GTX 560Ti 448 benchmarks

[jumeeno]

I beg to differ,when playing crysis 2 on full dx 11
my vram usage is round about 1856mb and that with a 560 ti 2gig playing at 1680x1050

Agreed, but I am talking about the vast majority of games with sensible levels of detail and AA applied. Crysis 2 can be a beast.

 

[Purgatory]

I beg to differ,when playing crysis 2 on full dx 11
my vram usage is round about 1856mb and that with a 560 ti 2gig playing at 1680x1050

That does not mean anything, that is the driver optimisations or game optimisations using the available memory of the graphics card to a point where it will not overflow the VRAM. It is basically trying to fill the VRAM to a point that will not leave it without enough free for other things to cache to the VRAM. It's VRAM caching in short, not because the game textures require all that VRAM to be playable.

I have a 580 here with 1.5Gb and it will not use more then 1.25Gb-1.3Gb Crysis 2 with everything on Ultra and DX11 @ 1920 x 1200 . So as you see it is again trying to fill my VRAM even if it does not need it to play the game at full speed the card is capable of. So if I gave it a card with 3Gb VRAM i'm sure it will fill it to 2.7Gb-2.85Gb too. Just how the games and drivers are trying to use all available resourses of your hardware to keep things optimised for performance.

The drivers or the game is optimised in a way to try fill the VRAM as much as it can when not doing anything with it, but does not need to do that, it is just a form of readyboost caching for graphics cards and in some cases it can speed things up or if for example you take a different route in the game then it cached it will make zero difference.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Also, people are under the false impression that more VRAM=higher frame rate when AA is applied.

But it's been proven again and again that dispite the 6970 2GB is as fast as, if not faster than the GTX570 1.25GB when no AA is applied, the 6970 2GB loses MORE frame rate than the GTX570 1.25GB when 4xAA is applied and becomes slower than it. Metro2033 is just about the ONLY game that cards with around 1GB vram would have some performance issue at 1920 res....but even that is pointless, as a single card won't deliver playable frame rate for that game may it be 1GB or 2GB anyway.

So basically for 1920 res, the GPU architecture GF110 (or the older GF100) handle AA better than all other GPU architecture, and VRAM is not really and issue as long as the card has 1GB or more. In most case the 1GB card only has 0-3fps less than the 2GB version, and 6950 1GB and 6950 2GB comparison is a good example of this.

 

[glenimp617]

1gb enough for 2560x1440?

 

[Marine-RX179]

1gb enough for 2560x1440?

For that res then no...you would want 2GB or above VRAM. BUT it's not gonna make any difference if the card/GPU itself is not powerful enough to push that res...for example, at 2560 res a 6950 1GB and a 6950 2GB with AA applied deliver identical frame rate; however if crossfired, then pair of 6950 2GB should be noticably ahead of pair of 6950 1GB.

 

[glenimp617]

For that res then no...you would want 2GB or above VRAM. BUT it's not gonna make any difference if the card/GPU itself is not powerful enough to push that res...for example, at 2560 res a 6950 1GB and a 6950 2GB with AA applied deliver identical frame rate; however if crossfired, then pair of 6950 2GB should be noticably ahead of pair of 6950 1GB.

Thank You, just what I thought

so IF the new 560ti came with 2GB (I dont think it will, just saying) and it was under £200

then for under £400 you could have 2gb 560ti SLI with 448 cuda cores. That IMHO would be a good buy.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Thank You, just what I thought

so IF the new 560ti came with 2GB (I dont think it will, just saying) and it was under £200

then for under £400 you could have 2gb 560ti SLI with 448 cuda cores. That IMHO would be a good buy.

But you have to bare in mind that 40nm process GPU cards are gonna be "old tech" soon with the new cards around the corner...it is not unlikely that AMD's new entry level 7850/7870 will deliver on par performance as a 6950 at the sub £150 price point (simliar to how 6850/6870 of this gen pretty much on par with 5850), and might have 2GB VRAM model. So IF that is that case, people might be able to bag a card "with the performance of the 6950 2GB, lower power consumption, lower temp" at under £150

But I guess we'll have to wait and see. And even my prediction for the performance and pricing of the 7850/7870 was wrong, with the new gen cards out the old tech 6950 2GB should hit EOL pricing, and will probably drop from £220 down to £120~£130 price range like 5850's EOL price in this gen.

 

[decto]

I'm waiting to see some decent metrics on the GTX560ti 448 before making a decision.

There are a number of factors that count, i.e. memory bus width etc but it remains to be seen if 448 shaders @ 732Mhz is sufficiently faster than 384 shaders @ 850Mhz.

My simple calc of shaders x frequency shows them to pretty much equal and both will overclock a little from there.

