Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GTX 570 vs GTX 560

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 25, 2011 10:52:22 PM

so obviously the GTX 570 is going to be more powerful but I was just curious how different the cards are in graphical outputs and while running new games is the 570 worth the hundred dollars extra? will 560 be running games on high graphics for the next 3 years?

keeping in mind I'm looking at these GPUs from a gaming standpoint not an animation and video encoding standpoint is the price difference reflective of the power difference?

More about : gtx 570 gtx 560

January 25, 2011 11:15:57 PM

hm well the 560 is looking tempting just to bring down the price of my comp a bit but so these video cards arn't going to be playing games on good to high graphics for longer then a year or two at best?

Because I've got my computer pretty much all picked out minus deciding on these two cards but if I'm going to be upgrading the video card every year or two to play new games with good to high graphics maybe I should just go console as I only wanted it for gaming

so if the 560 can be overclocked to 570 speeds though doenst that then mean the 570 can be overclocked to even higher speeds I'm mostly curious regardless of overclocking how much more power and how much better is a 570 going to be for gaming then a 560 now and in the years to come
Score
0
January 26, 2011 12:58:05 AM

my only reasoning for console was you said even the 580 would be out dated in a year and I'm not willing or really capable of spending $200 - $300 on a new card every year where as a console costs me 200 bucks now and maybe 400 when a new one comes out in like 2 or 3 years and I've just noticed many of the former PC big name publishers moving to releasing games on both consoles and PC

but after more thought I'm assuming/hoping you were refering to out dated as in there will be new more powerful cards not I will need a new card to play new games for the next 3 years I understand 3 years from now I won't be playing on ultra high graphics with the same video card I buy today as I would hope graphics progress but will I be playing with at least average to good graphics in 3 years?
its useful to know as that well definitely have a large impact on what I plan to do

and I'm still curious or maybe no one can really say as to how much more power and how much better a 570 is going to be for gaming then a 560 currently and in the years to come

Score
0
Related resources
January 26, 2011 1:09:53 AM

from my experience with graphics cards is that yeh they do get out of date quickly but thats normal in PC gaming industry and yeh i would go with GTX 570 and Power wise well if u do OC and i do say it would be good to do so later on in future to make it last long as possible when comes to playing games smoothly. both cards can play all games at this current date and it will in next 3 years prob really decent but GTX 570 will have more of a game play life span then GTX 560 so if u wanting to get new card every 2 and half years to 3 best bet is GTX 570 sure it cost more but other guy said it can OC to a GTX 580 so u can give it even more
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 3:09:57 AM

crysis 2 is the only graphical blockbuster that is coming out this year ahead of shogun 2 total war. the fact that a computer's graphics card gets dated doesnt necessarily mean its obsolete, a gtx260-216 can still play games @ 1080p

so always remember dated != obsolete. it's the e-peen that gets hampered not the hardware itself.

Because I've got my computer pretty much all picked out minus deciding on these two cards but if I'm going to be upgrading the video card every year or two to play new games with good to high graphics maybe I should just go console as I only wanted it for gaming said:
Because I've got my computer pretty much all picked out minus deciding on these two cards but if I'm going to be upgrading the video card every year or two to play new games with good to high graphics maybe I should just go console as I only wanted it for gaming


no offense but this is somewhat pointless. a 8800gt, a card that is pushing almost 4 years of age can provide a better visual experience than any console to date. throw any game at it @ 720p with a mix of low/mid/high detail settings. be aware that a console's visual != a pc's max detail settings.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 3:30:14 AM

Ankh16 said:
my only reasoning for console was you said even the 580 would be out dated in a year

When someone tells you a $500 video card will be out dated in a year common sense should tell you to ignore that person :p  I suspect either card will be just fine for 3 years. Until Sony/MS release new consoles I don't expect a large increase in the general graphical requirements for games unless adding extensive tessellation to PC ports becomes normal, which I doubt. Crysis came out over 3 years ago and there is still only one game that is more intensive.
The GTX 570 is about 15% faster than the GTX 560 at high resolutions. I wouldn't say it is worth the extra $100. The HD6950(either 1 or 2gb) is the other card you should be considering if you want something a bit faster. The 2gb model can be unlocked into an HD6970 which is faster than the GTX 570 while costing much less.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 3:39:30 AM

Look at the 5870's. They're tossed aside like nothing anymore and they were the king for a very long time. said:
Look at the 5870's. They're tossed aside like nothing anymore and they were the king for a very long time.


