Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 260 vs. GTX 560 better picture/video?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 16, 2011 7:56:22 PM

I currently have this system:

Q6600 Quad Core
GA-P35-DL3S M/B
6GB DDR
GTX 260
1 TB HD
DVD+-RW
Windows 7 Prem 64 bit
23" Samsung 2343BWX Max. Res 2048x1152

So OK. I'm definitely going to upgrade to one of the New AMD 6 core deals. Which of course means new M/B and RAM.

But my question is if I keep my current monitor (which is NOT LED) and upgrade from my GTX 260 to a GTX 560 will I really see a difference in the picture?

Or would I need to upgrade the monitor too?

Thanks in advance...

Scott
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 8:08:40 PM

first of all dont get amd six core go for a i5 2500k based build, secondly yes of course you will get better graphical output from a gtx 560 over a gtx 260
m
0
l

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 8:31:39 PM

I just recently moved from a GTX 260 to a GTX 560. The 560 is a huge upgrade from the 260.
If you are playing games the six core AMD chips are not for you. Those AMD chips are great for productivity applications where you are doing many things at once. They do not lend themselves to gaming at all. Right now for the same price the Sandy Bridge processors offer much better performance than the AMD six-cores. Even the AMD quad-cores beat the six cores in gaming and they cost less than the the sandy bridge. An i5 2500K or i5 2400 will blow an amd six core processor out of the water for about the same price. I am not talking about a tiny increase either... I am talking about a 2x performance increase. Here is an article by Toms showing the AMD six core chip getting demolished by an i3 2100 sandy bridge chip that retails for $119 on newegg.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...
Sandy Bridge is amazing.
Share
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
March 16, 2011 8:58:12 PM

^+1 agreed SB is awesome
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 9:31:06 PM

As long as you are using Windows 7 then you can have DirectX11 on a GTX 560 which will give better graphics than are possible on a GTX 260 in games which support DX11. The 260 only does DX9 and DX10. And the 560 is more than twice as fast as the 260 :) 
m
0
l
March 16, 2011 11:18:06 PM

pacioli said:
I just recently moved from a GTX 260 to a GTX 560. The 560 is a huge upgrade from the 260.
If you are playing games the six core AMD chips are not for you. Those AMD chips are great for productivity applications where you are doing many things at once. They do not lend themselves to gaming at all. Right now for the same price the Sandy Bridge processors offer much better performance than the AMD six-cores. Even the AMD quad-cores beat the six cores in gaming and they cost less than the the sandy bridge. An i5 2500K or i5 2400 will blow an amd six core processor out of the water for about the same price. I am not talking about a tiny increase either... I am talking about a 2x performance increase. Here is an article by Toms showing the AMD six core chip getting demolished by an i3 2100 sandy bridge chip that retails for $119 on newegg.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...
Sandy Bridge is amazing.



Thanks to everyone who replied. OK, thinking revised going with i5-2500K. Have to wait and see about the M/B though. All of NewEggs Asus boards are out of stock. Must be pretty good if they cannot keep them in stock.

See ya

Scott

m
0
l
March 16, 2011 11:18:32 PM

Best answer selected by scstathis.
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
March 17, 2011 1:08:33 AM

yeah, you may have even found the 6 core AMD is not much etter than your core2 quad 6600 as the phenoms are about on par with core 2's, core for core and clock for clock. Not to mention some games run slower on 6 core amd's than 4 cores.
m
0
l
!