Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NVIDIA GTX 560 series or AMD HD 6950 series?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 23, 2011 7:05:37 PM

I tend to run games (e.g. GTA4, BC2, BF3, Metro 2033 etc.) at maximum detail at 1680x1050 (I have a 22" monitor) with 2xAA and 2xAF. Core i5-750 and 4 GB RAM.

I have the following GPU options:

NVIDIA GTX 560 1GB (£150)
NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 1GB (£177)
AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB (£175)
AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB (£200)

Thoughts?
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 7:16:08 PM

Judging from the prices,go with 560Ti.It can max out those games(with the exception of BF3 since it isn't out yet) on 1680x1050
September 23, 2011 7:17:53 PM

Maziar said:
Judging from the prices,go with 560Ti.It can max out those games(with the exception of BF3 since it isn't out yet) on 1680x1050

Is 1 GB VRAM enough? Considering GTA4 can easily make use of > 1 GB VRAM. Also, games over the next year or two will continue to push the amount of VRAM needed.

Then again, NVIDIA has PhysX technology and apparently superior tessellation performance (used in games such as DiRT 3).
Related resources
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 359 À AMD
a c 161 Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 7:20:36 PM

At your resolution all those cards will do well and there will be little to no benefit from HD6950 2GB over 1GB version. Just a matter if the TI or HD6950 are worth the extra in price to you. Here are some benchmarks http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_560_Twin_Fro...
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 8:03:19 PM

King Mustard said:
Is 1 GB VRAM enough? Considering GTA4 can easily make use of > 1 GB VRAM. Also, games over the next year or two will continue to push the amount of VRAM needed.

Then again, NVIDIA has PhysX technology and apparently superior tessellation performance (used in games such as DiRT 3).

Yep 1GB is fine on that res.
And no one knows what happens with future games and what requirements will they have.(GTA 4 is an exception,but still it will run fine w/560 1GB)
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 8:20:17 PM

Maziar said:
Judging from the prices,go with 560Ti.It can max out those games(with the exception of BF3 since it isn't out yet) on 1680x1050


Why pay more for a slower card?
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 8:30:02 PM

King Mustard said:
Is 1 GB VRAM enough? Considering GTA4 can easily make use of > 1 GB VRAM. Also, games over the next year or two will continue to push the amount of VRAM needed.

Then again, NVIDIA has PhysX technology and apparently superior tessellation performance (used in games such as DiRT 3).



Dirt series of games have always favored the AMD flavour, meaing it runs a little better on AMD hardware. I would get the 6950 since it gives you the option to flash it into a 6970
September 23, 2011 8:30:49 PM

redeemer said:
Dirt series of games have always favored the AMD flavour, meaing it runs a little better on AMD hardware. I would get the 6950 since it gives you the option to flash it into a 6970

Not any more. Those reference boards are no longer sold.
September 23, 2011 8:32:56 PM

I'd go with the 6950 1Gb, based on your current resolution. The 6950 is faster than the GTX560 in many games, and will probably run B3 better, so it'll last you longer. Also, look around, you should be able to find a deal on a 6950 1Gb that makes it closer to $200 Canadian (not sure what that is in pounds).
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 8:35:34 PM

eyefinity said:
Why pay more for a slower card?

I wouldn't call it slower,since they run pretty much neck and neck in almost all games.

to OP
My mistake,I first though 6950 1GB costs £200.So since both 560Ti/6950 almost have the same price,go with either you prefer.Both are great
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 9:13:51 PM

Maziar said:
I wouldn't call it slower,since they run pretty much neck and neck in almost all games.

to OP
My mistake,I first though 6950 1GB costs £200.So since both 560Ti/6950 almost have the same price,go with either you prefer.Both are great

yea i wouldn't call it slower either, as the GTX 560ti and HD 6950 are on par in performance and it all depends on the game from the first degree.
September 23, 2011 9:17:33 PM

If I was sure a 1 GB card would be enough, I'd get the NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 1GB (which is the same price as the AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB, £175).

