Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Gtx 560 vs 5870

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 29, 2011 1:21:49 AM

is the gtx 560 for 250$ better than the 5870, and is it worth the extra 10 bucks?

More about : gtx 560 5870

a c 214 U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 1:49:45 AM

Really depends which game your playing.
Here's a review on the 560
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

In some reviews/games the 560 is almost as good as the 6950.Which is priced at almost $50 more.
I would say go ahead and get it.And yes it's defnitly worth the extra $10.But i would also say to wait another week or 2.Prices will defnitly drop some more for the 6950 and other cards from the preveious generation.
January 29, 2011 3:13:28 AM

since the 6950 was meant to be be better than the 5870 how much better than it is it because the 560 seams to fall in between the 6950 and 6870 also. I will be plaing war games (bad company 2, crisis, modern warefare 2, black ops, and battlefield 3 when it comes out)
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 3:19:22 AM

a lot of those games that you mentioned are going to be more dependent upon your cpu as well as needing a decent gpu such as a gtx 560, I would say overall the gtx 560 is probably the best deal going right now in that general price range
January 29, 2011 3:30:35 AM

so an i7 2600 paired with a hd 6870 will do just fine (around 60 fps at 1600x900 w/4xaa and 16xaf)
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 5:13:23 AM

I don't manage 60FPS when i play BFBC2.I get around 50-55.Don't have any a/a or af and i'm forced to run on DX10 to get 55fps.
Running a phenom ii x4 965 @3.8ghz and a 6870 on a 1600x900.Wasn't very happy when i finally saw the FRAPS but the 6870 is overall a very good card for a upper mid range card.Can't wait till i can crossfire then zooooom thru it.

I would really suggest to go twards a 560 or a 6950 if you want to use the eye candy.
a c 535 U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 5:30:04 AM

Between the 560 and 5870 with a $10 difference, there is no question. Old technology vs. all the new rage. And if it helps, the 560 has better DirectX 11 tesselation performance, PhysX, and better overall performance. The 560 will also be much quieter and cooler to boot, definitely worth the $10.



Yes, the Asus is overclocked, but so are all the 560's that you will find for sale.
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 1:22:56 PM

It's around 2% faster than refernce.IMO it's a really shitty version compared to others.
Chipset Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Core Clock: 850 Mhz (v.s. 822 Mhz reference)
Shader Clock: 1700 Mhz (v.s. 1645 Mhz reference)
Stream Processors: 384 Processor Cores

I would get the MSI version or the Asus version when it's back in stock.They are much much better and cost the same as the Evga version.
MSI
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Asus
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
January 29, 2011 3:20:36 PM

purple stank said:
I don't manage 60FPS when i play BFBC2.I get around 50-55.Don't have any a/a or af and i'm forced to run on DX10 to get 55fps.
Running a phenom ii x4 965 @3.8ghz and a 6870 on a 1600x900.Wasn't very happy when i finally saw the FRAPS but the 6870 is overall a very good card for a upper mid range card.Can't wait till i can crossfire then zooooom thru it.

I would really suggest to go twards a 560 or a 6950 if you want to use the eye candy.



Your problem is your processor, not your video card. a 6870 is between a 5850 and 5870 is speed and much better at dx11. You should be able to pull 60 fps in dx11 playing bfbc2. Your def capped by your proc, the AMDs are just not strong for gaming, especially in something so cpu dependant like bfbc2
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 4:14:32 PM

I guess i could see your point,BFBC2 is really hard on the CPU.
a c 212 U Graphics card
January 29, 2011 10:14:55 PM

560

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...


Quote:
Beginning with frame rate performance, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti video card demonstrated to us that NVIDIA has tuned the GF114 well enough to easily replace the GeForce GTX 470 series. At the 822 MHz reference speed, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti performed nicely against higher-priced competition. Able to tap another 128 MHz from the GF114 GPU, each game we tested received a 7.3-11.1% boost to frame rate performance. The GTX 560 Titanium beats ATI's Radeon HD 5870 in Aliens vs Predator and Metro 2033 at the more expensive $280 price point, and then goes on to challenge the next price market segment with success. Priced at $300, the AMD Radeon HD 6950 succumbs to the GTX 560 Ti in 3DMark Vantage New Calico, Crysis Warhead, Battlefield Bad Company 2, BattleForge, Lost Planet 2, and Unigine Heaven 2.1. Clearly, the GTX 560 Ti is a video card series with the same value:p erformance potential that made the GTX 460 a popular choice for budget gamers.

