Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Gtx 560 Ti vs HD 6950 2GB

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 16, 2011 3:14:10 PM

Hey guys, i seen quite a few benches on the gtx 560 ti and HD 6950 2GB and i was thinking of upgrading to either one of them. BUT, the thing is, i dont know which one to get because i wont be purchasing anything for my system after this. Please tell me what you think and which one i should go for, try not to get off topic with other gpu's thanks.

Specs:
Intel core i3 530
Mushkin Enhanced DDR3 4GB 2x(2GB)
HD 5770 OC Vapour-x
Gigabyte H55M-UD2H motherboard
Thermaltake 500w psu with 43A in total. 12V1=25A and 12V2=18A
Resolution of games at 1600x900 nothing else higher

More about : gtx 560 6950 2gb

a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 4:16:53 PM

Both cards are great, for your resolution both cards will max out everything, i'd say go for 560, if it's your last then imo you will want as nice as possible gameplay and graphics *physx* , 6950 is a bit better and can be flashed into 6970
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 4:19:02 PM

your CPU will be the bottleneck if you get one of those cards, i would recommend you to check these out instead: GTX 460 1GB, HD6850 or HD6870.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 16, 2011 4:47:13 PM

Are u really sure it would bottleneck these cards Derbixrace?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 4:54:21 PM

yes in some games
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 5:05:04 PM

Derbixrace said:
your CPU will be the bottleneck if you get one of those cards, i would recommend you to check these out instead: GTX 460 1GB, HD6850 or HD6870.


Not true at all. i3 is proven to perform as good or better than Phenom II X4 in gaming. Overclocking your i3-530 to i3-560 speed, makes it faster than a PII X4 955 in gaming.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 5:07:59 PM

well think about my res, will that really effect the gameplay? i mean 1600x900 is a lot less cpu intensive than 1920x1080 isnt it?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 6:00:27 PM

but two-cored CPUs are a little worse than 3-4 in gaming anyway
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 6:00:28 PM

i wouldnt pair up a high end GPU with a dual core but thats just me.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 6:03:19 PM

^that's what i meant, and yeah an example for games that require better CPU is BFBC2....
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 8:44:33 PM

alright maybe i choose something a little less intensive, does anyone how the HD 6870 performs against the Gtx 560 ti and HD 6950??
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 10:05:20 PM

With a Core i-anything CPU, I wouldn't worry about bottlenecking, especially when you are talking about midrange cards. You wouldn't want to guess wrong and find out that your system could and should have a better video card.

m
0
l
March 16, 2011 10:31:59 PM

so you think that a gtx 560 ti would work fine for my system matto17secs?
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 10:49:45 PM

iduhfuse said:
so you think that a gtx 560 ti would work fine for my system matto17secs?

Absolutely. I am a big fan of overkill, whatever that is.

For you, I don't see the bottleneck being enough to justify lowering your sights, if you have the $250 to spend. A higher level card will stretch out the usefulness of your system as games get more demanding anyway. Bottlenecking is only a valid argument if a more expensive card doesn't have a positive impact on performance. I just don't believe that's the case with your system. I also like the GTX 560 pairing well with your lower resolution, which is where it was designed to perform.

By the way, check out the new Gigabyte GTX 560 SuperOverclock (SOC), a near silent card clocked at 950 mhz like the Zotac AMP! in the benchmark above.
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 10:55:28 PM

At your resolution you would see no difference than with your previous gpu.
Do you play with vsync on?
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 10:59:48 PM

At that resolution, a 6870 would do.
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 10:59:54 PM

Liu kang baking a pie said:
At your resolution you would see no difference than with your previous gpu.
Do you play with vsync on?

According to the chart on this very same page, at approximately the same resolution, there will be a 51% performance increase over a 5770.
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 11:00:40 PM

yesitsmario said:
At that resolution, a 6870 would do.

23% less performance.
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 11:02:44 PM

17seconds said:
Absolutely. I am a big fan of overkill, whatever that is.

For you, I don't see the bottleneck being enough to justify lowering your sights, if you have the $250 to spend. A higher level card will stretch out the usefulness of your system as games get more demanding anyway. Bottlenecking is only a valid argument if a more expensive card doesn't have a positive impact on performance. I just don't believe that's the case with your system. I also like the GTX 560 pairing well with your lower resolution, which is where it was designed to perform.