However, I am trying to decide whether to spend another £25 up get the AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB (£200).

It's a tough choice.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 9:22:07 PM

King Mustard said:
If I was sure a 1 GB card would be enough, I'd get the NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 1GB (which is the same price as the AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB, £175).

However, I am trying to decide whether to spend another £25 up get the AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB (£200).

It's a tough choice.

my advice is to go with the HD 6950 2 GB, the more VRAM will help you in the highest resolutions and VRam hungry games such as Crysis 2 and GTA, besides all the upcoming GPU from AMD 7K series are all equipped with 2 GB VRam and no one knows what will the upcoming games demand.

i wish i could say wait for the new AMD 7K series, they will be 28nm = less power and less heat, 1 GHz GPU frequency, new XDR2 rambus technology wich is said to be twice faster than GDDR5

based on this saying, i would get a GTX 460 or any other GPU that's a little cheap as long as you're gonna play at 1680 and wait for the high end 7K GPUs and grab one
a c 1410 U Graphics card
a c 359 À AMD
a c 161 Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 9:30:04 PM

King Mustard said:
If I was sure a 1 GB card would be enough, I'd get the NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 1GB (which is the same price as the AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB, £175).

However, I am trying to decide whether to spend another £25 up get the AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB (£200).

It's a tough choice.

Here you can see that there is no gain from the 2GB until you go over 1080P resolution http://www.anandtech.com/show/4137/amds-gtx-560-ti-coun...
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:31:26 PM

The 560 Ti is slower than the 6950. It's not massively slower but it is slower. Cards that are about the same are...

460 1gb vs 6850
5870 vs 560 Ti
6870 vs 470
6970 vs 570

All of these matchups are within 2-3% of each other over a large selection of games.

The 6950 is just fast enough to be considered faster than the Ti (8-10%). Sure the 560 Ti wins a few games, but it loses more, and the losses tend to be a bit heavier.

HOWEVER, at 1680x1050 they are pretty close in performance, close enough to be called on par with each other. It's only at 1080p and above that the 6950 stretches it's legs and starts to pull away.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:35:36 PM

King Mustard said:
If I was sure a 1 GB card would be enough, I'd get the NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 1GB (which is the same price as the AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB, £175).

However, I am trying to decide whether to spend another £25 up get the AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB (£200).

It's a tough choice.


You don't need a 2GB card right now at that resolution. Obviously having a 2GB card gives you a little bit more future proofing and you might decide to upgrade to a larger screen (or eyefinity) later. Would I pay £25 more for it? That's a tough choice but yes I would personally.

If you mean this card - http://www.ebuyer.com/264775-his-hd-6950-iceq-x-turbo-2... then yes I'd say it's worth it for the cooler, and HiS make the best AMD cards in my opinion.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:36:56 PM

Quote:
the 560ti overclocked to 900-1ghz core will rape the 6950 and give the 6970 a run for its money aswell as hitting 570 speeds.


You seem to have missed the fact that the 6950 also overclocks very well (well past 6970 speeds), and truly does lay a smackdown on any Ti when overclocked.

Read - http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/7/
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:42:56 PM

Why not check the rest of the games?

The fact is, the 560 Ti at 1Ghz is barely faster than the 6950 at stock. A small overclock on the 6950 puts it back in the lead. Using overclocking for one card and not for the other is the worst argument ever.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:48:29 PM

Quote:
then how is it i see them trading blows in this legit reveiw article.

one sided fanboyism is wrong pal they are both great cards but price is the difference.


They "trade blows" for one reason. 4 Nvidia TWIMTBP titles are used vs 2 AMD titles.

