gtx560 or 6950?

tommybhoy · 28 Jan 2011 at 11:43

Marine-RX179 said:
The overclocked 560 is faster than stock GTX570, which itself is faster than the 6970 2GB at 1920 res 4xAA. Yes 6970 (or 6950 flashed) overclocked from 880MHz to 950MHz would would probably be marginally faster than the GTX560 at 1000MHz, but at what cost? Average £30 more on the card, plus higher power consumption and heat and noise.

Anyway, in terms of bang for bucks, NOTHING comes close to the GTX480 at below £195
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-222-AS&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1750

Stock 570 v's 6970 is game dependant on who wins, 6 and half a dozen there. A lot of people holding out for 2gig versions of the 560 for a reason. There are a few games that do benefit from more vram and more will come. Agree with you on the 480 though at that price, you could buy a zalman fan and oc the hell out of it. That would be my main choice now without a doubt.

Marine-RX179 · 28 Jan 2011 at 11:59

tommybhoy said:
Stock 570 v's 6970 is game dependant on who wins, 6 and half a dozen there. A lot of people holding out for 2gig versions of the 560 for a reason.

Yea? Too bad when comparing at overclock vs overclock, the GTX570 walks all over the 6970 2GB.

And to be honest, I think the whole "games starting to use more than 1GB VRAM" talk got totally blown out of proportion, when at 1920 res 4xAA even in games that 'use' more than 1GB of VRAM, the advantage of having 2GB instead of 1GB of VRAM provide average 1-2fps higher at best, and at the end of the day the grunt of the cards play a much more major role in upping the frame rate than the VRAM.

jrodga2k5 · 28 Jan 2011 at 12:00

It's GTX 480 for now

http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-222-AS

£194.99

tommybhoy · 28 Jan 2011 at 12:15

Marine-RX179 said:
Yea? Too bad when comparing at overclock vs overclock, the GTX570 walks all over the 6970 2GB.

And to be honest, I think the whole "games starting to use more than 1GB VRAM" talk got totally blown out of proportion, when at 1920 res 4xAA even in games that 'use' more than 1GB of VRAM, the advantage of having 2GB instead of 1GB of VRAM provide average 1-2fps higher at best, and at the end of the day the grunt of the cards play a much more major role in upping the frame rate than the VRAM.

It's not 'to bad' when I'm talking about a flashed 6950. You keep telling people that the frame buffer doesn't matter when you have no first hand experience on the matter. How can you recommend to anybody that it's blown out of proportion?

KiiYzOo · 28 Jan 2011 at 12:25

Marine-RX179 said:
The overclocked 560 is faster than stock GTX570, which itself is faster than the 6970 2GB at 1920 res 4xAA. Yes 6970 (or 6950 flashed) overclocked from 880MHz to 950MHz would would probably be marginally faster than the GTX560 at 1000MHz, but at what cost? Average £30 more on the card, plus higher power consumption and heat and noise.

Anyway, in terms of bang for bucks, NOTHING comes close to the GTX480 at below £195
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-222-AS&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1750

Thanks for pointing out the 480

I was looking for one for around £200 and I don't care about the heat they produce as I'm going to get water-cooling in the future anyway

Marine-RX179 · 28 Jan 2011 at 12:51

tommybhoy said:
You keep telling people that the frame buffer doesn't matter when you have no first hand experience on the matter. How can you recommend to anybody that it's blown out of proportion?

Now don't go put words into my mouth :mad:

I never said frame buffer 'don't matter', all I said was its impact is not that significant at 1920 res or lower with 4xAA.

And funny you should mention "no first hand experience"...at least the benchmarks prove that even in games that 'use more than 1GB of VRAM', the frame rate difference between 2GB and 1GB is marginal at 1920 res or below with 4xAA; have you got ANY evidience to backup your "opinion" of 2GB card perform significantly better than the 1GB card in terms of frame rate at those settings?

I stand corrected that comparing to the GPU speed, the frame buffer benefit of 2GB over 1GB' impact on frame rate is simply not as significant. A card with a faster GPU with will deliver better frame rate than a card with a slower GPU but with more VRAM at 1920 res...overclocked GTX570 vs overclocked 6970 at 1920 res has pretty much proved the point.

Marine-RX179 · 28 Jan 2011 at 12:54

KiiYzOo said:
Thanks for pointing out the 480 I was looking for one for around £200 and I don't care about the heat they produce as I'm going to get water-cooling in the future anyway

I would have place a pre-order myself if I did just upgraded to the 5850 over Christmas

The £125 MSI 5850 Twin FrozR and the £195 GTX480 has to be the best bang for bucks card...everything else simply don't compare in terms of the £: speed ratio

Is the 6950 (with flash to 6970 considered) £105 worth of faster than my 5850? Nope.

Is the GTX560 £75 worth of faster than my 5850? ...still not quite...

