Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I go with a 560ti or a 6950?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 17, 2011 8:45:00 PM

Hey guys,

I've been trying to decide on which of these cards to go with for a long while. Could you please help me decide? Unlocking the 6950 shaders to a 6970 was greatly tipping the scale in favor of the 6950, but I'm not sure you can even do that any more.

Also, I just came across a deal for "PNY Technologies nVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1024MB PCIe Display Card" for $177.19 after MIR. The cheapest I've seen a 6950 has been in the $225ish range iirc.

What do you guys think?

More about : 560ti 6950

a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 8:56:46 PM

A 6950 outperforms a 560ti in most situations, though only by a few fps here and there.

All in all, you will not notice a difference between the two cards to be honest. I personally like the Nvidia drivers better than the AMD drivers, but that's always up for debate. If I were you though, I wouldn't get the cheapest 560ti you can get, cause they seem to run loud and hot. I would get a decent one and overclock it. 560ti's definately overclock better than the 6950's in my experience, though the amd cards usually run quieter and are less power hungry.

And yeah, don't count on any 6950's being able to be unlocked to 6970 shaders. The risk is not worth it anymore.

+1 for the 560ti
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 9:12:38 PM

I'll say the MSI Twin Frozr II GTX 560 Ti, it's an overclocking BEAST!
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 595 U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 9:37:00 PM

I have been pleased with my PNY card. They are an American company, first of all, and they offer a lifetime warranty and nice extras in the box. My GTX 580 came with a 10 foot mini-HDMI to HDMI cable, which is worth about $50.

The quietest GTX 560 Ti they tested at Guru3d was the one with the reference cooler at 37 Dba vs. the 6950 at 41 Dba.

Quote: "For the card in a fully stressed status (in-game)... 37 DBA, now that is downright silent. Very impressive really, in normal conditions you will not hear the card whatsoever."
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-560-ti-review...
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 10:29:38 PM

these 2 cards seem pretty close to each other at performance, it come to you want a long video card with 3 monitors ready or a short video card with physx
m
0
l
a c 226 U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 10:42:08 PM

What resolution ? ......

The numbers speak for themselves. ..... Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:

$ 240.00 6950 (479/751) $ 0.50 - $ 0.64
$ 260.00 6950 Frozr OC (484/759) $ 0.54 - $ 0.69
$ 205.00 560 Ti (455/792) $ 0.45 - $ 0.52
$ 360.00 6970 (526/825) $ 0.68 - $ 0.87
$ 220.00 560 Ti - 900 Mhz (495/862) $ 0.44 - $ 0.51

The 900 Mhz 560 Ti garners 495 fps to the 6950 Frozr's 484 fps. When paired in SLI / CF, the lead widens to over 100 at 862 fps to 759. At 44 cents per frame as a single card, the 900 Mhz 560 Ti's closet competition from the other camp is the "reference" 6950 at 50 cents per frame (12%). When paired, there's no competition for the 900 Mhx 560 Ti's 51 cents per frame....the next closest card from ATI is 25% higher at 64 cents per frame. But again, that's at 1920 x 1200 .....

If you're playing at 2560 x 1600 tho....I'd be looking a 2GB card from ATI.

$220 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$230 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Tho $10 more, I like the 2nd one as I have had great luck overclocking them to 1000Mhz w/o needing to touch the voltage settings.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 11:53:08 PM

The 6950 is faster than the 560 Ti period and anyone who says different is downright lying through their teeth, but for $50 less you'd take the 560 Ti for sure.
m
0
l
August 18, 2011 12:06:32 AM

I'm not sure on the resolution...I plan to get a 27" monitor, so whatever the typical resolution is for that. (not a $1000 27" monitor, a $300ish 27" monitor)

I thought it was generally considered that the 6950 was the better/faster card...those price per frame numbers are really making me rethink which I'm leaning toward.

$177.19 seems like a good price too...

Fricken tough decisions, lol...thanks for the input so far guys.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 12:12:24 AM

The 6950 is faster eod. The nvidia fanboys keep linking the same website over an over as it's the only one that shows the 560 Ti is faster.

The 6950 is faster.

But, there is no way that it's worth $50 more than that 560 Ti. You might want to look at the 5870 which is the real competition for the 560 Ti, and is frankly absurdly good price/performance if you can get one still.

