Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

ATI Radeon - nVidia

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Nvidia
  • ATI
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
December 12, 2011 9:24:32 PM

Hello, i have question beacuse im wondering which graphic card is the same performance and 1 pcie 6pin connector from nvidia is the same as ATI Radeon HD6850? Please help me thank you :) 

More about : ati radeon nvidia

a c 224 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2011 9:35:54 PM

The card doesn't exist if I understand what you are asking. You want to know what card from Nvidia that needs only one 6 pin plug and is equal or better then the 6850? The Nvidia card like the 6850 is the GTX460, but it takes two plugs. The best Nvidia card that needs 1 plug is the 550, but that is like the 5770.

Nothing wrong with the 6850, you can use that one if you want.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2011 9:39:12 PM

A Gtx 560 non ti is the same as a hd6850. The gtx 560 ti is slower than a 5870 or 6950 to give you an example.
Related resources
a c 224 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 12, 2011 9:45:45 PM

GTX560 needs two plugs. You might be able to find a low power version somewhere, but it will cost more then a normal card. The GTX560 is also more like the 6870, but I'm assuming thats not a problem.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2011 10:03:32 PM

They do also make adapters that take one PCIE 6 pin to 2 PCIE 6 pins. They are usually 5-6$ but make sure you have enough rails on your PSU 12v to support it.
a c 224 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 12:04:38 AM

Which is why I didn't mention that. There are few examples where this is a good idea.
a c 116 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 12:35:48 AM

if you insist on Nvidia the closest you can get with 1 pcie cableis in fact the 550ti.
Here is a review of a very highly clocked version. Imagine the 6850 as the 460GTX
you will see a very noticeable performance difference.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3931/gainward_geforce_...
December 13, 2011 6:04:19 AM

Im little bit scared to put that extention (pcie 6pin) because i have only 500W PSU thats the reason i decide for the HD6850 but i want Physx :) 
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 6:15:05 AM

What's the brand and model number on the power supply and number of amps on the +12V rail? A good quality 500 Watt PSU is good for just about any single GPU setup, you'd only be maybe pushing your luck with the GTX 580 on a good 500 Watt unit. If you do only have 1 6 pin PCI-E that doesn't bode well for it though. If your PSU isn't up to powering a decent Nvidia card, you'll have to either get a new one in addition to the card, or go the AMD route. Nvidia cards tend to draw a good deal more power than their AMD equivalent, making them poor choices if you are really tight on power.
December 13, 2011 6:42:05 AM

This is my PSU COOLERMASTER EXTREME POWER 500W
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2011 6:55:16 AM

AMD HD6850 does not support physix (hardware physix)...only nvidia cards do....if you really want physix get a nvidia card
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 7:00:01 AM

Looking at a review for that PSU, it can actually deliver 500 Watts, but at high load levels its voltages fall outside of ATX specification, meaning it could damage your components. I wouldn't trust it with a high power load. The 460 pulls about 30 Watts more than the 6850. The 460 will work with that power supply if you use a molex to 6 pin PCI-E adapter. The 560 actually uses 10 Watts less than the 460 according to nvidia specs, only being on the very edge of needing the second 6 pin connector, it may actually be the safer option in the nvidia camp, provided you don't get a factory overclocked card. However, you run a higher risk of the PSU falling outside specification, potentially damaging components. This is especially true if you intend to overclock anything. You can get the nvidia card, but you really should look at getting a higher quality PSU to avoid any potential mishaps.
a c 116 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 7:08:46 AM

Running physix on a 550ti would cripple it. Sorry it's true picture a hit of up to 20 % depending on the game.
December 13, 2011 7:12:53 AM

So i think that i will be going for the HD6850 :/ 

Gcatalin - Thats the reason i dont want ATi but nvidia.
December 13, 2011 7:22:04 AM

spentshells said:
Running physix on a 550ti would cripple it. Sorry it's true picture a hit of up to 20 % depending on the game.

Do you have any proof or numbers to support that claim?
a c 116 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 7:24:00 AM

Supernova1138 said:
Looking at a review for that PSU, it can actually deliver 500 Watts, but at high load levels its voltages fall outside of ATX specification, meaning it could damage your components. I wouldn't trust it with a high power load. The 460 pulls about 30 Watts more than the 6850. The 460 will work with that power supply if you use a molex to 6 pin PCI-E adapter. The 560 actually uses 10 Watts less than the 460 according to nvidia specs, only being on the very edge of needing the second 6 pin connector, it may actually be the safer option in the nvidia camp, provided you don't get a factory overclocked card. However, you run a higher risk of the PSU falling outside specification, potentially damaging components. This is especially true if you intend to overclock anything. You can get the nvidia card, but you really should look at getting a higher quality PSU to avoid any potential mishaps.


Wow cool thanks that is very interesting assuming these are load conditions on the card. I am amazed 10 watts savings and all reviews seem to show an average of around 10 % that is a nice savings.
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 7:31:40 AM

That's the data I pulled off the spec sheet on the nvidia website for each card. The 460 uses 160 Watts maximum, the 560 uses 150 Watts maximum. It's possible that nvidia is understating the power draw, I don't recall any benchmarks on the real world power draw for each card.
December 13, 2011 7:36:32 AM

GeneticWeapon said:
Do you have any proof or numbers to support that claim?


