped on an otherwise very strong card is VRAM. As a result of SLI 2Win is a $520 card with 1GB of effective VRAM. We’ve already seen 1GB of VRAM pose limitations in a couple of our tests, and going forward it’s only going to get worse. Case in point: Battlefield 3, which we’re currently looking at. In a technical presentation DICE has stated that the combined memory consumption at 1920x1080 for the gbuffer, Z-buffer, and MSAA resolve data is 158MB; and this is before other buffers let alone textures. As a $200 card meant for 1920 and lower resolution, 1GB of VRAM makes sense for the GTX 560 Ti. But as a $500 dual-GPU card meant for higher performance, higher quality, and higher resolutions, 1GB of effective VRAM is the biggest bottleneck going forward for the 2Win. Realistically EVGA is in a hard place since using higher density GDDR5 would drive up the price of the card and make it even more expensive than the GTX 580, but at the end of the day I think the 2Win needs 2GB of effective VRAM to spread its wings through 2012.

Granted he feels 1GB is fine for a $200 card with the expectations and settings you'd expect of it. But we're at the point with some games where the VRAM is what allows better settings.

Look at the hardwarecanucks results with the same card

Ultra no MSAA @ 1920x1200

Ultra 4xMSAA 1920x1200

Performance tanks by over 50% on the 1GB cards. Look at the 580 or 570, performance drops, but only about 20% compared to the huge over 50% performance hit on the 1GB cards. Even the 6970, which doesn't deal well with with the MSAA setting in BF3, only shows a 30% drop. 1GB is not enough anymore, the more VRAM you can get, the better.

 

[toyota]

and even without MSAA on Ultra settings on the gtx570 is still beating the 6970 never mind the 6950 2gb so my point still stands. picking the 6950 2gb over the gtx570 to play on Ultra settings on BF 3 is silly because its SLOWER. gtx570 is 1.25gb which is enough and the gpu would crap out before the amount of vram would. you can see that in the 2560 Ultra tests that even with AA on at that res the gtx570 was fine.

 

[SkyBum]

I already returned the 560Ti as the 6950 seems like the better deal for only a little more money. I plan on buying this card from newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102945

I just picked up that same card from NewEgg after scaling back on plans to buy a GTX 580 and wait for next gen to arrive. Installed it last week and it did indeed unlock the 6970 shaders. I had no idea the card would perform this well, to the point where I have not even given an overclock a second thought. I was worried about having regrets about not splurging but I have no regrets whatsoever at this point. BF3 has been an absolute dream over my 4870 framerates.

Enjoy that card man, I have a feeling you won't be disappointed...

 

[happy medium]

If you're comfortable with overclocking

The gtx560ti is the best card out there.,end of story.

edit: always remember Hardocp sucks for benchmarks.

 

[MrK6]

Skyrim is definitely the main reason for my upgrade. Sure, BF3 is another reason as well as many other games, but I just really want Skyrim to look its best on my computer

Mistwalker nailed it. You definitely want a 2GB card for Skyrim + mods, without a doubt.

I would have advised you to return the GTX 560 Ti simply because I'd be shocked if you found a better deal in CompUSA + tax over something online. I'll offer another vote for the 6950 2GB, they're great cards and mine is no exception (probably why they're still going for the same price 9 months later). The unlock + overclock setup offers tremendous bang-for-your-buck, and your PSU should be fine. Good luck with your CPU o/c!

The gtx560ti is the best card out there.,end of story.

edit: always remember Hardocp sucks for benchmarks.

I'll disagree with both of those opinions. [H]'s benches are probably the most accurate depictions of gameplay on the net, and they've been spot on for years. I wish more websites would take the time to do a proper, in-depth, real world reviews. Also, the GTX 560 Ti fits the gap nicely between the 6870 and the 6950 2GB, and with recent rebates and game bundles putting it below $190 it's an attractive alternative to the 6950 1GB at ~$220. Every card has its niche.

 

[Silverforce11]

edit: always remember Hardocp sucks for benchmarks.

Blasphemy.

Did you even look at their BD gaming review, showing how utterly bad BD is for gaming with their highly detailed fps graph??

Can't see that with other review sites.

[H] is the #1 review site.

Any review site that automatically set to ULTRA and bench BF3 is utterly clueless (and there's a lot of sites like that, they don't even know bf3 is a deferred rendering game). MSAA doesn't even remove most of the jagged edges. Why have it enabled? Even with NV, you take a 20% perf hit. So you enjoy taking a perf drop for no visual gains?

SP -> MP 64 player conquest = ~25% drop in performance. Factor this into all the review benches you see.

Also, 2gb vram on ultra = more higher res models/textures streaming in BF3 on ultra. 1gb cards running "ultra" actually only run the game on "high" as it cannot use the streaming feature.

 

[Meghan54]

I've got only one comment about the 560Ti and possibly other Nvidia cards......I hope you're not using Firefox as your browser.