While more shaders sounds good, I far from convinced. This may just be Nvidia dumping a backlog of broken cores.

AD

 

[kissenger]

I'm waiting to see some decent metrics on the GTX560ti 448 before making a decision.

There are a number of factors that count, i.e. memory bus width etc but it remains to be seen if 448 shaders @ 732Mhz is sufficiently faster than 384 shaders @ 850Mhz.

My simple calc of shaders x frequency shows them to pretty much equal and both will overclock a little from there.

While more shaders sounds good, I far from convinced. This may just be Nvidia dumping a backlog of broken cores.

AD

...which would make sense if you consider that these cards are a limited run of 10,000. Sounds like they have 10,000 bad 570s lying around.

 

[Nexus18]

For me it is between these cards at the minute:

- This new 560 model
- The current MSI 560TI OC 2GB
- MSI hawk OC 6870 1GB
- The new 7870

It will all come down to price for me and some other limitations like the following:

- smallish case, antec sonata 3 with only 1x120mm fan at back
- 500W PSU, antec EA brand

I game at 1920x1080.


So far from what I have heard/read it seems like it will be worth waiting for the 7870 and if it is too long or not as good as what I had hoped then a MSI 2GB 560TI below £160 would be very nice.

 

[Howling]

For me it's just a case of waiting for the 7 series so I can pick up another 6950 on the cheap for xfirey goodness.
The "new" 560 doesn't interest me in the slightest. As mentioned above, it's probably just failed 570s - it's nVidia we're talking about.

 

[Winnter]

That does not mean anything, that is the driver optimisations or game optimisations using the available memory of the graphics card to a point where it will not overflow the VRAM.

again i beg to differ
im not starting a argument with you Purgatory.
but i have tryed 2 more games!
wallace and gromit and that was 290mb
and fifa 11 which was 483mb.
So Purgatory am i missing something?if i am please explain.

 

[D13]

again i beg to differ
im not starting a argument with you Purgatory.
but i have tryed 2 more games!
wallace and gromit and that was 290mb
and fifa 11 which was 483mb.
So Purgatory am i missing something?if i am please explain.

i think what purgatory is saying is that just because a game says it is using x amount of vram, it doesnt mean you would see a performance hit if you had less vram.

There is only one sure fire way to check the significance of vram in performance and that is to look at/benchmark games using identical configs and cards (aginst the same card with more/less ram) , and i believe every single benchmark so far shows literally no difference at all unless using ultra hi resolution.

the real 'morale' i think is that extra vram is great, but it should always be put into perspective against actual gpu performance and price

 

[arc@css]

I've had up to 1511mb of memory usage with my 480 (Crysis 2), performance is smooth with very respectable frame rates for an old girl of a cpu.

 

[glenimp617]

always makes me chuckle when people say you don't need more than 1gb of VRAM. I'll never forget when my friend years ago took the p1 out of me for buying a stupidly large 6.4gb hard disk which i'd never fill in my entire life

Might not be needed right now, but you never know what 2012 is going to bring.

 

[Howling]

always makes me chuckle when people say you don't need more than 1gb of VRAM. I'll never forget when my friend years ago took the p1 out of me for buying a stupidly large 6.4gb hard disk which i'd never fill in my entire life

Might not be needed right now, but you never know what 2012 is going to bring.

And considering most card offerings are 1.5GB+ it stands to reason that games are going to start utilising it soon.

 

[kissenger]

always makes me chuckle when people say you don't need more than 1gb of VRAM. I'll never forget when my friend years ago took the p1 out of me for buying a stupidly large 6.4gb hard disk which i'd never fill in my entire life

Might not be needed right now, but you never know what 2012 is going to bring.

By the time these games are able to efficiently use 2Gb+ of vram the rest of the card architecture will be out of date.

 

[Troezar]

By the time these games are able to efficiently use 2Gb+ of vram the rest of the card architecture will be out of date.

Quoted for truth, as they say

 

[Mojo]

I might be way out here, but don't most games have some sort of failsafe to prevent themselves overusing Vram?

For example, Shogun 2 had a system which would automatically scale back Vram intensive graphical properties if it detected that Vram usage was getting near max. You had to modify a few CFGs in order to prevent it doing so, even when everything is set to ultra settings. I'm guessing that other games must have this implemented.

Consequently, wouldn't that mean that barring Vram hogs such as AA and large resolutions 1gb of Vram wouldn't necessarily equate to low framerates at 1200p, just dynamic reduction of graphical properties to ensure it remains playable?

 

[sunny007]

http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/item/24980-zotac-gtx-560-ti-448-poses-for-the-camera

Image of the Zotac GTX 560ti 448