fact of the matter is are they obsolete in a sense that they can't play any titles anymore?
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 3:47:58 AM

Quote:
Look at the 5870's. They're tossed aside like nothing anymore and they were the king for a very long time. :lol: 

I wish someone would toss one in my direction then :p 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 4:16:44 AM

Obsolete was a bad term to use. No they play games very well said:
Obsolete was a bad term to use. No they play games very well


i thought they get tossed around like nothing anymore?
Score
0
January 26, 2011 5:00:37 AM

jyjjy said:
When someone tells you a $500 video card will be out dated in a year common sense should tell you to ignore that person :p  I suspect either card will be just fine for 3 years. Until Sony/MS release new consoles I don't expect a large increase in the general graphical requirements for games unless adding extensive tessellation to PC ports becomes normal, which I doubt. Crysis came out over 3 years ago and there is still only one game that is more intensive.
The GTX 570 is about 15% faster than the GTX 560 at high resolutions. I wouldn't say it is worth the extra $100. The HD6950(either 1 or 2gb) is the other card you should be considering if you want something a bit faster. The 2gb model can be unlocked into an HD6970 which is faster than the GTX 570 while costing much less.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


I disagree with the ATI card suggestion lol they don't out perform a GTX 570 or a GTX 560 and lets be honest phyix FTW!!! .... its clear that ATI put up a good fight but now they don't since new nivida 500 cards
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 5:36:52 AM

bowzef said:
I disagree with the ATI card suggestion lol they don't out perform a GTX 570 or a GTX 560 and lets be honest phyix FTW!!! .... its clear that ATI put up a good fight but now they don't since new nivida 500 cards

Alright, you've convinced me. I can't argue with "lets be honest phyix FTW!!!" :kaola: 
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 6:02:09 AM

Be careful when reading peoples idea of being outdated. Most people here don't understand the reason dev's put sliders in their games to allow you to adjust settings.

There are too many that believe that if their card can't turn every setting up to it's max in a game, that it's outdated.

They believe that if the top of the line card can't play a particular game at max setting, that game was poorly coded.

Computer games let you adjust the graphical settings, because they know that people computers of different power. Even if your computer can only handle medium settings, it's still going to have better graphics than a console the vast majority of the time.

Much of the time, the dev's set their games up so that the top end settings are not meant to be playable with top of the line hardware of today. It's only there so it can be used when hardware advances. They had the ability to easily add more eye candy or wanted to try out some super advanced stuff, and made it available to the rest of us.

My best of advise is to just use the settings you can, and don't worry if it's not "maxed out". It's still better than you will get on a console.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 6:06:00 AM

bowzef said:
I disagree with the ATI card suggestion lol they don't out perform a GTX 570 or a GTX 560 and lets be honest phyix FTW!!! .... its clear that ATI put up a good fight but now they don't since new nivida 500 cards


I know I'll regret quoting a fanboy, but the OP should at least be aware that ATI's top card, the 6970, is as fast or faster than the 570 and priced accordingly. Yes, Nvidia has the 580, but it's also extremely costly. Price for price they match performance nicely across their card lines.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 6:32:16 AM

No one buys them anymore. I only have a pair because i traded for them. They'll be replaced soon enough with 580's said:
No one buys them anymore. I only have a pair because i traded for them. They'll be replaced soon enough with 580's


no one buys them anymore that's why you want to replace yours? thats your point?

sorry i was looking at the performance point of view, not on the epeen side of it. i rest my case.

not everyone has limitless cash designated for an upgrade, like the OP here who is cost sensitive.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 7:27:31 AM

How long your PC will be able to keep up depends on its specifications, resolution and the type of games that you play.I have a four year old PC with which I can play most current games on medium- high settings and I don't think that its 'outdated'. If I make a minor upgrade, I'm sure that it will last for another year or two for the stuff I do. Its true that when it comes to PC hardware, there is always something new around the corner but if you waited for the best, you might never be able to get yourself what you want.

And as bystander said, PC gaming allows you to be flexible with settings, so that you can run future games properly just by adjusting how it plays.And don't think that games developers constantly push the boundaries, something which does not occur frequently because of the presence of consoles.The last game that I remember doing so was Crysis, which was released three years ago.