By the way, check out the new Gigabyte GTX 560 SuperOverclock (SOC), a near silent card clocked at 950 mhz like the Zotac AMP! in the benchmark above.

you have a point but there's one problem added to overkill these days.
We are not anymore in the world of CRTs. We are in the world of LCDs which needs to sync with your gpu otherwise you get the ugly LCD display problems.
Now if you have a LCD that runs at 60mhz now you get a gpu that runs at 300fps. They're out of sync so when the refresh comes half a frame would overlap a other giving you that horrible ghost image. Now enable vsync and it gets capped to 60fps which means like it happens a lot your gpu runs half the 60fps that 30fps. Now you paid 230usd for a card but you get 30fps the same as you get with the 5770 maybe even less because your card was a overkill and you had to restrict it which the penalty is performance. Where the current 5770 runs 60fps without problems on that resolution and you don't need to use vsync.

m
0
l
March 16, 2011 11:05:57 PM

17seconds said:
According to the chart on this very same page, at approximately the same resolution, there will be a 51% performance increase over a 5770.

if you have a 120mhz monitor yes.
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 11:10:19 PM

Liu kang baking a pie said:
you have a point but there's one problem added to overkill these days.
We are not anymore in the world of CRTs. We are in the world of LCDs which needs to sync with your gpu otherwise you get the ugly LCD display problems.
Now if you have a LCD that runs at 60mhz now you get a gpu that runs at 300fps. They're out of sync so when the refresh comes half a frame would overlap a other giving you that horrible ghost image. Now enable vsync and it gets capped to 60fps which means like it happens a lot your gpu runs half the 60fps that 30fps. Now you paid 230usd for a card but you get 30fps the same as you get with the 5770 maybe even less because your card was a overkill and you had to restrict it which the penalty is performance. Where the current 5770 runs 60fps without problems on that resolution and you don't need to use vsync.

Why have I never noticed this playing TFC on a GTX 580/Core i7 system? For that matter, why have I never heard of this at all before? It never comes up in those crazy reviews of UT3 getting 250 fps or whatever. I mean, I believe you know what you're talking about, but it can't be that much of a big deal.

Anyway, all he needs to do is fire up Metro 2033 with PhysX enabled, and the decision to go with the higher-performing card will be obvious. And his system is not that low-performing to begin with. I would call it mid-range, and a mid-range card with the latest features is exactly what he needs.
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 11:29:20 PM

17seconds said:
Why have I never noticed this playing TFC on a GTX 580/Core i7 system? For that matter, why have I never heard of this at all before? It never comes up in those crazy reviews of UT3 getting 250 fps or whatever. I mean, I believe you know what you're talking about, but it can't be that much of a big deal.

Anyway, all he needs to do is fire up Metro 2033 with PhysX enabled, and the decision to go with the higher-performing card will be obvious. And his system is not that low-performing to begin with. I would call it mid-range, and a mid-range card with the latest features is exactly what he needs.

LCD refresh rate = fps
If its 60mhz then its 60fps it can refresh
If its 120mhz then its 120fps it can refresh.
You get 240mhz but they're highly expensive.
LCD emulate a refresh rate to work with your gpu.
So it means if they're out of sync example gpu delivering at 300fps and LCD only able to recieves 120fps. Then you get the image where one frame overlap a other.
That's why a lot of people use vsync on. That restrict your gpu to run just under your refresh rate of lets say 120mhz or 120fps. Now if it runs half that a person wouldnt care because 60fps is still smooth enough. Now imagine the guy with a 60mhz monitor running into that issue.

You will notice a lot of people over the internet complaining about ghosting and saying this LCD is crap and that one is crap so no so on. But its not the LCD they overkilled by not paying attention to the capabilities of their monitor when buying a gpu

Please read this

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_11.html
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 12:41:09 AM

my monitor is 60hz LOL. but i dont exactly get what ur gettin at Liu Kang. I mean yes i play with Vsync on of course but really i need what ur saying a little simpler format please. As of Matto i totally agree with you, i really dont see where that bottleneck would drag the performance below 30fps which i feel that i am very comfortable around 40-60, 30fps gets a little iffy with me because i can definitely see the frame difference but its still quite playable.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 12:53:47 AM

iduhfuse said:
my monitor is 60hz LOL. but i dont exactly get what ur gettin at Liu Kang. I mean yes i play with Vsync on of course but really i need what ur saying a little simpler format please. As of Matto i totally agree with you, i really dont see where that bottleneck would drag the performance below 30fps which i feel that i am very comfortable around 40-60, 30fps gets a little iffy with me because i can definitely see the frame difference but its still quite playable.

you are already limiting your current gpu by locking it to under your refresh rate that's 60.
now sometimes theres the half the refresh rate side effect that I mention.
Now what's going to happen your going to get a new gpu and also lock it to the refresh rate just under 60fps.
On your current gpu. Disable vsync and see how it performs quickly. You can try this as well to make your own AA. Drop your LCD resolution just under its native. Watch the magic happen lol
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 12:59:40 AM

are you saying this would be a "bottleneck" issue? I mean i still dont see what ur trying to tell me, im no expert ill tell u that so u know but really, all i care is that i can play pretty much all games till 2013 no lower than 30fps closed to maxed out on my res. I wanna make an investment i wont regret so please shed some light on my decisions, like are u saying i should go with the HD 6870, or the GTX 560 Ti. It would be nice to have ur opinion as well matto17secs.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 1:09:48 AM

iduhfuse said:
are you saying this would be a "bottleneck" issue? I mean i still dont see what ur trying to tell me, im no expert ill tell u that so u know but really, all i care is that i can play pretty much all games till 2013 no lower than 30fps closed to maxed out on my res. I wanna make an investment i wont regret so please shed some light on my decisions, like are u saying i should go with the HD 6870, or the GTX 560 Ti. It would be nice to have ur opinion as well matto17secs.