Do yourself a favour and read this review - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=28597&page=1

Look at each game individually and you'll see that the 6950 is a fair way ahead, and the 5870 ties with the 560. The only reason the 560 Ti scores well "overall" is because of one game where it is much faster - even faster than the 6970. In all the other games it lags well behind.
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 12:30:18 AM

Your resolution is likely to be 1920 x 1080. The clear choice is to either get the one that's cheaper, or choose the one that performs best in the games you will likely play. The red bars in this chart show a comparison between the GTX 560 Ti and the 6950 in a variety of games. Positive red bars favor the 560, negative red bars favor the 6950. The point is, different games will perform better on different hardware, so get the cheaper one, unless you are a real fan of Aliens vs. Predator, F1, or STALKER.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gefor...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 12:32:15 AM

It's all about cost. The 6950 is about 10% faster but it is NEVER worth a $50 premium. That's why I suggest looking at the 5870, as it is probably even cheaper and on par with the 560 Ti.

Also...gotta laugh at that 50% faster result in HAWX2 and 30% faster in LP2. Just shows how shady Nvidia is with their strategy.
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 12:36:07 AM

eyefinity said:
Matto are we gonna go through this again?

Not if you don't say something else. I'm trying to ride a middle ground here and trying to present objective information. I have no investment in the outcome. Welcome back by the way. How is your AMD stock performing these days?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 12:44:30 AM

I dont have AMD stock. I do remember you said you were "having a break" last time however...what made you change your mind?

Btw I deleted that comment so we didn't need to go through this again.

But I do have to remind you the last time we did this thread the 560 Ti was more expensive than the 6950 and you were still saying the same things. ;) 
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 2:14:09 AM

eyefinity said:
I dont have AMD stock. I do remember you said you were "having a break" last time however...what made you change your mind?

Btw I deleted that comment so we didn't need to go through this again.

But I do have to remind you the last time we did this thread the 560 Ti was more expensive than the 6950 and you were still saying the same things. ;) 

Much respect, my friend.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 2:42:43 AM

Matto I don't get it. You are such a reasonable and intelligent guy, why do you support Nvidia so much? I just don't get it. It worries me because smart and decent people should gravitate towards AMD.

We are both totally mental about each side but I feel great knowing that AMD is doing the right thing most of the time, while Nvidia is doing all sorts of crap to keep themselves in the game. Ok I get that Nvidia is getting desperate but they still pulled a lot of this *** even when they were in command.

Why do you support Nvidia so much mate? A good and honest company like AMD deserves your kind of support far more. You're a smart guy you know that Nvidia isn't for the good of anyone.
m
0
l
a c 595 U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 6:18:25 AM

And I wonder why people continue to buy AMD and then complain about it, from drivers, to popular games that favor Nvidia, to the inability to run PhysX, to just the unfairness of it all. Basically, all AMD has going for it is power consumption, which is a non-issue given that power saving amounts to pennies a month; and ahem, Eyefinity.

For me, my belief, based on all too much research, is that Nvidia has more games and more popular games that favor their architecture. The driver thing is in their favor. 3D Vision is in Nvidia's favor. SLI seems to be more stable than Crossfire, and the new shroud design helps to make Nvidia cards cooler and quieter in SLI. There's little things as well, like the fact that Nvidia cards scale better when overclocking, making them more attractive for overclockers. Not to mention, they have the highest performing GPU, which I have in my rig.

But for me, really, it comes down to two things: 1) PhysX, I actually play UT3 daily and have tried it with and without PhysX. There is no way in hell I would by a card that doesn't support PhysX. I mean, given the choice with all else equal, even if you don't play ANY games that use PhysX, don't you think it would be better to have it, just in case? And 2) just a little quirk of life: when I got my first computer and installed Half-Life 1, I read a tweak guide that said it ran better on Nvidia cards (did they even have ATI cards back then?), and the rest is history (I'm sure you have an equally compelling story about your love for AMD).