...and I ask again.
a c 116 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 7:38:49 AM

Supernova1138 said:
That's the data I pulled off the spec sheet on the nvidia website for each card. The 460 uses 160 Watts maximum, the 560 uses 150 Watts maximum. It's possible that nvidia is understating the power draw, I don't recall any benchmarks on the real world power draw for each card.


That is outstanding considering the core clock advantage of about 140mhz on base clocks with the 460 having a 675mhz and the 560 having a 812 mhz.
PS I see the math isn't exact and I don't care im still impressed. Thanks for sharing.
a c 116 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 7:46:03 AM

GeneticWeapon said:
...and I ask again.



Better question....do you have any to the contrary ? I have experience with it since before nvidia bought it from ageia when they had dedicated 64/128 MB cards that accompanied the 7xxx and 18xx series. If what I am saying is untrue explain and show me how a card of that magnatude could be replaced without affecting game play or why a game gets dumb using physics on a 9500GT. These rather large calculations done by the cards do affect performance that vary from the way a cape will float through the wind to the way a car explodes.

So since you want me to be wrong I'll ask you to prove it.

if you can explain why software physx could crash an extremely overclocked cpu when nothing else will. And how it does not affect a GPU's rendering ability I'm all ears....and your all mouth.

And after reading what I wrote Im a dick, sorry guy.
a c 224 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 11:22:14 AM

Generally you can assume the TDP figures are correct. I have yet to hear of a single case where its been off. There is the issue us throttling when the drivers see programs running, but using other program does show the TDP to be within reason.
December 13, 2011 12:02:23 PM

spentshells said:
Better question....do you have any to the contrary ? I have experience with it since before nvidia bought it from ageia when they had dedicated 64/128 MB cards that accompanied the 7xxx and 18xx series. If what I am saying is untrue explain and show me how a card of that magnatude could be replaced without affecting game play or why a game gets dumb using physics on a 9500GT. These rather large calculations done by the cards do affect performance that vary from the way a cape will float through the wind to the way a car explodes.

So since you want me to be wrong I'll ask you to prove it.

if you can explain why software physx could crash an extremely overclocked cpu when nothing else will. And how it does not affect a GPU's rendering ability I'm all ears....and your all mouth.

And after reading what I wrote Im a dick, sorry guy.


They're advertising you as one of the "top experts" on this forum, but seeing you acting like a child throwing his toys out of the pram says a lot about the Toms forums these days. When others in this thread pointed out to the op that ATi cards don't have PhysX capabilities, but the GTX 550Ti did, you immediately started unjustly slandering the 550, because that's what ATi fanboi's do. I didn't even have to look at your info to know that there was an ATi product plugged into your box, your posts wreek of it.
December 13, 2011 12:13:22 PM

spentshells said:
Better question....do you have any to the contrary ? I have experience with it since before nvidia bought it from ageia when they had dedicated 64/128 MB cards that accompanied the 7xxx and 18xx series. If what I am saying is untrue explain and show me how a card of that magnatude could be replaced without affecting game play or why a game gets dumb using physics on a 9500GT. These rather large calculations done by the cards do affect performance that vary from the way a cape will float through the wind to the way a car explodes.

So since you want me to be wrong I'll ask you to prove it.

if you can explain why software physx could crash an extremely overclocked cpu when nothing else will. And how it does not affect a GPU's rendering ability I'm all ears....and your all mouth.

And after reading what I wrote Im a dick, sorry guy.



http://physxinfo.com/news/6922/batman-arkham-city-physx...





but also see this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...
checkout how much of a difference it makes on visuals, clearly way more to process than a simple "cape flying in the wind"

I'm both intrigued by the gorgeous scenery of PhysX but turned off by the massive performance hit
December 13, 2011 12:35:08 PM

theres your (at least) 20% performance hit...
December 13, 2011 12:47:04 PM

ewood said:
theres your (at least) 20% performance hit...

The top graph is showing a 560 not a 550, but at least the 550 has the option to use PhysX, and the bottom graph shows it running at a playable framerate for someone with that card.
December 13, 2011 2:25:33 PM

check out the youtube video,
I'd feel like a fool playing that game without physx, it just looks way better
a c 116 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 13, 2011 3:17:55 PM

GeneticWeapon said:
They're advertising you as one of the "top experts" on this forum, but seeing you acting like a child throwing his toys out of the pram says a lot about the Toms forums these days. When others in this thread pointed out to the op that ATi cards don't have PhysX capabilities, but the GTX 550Ti did, you immediately started unjustly slandering the 550, because that's what ATi fanboi's do. I didn't even have to look at your info to know that there was an ATi product plugged into your box, your posts wreek of it.


That's interesting look through my messages and you will see more often than not I advocate NV cards because they have better results when overclocking.

Almost everyone I play with has NV I only bought a 5770 because I got 25 off my motherboard at a local shop.

My 4200ti was playing games when you were still watching power rangers bro.

Please note I did admit how much of a dick I was being.....