new gpu for £230

[ALXAndy]

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.

What are you talking about? O.K. Let me try this one more time.

The OP posted a thread. He said

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

Do you see? Click on both of those links, it's great ! you get to see a Radeon 6950 2gb for £215 and a Geforce GTX 560 ti 2gb

Lovely, aren't they?

Right. So when I looked at both links I thought about it for a while and then I said "Hey, get the 560ti 2gb". I then said "If you're going to spend more then get a 6970 2gb".

At no point did I say that the 560ti 2gb was faster than a GTX 570. What I did say was that because it had 2gb of vram I would have it over the Radeon, as IMO it was the better card.

Nowhere, at any point of time during any of the posts in this thread did I say that it was faster than the 570.

I simply wasn't being assumptive and expecting the OP to spend more than he said he had budgeted for.

Just because some one says they may possibly be able to spend a little more does not mean you get greedy and spend all of their money for them

It's called common courtesy.

Thus, at the end of my post I suggested that if he did want to spend more then it was probably a nice idea to get the 6970 2gb, again due to my experiences with BF3 and vram shortages.

If some one posted a thread asking what GPU to get for £200 you don't just dive in and assume they will spend £250. That isn't being helpful it's just snobbery.

Oddly it only seems to be you that has a problem understanding what I say. So as I said, cool down, wind in your neck and then try reading through it again now that I have patiently explained to you what context it was written in.

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

Technically it's a 565, but again (just in my personal opinion speaking from experience of course) it doesn't have enough vram.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

This shows a 6950 using over 1600mb of Vram in BF3 .....

 

[ALXAndy]

This shows a 6950 using over 1600mb of Vram in BF3 .....

I don't think it really matters what we say tbh.

 

[Stoner81]

Pity the OP doesn't have access to the MM could pick up a higher end card for the same money by going second hand.

Totally off topic now but why does BF3 use so much VRAM is just badly coded or just the visuals of the game? Even at 1920x1080 people say to use a 2GB at least so just curious.

Stoner81.

 

[kissenger]

What are you talking about? O.K. Let me try this one more time.

The OP posted a thread. He said



Do you see? Click on both of those links, it's great ! you get to see a Radeon 6950 2gb for £215 and a Geforce GTX 560 ti 2gb

Lovely, aren't they?

Right. So when I looked at both links I thought about it for a while and then I said "Hey, get the 560ti 2gb". I then said "If you're going to spend more then get a 6970 2gb".

At no point did I say that the 560ti 2gb was faster than a GTX 570. What I did say was that because it had 2gb of vram I would have it over the Radeon, as IMO it was the better card.

Nowhere, at any point of time during any of the posts in this thread did I say that it was faster than the 570.

I simply wasn't being assumptive and expecting the OP to spend more than he said he had budgeted for.

Just because some one says they may possibly be able to spend a little more does not mean you get greedy and spend all of their money for them

It's called common courtesy.

Thus, at the end of my post I suggested that if he did want to spend more then it was probably a nice idea to get the 6970 2gb, again due to my experiences with BF3 and vram shortages.

If some one posted a thread asking what GPU to get for £200 you don't just dive in and assume they will spend £250. That isn't being helpful it's just snobbery.

Oddly it only seems to be you that has a problem understanding what I say. So as I said, cool down, wind in your neck and then try reading through it again now that I have patiently explained to you what context it was written in.




Technically it's a 565, but again (just in my personal opinion speaking from experience of course) it doesn't have enough vram.

The title states £230. I got my first 570 for £230. That's why I included the 570 in the discussion.

Any no you didn't say explicitly that the 560 2GB is faster than the 570, but you did imply that when you said the only card better than the 560/6950 in that price range is the 570. If you're not actually saying the 560 is faster than the 570 then I don't get why you just didn't say that at the beginning when I first asked you, instead of causing all this additional debate.

 

[kissenger]

Pity the OP doesn't have access to the MM could pick up a higher end card for the same money by going second hand.

Totally off topic now but why does BF3 use so much VRAM is just badly coded or just the visuals of the game? Even at 1920x1080 people say to use a 2GB at least so just curious.

Stoner81.

Caching textures.

 

[ALXAndy]

The title states £230. I got my first 570 for £230. That's why I included the 570 in the discussion.

Any no you didn't say explicitly that the 560 2GB is faster than the 570, but you did imply that when you said the only card better than the 560/6950 in that price range is the 570. If you're not actually saying the 560 is faster than the 570 then I don't get why you just didn't say that at the beginning when I first asked you, instead of causing all this additional debate.

I don't see any 570s on here for that much. But, even if he could get one for that much then I still remain steadfast - I would get a 6970, as I have said from my opening post, and that's due to vram.

And I base that on owning a GTX 470 and getting rid of it because it stuttered. And I say that because I actually notice things like that, microstutter when running dual GPUs as well as tearing with Vsync disabled.