In the end, I didn't really care until coming on these forums about a year ago and discovering the rivalries. Perhaps the spirit of debate pushed me onto a team. But as you can see, I truly believe that research and reasoning can lead to the most logical decision. That is why I take the time, because I know that 80% of the time, you are wrong. :love: 
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 8:19:44 AM

Eyefinity, put the AMD pipe down. Look at the chart again. 6950 got 479 while the GTX560TI got 455. It's faster, relax. Faster that is until OCing is accounted for.

Seeing as the performance is the same, there are three things you should look for. Price, bundle, and specific game performance. This means get the cheaper of the two, get the one with the better bundle, or get the one that performs the best in the game you love to play. From what's been posted so far they seem to be similar in price. I'd double check that PNY card, maybe they don't honor the warranty, etc.
m
0
l
August 18, 2011 2:06:21 PM

I think u should put little more money and get GTX 570.... It can beat even 6970... GTX 570 don't have any competitions right now... Its far better than GTX 560 Ti...
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 8:31:38 PM

17seconds said:
And I wonder why people continue to buy AMD and then complain about it, from drivers, to popular games that favor Nvidia, to the inability to run PhysX, to just the unfairness of it all. Basically, all AMD has going for it is power consumption, which is a non-issue given that power saving amounts to pennies a month; and ahem, Eyefinity.

For me, my belief, based on all too much research, is that Nvidia has more games and more popular games that favor their architecture. The driver thing is in their favor. 3D Vision is in Nvidia's favor. SLI seems to be more stable than Crossfire, and the new shroud design helps to make Nvidia cards cooler and quieter in SLI. There's little things as well, like the fact that Nvidia cards scale better when overclocking, making them more attractive for overclockers. Not to mention, they have the highest performing GPU, which I have in my rig.

But for me, really, it comes down to two things: 1) PhysX, I actually play UT3 daily and have tried it with and without PhysX. There is no way in hell I would by a card that doesn't support PhysX. I mean, given the choice with all else equal, even if you don't play ANY games that use PhysX, don't you think it would be better to have it, just in case? And 2) just a little quirk of life: when I got my first computer and installed Half-Life 1, I read a tweak guide that said it ran better on Nvidia cards (did they even have ATI cards back then?), and the rest is history (I'm sure you have an equally compelling story about your love for AMD).

In the end, I didn't really care until coming on these forums about a year ago and discovering the rivalries. Perhaps the spirit of debate pushed me onto a team. But as you can see, I truly believe that research and reasoning can lead to the most logical decision. That is why I take the time, because I know that 80% of the time, you are wrong. :love: 

Yes they did, but the drivers weren't all that good. [:mousemonkey]
m
0
l
August 18, 2011 9:55:52 PM

FWIW, my MSI 560 Ti HAWK has been kicking tail. I struggled with this whole $200-250-ish GPU for a while, too. Maybe there will be more price break competition as some of these new games drop this fall.
m
0
l
August 18, 2011 10:31:08 PM

That would be nice if I could find a good one for like black friday or something for under $200.

I think probably either of these cards are overkill for Guild Wars 2 or LotRO. I'd just like to be able to add a 2nd card when it's time to pass this off to my girl and call it good.

Maybe I'm aiming too high? These 2 cards just seem like the best balance of price and power (and coolness factor/e-peen). I think I remember seeing 6850's, 6870's, and 460's for right around $100ish.
m
0
l
August 20, 2011 4:25:54 PM

So an OC'ed 560ti beats a 6950 stock...what about if the 6950 were OC'ed too? Or do they not OC well?

Which card is most likely in 2-3 years to be cheaper, still in supply, and most stable drivers based on previous gen cards history? I do think I'd like to SLI/Xfire at some point.

What exactly is PhysX and what does it do/why would I want it or not?

Still wondering if I could/should look at any of the 6850/6870/460's instead of the 6950/560ti?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 5:39:44 PM

17seconds said:
And I wonder why people continue to buy AMD and then complain about it, from drivers, to popular games that favor Nvidia, to the inability to run PhysX, to just the unfairness of it all. Basically, all AMD has going for it is power consumption, which is a non-issue given that power saving amounts to pennies a month; and ahem, Eyefinity.

For me, my belief, based on all too much research, is that Nvidia has more games and more popular games that favor their architecture. The driver thing is in their favor. 3D Vision is in Nvidia's favor. SLI seems to be more stable than Crossfire, and the new shroud design helps to make Nvidia cards cooler and quieter in SLI. There's little things as well, like the fact that Nvidia cards scale better when overclocking, making them more attractive for overclockers. Not to mention, they have the highest performing GPU, which I have in my rig.