the 6950 stomps the 560tI especially if you flash it but don't be surprise if you see the same fps as you would do now and run into possible bottlenecking issues if your cpu is running below the 3Ghz mark.
In short your not going to see you moneys value running it at your current resolution.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 1:15:03 AM

okay, so ur saying its a bit risky to invest this kinda money for something i might get the same for, alright i see what u mean now. Now how about ur opinion for the HD 6870? I think it would be perfect for my system.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 1:35:30 AM

iduhfuse said:
okay, so ur saying its a bit risky to invest this kinda money for something i might get the same for, alright i see what u mean now. Now how about ur opinion for the HD 6870? I think it would be perfect for my system.

thats not much of a upgrade. Get the 6950 but then think about getting a monitor that runs on 1080p. Lower the resolution the faster the gpu the more the cpu struggle to keep up.
But you can hold on a bit. Surely the 5770 can perform admirable at your current resolution? Are you having issues with it?
That's why I said try gaming with it but leave vsync off and set your graphical settings higher that have a effect on the gpu. You will be surprised the amount of oempf you get out of them.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 1:35:49 AM

iduhfuse said:
okay, so ur saying its a bit risky to invest this kinda money for something i might get the same for, alright i see what u mean now. Now how about ur opinion for the HD 6870? I think it would be perfect for my system.

thats not much of a upgrade. Get the 6950 but then think about getting a monitor that runs on 1080p. Lower the resolution the faster the gpu the more the cpu struggle to keep up.
But you can hold on a bit. Surely the 5770 can perform admirable at your current resolution? Are you having issues with it?
That's why I said try gaming with it but leave vsync off and set your graphical settings higher that have a effect on the gpu. You will be surprised the amount of oempf you get out of them.
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 17, 2011 1:39:11 AM

I would just go back to the chart showing your resolution. There really is no need to complicate this any more than it needs to be. At your resolution, the GTX 560 is best card available that you can afford, that includes the 5770, 6870, 6950, and 6950 flashed to a 6970. The great thing about the GTX 560 is that it will run very quiet and very cool.

Here you go, Gigabyte GTX 560 SOC:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And some reviews:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-gtx-560-ti-soc-r...
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_g...
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1123/pg14/gigabyt...
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 1:42:45 AM

alright ill go with my current card for now, so u said jack up the graphics and turn Vsync off? SO like put crysis 1 on enthusiast and take Vsync off? wont it cause tears in the screen and things like that?
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
March 17, 2011 1:47:14 AM

To be honest I wouldn't get a dual core unless it was a lot cheaper or was the only thing I could afford. The second thing is the expectation of being able to get as close to 4ghz as possible. 6850 is ok but you can use a standard gtx 460 but you will need to overclock regardless.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 2:01:50 AM

alright, thanks guys. I think ill stick with my HD 5770 for now. But if i want a performance increase should i really take off the Vsync Liu Kang?
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 2:29:16 AM

iduhfuse said:
alright ill go with my current card for now, so u said jack up the graphics and turn Vsync off? SO like put crysis 1 on enthusiast and take Vsync off? wont it cause tears in the screen and things like that?

not if you up the graphical settings it won't. If your gpu can run 60fps then it don't need vsync. Only if it runs lets say at 120fps then you need it to stop the ghosting. that's why I said tune up the graphical settings leave vsync off first see how high you can get out of your gpu before it starts to show the effects. If you can push the graphical settings on to it so it runs around 60fps then you don't need vsync
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 2:36:16 AM

sweet thanks a lot, so like u mean when i up the graphics try to get it to not go over 60 fps with Vsync off?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 639 U Graphics card
March 17, 2011 4:15:50 AM

Liu kang baking a pie said:
not if you up the graphical settings it won't. If your gpu can run 60fps then it don't need vsync. Only if it runs lets say at 120fps then you need it to stop the ghosting. that's why I said tune up the graphical settings leave vsync off first see how high you can get out of your gpu before it starts to show the effects. If you can push the graphical settings on to it so it runs around 60fps then you don't need vsync

Okay, thanks for the link. I completely respect the points you have made, enough so that I have tried to understand them. So please bear with me and let me know if I got it wrong.