However, if you really wanted to be angry at me I would rather have a 2gb ti over a 570. That's me personally speaking from personal experience. I would rather sacrifice some balls out savagery for a smoother (even if slightly slower) gaming experience.

And I base that on owning a pair of 295s, which, either alone or together in quad sli are about as useful as a chocolate teapot for playing BF3.

As for what I should have to explain? I shouldn't have to explain anything. I don't know you (and I'm not being rude, it's just common sense for the internet) and you lunged at me and started assuming things.

What I did try and do was make you realise that you were jumping in without realising the context of what I had said.

It happens all of the time on the internet.

 

[tommybhoy]

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.

Nobody's saying your 570 is not faster than a 2Gb card in certain games.

What I'm saying is there's not much point getting any card above the 2GB 6950/560ti's price bracket, you pay more for very, very little extra performance.

You keep arguing that 2Gb's not needed and you base your argument around the fact that a 570 is faster in BF3 so there is your proof.

If BF3 was the only game to play and no more titles ever get released then your right, but that's not going to happen.

Extra vram can and will make a difference especially if someone keeps a card for 2+ years.

Here's a scenario for you:

MS pull a fast one and release the new xbox at Xmas. PC ports just became much, much more demanding and it's the PC's turn to play catch up.

Cue high res textures, tessalation, physic calculations etc, etc, games just got so much more demanding especially on the vram!

Your slightly faster core is not going to compensate if it's struggling for vram.

 

[Helios1234]

GTX570 all the time, such a brilliant card despite all the claims of low vram etc. Mine was flawless on BF3 at 1920x1200 all on Ultra. In fact, using a HD6950 I have in now, max memory usage was 1280MB by coincidence and yet it was nowhere as good as my GTX570. And that's not even mentioning the fact that it is a brilliant overclocker which not even a HD6970 Lightning can matched when overclocked to 1GHz (in terms of overall performance).

Unless you're using Eyefinity or gaming at 2560x1440/1600, the GTX570 is a tremendous card!

Let's just say I wish I hadn't got rid of mine compared to the XFired 6950s I'm using...

 

[kissenger]

I don't see any 570s on here for that much. But, even if he could get one for that much then I still remain steadfast - I would get a 6970, as I have said from my opening post, and that's due to vram.

And I base that on owning a GTX 470 and getting rid of it because it stuttered. And I say that because I actually notice things like that, microstutter when running dual GPUs as well as tearing with Vsync disabled.

However, if you really wanted to be angry at me I would rather have a 2gb ti over a 570. That's me personally speaking from personal experience. I would rather sacrifice some balls out savagery for a smoother (even if slightly slower) gaming experience.

And I base that on owning a pair of 295s, which, either alone or together in quad sli are about as useful as a chocolate teapot for playing BF3.

As for what I should have to explain? I shouldn't have to explain anything. I don't know you (and I'm not being rude, it's just common sense for the internet) and you lunged at me and started assuming things.

What I did try and do was make you realise that you were jumping in without realising the context of what I had said.

It happens all of the time on the internet.

Why would I get angry at you preferring to buy a Ti? That's up to you. The only thing I objected to was you recommending to OP not to get the 570 1.3GB over the Ti 2GB because of vram issues. You did do that, and the reason why I objected to it is because it's simply bad advice. If you want to waste your own money, then so be it, but I was trying to help OP not waste his.

The GTX 570 will outperform any kind of Ti, any kind of 6950 and any kind of 6970 in BF3 (although, as has already been established, the 6970 will beat the 570 in other games and is a really good card in its own right, as are the 560s and 6950s, albeit at a slightly lower price point).

This is all backed up by facts (i.e. real world benchmarks), rather than your harebrained vram paranoia.

 

[ALXAndy]

GTX570 all the time, such a brilliant card despite all the claims of low vram etc. Mine was flawless on BF3 at 1920x1200 all on Ultra. In fact, using a HD6950 I have in now, max memory usage was 1280MB by coincidence and yet it was nowhere as good as my GTX570. And that's not even mentioning the fact that it is a brilliant overclocker which not even a HD6970 Lightning can matched when overclocked to 1GHz (in terms of overall performance).

Unless you're using Eyefinity or gaming at 2560x1440/1600, the GTX570 is a tremendous card!

Let's just say I wish I hadn't got rid of mine compared to the XFired 6950s I'm using...

They are excellent cards. However, all out speed does not compute back to what is more handy sometimes.

I own a vast selection of graphics cards by both Nvidia and ATI/AMD.

All one can do when trying to help others is be as unbiased as possible and try and give out advice from what they have experienced. And, I have experienced vram issues when running a card with 1280mb or whatever it is of vram.

I will tell you what is odd, though.

Custom PC did a major GPU round up a few months ago, and at every level advised an Nvidia card.. It went like -

550ti for up to and including 1680x1050
560ti mid to high 1080p
570 high end 1080p
580, kinda pointless as its overkill for 1080p yet not quite good enough for 1600p
590 for 1600p.

There wasn't a single AMD card in sight.

Last month however?