DirectX-9 games performed extremely well with all of the setting turned up high and played at 1920x1200 resolution. Mafia-II with SSAO easily pushed 49 FPS with PhysX turned off, and kept pace with the slightly more expensive Radeon HD 5870. Call of Duty: Black Ops was easily tweaked to use the highest settings possible, and had extremely fluid performance during action-packed multiplayer games. In DirectX 10 game tests, Crysis Warhead kept an average 28 FPS and edged out the much more expensive AMD Radeon 6950 video card. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 used 8x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering, and yet the GTX 560 Ti still pushed past 69 FPS and dominated the Radeon HD 6950. DirectX 11 Aliens vs Predator puts the GeForce GTX 560 Ti at 30 FPS on average, matching performance with the Radeon 5870. Lost Planet 2 required 2x AA in order to produce 40 FPS frame rates, but still surpassed the Radeon HD 5870 and 6850 by more than 7 FPS. Metro 2033 isn't a game for mainstream graphics, yet the GTX 560 Ti was still able to play with 23 FPS on average.
January 29, 2011 10:25:41 PM

$10 is the difference? I don't care if you have a hard budget or not, get in the damn couch and find yourself $10.
February 6, 2011 11:05:48 PM

some people dont have money hidden in their couch because they aren't sitting on it 24/7
February 9, 2011 6:50:12 AM

both are good really, but the 560 is better at tesselation performance and has PhysX, both have about the same power requriments as well, going with either will be a good choice, though now u can get the 5870 for really cheap they have it for 199 on newegg last time i checked, so its whatever is cheaper, but if its only 10 i say go ahed with the 560, also it has big room for overclocking as well, i manged to get mine at 1000mhz with little voltage bump.

February 11, 2011 3:04:38 PM

I'd have to disagree about the processor being the problem. Your bottleneck lies elsewhere. I'm using a 560 Ti with an AMD Phenom II X4 @ 3.2 GhZ stock and have NO problems with any game. I can run BC2 at 1920 x 1080 nearly maxed out and get 60 FPS. AMD's second gen quad cores can crush any game out there. You don't need 16 hyperthreaded cores to play games as Intel would lead you to believe. Sure it's nice... but not necessary.
a b U Graphics card
February 11, 2011 3:49:21 PM

Why don't you go for the HD 6950, its about the same price of the two mentioned cards and is better than both of them. The people suggesting Physx have not mentioned the huge dip in frames if you'll use the Physx in GTX 560. So it's upto you what you want.
a b U Graphics card
February 11, 2011 6:53:31 PM

Petey1013 said:
Your problem is your processor, not your video card. a 6870 is between a 5850 and 5870 is speed and much better at dx11. You should be able to pull 60 fps in dx11 playing bfbc2. Your def capped by your proc, the AMDs are just not strong for gaming, especially in something so cpu dependant like bfbc2


I have a 955 at 4.0 ghz and a 6870 oc'ed at 1020 core and 1200 mem and I get no lower than 50 fps in bad company at 1080p and all high 4xaa, etc fps usually hovers around 60... how is that not acceptable? did the op ever mention what processor he specifically has? by no means is an i5 or better totally necessary for gaming and amd has many solutions that will suffice... no doubt an i5 or sb i5 may outperform my 955, but at 4.0ghz and beyond the margin is pretty small... does anyone have any benchmarks to confirm or deny this info?
a b U Graphics card
February 11, 2011 6:56:33 PM

The only physx game I own, or is even worth playing imo is Batman AA, mirrors edge is fun but in general, physx is a huge waste of money imo, can anyone tell me some upcoming titles that people will care about that will use physx other then batman arkham city? My main point of saying this to the op is that physx should be 0 consideration (in my opinion) when choosing between AMD and nvidia bc most likely you will use it to some small degree or not at all...
a c 535 U Graphics card
February 12, 2011 3:32:52 AM

jjb8675309 said:
The only physx game I own, or is even worth playing imo is Batman AA, mirrors edge is fun but in general, physx is a huge waste of money imo, can anyone tell me some upcoming titles that people will care about that will use physx other then batman arkham city? My main point of saying this to the op is that physx should be 0 consideration (in my opinion) when choosing between AMD and nvidia bc most likely you will use it to some small degree or not at all...

How did you get PhysX on your 6870?

I have to say, it's pretty much the same as usual, those with an Nvidia card like PhysX and would never do without it, those with an AMD card don't have PhysX and don't like it.
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2011 4:39:21 AM

17seconds said:
How did you get PhysX on your 6870?

I have to say, it's pretty much the same as usual, those with an Nvidia card like PhysX and would never do without it, those with an AMD card don't have PhysX and don't like it.



yeah agreed, obviously I dont have it on my 6870 but Ive tried a friends rig who had nvidia gpus and didnt think it was all that great, but again just my opinion
February 13, 2011 1:12:46 PM

rocky41 said:
Why don't you go for the HD 6950, its about the same price of the two mentioned cards and is better than both of them. The people suggesting Physx have not mentioned the huge dip in frames if you'll use the Physx in GTX 560. So it's upto you what you want.


the 6950 1gb (to be released) and 2gb versions edge out of my price range. i am buying from amazon to get the free shipping and of course no taxes.
a c 214 U Graphics card
February 13, 2011 2:10:34 PM

The 1G versionons of the 6950 are already released in the US.Are you at another location?
a b U Graphics card
February 13, 2011 3:46:39 PM

gtx 560 is your best overall choice IMO, but as a second choice, the 1 gig 6950 would be sweet if the price is right... (a decent bit cheaper than the 2 gig) and they should perform the same
February 14, 2011 2:44:26 AM

purple stank said:
The 1G versionons of the 6950 are already released in the US.Are you at another location?


yup in the u.s. didnt know they were already out though
!