Is the GTX480 £75 worth of faster than my 5850? Hell yes! Consider it is faster than both GTX570 and 6970 at stock, and can overclock from stock speed 700MHz to 850MHz, at which would be close to GTX580 speed.

Mr Krugga · 28 Jan 2011 at 13:28

Marine-RX179 said:
I would have place a pre-order myself if I did just upgraded to the 5850 over Christmas

The £125 MSI 5850 Twin FrozR and the £195 GTX480 has to be the best bang for bucks card...everything else simply don't compare in terms of the £: speed ratio

So would I, if the GTX480 was on offer back then, it would definitely be my upgrade card. I'm glad I only spent money on an aftermarket cooler in the end - saves me some cash for the new generation of GPUs with a die shrink.

Plus my HD5850 overclocked to 900/1220 MHz is just as fast as HD5870 at stock and really flies over my Dell 2209WA's native resolution.

An upgrade of the graphics would mean an upgrade of the monitor for me as well.

Is the 6950 (with flash to 6970 considered) £105 worth of faster than my 5850? Nope.

Is the GTX560 £75 worth of faster than my 5850? ...still not quite...

Is the GTX480 £75 worth of faster than my 5850? Hell yes! Consider it is faster than both GTX570 and 6970 at stock, and can overclock from stock speed 700MHz to 850MHz, at which would be close to GTX580 speed.

You must consider that the MSI 5850 Twin Frozr II sold for £135 isn't that much less expensive than an unlockable Radeon 6950 that can be had for £215 so the price difference is £80 max. At that cost I would definitely consider the 6950 - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=295

Same goes for GTX 560, these cards are already sold for £200 and less, being £190 is imminent and an ability to overclock just as well as 5850s (20% and over) allows them to reach GTX570/HD6970/GTX480s performance bucket. The price difference is just £60 and that is worth considering if you have this kind of money.

GeForce GTX 480 with an aftermarket cooler will set you at £195+£35=£220 and will allow to reach better performance than any of the cards mentioned.

Yet again, the Crossfire 5850s setting you at £270, thus £50 extra, will beat this setup no matter what clocks:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/303?vs=309

The GTX480 may be overclocked to stock 580 performance but it does require an aftermarket cooler for that. It's also no better than HD6970 or GTX570 at stock.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=309
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/306?vs=309

It's still the biggest bargain at this price point.

tommybhoy · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:31

Marine-RX179 said:
Now don't go put words into my mouth I never said frame buffer 'don't matter', all I said was its impact is not that significant at 1920 res or lower with 4xAA.

Marine-RX179 said:
And to be honest, I think the whole "games starting to use more than 1GB VRAM" talk got totally blown out of proportion, when at 1920 res 4xAA even in games that 'use' more than 1GB of VRAM, the advantage of having 2GB instead of 1GB of VRAM provide average 1-2fps higher at best

More or less the same thing.
Do minimum fps not count? Unlocked a 6950 and the results speak for themselves.
As I said earlier it's a much smoother gaming experience with more vram, less dips in fps involved

Marine-RX179 said:
And funny you should mention "no first hand experience"...at least the benchmarks prove that even in games that 'use more than 1GB of VRAM', the frame rate difference between 2GB and 1GB is marginal at 1920 res or below with 4xAA; have you got ANY evidience to backup your "opinion" of 2GB card perform significantly better than the 1GB card in terms of frame rate at those settings?

Well do you have any experience, all you refer to is benchmarks, which are exactly that./ Do you play benchmarks or watch them? For example a benchmark can't equate for you turning 180 degrees and back again at a set area in game, which can fair drop fps.

Marine-RX179 said:
I stand corrected that comparing to the GPU speed, the frame buffer benefit of 2GB over 1GB' impact on frame rate is simply not as significant. A card with a faster GPU with will deliver better frame rate than a card with a slower GPU but with more VRAM at 1920 res...overclocked GTX570 vs overclocked 6970 at 1920 res has pretty much proved the point.

I have always been talking in performance gains in context of unlocking a 6950 to a 6970. What has a higher percentage of gains, an oc unlocked 6950 or an oc 570?

KiiYzOo · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:39

Forgot about minimum fps

after looking over the reviews on anandtech I've decided that it is probably better to get a 6950 , as it is quieter, consumes less power, is cooler, and when at higher resolutions, in most games, in xfire it outperforms the 480 in sli, also if I want to go 3d surround/eyefinity (which I probably will) it is more cost effective as I won't have to buy a second card.

bhavv · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:51

I thought that Metro was poorly coded though, so its not really a very accurate way of comparing 1 Gb to 2 Gb?

tommybhoy · 28 Jan 2011 at 15:19

bhavv said:
I thought that Metro was poorly coded though, so its not really a very accurate way of comparing 1 Gb to 2 Gb?