I suffered with constant browser crashes with the two latest driver packages from Nvidia....so bad that I joined Nvidia's forum and offered to send in my 560Ti for testing.....gladly! I switched back to ATi, a 6970, and the crashing is gone.

Only real complaint I had about the card. Otherwise, it worked well. But the constant video driver crashes became intolerable.

 

[Silverforce11]

Both sides have had driver issues, just wait til they sort it out or use chrome.

 

[destrekor]

Blasphemy.

Did you even look at their BD gaming review, showing how utterly bad BD is for gaming with their highly detailed fps graph??

Can't see that with other review sites.

[H] is the #1 review site.

Any review site that automatically set to ULTRA and bench BF3 is utterly clueless (and there's a lot of sites like that, they don't even know bf3 is a deferred rendering game). MSAA doesn't even remove most of the jagged edges. Why have it enabled? Even with NV, you take a 20% perf hit. So you enjoy taking a perf drop for no visual gains?

SP -> MP 64 player conquest = ~25% drop in performance. Factor this into all the review benches you see.

Also, 2gb vram on ultra = more higher res models/textures streaming in BF3 on ultra. 1gb cards running "ultra" actually only run the game on "high" as it cannot use the streaming feature.

The MSAA in BF3 is not useless. It being a deferred rendering engine is also a worthless point, because the MSAA setting in the game is also added in to the deferred rendering.

Now, setting AA in drivers is worthless for a deferred render game, but I actually think the 4x MSAA looks good in BF3. Of course, it's still only 4xMSAA which means it won't be able to make the image appear as if there is absolutely no aliasing (you would need more advanced AA modes for that). And since it's deferred rendering, that 4xMSAA has a harder hit on framerate than it would if applied in a conventionally rendered engine.

With a little bit of motion blur, plus Post AA on High, my 560 Ti SLI configuration can almost play BF3 at a perfect 60fps on (almost-maxed out) Ultra settings, with World Mesh on High and Deferred AA set to None (PostAA on High). It looks great, plays smooth, and with a tiny fraction of Motion Blur the game looks absolutely gorgeous in action with Aliasing only coming into view when you sit still and actively look for it.
With 4xMSAA on, I can reach 60fps (I play with vsync on), but it dips below that far too often and sometimes low enough to be very noticeable. When engaged in hectic multiplayer, it doesn't appear to drop at my current settings, so I'm satisfied.

And I have 2x EVGA 560 Ti 2gb cards.

The 2gb is very handy for nVidia Surround. I'd love to give it a go in BF3, but it's completely screwed up with multimonitor spanned resolutions (both Eyefinity and NV Surround are showing issues, it's the game itself causing the issues). The 2gb will be important there (and my Ultra settings will have to be scaled down considerably for gaming at 6060x1080 (bezel corrected)... Post AA is basically free, and probably will have minimal if any impact on FPS at the spanned resolution, but Ultra settings and any deferred AA is out of the question with these cards, but I know that going into it. Mostly got the three monitors for iRacing, and will use them for other games if supported properly (and when I'd rather have that increased view versus trying to max out visual quality).

 

[Crap Daddy]

In SP my GTX570 at 830 MHz core plays BF3 completely maxed out at 50-60FPS vsync on at 1680x1050. The problem is in MP which is a different situation. I run out of VRAM at these settings and from 50-60FPS it drops down to under 10 and even freezes on certain maps (conquest large). So I settled for 2MSAA everything else maxed out, vsync on and it plays mostly at 60FPS. So, yes, a 2GB card is desirable for 4MSAA but a single 6950 is weaker than a 570 so take what you want. Anyway this "more VRAM" stuff in certain new games is getting me worried.

 

[lehtv]

destrekor, yeah that MSAA is totally useful when any old chap with a 560 Ti 2GB SLI setup worth over $500 can use it without too much trouble.

Also,

It being a deferred rendering engine is also a worthless point [...] And since it's deferred rendering, that 4xMSAA has a harder hit on framerate

 

[s44]

I wouldn't be comfortable with even the 570's 1.25GB of memory if you are planning on playing at ultra settings.

Except that it still easily beats the 6950 2gb on Ultra...

 

[lehtv]

Maybe that's because it costs $50 more? Or perhaps it's because AMD cards suffer more with MSAA on? Turn it off and it doesn't beat it easily anymore. Additionally perhaps the limited VRAM of 570 doesn't allow the GPU to take full advantage of the Ultra settings, resulting in less workload and thus higher framerates.

 

[nanaki333]

his comment was based on vram usage for Ultra settings not price. and perhaps you missed the part where the gtx570 also beats the 6970 on Ultra settings which costs MORE than you can get a gtx570 for.

there are other games out and ones coming out i'm sure that would benefit from the higher vram. basing it off of just 1 game would be silly.