So decide your budget and requirements and get a setup that suits you the best.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 10:20:12 AM

Ankh16 said:
so obviously the GTX 570 is going to be more powerful but I was just curious how different the cards are in graphical outputs and while running new games is the 570 worth the hundred dollars extra? will 560 be running games on high graphics for the next 3 years?

keeping in mind I'm looking at these GPUs from a gaming standpoint not an animation and video encoding standpoint is the price difference reflective of the power difference?



I apologise for not reading all replies, but here is my response to you.

If you're playing at a standard 1080 resolution then no, the 560 will struggle in 3 years time to play stuff smoothly on high. SLI'ing another 560 down the line may remedy the situation somewhat but in 3 years, you will need to be looking at a new card.

The 570 will also struggle, but a little less (because it's more powerful).

Just looking at the replies, there is some debate of PC/Console from a financial standpoint.

Consoles are much better value for money as they provide a stable platform to have guaranteed gaming experiences at a set level without having to worry about requirements. It's a one off investment in the hardware and then games etc will follow naturally. My friend simply doesn't have the capital to maintain even a low powered gaming rig, so a PS3 was better for him in that situation.

Myself, i have a bit more money to spend on a gaming rig and am committed to PC gaming as a whole over consoles so therefore any expenditure is worth it to me.

If you're looking for the best value for money while maintaining good performance levels, ATI are your best bet with the 6000 series. Nvidia, while competitively priced at the mid range, will often claim the performance crown (rightly so) but have uncompetitive prices at the top end. My suggestion to you is a 6950. If you were saying 'i have a lot of money to spend and want the literal best' i would have said to you 'get two 580's in SLI'.

Hope this helps.
Score
0
January 26, 2011 2:08:10 PM

wh3resmycar said:
crysis 2 is the only graphical blockbuster that is coming out this year ahead of shogun 2 total war. the fact that a computer's graphics card gets dated doesnt necessarily mean its obsolete, a gtx260-216 can still play games @ 1080p

so always remember dated != obsolete. it's the e-peen that gets hampered not the hardware itself.

no offense but this is somewhat pointless. a 8800gt, a card that is pushing almost 4 years of age can provide a better visual experience than any console to date. throw any game at it @ 720p with a mix of low/mid/high detail settings. be aware that a console's visual != a pc's max detail settings.


This is absolutely true. The GPUs in the 360 & PS3 are closest to something like a x1900 & 7800GT. However, they're designed only for gaming & are programmed for their exact specs. So that's really an apples to oranges comparison.

In reality, even a GTX 260-216 can pull about 47 average fps in Metro 2033 @1080p with Normal quality settings. Perfectly playable!

It's only if you're talking about wanting to run the latest games at the highest resolutions, and the highest quality settings do you run into card being "obsolete" so fast. And that'll never change, always, something better & faster is 6 months out.

Score
0
January 26, 2011 4:57:42 PM

Griffolion said:
I apologise for not reading all replies, but here is my response to you.

If you're playing at a standard 1080 resolution then no, the 560 will struggle in 3 years time to play stuff smoothly on high. SLI'ing another 560 down the line may remedy the situation somewhat but in 3 years, you will need to be looking at a new card.

The 570 will also struggle, but a little less (because it's more powerful).

Just looking at the replies, there is some debate of PC/Console from a financial standpoint.

Consoles are much better value for money as they provide a stable platform to have guaranteed gaming experiences at a set level without having to worry about requirements. It's a one off investment in the hardware and then games etc will follow naturally. My friend simply doesn't have the capital to maintain even a low powered gaming rig, so a PS3 was better for him in that situation.

Myself, i have a bit more money to spend on a gaming rig and am committed to PC gaming as a whole over consoles so therefore any expenditure is worth it to me.

If you're looking for the best value for money while maintaining good performance levels, ATI are your best bet with the 6000 series. Nvidia, while competitively priced at the mid range, will often claim the performance crown (rightly so) but have uncompetitive prices at the top end. My suggestion to you is a 6950. If you were saying 'i have a lot of money to spend and want the literal best' i would have said to you 'get two 580's in SLI'.

Hope this helps.


No, it doesn't help! No one likes a fanboy in disguise. The new GTX 560's are achieving 1 ghz! They flatly rape the AMD 6000 series. If fact, I just returned by AMD 6950 ending my long spree of AMD/ATI cards.

The guys over at overclock3d.net (who usually favor AMD) agree with me. Watch there review here.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 5:06:43 PM

don4of4 said:
No, it doesn't help! No one likes a fanboy in disguise. The new GTX 560's are achieving 1 ghz! They flatly rape the AMD 6000 series. If fact, I just returned by AMD 6950 ending my long spree of AMD/ATI cards.

