new gpu for £230

[lomez]

As the title says im looking for a card that will deliver the best bang for buck at that price tage or below cards ive been looking at include.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-273-SP

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-175-OK

both of those are in the ball park of what im looking to pay for a card

or do you think i should push out a extra 20 quid for a 570 or a

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-142-PC

any ideas would be greatfully received and considered.

 

[ALXAndy]

2gb Ti for me

 

[lomez]

i game at 1920x1080 by the way.

 

[ALXAndy]

Yeah if it's a 2gb Ti then go for that man. The only card better would be a 6970 and those float around £250 entry level.

It's not worth going for a 570, as you are better off with a 560 Ti 2gb IMO. Well, unless you stump up for the 2.5gb 570.

Vram is more important now than ever, and going from how much Vram AMD are using on their new cards they know something we don't.

 

[kissenger]

Yeah if it's a 2gb Ti then go for that man. The only card better would be a 6970 and those float around £250 entry level.

It's not worth going for a 570, as you are better off with a 560 Ti 2gb IMO. Well, unless you stump up for the 2.5gb 570.

Vram is more important now than ever, and going from how much Vram AMD are using on their new cards they know something we don't.

Andy, you seem like a nice guy, but that's a complete load of nonsense.

Did you see that thread where Gibbo tested out the 560Ti 2Gb on BF3, on a 64 man Caspian Border server? It's this one:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18344284&highlight=560ti+2gb

Look at what they're getting. 11.8FPS minimum. 11.8FPS! Do you know what minimums you get with a GTX 570 under the same circumstances? 36FPS. So that's just a little improvement of THREE TIMES AS MANY FPS as far as minimums go.

Don't take my word for it (although I have a 570 and I was just playing BF3, so I know from personal experience), check Hardcop:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/22/battlefield_3_multiplayer_performance_iq_review/4

Now will you please stop spreading these erroneous facts and giving people bad information, or at the very least come up with something in the way of hard evidence which shows that you're not talking out of your backside.

And on the issue of AMD using 3gb vram on their new cards: like the 6-series AMD cards, they are putting so much vram on them so they are SLI ready. SLI effectively (kind of) doubles computing power, but not vram, so the extra vram is needed in SLI situations. It is not needed in single GPU situations, which is why AMD are releasing two versions of the 7950: a 3gb version and a 1.5gb version.

 

[ALXAndy]

Andy, you seem like a nice guy, but that's a complete load of nonsense.

Did you see that thread where Gibbo tested out the 560Ti 2Gb on BF3, on a 64 man Caspian Border server? It's this one:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18344284&highlight=560ti+2gb

Look at what they're getting. 11.8FPS minimum. 11.8FPS! Do you know what minimums you get with a GTX 570 under the same circumstances? 36FPS. So that's just a little improvement of THREE TIMES AS MANY FPS as far as minimums go.

Now will you please stop spreading these erroneous facts and giving people bad information, or at the very least come up with something in the way of hard evidence which shows that you're not talking out of your backside.

Oddly I don't see the benchmarks for the 570 in that link you just posted. Maybe because they're not there on that same level running a 570.

However, given that you seem to be insistent on quoting that thread I would hope you read this part.

Its quite self explanatory that a 2GB VRAM graphics card is a requirement for Battlefield 3 if your playing at resolutions of 1920x1080 or higher, especially with high detail settings.

Which is what I was going on. And given that I get memory usage of 1.4gb+ running single player I would have a 2gb card any day.

Oh. And that 11FPS was, what looks like, one frame, about eight seconds into starting the game.

Edit. I was also considering the price. If he's going to push the price up he's better off with a 6970.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

6950 2GB or 6970 if you can stretch....

 

[kissenger]

Oddly I don't see the benchmarks for the 570 in that link you just posted. Maybe because they're not there on that same level running a 570.

However, given that you seem to be insistent on quoting that thread I would hope you read this part.

Its quite self explanatory that a 2GB VRAM graphics card is a requirement for Battlefield 3 if your playing at resolutions of 1920x1080 or higher, especially with high detail settings.

Which is what I was going on. And given that I get memory usage of 1.4gb+ running single player I would have a 2gb card any day.

Oh. And that 11FPS was, what looks like, one frame, about eight seconds into starting the game.

Edit. I was also considering the price. If he's going to push the price up he's better off with a 6970.

Hang on a minute. I just showed you FACTS mate. And you want to discredit actual facts because Gibbo did one test showing the 2gb 560Ti did better than the 1gb 560Ti (under some very specific conditions, and on the day he was putting the 2gb 560s on sale, no less!) and then made a rash statement about 2gb being the minimum vram necessary for BF3.