The fact that they use HAWX 2 shows that it's not the most reliable website too (yes 460 SLI beats 6950 Crossfire).

a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 9:48:38 PM

for 384-Bit and Eyefinity
simply non of what you're saying is true, both cards are great and similar to each other DEPENDING ON THE GAME
check out this
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/15....
and for eyefinity, check the link you provided at legitreviews simply they are performing depending on the game
and both cards were used at the default clocks, no overclocking occured
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:50:39 PM

ilysaml said:
for 384-Bit and Eyefinity
simply non of what you're saying is true, both cards are great and similar to each other DEPENDING ON THE GAME
check out this
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/15....
and for eyefinity, check the link you provided at legitreviews simply they are performing depending on the game
and both cards were used at the default clocks, no overclocking occured


I posted the wrong link that's why.

Here is the one I meant to post - http://techgage.com/article/amd_hd_6950_1gb_vs_nvidia_g...
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:53:02 PM

Quote:
exactly my point thankyou for clearing this ilysaml ;) 


That wasn't your point, you claimed that the 560 Ti "rapes" the 6950 when overclocked, which is false.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 9:56:48 PM

@ eyefinity, you provided another link for overclocking and that's what i'm not talking about and secondly you provided it from unknown source, we all know that Toms, legit, guru3d, techpowerup, Xbitlabs, overclockers............

both of you are making this thread non beneficial, and the OP will get confused as you're getting away from the original question while the fact that both cards are great
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 9:59:29 PM

Quote:
the 560ti was not at its best clock.... 1ghz or more is acheivable.


Only if you spend much more on the best cards with the best VRM's and cooling, which generally makes it cost more.

As [H] mentioned, even at 1 GHz the 560 Ti only matches the 6950 -

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/25/galaxy_geforc...

Quote:
A highly clocked GTX 560 Ti may come close or match a Radeon HD 6950. NVIDIA has told us that 1000MHz core speed on GTX 560 Ti parts should not be unheard of on a wide basis. However, you may be at your limit on the GTX 560 Ti to achieve that near HD 6950 performance. On the other hand, the Radeon HD 6950 is at stock, and can also be overclocked well, and if you max that out, then once again you are surpassing the GTX 560 Ti.


September 23, 2011 10:02:58 PM

Friznutz said:
There are previous threads for this. Please search threads before posting right away.
It was closed and answered.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/326988-33-6950

According to that thread, I should go for the 2 GB 6950.

I want PhysX and CUDA but I also want 2GB V RAM. However, it doesn't seem that I'll get that for my price-range (up to £200). I'll have to have a think.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:03:52 PM

ilysaml said:
@ eyefinity, you provided another link for overclocking and that's what i'm not talking about and secondly you provided it from unknown source, we all know that Toms, legit, guru3d, techpowerup, Xbitlabs, overclockers............


All of those websites show the 6950 is the faster card. Why pay more for a slower card? That is what people are trying to get the OP to do by going for the 560 Ti, which is more expensive and slower.

Quote:
both of you are making this thread non beneficial, and the OP will get confused as you're getting away from the original question while the fact that both cards are great


Confusing the OP is saying stuff like the 560 Ti "rapes" the 6950 when overclocked, which is rubbish.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:06:23 PM

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/25/galaxy_geforc...

Quote:
Our performance results at this ~$260 price point indicate that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti is more apt to compete with the Radeon HD 6870 than the Radeon HD 6950 as one might have thought, in terms of performance.


Quote:
In all cases, the Radeon HD 6950 2GB was either the same, or a lot better than the Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 Ti.


Quote:
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti seems to compete well with the Radeon HD 6870, this is its main competition according to our performance testing.


Quote:
We found the Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC delivering the same gameplay experience as the Radeon HD 6870 more often than not.


Overclocked to over 1 GHz - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/02/01/galaxy_geforc...

Quote:
You should see around a 12-17% performance improvement with the video card overclocked to 1015MHz GPU/2030MHz shaders and 4.34GHz memory. At this overclock, it seems to match the Radeon HD 6950 quite well. That is the catch though, it takes pushing the Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 Ti GC to its limits in order to achieve Radeon HD 6950 performance.