The guys over at overclock3d.net (who usually favor AMD) agree with me. Watch there review here.


The only thing i am a fanboy to is my wallet. I purchase what is best for my money in my given price range at that time. I have a 5970 currently, i bought it at a time when Nvidia hadn't even brought out the 4 series and i wanted DX 11 goodness in my games. Before that i had a GTX 280 which was awesome in its own right. Should i look to upgrade in the future, the GTX 580's will be a seriously strong consideration for me.

While i appreciate what you're saying about the 560 (and i do agree, the 560 is an epic over clocker), should the OP not want to overclock for whatever reason, stock speeds and the superior memory amount coupled with an incredibly competitive price make the 6950 very compelling. However, if the GTX 560's were to drop price by maybe £10-£20, my recommendations would look seriously different.

Believe me there is no fanboi-ism about my comments, i am simply speaking in terms of what i believe to be best value for money and while i appreciate people constructively challenging any comments i do make, i do not appreciate simple name calling such as 'fanboy in disguise' because it is just a malicious attack that has no weight to it.

I will however say that 'fanboys' tend to use such phrases as "the *insert card name here* flatly rape the *insert competitive card from other company here*".
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 5:56:59 PM

Griffolion said:
Consoles are much better value for money as they provide a stable platform to have guaranteed gaming experiences at a set level without having to worry about requirements. It's a one off investment in the hardware and then games etc will follow naturally. My friend simply doesn't have the capital to maintain even a low powered gaming rig, so a PS3 was better for him in that situation.

I would definitely say console gaming is not cheaper. Right now something like a GTX 460 or HD6850 is perfectly adequate for 1080p and will remain so for a long while. Consoles are not one time purchases or I would still be rocking my SNES I got when I was 5. The bigger difference is the cost of games. Steam and other sites have had outrageous sales consistently that make buying games radically cheaper on PC even compared to used console games. Even if you are one that can't wait a few months for the games to go on sale PC games still tend to be cheaper.
The benefits of consoles are the exclusive games but PC has exclusives as well, a lot more actually if you are into certain genres like rpgs/rts/mmo or indie games.
All that is ignoring that the consoles upscale to HD rather than rendering games natively at high resolutions which is the only way they can keep up with even sub $100 graphics cards.
Score
0
January 26, 2011 6:09:31 PM

Griffolion said:
The only thing i am a fanboy to is my wallet. I purchase what is best for my money in my given price range at that time. I have a 5970 currently, i bought it at a time when Nvidia hadn't even brought out the 4 series and i wanted DX 11 goodness in my games. Before that i had a GTX 280 which was awesome in its own right. Should i look to upgrade in the future, the GTX 580's will be a seriously strong consideration for me.

While i appreciate what you're saying about the 560 (and i do agree, the 560 is an epic over clocker), should the OP not want to overclock for whatever reason, stock speeds and the superior memory amount coupled with an incredibly competitive price make the 6950 very compelling. However, if the GTX 560's were to drop price by maybe £10-£20, my recommendations would look seriously different.

Believe me there is no fanboi-ism about my comments, i am simply speaking in terms of what i believe to be best value for money and while i appreciate people constructively challenging any comments i do make, i do not appreciate simple name calling such as 'fanboy in disguise' because it is just a malicious attack that has no weight to it.

I will however say that 'fanboys' tend to use such phrases as "the *insert card name here* flatly rape the *insert competitive card from other company here*".


What a joke! You have serious nerve. The GTX 560 is cheaper ($249 USD) than the 6950 ($299.99). Wow... You call that competitive?

Dude, I wouldn't switch from AMD/ATI (my favorite) to Nvidia without good reason. You, like me will also stop defending AMD/ATI eventually. There just is no basis for not accepting the facts.

Overclock3d.net states:

In Summer 2009, despite some rumblings from those who saw the world as green, we wholeheartedly recommended ATI products throughout the whole price spectrum. If you were after either a reasonably priced office system, or a great value gaming system, all the way up to a full-on beast of a rig ATI had everything covered from a HD5770 to the HD5970. Once you included the possibility of running in Crossfire there really was no need to look at the over-priced, under-performing storage heaters with an nVidia badge.

