HD 6950 vs GTX 560 Ti

[bettazproductions88]

Hello,
So I am planning to build a new set-up after christmas, and so far I have decided on the AMD FX-8120 ; an ASUS Sabertooth 990FX board (?over the GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3?) ; but now I am stuck on the graphics-card. I currently have a Radeon 6750, but it runs @ 100% on most games which heats it up like crazy.
Soooo I have heard the 6950 has better specs than the 560Ti , but that the Ti is actually better? I am wondering how so? I have never owned a Nvidia before, so I just wanted some feedback.
Thanks You

 

[FlintIronStagg]

better specs? amd and nvidia have different architecture. Did you look at core clocks and such but not actually look at the bandwith and gaming benches to help you with your decision?
The 560Ti has more overclocking headroom, and also has a 2gb version, as well as the new one with 448 cores i belive. Get a Ti, you will be happy

 

[e-ninja]

depends on your budget honestly. AMD has a few good options, go take a look at youtube, theres alot of amd vs nvidia reviews.

try to find reviews on both and base your decision. Motherboards.org guy usually compares nvidia and amd cards alot and has charts

 

[FlintIronStagg]

^^+1 to motherboards.org

 

[kajabla]

ok ok.
1. 2500K. FX is not good for gaming. High-end gaming builds just have to go Intel these days.

2. ASRock Z68 Extreme3 to go with it, probably

3. The cards are very similar in performance. They trade benchmarks in games. I'd say that the 6950 tends to come out barely on top, but an OCed Ti would do better, and Nvidia tends to have better drivers. As Flint says, the processors' architectures are completely different, and you can't compare them by their core clocks, number of transistors etc.

 

[dharmenparikh]

6950 2gb beats 560ti on all benchmarks except the games where nvidia cards are favoured.

Oh and that FX 8120. I know 8 core sounds good and is catchy but it will bottleneck the performance of the graphic card. Get a i5 2500k...they overclock to 4.5ghz on a cheap $30 Cm 212+ and run a ton cooler. the motherboards are cheaper as well since the market is flooded.

And don't take my word for it. Go to anandtech.com or tomshardware articles. Its blantly clear.

 

[kajabla]

6950 2gb beats 560ti on all benchmarks except the games where nvidia cards are favoured.

Which is about half of games, I'd say (or a little less), and I think "all benchmarks" is going a little far
The 6950 wins every time except when the Ti does.
The Ti wins every time except when the 6950 does.

 

[melharts]

Both cards are good performers in games, with near equal benchmarks across a wide variety of games.

Nvidia has a slight upside with newer games, as it historically releases drivers quicker than AMD.

As others have said the 560 Ti will out perform the AMD card quite well, with overclocking.

Based on the series of articles "best graphics cards for the money" both the 560 Ti and 6950, are in the same tier of GPU's on the Hierarchy chart.

For a comparison of the 560 Ti (448 Core) to 6950 see this article
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-ti-448-core-benchmark,3082.html

Summary (560 Ti 448, 6950, 560 Ti) @ 1080p, avg FPS

Battlefield 3: 53.3 - 55.2 - 48.3
Batman Arkham City: 62.0 - 35.0 - 55.0
Batman AC (8x MSAA): 95.0 - 107.0 - 85.0
Metro 2033: 55.3 - 50.0 - 50.7
DiRT 3: 66.1 - 61.7 - 58.6
Aliens Vs. Predator: 58.5 - 58.2 - 50.2
Overclocking (BF3): 60.8 -

Average Performance relative to Gefore GTX 560 Ti
560 Ti 448 -- 112.2%
6950 2GB -- 108.5%
560 Ti -- 100.0%

The 560 Ti (448), which runs about $250-$290, is a better model to the 560 Ti, with a slight increase to price.

As with what most others have said, its a matter of opinion since both cards are very close in performance. Personally I feel as updating Nvidia drivers is easier, so I typically go with Nvidia, however you might feel as if price is the biggest factor, so go with whatever is cheaper. Ultimately its your decision, instead of giving subjective information, I posted a little objective for you, hopefully this clears out most of the bias I saw in previous posts above.

Price Points -- I did a quick price check through Newegg, prices are within the same ballpark.

6950: $230 - $290
560 Ti 448: $250 - $290
560 Ti: $210 - $270

===Editted to add prices===

 

[FlintIronStagg]

Which is about half of games, I'd say (or a little less), and I think "all benchmarks" is going a little far
The 6950 wins every time except when the Ti does.
The Ti wins every time except when the 6950 does.

Except games that favor NVIDIA? OMG stop now before you start an amd vs NVIDIA fanboy war.
The 560ti overclocks well and the 448 core ti runs right around a stock 570. the 6950 and the 560ti are both good contenders, at this point it should be about budget and preference of drivers, which NVIDIA wins in the driver game.

 

[kajabla]

The 448 core is an entirely different card that it definitely better than the 6950. It's also significantly more expensive.

 

[e-ninja]

ok ok.
1. 2500K. FX is not good for gaming. High-end gaming builds just have to go Intel these days.