Check my first post again. I added the link to Hardcop in there. It shows the GTX 570 with a minimum of 36 fps. Sweclockers ran the same tests on a worse CPU and got 29 fps minimum. I myself get minimums in the high 30s on my OC'd 570 and 2500k. The 570 performs better than the 560Ti by a MASSIVE margin, and this is proven by online benchmarks, plus my own.

It's really simple mate. This is what it comes down to: I'm saying the 570 1.3GB performs better than the 560Ti 2GB in BF3. Now are your telling me this is not the case?

 

[ALXAndy]

Hang on a minute. I just showed you FACTS mate. And you want to discredit actual facts because Gibbo did one test showing the 2gb 560Ti did better than the 1gb 560Ti (under some very specific conditions, and on the day he was putting the 2gb 560s on sale, no less!) and then made a rash statement about 2gb being the minimum vram necessary for BF3.

Check my first post again. I added the link to Hardcop in there. It shows the GTX 570 with a minimum of 36 fps. Sweclockers ran the same tests on a worse CPU and got 29 fps minimum. I myself get minimums in the high 30s on my OC'd 570 and 2500k. The 570 performs better than the 560Ti by a MASSIVE margin, and this is proven by online benchmarks, plus my own.

Now either show me something concrete that proves it doesn't do that or just admit you're wrong on this issue.

OK here are some facts.

Now correct me if I am wrong (because you seem to want to play wrong and right) but a GTX 570 doesn't have 1427mb of vram.

Now of course, that was me playing BF3 on my computer on a level of my choice.

And that is why I don't bother much with scores from the internet any more. Because, put simply, my GTX 470 that I no longer have was supposed to be almost as fast as the 6970 I replaced it with. However, it stuttered due to lack of vram

In my house.
In my actual computer.
Playing my actual copy of BF3 on my actual Origin account.

The problem with these BF3 (and most, it seems) benchmarks is that they are not very specific given that they are not really a true benchmark. They are just some random person playing a random level for random amounts of time on their computer.

Now. If it was possible (which it isn't) to replicate those exact benchmarks in those exact settings then I would be more than willing to try them on my 6970. However, from my own experience and with my own actual facts 1.3gb of vram was not enough to play the game smoothly.

So there are your facts.

Edit. BTW.

He said he had a budget of a set amount, but could possibly consider spending more. That doesn't mean you should just dive in and discount everything else and tell him to spend over his limit.

If I wanted to do that I'd have told him to get a 6970 given that it has more than enough vram for now and hopefully the future (because nothing can be taken for granted in the world of computers).

 

[MOOGLEYS]

I see 1280MB of V-ram usage on BF3 on average. I have seen a max of around 1400MB at times which if was more than your GPU Ram would cause stuttering as the computer has to use the slower system RAM and will cause the minimum FPS to drop drastically.

 

[kissenger]

OK here are some facts.

Now correct me if I am wrong (because you seem to want to play wrong and right) but a GTX 570 doesn't have 1427mb of vram.

Now of course, that was me playing BF3 on my computer on a level of my choice.

And that is why I don't bother much with scores from the internet any more. Because, put simply, my GTX 470 that I no longer have was supposed to be almost as fast as the 6970 I replaced it with. However, it stuttered due to lack of vram

In my house.
In my actual computer.
Playing my actual copy of BF3 on my actual Origin account.

The problem with these BF3 (and most, it seems) benchmarks is that they are not very specific given that they are not really a true benchmark. They are just some random person playing a random level for random amounts of time on their computer.

Now. If it was possible (which it isn't) to replicate those exact benchmarks in those exact settings then I would be more than willing to try them on my 6970. However, from my own experience and with my own actual facts 1.3gb of vram was not enough to play the game smoothly.

So there are your facts.

Haven't you heard of vram caching? ** No need for the insults **

I don't give a flying one how much vram your 470 was or was not using. What I am telling you is that the 1.3GB vram GTX 570 will wipe the floor with the 2GB 560Ti at any setting, on any map, with any number of players, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And if they release a 10GB vram 560Ti it will wipe the floor with that too.

Now, I'm going to ask you again, but you seem to want to avoid the question because you know you're wrong:

IS THE 2GB 560TI FASTER THAN THE GTX 570 IN BF3?

I think OP would like to know the answer to that question if he's shelling out £200 for one, don't you?

 

[tommybhoy]

Some of the Sapphire 6950 Dual Fan Editions already have the unlocked shader bios factory flashed.

Whether or not it is/works, should only be taken into consideration as a bonus, not because you are expecting it too.

If it does work then it's the best out of the bunch for me.

On the other hand, if you are used to Nvidia, stick with them and vice versa for an easier time.