I think what you are calling "ghosting" is also called "tearing". And basically you seem to be making it sound like a much more terrible problem than it is.... enough so, that someone should accept lower performance in order to avoid it. If I get your point, the ideal situation is to have a video card that will produce FPS as close to your monitor's refresh rate as possible, in this case 60 hz. But, in fact, having the highest frame rate possible is also desirable, as long as it doesn't cause tearing, in order to have smoother, more responsive gameplay.

The issue I am having is that I don't think tearing is an automatic whenever you are playing at high frame rates. I have seen tearing before, but not very often, it is rare, and really nothing I would downgrade over. I play UT3 at about 200 FPS, and never get tearing or ghosting. Same goes for most games, I leave VSync off, no problem. My feeling is that this issue is being blown out of proportion, but there is always the option to enable VSync, or, and this is important, raise graphical settings.

Back to the issue at hand, then. Is the GTX 560 on this particular system going to run just so fast that the system will get terrible ghosting and tearing because the video card is just running so fast that the monitor can't handle it? Returning to the techpowerup.com review of the GTX 560 AMP! card here are the FPS numbers and graphical settings used for each benchmark at 1680x1050:
AvP 4xAA: 42 fps
BFBC2 4xAA: 81.9 fps
Battleforge 4xAA 16xAF: 69.9 fps
COD4 4xAA 16xAF: 158.2 fps
Call of Juarez 2 0xAA 16xAF: 155.4 fps
Civ5 4xAA: 62.5 fps
Crysis 4xAA: 40.3 fps
F1 4xAA: 61.5 fps
FC2 4xAA: 130.8 fps
HAWX 4xAA 16XAF: 127.3 fps
Metro 2033 4xAA: 23.7
UT3 16xAF: 229.8 fps
WoW 4xAA: 94.3 fps

So, realistically, even if I did buy into this doomsday scenario of ghosting, there are 5 games, or 38% that would fall into this tearing danger zone, which I'm placing at 2x the refresh rate. Out of those 5 games, only 1, UT3 can run at higher settings thus lowering the fps back towards that magical 60 number, and certainly below a more manageable 120 fps. All the other games are safely in a zone where tearing, in the unlikely event it occurs should be minimal. Add in the fact that Techpowerup uses a more high-end machine, and iduhfuse's will most certainly produce fewer FPS, then the tearing/ghosting issue seems to be minimal. In fact, going back over those numbers, I am even more convinced a GTX 560 would pair up nicely with the sytem at hand and enable higher graphical settings. Cut those numbers in half, and that is the current performance of a 5770, well below 60 fps in several cases.

The bottom line, for me, is that this is way too much intellectualizing and overanalysis. An upgrade to your video card, if you can afford it, on your system will give you smoother gameplay and enable you to run at higher settings for better graphical quality. A simple answer to a simple question.
Share
March 17, 2011 11:32:07 AM

yeah, i agree. Were kinda like, overreacting. Anyways i really appreciate your guy's help so much, and my decision is that GTX 560 Ti
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 11:32:29 AM

Best answer selected by iduhfuse.
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 12:09:05 PM

i mean since i already chose the best answer, i still dont REALLY understand why this would matter with the refresh rate and all. I HAVE Vsync ONNNNNNNNNNNN. So theres no possible way of tearing or Ghosting. Like, i have Vsync on for ALL of my games no matter what. I just played Dragon age 2 with all high settings and i got around 40-50 in a city. I took Vsync off, i got the exact same results. 0_0 i really dont why you, Liu Kang, are sorta like deeeking me out with these "refresh rate" "fps" Gpu fps" like????????????????????????????????????????? im really kinda not understanding why it would matter when i ALWAYS have Vsync on?
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 12:32:01 PM

i also have triple buffering enabled btw, so wont that help with the fps loss issue?
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
March 17, 2011 4:42:47 PM

Triple buffering only helps with OpenGL games, Quake, Half-Life 1, Doom 3, I don't have the full list. It will allow FPS over 60 with VSync on, if you play in OpenGL (rare these days).

VSync is only going to be a remedy for tearing when your FPS is over 60 hz, which basically won't happen unless you are well into the 100-200+ FPS range.

I recommend you try turning off VSync, and if you get tearing, then you have three options: 1) turn up the graphics settings, obviously the best option, 2) turn on VSync (one benefit, you GPU will run quieter with less usage), 3) do nothing, because it doesn't happen much and doesn't bother you.

Here is what tearing looks like. It happens more when you are looking around quickly with the mouse than when just standing still in action games.

http://www.tweakguides.com/images/GGDSG_19.jpg
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html

By the way, thanks for the Best Answer. I actually spent a good hour or so on that answer, studying that great link from Liu kang and trying to understand how it would apply to your situation. Way too much!
m
0
l
March 17, 2011 10:21:32 PM

no problem, i hope to see you in the future if i have any more questions. :) 
m
0
l
!