But oh my how things have changed. The GTX580 was released and although it was priced definitely at the enthusiast market it is unbelievably powerful. The GTX570 is even better being considerably cheaper but having the capability to overclock up to GTX580 levels. It's easily the best graphics card for the "normal" people on the planet.


What the video review I shared?...

"How does it do against the 6950? A. Walks past it."


Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 6:24:16 PM

The GTX 560s do achieve 1ghz... as do the current AMD cards. Achieving 1ghz when you start at 822mhz is decent but calling it "epic"...? Seriously?
The HD5850 started at 725mhz and could make it up to 1ghz. Now that was worthy of an "epic" perhaps. In terms of OCing the word for the GTX 560 is about "average" at this point, maybe slightly above.

don4of4 said:
What a joke! You have serious nerve. The GTX 560 is cheaper ($249 USD) than the 6950 ($299.99). Wow... You call that competitive?

The HD6950 1gb is $260. There's also a 2gb on newegg right now for $260 after rebate;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Considering it can unlock to an HD6970 it simply isn't in the same performance class as the GTX 560.
Score
0
January 26, 2011 7:32:03 PM

jyjjy said:
The GTX 560s do achieve 1ghz... as do the current AMD cards. Achieving 1ghz when you start at 822mhz is decent but calling it "epic"...? Seriously?
The HD5850 started at 725mhz and could make it up to 1ghz. Now that was worthy of an "epic" perhaps. In terms of OCing the word for the GTX 560 is about "average" at this point, maybe slightly above.


The HD6950 1gb is $260. There's also a 2gb on newegg right now for $260 after rebate;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Considering it can unlock to an HD6970 it simply isn't in the same performance class as the GTX 560.


O_o You clearly have no idea what your talking about... The 560 will be the best overclocking card on the market upon shipping. Hence, I know you did absolutely no research on this matter.


Since this thread is getting so demented, I'm just going to leave it. If you want to go AMD, go on ahead. You'll get less bang for your buck, but then I realized... I don't care! I've tried to express what my hours upon hours of research has found, but no matter what some people won't hear it. If this was 6 months ago I would have went ATI, but it's not.
Score
0
a c 376 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 9:48:58 PM

don4of4 said:
O_o You clearly have no idea what your talking about... The 560 will be the best overclocking card on the market upon shipping. Hence, I know you did absolutely no research on this matter.

The card has already shipped and there are tons of review out. They are exactly where I got my information. Is your info still based on prerelease rumor or something? That's the only thing I can think of as the subject really isn't a mystery any more. The card get's up around 1000-1025mhz usually with voltage maxed. A 20-25% OC is nice but simply isn't particularly exceptional these days.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 10:27:11 PM

That score isn't as high as I would have expected from a high OC'ed card. I got a fair bit higher with a 6950 and i7 920.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 10:57:04 PM

I only ran mine at 3.4ghz, and my 6950 OC wasn't particularly high (although I did unlock the shaders). I score over P5300.

But with a super OC, I would have assumed higher on that.
Score
0
a c 607 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:07:46 PM

Ankh16 said:
so obviously the GTX 570 is going to be more powerful but I was just curious how different the cards are in graphical outputs and while running new games is the 570 worth the hundred dollars extra? will 560 be running games on high graphics for the next 3 years?

keeping in mind I'm looking at these GPUs from a gaming standpoint not an animation and video encoding standpoint is the price difference reflective of the power difference?

The only thing that is going to outdate either the 560 or 570 is the introduction and wide adoption of DirectX 12, which is far away from being released. Being that DirectX 11 is still in the process of being incorporated into games, with very few on the market at present, you have a long time before the 560 or 570 become obsolete. Just think, the most popular game of the past few months was a DirectX 9 game, COD Black Ops. For me, I think the $100 extra is worth it, to make sure that you won't need to lower the graphics settings for those games that do try to push the limits. There are so many graphics cards of the current generation being sold, game developers will tend to cater to the capabilities of these cards.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:15:23 PM

Quote:
Don't assume.. Go do it and show it to us. I'd love to see some 6950 overclocks. Did you unlock yours?


Ya, I thought I mentioned that I did unlock the shaders. I also left the memory speeds alone at 1275mhz, and increased the GPU clock to 910 (I can go higher, but I'd rather leave breathing room.) Give me a few minutes to run a benchmark and upload it.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:26:29 PM

Ya, but you were saying that the 560 OC'ed to be at 570 speeds, and I keep hearing 570's are equal to the 6970. So I expected the super high OC'ed 560 to reach about the same score.
Score
0
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:39:50 PM

Anyways, as per your request:

http://img263.imageshack.us/i/3dmark11score.jpg/

It's not my best score by any means. The last time I ran it, it was about 40-50 points higher, but it's nothing to scoff at.