2GB 6950v 2Gb 560ti, both oc like champs, 1 wins some games, the other wins the rest, theres nothing in it really and you won't notice any difference in the real world.

The only spanner I can throw in the works is that AMD gpu's run better than Nvidia's if you have an AMD cpu as to get the best from Nvidia cards they need high clockspeeds!

 

[ALXAndy]

I see 1280MB of V-ram usage on BF3 on average. I have seen a max of around 1400MB at times which if was more than your GPU Ram would cause stuttering as the computer has to use the slower system RAM and will cause the minimum FPS to drop drastically.

Which is what I was basing my opinion on, that's all.

Given, of course, that I have experienced first hand (and not by looking at graphs on the internet and taking them for gospel) that a 755mhz linked shaders GTX 470 ran out of vram and ran like turd.

But that same card (the 470) was apparently more than enough to run BF3.

 

[ALXAndy]

Haven't you heard of vram caching? ****.

I don't give a flying one how much vram your 470 was or was not using. What I am telling you is that the 1.3GB vram GTX 570 will wipe the floor with the 2GB 560Ti at any setting, on any map, with any number of players, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And if they release a 10GB vram 560Ti it will wipe the floor with that too.

Now, I'm going to ask you again, but you seem to want to avoid the question because you know you're wrong:

IS THE 2GB 560TI FASTER THAN THE GTX 570 IN BF3?

I think OP would like to know the answer to that question if he's shelling out £200 for one, don't you?

Right. Firstly I have reported your post as you have insulted me.

Secondly you don't seem to have read what I said.

I did not say the 560 ti 2gb was faster. I said, and I quote -

Yeah if it's a 2gb Ti then go for that man. The only card better would be a 6970 and those float around £250 entry level.

It's not worth going for a 570, as you are better off with a 560 Ti 2gb IMO. Well, unless you stump up for the 2.5gb 570.

Vram is more important now than ever, and going from how much Vram AMD are using on their new cards they know something we don't.

Nowhere did I say that the 560ti 2gb card was faster.

When I said get a 2gb Ti I recommended it over a 2gb 6950. As, in my opinion (and a good few others) it is the better card, no?

So stop putting words in my mouth and wind in your neck and read the posts I wrote in the context they were written in.

 

[lomez]

well, after reading the arguements provided i think my best bet is gonna be to get rid of my old 5750's cf on that auction site hopefully will get 80-110 for em and get rid my old xms 3 1600mhz ram hoping for 20-30 on that and put that towards the xtra cost of the msi 6970 card that you say may or may not unlock to the lightning

 

[tommybhoy]

WOW kissenger, are you at it again?

Don't you think that @950MHz, a 2Gb 6950/560 doesn't match a stock 570, with the added benefit of more vram?

Watch this, Moogleys said it's at stock 6950 clocks and shaders:

This is a quick vid I made for someone showing BF3 on my 6950 1080p at ultra settings with 4 x MSAA.....Excuse the quality...

 

[kissenger]

Right. Firstly I have reported your post as you have insulted me.

Secondly you don't seem to have read what I said.

I did not say the 560 ti 2gb was faster. I said, and I quote -




Nowhere did I say that the 560ti 2gb card was faster.

When I said get a 2gb Ti I recommended it over a 2gb 6950. As, in my opinion (and a good few others) it is the better card, no?

So stop putting words in my mouth and wind in your neck and read the posts I wrote in the context they were written in.

Yes you did. You said that the only card which is faster than a 560Ti and a 6950 in that price range is a 6970. The obvious omission is a 570. Nice backtrack though.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Watch this, Moogleys said it's at stock 6950 clocks and shaders:

That's a stock HIS 6950 ICEQ X Turbo with 840/1280 stock clocks and a 4.6ghz i5 with 8GB ram...

Runs perfectly smooth for me all of the time.

 

[Addicted]

Don't get a 2gb 560Ti, get a 448 Core Ti, check the benchmarks, its pretty much a 570!

 

[kissenger]

WOW kissenger, are you at it again?

Don't you think that @950MHz, a 2Gb 6950/560 doesn't match a stock 570, with the added benefit of more vram?

Watch this, Moogleys said it's at stock 6950 clocks and shaders:

What's that supposed to prove? It doesn't even show a frame rate and it's on Operation Metro, which isn't half as resource intensive as Caspian Border. My 570 will hold 60FPS all day at ultra and with 4xMSAA on that map.

I agree that the 6950 and 560Ti are great cards and can get close (but not quite match) a 570. I'm not saying that he shouldn't buy those cards. All I'm taking issue with is the idea that a card with less than 2GB vram can't possibly be faster than a card with 2GB or more vram. I don't see what's controversial about that.