6850
560ti
6970 (amazingly)
590.

The reason for that is more than likely BF3 and the knowledge that vram isn't going to be a bragging right for much longer, more of a necessity.

 

[Johnmcbob]

I'd happily recommend a 560ti as i just got the twin frozr one and it's running bf3 on all set to ultra 4xmsaa or whatever it's called and it's getting 50fps which i'm happy with and it's gone up to using up to just under 1700vram so i'm glad i bought a 2gb card now

end of the day i got a daily deal of £202 for the 560ti twin frozr 2 which i'd say is an absolute bargain and it runs cool, it's quiet and plays bf3 on ultra

what more could you ask for?

 

[kissenger]

Last month however?

6850
560ti
6970 (amazingly)
590.

The reason for that is more than likely BF3 and the knowledge that vram isn't going to be a bragging right for much longer, more of a necessity.

You're just flat out delusional!

Yeah, that changed because of BF3, when the 570 outperforms the 6970 in BF3 because of it's superior tessellation performance (which BF3 uses a lot). BF3 is the prime example of just how little vram matters at 1080p!

 

[Helios1234]

I've used pretty much all graphics cards this generation so although my first post might seem more amateurish compared to my real experience, I can tell you that I have absolutely no problems with VRAM. I'm not denying that VRAM isn't important but it has never been for me.

I admit that I haven't been able to test BF3 on all these gcards because I have stopped reviewing them now but the constant argument of VRAM is the reason I decided to go from my GTX570 to a couple of HD6950s. I wanted to see for myself if there was a difference and frankly the GTX570 gave me a much better experience. (Comparing just single cards for fairness). The problem is that as we look to the future where games might require more VRAM, current cards will probably lack the sheer horsepower to drive them at the highest settings anyway meaning getting a HD6970 now with the aim to play a game in 1 years time at the highest setting is a bit pointless. On the other hand, if we assume games don't actually become much more demanding in a year, then the GTX570 will still be more than comparable to the 2GB HD6970.

 

[tommybhoy]

@ALXAndy, I thought it was just me that noticed CPC's preference to Nvidia.

One of the Bit-tech/CPC staff gave me a right old bashing and called me a fanboi in one of the threads because I pointed out that it took CPC about 4 months to mention(in 1 sentence) that the reference cards unlocked, only for him to say that it was common knowledge and everybody new that!

He then later apologised after I told him that I had bought every single issue without fail along with the PC Extreme mag at the time before it ended and that my brother who was also an avid reader(and always bought stuff on CPC's recommendations), held off and got himself a 1GB 560ti, only to be disappointed with it after trying my 6950>70 in his rig.

Needless to say I don't buy the mag any more which is a shame as it was very good before it went the way it has.

 

[tommybhoy]

The problem is that as we look to the future where games might require more VRAM, current cards will probably lack the sheer horsepower to drive them at the highest settings anyway meaning getting a HD6970 now with the aim to play a game in 1 years time at the highest setting is a bit pointless.

I know what your saying but that's par for the course.

Both cards(2GB/1.25Gb) won't play at the highest settings, but the extra vram may enable slightly higher IQ over the card with less vram more often than not.

I very much doubt the 670 will have 1.25GB vram, more likely 1.5GB/2Gb.

 

[xsistor]

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.

Nah. When a card has more VRAM games tend to use that. You can't look at VRAM usage on a card with higher VRAM and then say that any card with less than that is screwed. I've seen well over 1k VRAM usage on my 580 at 1080p. But even on my 460 768MB that game ran pretty damn well at 1080p.

And to the OP - you'd have to be insane to buy a 560Ti 2GB over a 570. The 570 is a much better card. Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

Only get a 560Ti 2GB if you're buying two of them. They just lack the shader power to properly utilise that 2GB vram otherwise.

bottlenecks are a relative thing. A 560Ti GPU is a bigger bottleneck on the 560Ti 2GB card than 1280 MB of VRAM on a 570 1280MB card... You could always add some system RAM (8GB if you don't have it) if you're playing BF3.

 

[Helios1234]

I know what your saying but that's par for the course.

Both cards(2GB/1.25Gb) won't play at the highest settings, but the extra vram may enable slightly higher IQ over the card with less vram more often than not.

I very much doubt the 670 will have 1.25GB vram, more likely 1.5GB/2Gb.

Perhaps, but in my opinion and from what I have observed, raw performance is still more important which is where nvidia wins. People have argued about vram ever since the HD6970 came out but I have yet to see the benefits for myself at 1920x1200 anyway, and even considering higher res, a single card will still struggle despite vram putting it ahead of the nvidia alternative. Of course, the next generation of cards will hopefully provide a much better balance of raw performance and vram to ensure longevity or 'future proofing' but for now I wouldn't dismiss the gtx570 completely.

 

[lomez]

Well bit the bullet put old stuff up for sale and went for

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-123-MS

knew i shouldve did it last week wouldve saved some money

 

[xsistor]

That's a fair compromise between GPU power and VRAM