Edit: I tried the test again without the "enable surface format optimization" checkbox, and the score was 3 points higher. I'm trying to find out what it does.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2011 2:46:40 AM

don4of4 said:
What a joke! You have serious nerve. The GTX 560 is cheaper ($249 USD) than the 6950 ($299.99). Wow... You call that competitive?




and you're not aware that the 6950 is faster overall?


and by this guy's logic, the gtx570 which is in the 6950/70 range is also a joke.
Score
0
January 27, 2011 6:22:22 AM

You can overclock the hell out of a 560 Ti but it still doesnt compete with a 6950 stock!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2011 7:47:55 AM

don4of4 said:
What a joke! You have serious nerve. The GTX 560 is cheaper ($249 USD) than the 6950 ($299.99). Wow... You call that competitive?

Dude, I wouldn't switch from AMD/ATI (my favorite) to Nvidia without good reason. You, like me will also stop defending AMD/ATI eventually. There just is no basis for not accepting the facts.

Overclock3d.net states:

In Summer 2009, despite some rumblings from those who saw the world as green, we wholeheartedly recommended ATI products throughout the whole price spectrum. If you were after either a reasonably priced office system, or a great value gaming system, all the way up to a full-on beast of a rig ATI had everything covered from a HD5770 to the HD5970. Once you included the possibility of running in Crossfire there really was no need to look at the over-priced, under-performing storage heaters with an nVidia badge.

But oh my how things have changed. The GTX580 was released and although it was priced definitely at the enthusiast market it is unbelievably powerful. The GTX570 is even better being considerably cheaper but having the capability to overclock up to GTX580 levels. It's easily the best graphics card for the "normal" people on the planet.


What the video review I shared?...

"How does it do against the 6950? A. Walks past it."


*Yawn* this is seriously boring now. You clearly have a hidden agenda that favours Nvidia so there's not much point in saying something empty like AMD are your favourite.

Oh and saying 'you have some nerve' is something a pissed off parent says to their child when they do something cheeky, not from one person to another over the interwebs. If you're going to talk to someone with that level of argumentative passion, do it to their face and then subsequently deal with the broken nose you'll get. If it's on a forum, keep the debate civilised, this is Toms, not Semi Accurate.

For the record, i favour neither NV or AMD, the views i gave were my own based on what i've seen. In the end, both NV and AMD have incredibly strong offerings in this sector of the market, to the point where the majority of the differentiation comes from price. I'm not saying i was 100% right, but that's the beauty of the forum, everyone's views are put together.

I'm sure the OP has either run away or switched off by now, for that I apologise for this person.
Score
0
January 27, 2011 8:47:59 AM

So hang on everybody! Your all arguing that the 560 is allot better than a 6950?

According to a Toms Hardware review it clearly is not and performs at a 6870 level.

Confused!
Score
0
January 28, 2011 2:24:09 AM

Wow @ Everyone saying outdated in a year.

Hahaha, I love people just saying it because its the thing to say.

Sure, maybe outdated in that there will be new cards... but I'm still running my GTX 260 from over 2 years ago and running everything on high.

Stuff gets old but not "Outdated in a year".

I can see myself buying a new card around the 2 and a half to 3 year mark... and that's only to keep the latest games running at their highest.

(only thing is that this doesn't include DX11 settings of course)
Score
0

Best solution

January 28, 2011 4:29:51 AM

Sigh this thread has gone into mad disarray, I will be honest and say I only read 3/4 of the crap posted. If we can pull this debate back on topic and help our friend here get what he wants.

From what I gather you want to go with NVidia? The gtx 570 is a quality card and will be great for you. You asked the difference between the two. Really you will only notice in a few games like metro 2033 and crysis 2 (when it comes out) these games a graphically intense for any card and can bring some of the best to their knees. The 560 is basically a rebranded unlocked 470 is my understanding.

All this talk of obsolete is complete bs. If you buy a top tier graphics card (gtx line from nvidia) then you should be able to max most games out for the next two years approximately (except a few exceptions like crysis and such, which was just poor coding and design, the game looked awesome but they could have built it to be less graphic intense by not taking a few short cuts)

After two years you will probably want to update to the next cards series. Or you can do what some do and just buy another card and sli for another year or so then upgrade.