Quote:
We are operating the Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC at a very high voltage, and a whopping 135 more system Watts compared to the Radeon HD 6950.


Quote:
The point is, it takes all of this for the GTX 560 Ti to reach Radeon HD 6950 performance while the Radeon HD 6950 is sitting there nice and pretty running with a much lower power consumption, and at stock frequencies.


Quote:
Can the GeForce GTX 560 Ti match Radeon HD 6950 performance? The answer is yes, but it takes running the GPU to its limits in order to do so; whereas the Radeon HD 6950 has headroom to grow.


Quote:
what it means, in essence, is that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti will never honestly catch up to the Radeon HD 6950, cause the GTX 560 Ti is at its limits where the HD 6950 is just getting started.


Quote:
When we look at performance compared to the Radeon HD 6950, we find that with the video card at its default clock speeds it does not compare. The Radeon HD 6950 is clearly the better option. When we overclock the Galaxy GTX 560 Ti GC to its limits, only then does it compete with the Radeon HD 6950.

a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:10:05 PM

The OP gave prices in the OP...
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 10:12:57 PM

@ eyefinity if all the sites i mentioned above are saying GTX HD 6950 is over GTX 560ti list their reviews each one in order .
About the GTX 560ti and the HD 6870
i'll let this link speak for me
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/330?vs=290

the problem is you're getting your info from untrusted sources and a lot of sayings are said which is not true, so basically don't believe everything
September 23, 2011 10:18:50 PM

Quote:
@ OP get your card from www.scan.co.uk their pricing is alot better.

Dabs do the Asus 6950 1 GB for £175. Cheapest Scan can do the 6950 1 GB for is £190.

Saverstore do the HIS 6950 2 GB for £185. Cheapest Scan can do the 6950 2 GB for is £207.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:20:10 PM

ilysaml said:
@ eyefinity if all the sites i mentioned above are saying GTX HD 6950 is over GTX 560ti list their reviews each one in order .
About the GTX 560ti and the HD 6870
i'll let this link speak for me
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/330?vs=290

the problem is you're getting your info from untrusted sources and a lot of sayings are said which is not true, so basically don't believe everything


Actually you have it totally around the wrong way. Anandtech is the one and only website that claimed the Ti was the faster card. And [H] is probably the most respected review site for high end graphics cards...

I've linked plenty before, this is what Tom's had to say.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-ti...

Quote:
My conclusion on the GTX 560 Ti doesn't change. It still doesn't present me with the overwhelming urge to upgrade. AMD's cards simply look better in comparison, based on their performance.


When you add up the benefits the 6950 is obviously the better choice at the same price. The Ti only becomes worthwhile when it is a good $20-$30 cheaper or comes with a free game.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:22:04 PM

Quote:
the reason why i am higher ranked and have many top answers is because i do my research properly ;) 


You are "higher ranked" because you have double the posts and nothing else.

Quote:
another point is stop trying to outdo the person who has put a stop on your bonerfied brand (AMD).
the things you state are not true at this moment on time.
when i stated raped was aimed at a stock clocked 6950.


I just proved you are full of it by linking lots of comments proving that the 560 Ti is only as fast as the 6950 when the Ti is highly overclocked. That puts your "rape" into the perspective it deserves.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:23:07 PM

King Mustard said:
Dabs do the Asus 6950 1 GB for £175. Cheapest Scan can do the 6950 1 GB for is £190.

Saverstore do the HIS 6950 2 GB for £185. Cheapest Scan can do the 6950 2 GB for is £207.


That HiS is a good buy but sold out. Check out the ICEQ one I linked from Ebuyer, that's well worth the extra £15
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:24:07 PM

Quote:
Quote: The Ti only becomes worthwhile when it is a good $20-$30 cheaper or comes with a free game.

so my point stands..


That wasn't your point, that was the point that you changed to after you lost your first argument. If you'd said that to start with I wouldn't have disagreed.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:24:46 PM

Quote:
you obviously are very ignorant. do you listen to what i said?

i told you what i meant by rape a stock clocked 6950....