If(I don't agree there) it's as poorly coded on 1 card then it's equally as poorly coded on all cards.

Marine-RX179 · 28 Jan 2011 at 15:54

tommybhoy said:
Well do you have any experience, all you refer to is benchmarks, which are exactly that./ Do you play benchmarks or watch them? For example a benchmark can't equate for you turning 180 degrees and back again at a set area in game, which can fair drop fps.

Double standard much? You are the one accusing me first with "no first hand experience" talking about frame buffer, when you yourself have "no first hand experience" of 1GB card being the huge limitation for 1920 res and just going by what others are saying :mad:

The people worrying about running out of VRAM and causing the frame rate to hugely suffer most likely stem from the past experience of using 512MB card when the game uses up to 1024MB of VRAM, which means the 512MB card only has 50% of the VRAM of the max being used. But unlike that circumstance, assuming a game uses up to 1250MB VRAM, the 1024MB card will still have 82% of the max VRAM being used...so it's not gonna suffer anywhere as badly as using a 512MB card on a game that use up to max 1024MB.

tommybhoy said:
More or less the same thing.
Do minimum fps not count? Unlocked a 6950 and the results speak for themselves.
As I said earlier it's a much smoother gaming experience with more vram, less dips in fps involved

Funny you should mention minimum frame rate...as the dive in frame rate is much deeper for the 6970 than the overclock GTX560 when 4xAA is applied:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/msi-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review/6
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
1,920 x 1,200 0x AA 16xAF, DirectX 11, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 52fps Average: 62fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 55fps Average: 69fps

Battlefield: Bad Company 2
1,920 x 1,200 4x AA 16xAF, DirectX 11, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 38fps Average: 52fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 35fps Average: 55fps

Framerate dropped with 4xAA applied:
MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz: -14fps, -10fps
6970 2GB: -20fps, -19fps

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/msi-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review/5

Just Cause 2
1,920 x 1,200 0x AA 16xAF, DirectX 10, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 31fps Average: 46fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 33fps Average: 53fps

Just Cause 2
1,920 x 1,200 4x AA 16xAF, DirectX 10, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 27fps Average: 43fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 27fps Average: 45fps

Framerate dropped with 4xAA applied:
MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz: -4fps, -3fps
6970 2GB: -6fps, -8fps

I'm sorry, did you not know that the 6000 series still suffer same problem as the 5000 series of sharp drop in frame rate when 4xAA is applied at 1920 res?

tommybhoy said:

No AA and tesselation enabled...the settings couldn't be more unfavourable toward the GTX560 card lol. I would love to see what how much frame rate the 6970 2GB drop comparing to overclocked GTX560 or GTX570 when 4xAA is applied, as you speaking so prouding of the 2GB card's superior minimum frame rate in Metro2033, despite 6970 2GB's minimum frame rate is lower than the overclocked GTX560 in BFBC2 1920 res 4xAA, and only same minimum frame rate as the overclocked GTX560 in Just Cause 2

Nelly · 28 Jan 2011 at 16:16

Haha you know whats funny, you could use a 5850 or a GTX 580 at 1920x1200 and your hardly going to lose any gaming experiance.

My mate completed Metro 2033 on a 5770 @ 1920x1080 and he said he got slow downs but didn't make his gaming experiance anything worse.

I think most people on here take the price vs performance over the top, considering a lot of people have a drink at the weekend, or smoke, or buy branded food instead of Asda's own crap.

Buy whatever you want, at the end of the day any of these cards 5850 to GTX 580 will play any games for this year.

Buy card, enjoy . . . end of, but it's nice to have a debate even though sometime's its abit of a waste of time for a few quid.

KiiYzOo · 28 Jan 2011 at 16:26

Marine-RX179 said:
I'm sorry, did you not know that the 6000 series still suffer same problem as the 5000 series of sharp drop in frame rate when 4xAA is applied at 1920 res?

did you not notice that I already said my res is 1650x1080?

KiiYzOo · 28 Jan 2011 at 16:27

Would it be better to get a bigger monitor or go eyefinity/3d surround?

KiiYzOo · 28 Jan 2011 at 16:29

Ten pounds difference in it now

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-222-AS&tool=3

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-147-OK

Marine-RX179 · 28 Jan 2011 at 16:36

KiiYzOo said:
did you not notice that I already said my res is 1650x1080?

I already gave you my suggestion at #6 that you should just keep your GTX460 768MB and leave the upgrade till the end of the year for the 28nm cards.

The 2GB VRAM's advantage over 1GB VRAM only marginal and only in some games that use over 1024MB VRAM, and the advantage would be most likely unnoticable at lower res such as 1680 res.

tommybhoy · 28 Jan 2011 at 19:27

Marine-RX179 said:
Double standard much? You are the one accusing me first with "no first hand experience" talking about frame buffer, when you yourself have "no first hand experience" of 1GB card being the huge limitation for 1920 res and just going by what others are saying

When you go from a 5870 to 6950 qualifies me.