Nvidia used to have more games that "favour their architecture" (what that means is Nvidia bribed devs to slow the game down on ATI cards) but you can't say that now. AMD has their own program to make sure it's balanced these days.

Power consumption is a lot more than pennies a month especially if you are using bitcoin - which incidentally AMD owns Nvidia at.

Sli "more stable" than Crossfire? Is that what you've moved on to now that Sli is SLOWER than Crossfire? By a huge amount?

Quote:
But for me, really, it comes down to two things: 1) PhysX, I actually play UT3 daily and have tried it with and without PhysX. There is no way in hell I would by a card that doesn't support PhysX. I mean, given the choice with all else equal, even if you don't play ANY games that use PhysX, don't you think it would be better to have it, just in case? And 2) just a little quirk of life: when I got my first computer and installed Half-Life 1, I read a tweak guide that said it ran better on Nvidia cards (did they even have ATI cards back then?), and the rest is history (I'm sure you have an equally compelling story about your love for AMD).


PhysX? Oh please. You must be the only person in the history of gaming who actually thinks PhysX is worth it in the what, 17 or so old games that uses it?

About reading that tweak-guide, that's precisely what I mean. It was probably bought and paid for by Nvidia. I don't "love AMD", I cannot stand evil cheating corporations like Nvidia who charge huge amounts for their cards then spend a lot of it on bribery. What happened when HL2 came out? Did you just ignore the fact that ATI totally blew Nvidia away in that game? Or maybe you didn't want to play it for that reason?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1546/10

Quote:
In the end, I didn't really care until coming on these forums about a year ago and discovering the rivalries. Perhaps the spirit of debate pushed me onto a team. But as you can see, I truly believe that research and reasoning can lead to the most logical decision. That is why I take the time, because I know that 80% of the time, you are wrong. :love: 


Logical decision? You're joking me. For the past year you've been here fighting the Nvidia corner in every single 6950 v gtx 560Ti or 6970 vs 570 thread - even when the slower Nvidia cards were a good deal more expensive than their counterparts - using PhysX as the reason why or by cherry picking the few benchmarks that the Nvidia cards win at, using the same Guru3d and xbit links over and over while ignoring the rest of them which show a clear winner.

If AMD doesn't win on performance they win on price/performance. Nvidia wins at being expensive and power hungry and bribing/threatening reviewers. That's it. Nvidia has nothing to offer except to people who are blinded by advertising.

Did you buy a 260 or 280 gtx then hate it a week later when AMD released the 4870 at half the price? You should have.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 5:56:15 PM

eyefinity said:
Nvidia used to have more games that "favour their architecture" (what that means is Nvidia bribed devs to slow the game down on ATI cards) but you can't say that now. AMD has their own program to make sure it's balanced these days.

Power consumption is a lot more than pennies a month especially if you are using bitcoin - which incidentally AMD owns Nvidia at.

Sli "more stable" than Crossfire? Is that what you've moved on to now that Sli is SLOWER than Crossfire? By a huge amount?

Quote:
But for me, really, it comes down to two things: 1) PhysX, I actually play UT3 daily and have tried it with and without PhysX. There is no way in hell I would by a card that doesn't support PhysX. I mean, given the choice with all else equal, even if you don't play ANY games that use PhysX, don't you think it would be better to have it, just in case? And 2) just a little quirk of life: when I got my first computer and installed Half-Life 1, I read a tweak guide that said it ran better on Nvidia cards (did they even have ATI cards back then?), and the rest is history (I'm sure you have an equally compelling story about your love for AMD).


PhysX? Oh please. You must be the only person in the history of gaming who actually thinks PhysX is worth it in the what, 17 or so old games that uses it?