You don't have a clue and are obviously a blind nvidia fanboy, why would I "listen" to what you wrote?
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:28:14 PM

Quote:
omg fanboy? my name before this one was amd655 and was accused of been an amd fanboy.
do me a favour and shut the hell up jesus christ.


AMD fanboy with an intel cpu and nvidia graphics card. :lol: 
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 23, 2011 10:28:32 PM

eyefinity, are you believing your lie, even the link provided by toms revealing that GTX 560 ti is doing much better than HD 6950 even the 2 gb DEPENDING ON THE GAME, they are particularly similar in performance......

about the conclusion, it's related more to the writer's opinion not to anything else,but if you look at the real world performance they are doing pretty similar ...........

speaking about badges, i have about 15 best answers and 11 in CPU section and i still didn't get my stinky badge and that badge won't change the fact that knowledge and experience are the determinant factors here
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:28:47 PM

Actually, Eyefinity is right on this one 384-Bit.

But OP, here's a GTX 560 ti for £165 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX...

And 384-Bit, when you stated an overclocked GTX 560 Ti "Rapes" a HD 6950, why didn't you says that a OC'd HD 6950 "Rapes" a GTX 560 Ti. That is called being a Fanboy. The reason you have more points is most likely because you have been here longer and seem to LOVE to double and triple post, so please stop posting irrelevant thing into this thread.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:30:58 PM

Quote:
omg fanboy? my name before this one was amd655 and was accused of been an amd fanboy.
do me a favour and shut the hell up jesus christ.


Do us all a favour and shut the hell up. The 6950 is the faster card, eod. To pay more for a slower card is idiotic. Had you been smart you'd have gone for the value option to start with, mentioning the free game with the 560 Ti. Instead you tried the usual crap about physx and overclocking, when the 6950 has it's own benefits in a similar vein.

The simple fact is, the 560 Ti needs to give away freebies in order to compete with the superior 6950 at the same price point. I actually think the one with Batman you linked is the best deal but you're such a tool I can't help myself but disagree now.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:33:50 PM

Value is the point?

Then why even say "The GTX 560 Ti Rapes"etc.

Value was most obviously not he most important thing on your mind when you wrote that post.
September 23, 2011 10:35:20 PM

Updated the pricing/stats:

NVIDIA GTX 560 1GB (£128 @ Overclockers UK) - comes with free Batman game, PhysX, CUDA
NVIDIA GTX 560 Ti 1GB (£166 @ Overclockers UK) - comes with free Batman game, PhysX, CUDA
AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB (£175 @ Dabs)
AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB (£200 @ Ebuyer) - has 2 GB VRAM
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:38:54 PM

Great find, It was me who found that GTX 560 Ti on OcUK ;-;.

Also, have we even asked OP's PSU?

The GTX 560 Ti >50 watts more than the HD 6950 at stock, and when overclocked to those levels, it's gonna pull a lot more.
September 23, 2011 10:41:09 PM

Quote:
if you want out of the box quicker card go for the 6950.
if you want slightly slower card but can be tweaked to run as quick or faster than 6950 with a free game buy the gtx 560ti its up to you now...

I'm genuinely worried 1 GB VRAM is bordering on just enough, let alone in a year or twos time when more demanding games are out. GTA4 alone can use 1.25 GB VRAM @ 1680x1050.
a b U Graphics card
September 23, 2011 10:42:43 PM

Actually, quicker out of the box would be the GTX 560 Ti, and a quality 550-600W would hold both cards (XFX 550W Core Edition, CX600 V2).

EDIT : To throw some more onto the table you can grab a GTX 470 w/ 1 year Warranty for £145 here : http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX... which is slightly slower than the GTX 560 Ti at stock but also like the other cards, can be OC'd to hell.
September 23, 2011 10:44:38 PM

I have an Antec EarthWatts 500W PSU, purchased in August 2007 (so it's four years old).
!