Should I go with a 560ti or a 6950?

[TopGun]

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?

 

[phishy714]

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

 

[The Halo Don]

I'll say the MSI Twin Frozr II GTX 560 Ti, it's an overclocking BEAST!

 

[17seconds]

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/9

 

[borden5]

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

 

[JackNaylorPE]

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=N82E16814130651
$230 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121425

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.

 

[eyefinity]

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.

 

[TopGun]

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.

 

[eyefinity]

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.

 

[17seconds]

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/geforce-gtx-560-ti_11.html#sect0

 

[eyefinity]

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.

 

[17seconds]

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?

 

[eyefinity]

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.

 

[17seconds]

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.

 

[eyefinity]

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.

 

[17seconds]

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.

 

[4745454b]

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.

 

[scorpionxp]

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...

 

[Mousemonkey]

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.

Yes they did, but the drivers weren't all that good. [:mousemonkey]

 

[audiojim]

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.

 

[TopGun]

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.

 

[TopGun]

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?

 

[eyefinity]

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?

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

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.

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.

 

[Mousemonkey]

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?

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

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.

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:

 

[eyefinity]

Well considering how hard ATI owned Nvidia in HL2 it seems likely, right?