Hope I was able to clear the air on a few things for you
Share
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2011 2:44:32 PM

preolt said:
Sigh this thread has gone into mad disarray, I will be honest and say I only read 3/4 of the crap posted. If we can pull this debate back on topic and help our friend here get what he wants.

From what I gather you want to go with NVidia? The gtx 570 is a quality card and will be great for you. You asked the difference between the two. Really you will only notice in a few games like metro 2033 and crysis 2 (when it comes out) these games a graphically intense for any card and can bring some of the best to their knees. The 560 is basically a rebranded unlocked 470 is my understanding.

All this talk of obsolete is complete bs. If you buy a top tier graphics card (gtx line from nvidia) then you should be able to max most games out for the next two years approximately (except a few exceptions like crysis and such, which was just poor coding and design, the game looked awesome but they could have built it to be less graphic intense by not taking a few short cuts)

After two years you will probably want to update to the next cards series. Or you can do what some do and just buy another card and sli for another year or so then upgrade.

Hope I was able to clear the air on a few things for you

GTX 560 Ti is not a re-branded GTX 470.Its an unlocked GTX 460 with higher clocks and a better reference cooler.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2011 2:51:31 PM

Tamz_msc said:
GTX 560 Ti is not a re-branded GTX 470.Its an unlocked GTX 460 with higher clocks and a better reference cooler.


It's not just unlocked, it's actually a re-designed architecture based on GF-104 in it's fully unlocked state, hence GF-114.


And could one of the moderators please shut this thread down, it's degenerated into calling each other and general argument rather than debate.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2011 3:04:57 PM

Griffolion said:
It's not just unlocked, it's actually a re-designed architecture based on GF-104 in it's fully unlocked state, hence GF-114.


And could one of the moderators please shut this thread down, it's degenerated into calling each other and general argument rather than debate.

Quote:
Similarly, GeForce GTX 560 Ti centers on GF114, the re-spun version of GF104. Before you get too excited, though, remember that GF104 already incorporated the texture filtering improvements that didn’t make it into GF100. That is to say 64-bit FP16 texel throughput doubled from two/clock to four/clock, per texture unit. GF104 has this capability, GF110 has it, but GF100 did not. What’s more, Nvidia decided not to carry over the Z-cull improvements from GF110, instead choosing to leave the raster engine unchanged.

The net effect is that GF114 is functionally identical to GF104. In fact, Nvidia even cites the same 1.95 billion transistor count. And we’re still looking at TSMC’s 40 nm process here.

I hope this clears things up.
Score
0
a c 607 U Graphics card
January 28, 2011 3:37:58 PM

Tamz_msc said:
Quote:
Similarly, GeForce GTX 560 Ti centers on GF114, the re-spun version of GF104. Before you get too excited, though, remember that GF104 already incorporated the texture filtering improvements that didn’t make it into GF100. That is to say 64-bit FP16 texel throughput doubled from two/clock to four/clock, per texture unit. GF104 has this capability, GF110 has it, but GF100 did not. What’s more, Nvidia decided not to carry over the Z-cull improvements from GF110, instead choosing to leave the raster engine unchanged.

The net effect is that GF114 is functionally identical to GF104. In fact, Nvidia even cites the same 1.95 billion transistor count. And we’re still looking at TSMC’s 40 nm process here.

I hope this clears things up.

So did they incorporate any of the new transisitor types (leaky vs. non-leaky) that made the 570/580 run more efficiently? They must have, because merely unlocking the GF104 would not account for the greatly enhanced overclocking and thermal management.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2011 4:21:03 PM

17seconds said:
So did they incorporate any of the new transisitor types (leaky vs. non-leaky) that made the 570/580 run more efficiently? They must have, because merely unlocking the GF104 would not account for the greatly enhanced overclocking and thermal management.

They might have, but that might be the only thing that has physically changed with the GF114, apart form the unlocked cores, higher clocks and new cooler.
Score
0
January 29, 2011 4:05:05 AM

phew I haven't had a chance to look over the thread until now but I do appreciate all the opinions and information I think I'm going to to go with the 570 just for the added power and then if I need to SLI in a couple years I will do that thanks for all the input everyone
Score
0
January 29, 2011 11:53:05 PM

Best answer selected by ankh16.
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
February 18, 2011 6:28:42 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!