Marine-RX179 said:
The people worrying about running out of VRAM and causing the frame rate to hugely suffer most likely stem from the past experience of using 512MB card when the game uses up to 1024MB of VRAM, which means the 512MB card only has 50% of the VRAM of the max being used. But unlike that circumstance, assuming a game uses up to 1250MB VRAM, the 1024MB card will still have 82% of the max VRAM being used...so it's not gonna suffer anywhere as badly as using a 512MB card on a game that use up to max 1024MB.

People said that 1gb wasn't needed then. Where are we now?

Marine-RX179 said:
Funny you should mention minimum frame rate...as the dive in frame rate is much deeper for the 6970 than the overclock GTX560 when 4xAA is applied:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/msi-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review/6
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
1,920 x 1,200 0x AA 16xAF, DirectX 11, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 52fps Average: 62fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 55fps Average: 69fps

Battlefield: Bad Company 2
1,920 x 1,200 4x AA 16xAF, DirectX 11, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 38fps Average: 52fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 35fps Average: 55fps

Framerate dropped with 4xAA applied:
MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz: -14fps, -10fps
6970 2GB: -20fps, -19fps

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/msi-geforce-gtx-560-ti-1gb-review/5

Just Cause 2
1,920 x 1,200 0x AA 16xAF, DirectX 10, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 31fps Average: 46fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 33fps Average: 53fps

Just Cause 2
1,920 x 1,200 4x AA 16xAF, DirectX 10, Maximum Detail

MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz
Minimum: 27fps Average: 43fps

6970 2GB
Minimum: 27fps Average: 45fps

Framerate dropped with 4xAA applied:
MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II@ 1020MHz: -4fps, -3fps
6970 2GB: -6fps, -8fps

I'm sorry, did you not know that the 6000 series still suffer same problem as the 5000 series of sharp drop in frame rate when 4xAA is applied at 1920 res?

No AA and tesselation enabled...the settings couldn't be more unfavourable toward the GTX560 card lol. I would love to see what how much frame rate the 6970 2GB drop comparing to overclocked GTX560 or GTX570 when 4xAA is applied, as you speaking so prouding of the 2GB card's superior minimum frame rate in Metro2033, despite 6970 2GB's minimum frame rate is lower than the overclocked GTX560 in BFBC2 1920 res 4xAA, and only same minimum frame rate as the overclocked GTX560 in Just Cause 2

Depends where you look

What happened to the 570 there then?
We can argue all day but I'm not changing your mind and vice versa, IMO my unlocked 6950 2 gb is a huge improvement over my 5870 1gb, smoother and better all round and only cost me £80 to do. Was it worth it? You bet it is, went from 5870 to basically a 6970 and it's worth every penny.
What is the point of getting :mad:

about it all anyway after all is a forum not all about discussion?
The op has since pointed out that he's is interested in eyefinity too now, so the extra vram definitely comes into the equation now anyway.

Marine-RX179 · 28 Jan 2011 at 21:38

tommybhoy said:
You bet it is, went from 5870 to basically a 6970 and it's worth every penny.
What is the point of getting about it all anyway after all is a forum not all about discussion?
The op has since pointed out that he's is interested in eyefinity too now, so the extra vram definitely comes into the equation now anyway.

I'm all for sensible discussion, but the problem is the way you are "discussing" is twisting what people are saying :mad:

I said " comparing to the the speed of the GPU, impact of 1GB's lesser frame buffer vs 2GB's on frame rate is not that significant at 1920 res or lower with 4xAA", and you twisted it to accuse me of meaning "frame buffer 'don't matter'".

And in case you don't notice, the OP is current only on 1680 res, and he's only enquiring whether it would be better for him to go a bigger screen (a single 1920 res base on his previous post), or to go triple-screen (which I would assume he means using his existing 1680 res monitor as part of that set up).

If the OP is not suddenly deciding to upgrade his monitor(s) early and still won't upgrading his monitor until few months later down the line, as I said before he would be better off using his existing GTX460 768MB and overclock it to use it for now, and try to hold out until near the end of the year for the 28nm cards. However, if he go and upgrade his monitor like tomorrow or very soon, then he can THEN consider whether to go GTX560 or 6950 2GB.

Also, your example of you moving from 5870 1GB to the 6970 2GB and very happy about it...do you not realise over 90% of the performance boost comes from the faster and improved GPU architecture, while only less than a few % of the performance increase actually comes from the increased frame buffer? Take comparing GTX460 2GB vs 5850 1GB for example...the extra frame buffer on the GTX460 2GB won't make it faster than a 5850 1GB for standard settings like at 1920 res 4xAA. That's the point I've been making all along, not your twisted version of "frame buffer don't matter".