About reading that tweak-guide, that's precisely what I mean. It was probably bought and paid for by Nvidia. I don't "love AMD", I cannot stand evil cheating corporations like Nvidia who charge huge amounts for their cards then spend a lot of it on bribery. What happened when HL2 came out? Did you just ignore the fact that ATI totally blew Nvidia away in that game? Or maybe you didn't want to play it for that reason?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1546/10

Quote:
In the end, I didn't really care until coming on these forums about a year ago and discovering the rivalries. Perhaps the spirit of debate pushed me onto a team. But as you can see, I truly believe that research and reasoning can lead to the most logical decision. That is why I take the time, because I know that 80% of the time, you are wrong. :love: 


Logical decision? You're joking me. For the past year you've been here fighting the Nvidia corner in every single 6950 v gtx 560Ti or 6970 vs 570 thread - even when the slower Nvidia cards were a good deal more expensive than their counterparts - using PhysX as the reason why or by cherry picking the few benchmarks that the Nvidia cards win at, using the same Guru3d and xbit links over and over while ignoring the rest of them which show a clear winner.

If AMD doesn't win on performance they win on price/performance. Nvidia wins at being expensive and power hungry and bribing/threatening reviewers. That's it. Nvidia has nothing to offer except to people who are blinded by advertising.

Did you buy a 260 or 280 gtx then hate it a week later when AMD released the 4870 at half the price? You should have.

So you're on to probables now? :lol: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 6:01:16 PM

Well considering how hard ATI owned Nvidia in HL2 it seems likely, right? :D 
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 6:06:57 PM

eyefinity said:
Well considering how hard ATI owned Nvidia in HL2 it seems likely, right? :D 

Who cares? It's not exactly up to date now time is it?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 6:10:10 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Who cares? It's not exactly up to date now time is it?


It's a helluva lot more up to date than HL1 at least.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 6:39:34 PM

eyefinity said:
It's a helluva lot more up to date than HL1 at least.

Not by much! :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 11:37:44 PM

Wow. OP asks some questions and all Eyefinity can do is "protect" his little company? Without providing a single link? Way to help out.

Quote:
So an OC'ed 560ti beats a 6950 stock...what about if the 6950 were OC'ed too? Or do they not OC well?


They used to not just overclock, but unlock. Take a look at the scores that were posted.

Quote:
$ 260.00 6950 Frozr OC (484/759) $ 0.54 - $ 0.69
$ 220.00 560 Ti - 900 Mhz (495/862) $ 0.44 - $ 0.51


484 total frames vs 495. I doubt you'd notice 11FPS. What you could notice is that costs $.54/frame while the other is just $.44. It's not so much that one is faster, but that it costs less while giving more.

Quote:
Which card is most likely in 2-3 years to be cheaper, still in supply, and most stable drivers based on previous gen cards history? I do think I'd like to SLI/Xfire at some point.


Sorry, not a fortune teller here. I would be willing to bet that both cards could be found. You'll have to hit the used market. But both of these are popular now so both will be able to be found later.

Quote:
What exactly is PhysX and what does it do/why would I want it or not?


PhysX is a way to make a game look and act more real by providing more realistic physics. There are two ways to do this. Either have the PhysX run on the CPU, or have "accelerated PhysX" which runs only on an Nvidia GPU, and only when there is no other GPU present. The PhysX wiki has a list of games that support this type of PhysX. Note that if the game is not on this list having Nvidia/PhysX card won't do anything!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

Quote:
Still wondering if I could/should look at any of the 6850/6870/460's instead of the 6950/560ti?


Seeing as you want a 27" monitor I'd stay with one of these. The 6870 isn't a bad backup option but there is no point is dropping down a card just because you can't make up your mind.

m
0
l
August 21, 2011 12:42:24 AM

Thanks for the answers. I must have missed the 6950 OC somehow.

If the price/frame info is correct, I don't see how I could not go with the 560ti. Cheaper + more frames sounds like a pretty good value.

I did really want to unlock the 6950 to a basically 6970, but it doesn't sound like that is as likely to be possible as it once was. I think that is why I strongly favored the 6950 before...if not possible/likely anymore, and if the price/frames info is correct...it just doesn't make sense to go that route. Only thing that could really put it back in 6950's favor would be to lower the price...IMO.