2. ASRock Z68 Extreme3 to go with it, probably

3. The cards are very similar in performance. They trade benchmarks in games. I'd say that the 6950 tends to come out barely on top, but an OCed Ti would do better, and Nvidia tends to have better drivers. As Flint says, the processors' architectures are completely different, and you can't compare them by their core clocks, number of transistors etc.

not necessarily true about FX. they are still in infancy with the new bulldozer. im an intel fan, but FX is no slouch. you dont need 4.8+ to game these days. plus the multi tasking ability of the FX series is pretty good.

as for gaming, either one is good. its a matter of preference.

 

[kajabla]

*For the price, then. You can get an FX that you can game with, but it'll cost as much as a 2500K and not be nearly as good. If you're not upgrading from an AM3+ build, just go Intel.
For productivity, FX can be useful.

 

[melharts]

The 448 core is an entirely different card that it definitely better than the 6950. It's also significantly more expensive.

Prices are pretty similar, within the same ballpark (I editted my original post when you replied to mine; to add the prices)

6950: $230 - $290
560 Ti Fermi: $250 - $290
560 Ti: $210 - $270

 

[kajabla]

All Tis are Fermi. That's the name of the architecture. Some Newegg listings may not have it in the name, but they're all the same chip.

 

[melharts]

*For the price, then. You can get an FX that you can game with, but it'll cost as much as a 2500K and not be nearly as good. If you're not upgrading from an AM3+ build, just go Intel.
For productivity, FX can be useful.

I completely agree that the 2500K is significant improve over the 81xx FX.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3077-5.html

CPU Hierarchy FTW.

The 2500K is TOTL (Top of the Line) in regards to a Tier 1 Processor; and it has an amazing price point; for the shear processing power. Its pretty sad when AMD comes out and says they lost the gaming CPU's war; and won't compete down the road with Intel (In regards to gaming CPU's)

(See this article for reference : http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3,14114.html )

 

[e-ninja]

unless you have used both. i dont see how agreeing with an article helps. i have an 8150 and it runs pretty well.

fyi

AMD holds the world record for OC with Liquid Nitrogen. where was intel?

like i said, im an intel fanboy, but its all purely based on needs, budget, and preference.

 

[melharts]

unless you have used both. i dont see how agreeing with an article helps. i have an 8150 and it runs pretty well.

fyi

AMD holds the world record for OC with Liquid Nitrogen. where was intel?

like i said, im an intel fanboy, but its all purely based on needs, budget, and preference.

World overclocking record is relevent to this how?



Nevertheless, if you want proof here you go:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-test-benchmark,3090-4.html

You can look to the bottom and see your 8150, however, yes I know that 3D Mark, and PCmark are favored towards intel. Keep reading.

Games @ 1080p, on there test setup.


Intel 2500K vs FX 8150 (they didn't do the 8120)
WoW: 91.9 to 67.7
Crysis: 49.9 to 49.2

You can call us 'intel fanboys' (including yourself) all you want, I am too, however please become 'objective', its the only way to help others without bias. They are both $209.99 on Newegg.

 

[kajabla]

We're talking about usefulness here, about value and performance for the average gamer. If you have evidence for the FX as a gaming processor (there isn't any that I know of), bring it forward.
By reading the article, you effectively have used both. That's why we read: to find out how things work that we have not experienced ourselves.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

All Tis are Fermi. That's the name of the architecture. Some Newegg listings may not have it in the name, but they're all the same chip.

the ti has the new 1280mb version with 448 cores that is what i think the confusion is with the whole different type. Fermi isn't a type of ti. There's the 1gb, 2gb, and the 1280mb versions.

 

[melharts]

We're talking about usefulness here, about value and performance for the average gamer. If you have evidence for the FX as a gaming processor (there isn't any that I know of), bring it forward.
By reading the article, you effectively have used both. That's why we read: to find out how things work that we have not experienced ourselves.

To add to your statement: I doubt very much that most of the average gamers can afford to experiement with all the CPU's, GPU's, MoBo's, PSU's, Mems, etc, etc, etc... Wait, thats why we use TOMSHARDWARE! I nearly forgot about that.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

unless you have used both. i dont see how agreeing with an article helps. i have an 8150 and it runs pretty well.

fyi

AMD holds the world record for OC with Liquid Nitrogen. where was intel?

like i said, im an intel fanboy, but its all purely based on needs, budget, and preference.

I have the FX 4100 @4.2 and it runs everything very well esp for the 109.00 price tag

 

[kajabla]

Oh, right, that's us. WE ARE THE WORLD'S KNOWLEDGE

Incidentally, don't even consider the 2gb 560 Ti unless you're planning a multi-monitor setup. VRAM only becomes a bottleneck at very high resolutions, and you'll never need more than 1gb at 1920x1080 on any current GPU.

 

[monsta]

It is at a great price you can't argue with that.

 

[kajabla]

What is?

 

[melharts]

What is?

I think he's talking about the FX 4100. @ $109.