Thanks for all the help guys.
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 12:43:58 AM

guys i had an hd 6950, the card is a BEAST, and i had a horrible an experience with nvidia cards anyway :p 
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 1:11:42 AM

If you're going to go with a card that's less than 200, I'd go with a 460. I bought a 5870 over a 460 over a year ago, and the 5870 was killer at first, but does not age well with newer games and drivers. And it's a pain to OC unless you get one with a really nice cooling fan.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 1:12:29 AM

4745454b said:
Wow. OP asks some questions and all Eyefinity can do is "protect" his little company? Without providing a single link? Way to help out.


Maybe you missed the other 10 threads on the same topic where I posted multiple links and screenshots? Should I link them or did you find them after posting this?
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 5:57:47 AM

Links are always good. :) 
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 6:27:53 AM

I'm not so sure about unlocking the AMD card. I can't recall the last time I heard of somebody pulling that off.
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 6:28:16 AM

Why? He's Eyefinity. Any time he posts your supposed to research all his previous posts so that he doesn't have to waste his time typing everything over and over. Guess it's time I take a break from this thread. I hope the OP has the answers he's looking for.
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 7:35:57 AM

And one thing I've noticed with Eyefinity's many links, is that the 560 seems to have more stable framerates, and still keeps up with the 6950 in 1080p. And those tests are all with a seemingly stock 560.

My 2 cents, it's not the best price atm, but I'm counting my pennies until i pull the trigger on this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 2:59:52 PM

spearphish said:
And one thing I've noticed with Eyefinity's many links, is that the 560 seems to have more stable framerates, and still keeps up with the 6950 in 1080p. And those tests are all with a seemingly stock 560.

My 2 cents, it's not the best price atm, but I'm counting my pennies until i pull the trigger on this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


That card and the Asus one linked by JackNaylor seem good. How's the heat on that one?
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 4:35:39 PM

spearphish said:
And one thing I've noticed with Eyefinity's many links, is that the 560 seems to have more stable framerates, and still keeps up with the 6950 in 1080p. And those tests are all with a seemingly stock 560.

My 2 cents, it's not the best price atm, but I'm counting my pennies until i pull the trigger on this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


I have that one. I like it a lot. I picked it over the stock 6950 specs out there.
m
0
l
August 21, 2011 4:37:48 PM



I just pulled the trigger on this last night (in part due to this thread, thanks to everyone who posted!)
I figured for that price you cant beat it, just thought I would pass it along (for those who dont want to click, its a 560TI Twin Frozr for 199.99)
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 4:40:43 PM

You forgot to mention free shipping. That's a heck of a deal.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 4:47:01 PM

spearphish said:
And one thing I've noticed with Eyefinity's many links, is that the 560 seems to have more stable framerates, and still keeps up with the 6950 in 1080p. And those tests are all with a seemingly stock 560.


If what you mean is there are 1 or 2 games where the 560 Ti wins where it normally loses by more, that only proves that some games seriously favour certain architectures more.

There are plenty of games where the 6950 totally embarrasses the 560 Ti. Also, most of my links showed an overclocked 560 Ti vs a stock 6950...can you at least get that part right?

Wanna see overclocked 560 ti vs overclocked 6950?

http://techgage.com/article/amd_hd_6950_1gb_vs_nvidia_g...

The 6950 is so far ahead it's embarrassing. In all but one game it's a total massacre. Look at Just Cause 2 it's almost 50% faster, that's a total annihilation.

edit - woops pasted the wrong link before, corrected.
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:08:20 PM

Are we looking at the same review? What did legitreviews say about the 560TI?

Quote:
If we had to pick one of these video cards today it is a tough call as the performance benchmarks were split for the most part. If you don't look at performance numbers, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti has the usual NVIDIA features like PhysX, CUDA, 3D Vision and great SLI scaling for those wanting to run multi-GPU setups. It also runs cooler at idle and load. It uses slightly less power at an idle state and, let's face it, our PCs sit at idle most of the time. The GTX 560 Ti is a small card at just 9-inches in length. This makes it 1.5-inches shorter than the Radeon HD 6950 1GB, meaning it will easily fit in your case and not block air flow. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti can also overclock really well and the price tag is lower.


Doesn't sound like to me they said it was junk. Embarrasses? Seeing as some are talking about the 900MHz 560TI, look at the OC'd link.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/18/

Scroll down to the end where they show the AvP scores. The 560TI OC'd scores 35.4, and the 6950 1GB OC'd "embarrasses" it by scoring 37.4. OMG! How will the Nvidia fan boys ever live this down?

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/5/
AvP, 1080, 560TI scores 30.2, the 6950 gets 35.6. Getting warmer. I'd at least call that a win for AMD.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/6/
Batman:AA 560 gets 123, the 6950 gets 122.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/7/
JC2. 560 gets 28.9, 6950 has 37.1. That counts as embarrassing.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/8/
Metro 2033. 560 = 32, 6950 = 28.7

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/9/
And to round out the first five reviews, SC2. 560 = 162.4, 6950 = 179.8 Both so far over 60 or even 100FPS you'd never notice. 17FPS might seem like a lot, but as a percentage its nothing.

The OC'd model held up very well compared to the 6950, even OC'd itself. And I don't see where you get embarressing from when the GTX560TI was faster then the 6950 several times. Even the reviewers didn't agree with you. Did you link the wrong one?

Edit: LOL!!!!! I thought you pasted the wrong one. I'll look at that other one later. I need sleep.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:11:46 PM

Yeah sorry lol. :cry: 

You are right about the conclusion but that just proves the sick bias in the tech press. The 6950 beats it in just about everything yet you can see how much the reviewer fawned over the Nvidia card anyway and used the phrase...


Quote:
If you don't look at performance numbers


I mean wtf, what is up with some of these reviewers, sure lets do a dual card challenge and IGNORE THE PERFORMANCE NUMBERS. Would they have done that if the results were the other way around I wonder?
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:19:21 PM

eyefinity said:
If what you mean is there are 1 or 2 games where the 560 Ti wins where it normally loses by more, that only proves that some games seriously favour certain architectures more.

There are plenty of games where the 6950 totally embarrasses the 560 Ti. Also, most of my links showed an overclocked 560 Ti vs a stock 6950...can you at least get that part right?

Wanna see overclocked 560 ti vs overclocked 6950?

http://techgage.com/article/amd_hd_6950_1gb_vs_nvidia_g...

The 6950 is so far ahead it's embarrassing. In all but one game it's a total massacre. Look at Just Cause 2 it's almost 50% faster, that's a total annihilation.

edit - woops pasted the wrong link before, corrected.

You keep comparing the 560Ti to the 6950 but shouldn't it be compared to the 6870 instead? It is a mid-range card after all and has three cards above it just as the 6870 does, so on a tier to tier comparison that would seem to be more fair to me.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:21:10 PM

Mousemonkey said:
You keep comparing the 560Ti to the 6950 but shouldn't it be compared to the 6870 instead? It is a mid-range card after all and has three cards above it just as the 6870 does, so on a tier to tier comparison that would seem to be more fair to me.


One word.


Price.
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:22:54 PM

I think/hope they meant that because the numbers are so close you need to look at everything else. If the performance numbers between two cards are similar, but one is cooler, quieter, smaller, uses less power, etc, then thats the card you should with. (unless the other has a better bundle, longer warranty, etc.)

That second link is weird. I took a brief look at the 1080 benchies on the same games from the other one, and the scores are WAY off. For example in SC2 @ 1080 the first link has the 560 at 162.4, while the second has it at 77. ??? WTF!? And the second is supposed to be OC'd? Someone's test system is messed up or there is some odd driver stuff going on. But I need sleep.

Edit: I agree, "tiers" are meaningless. Price = tiers.
m
0
l
a c 271 U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:31:29 PM

4745454b said:
I agree, "tiers" are meaningless.

For you (and others) that may be true but they do have a place and there is something to be said for them as prices are not the same the world over.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2011 5:36:51 PM

Well who decides what the tiers are in that case?

You could say that the 6950 is the salvage part of the top end of AMD while the 560 Ti is the top end of the midrange.

Or you could look at the die size (they are quite similar I believe) but that doesn't matter to consumers, only to the companies.

In the end the main thing is performance at any given price range and this is where Nvidia has been losing for so long now. No matter how good a "deal" they do on some cards, AMD always seems able to drop the prices on the card above them to match. The 6950 really should be priced closer to the 570 but that just makes it even more of a bargain.

Don't get me wrong, $177 560 Ti's are a steal as well, but you can also find 6870's for $145 which are also total steals at that price.
m
0
l
!