Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

HD 6950 vs GTX 560 Ti

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 21, 2011 12:33:00 AM

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

More about : 6950 gtx 560

a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 12:36:11 AM

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
Score
0
December 21, 2011 12:39:03 AM

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
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 12:42:30 AM

^^+1 to motherboards.org
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 12:44:28 AM

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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 12:45:32 AM

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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 12:47:54 AM

dharmenparikh said:
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 :p 
The 6950 wins every time except when the Ti does.
The Ti wins every time except when the 6950 does.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:15:54 AM

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-...

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===
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:16:37 AM

kajabla said:
Which is about half of games, I'd say (or a little less), and I think "all benchmarks" is going a little far :p 
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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:20:38 AM

The 448 core is an entirely different card that it definitely better than the 6950. It's also significantly more expensive.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:28:43 AM

kajabla said:
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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:30:59 AM

*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.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:31:09 AM

kajabla said:
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

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:32:14 AM

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.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:37:34 AM

kajabla said:
*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-overcloc...

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-T... )
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:39:56 AM

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.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:50:26 AM

e-ninja said:
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-...

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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:52:50 AM

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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:54:29 AM

kajabla said:
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.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:55:57 AM

kajabla said:
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.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:57:09 AM

e-ninja said:
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
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:58:07 AM

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.
Score
0
a c 88 U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:59:01 AM

It is at a great price you can't argue with that.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 1:59:55 AM

What is?
Score
0
December 21, 2011 2:03:54 AM

kajabla said:
What is?


I think he's talking about the FX 4100. @ $109.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 2:13:17 AM

I appreciate all of the responses, and the decsion between changing to an Intel rig or staying with AMD has been a pretty difficult question. I use my pc mostly for gaming, but I use Solidworks for my job, and I had high hopes that the FX-8120's 8 Cores would help my rendering times. But from a gaming standpoint, if I were to make the change to intel, is there a big difference between the i5-2500K & the i7-2600K? As far as Graphics, I think I am gonna go with the Evga GeForce GTX 560 Ti FPB, it looks like a good fit.

I know that it is hard to get unbiased anwsers when raising the Intel vs. AMD question, but would I notice any major performance differences between an AMD FX-8120 & an i7-2600K or i5-2500K?
Score
0
December 21, 2011 2:27:29 AM

bettazproductions88 said:
I appreciate all of the responses, and the decsion between changing to an Intel rig or staying with AMD has been a pretty difficult question. I use my pc mostly for gaming, but I use Solidworks for my job, and I had high hopes that the FX-8120's 8 Cores would help my rendering times. But from a gaming standpoint, if I were to make the change to intel, is there a big difference between the i5-2500K & the i7-2600K? As far as Graphics, I think I am gonna go with the Evga GeForce GTX 560 Ti FPB, it looks like a good fit.

I know that it is hard to get unbiased anwsers when raising the Intel vs. AMD question, but would I notice any major performance differences between an AMD FX-8120 & an i7-2600K or i5-2500K?


The article I posted before has performance on the 2500k, 2600k and 8150.

To get a little more detailed in description. The 8 Cores of the 8120/8150 which have 4 modules with 8 cores, is similiar to the 2600k, in that it has 4 Cores, with 8 Threads, inadvertently spreading processing between the 8 threads make it act like the octa core. Please please, i'm trying to keep this simple, without a lot of technical jargin. The 2500k only has 4 Cores and 4 Threads, so its capped at 4.

In summary:

The 8120/50, have 8 cores, and the 2600k has 8 threads, they're similiar in that aspect, however the 2500k and 2600k both out preform the 8150(they would do even better against the 8120, but it hasn't been tested against 2500/2600k's).

Keep in mind anything labeled "K" on an intel product means it doesn't come with a cooler, so one would need to purchase a good cooler, adding $50-$100 (For a good one). This would also mean that you could overclock very easily. As in my mind it comes 'stock' with a good cooler (since you have to buy one of your choosing).

As for your question: would you see a difference? Gaming wise a small 1-5% gain would be on average. However they big difference would be in longevity, the intel would probably last you a year or two longer between upgrading (since it preforms well over the FX 8xxx).

As for prices the 2600K is at $309.99 I think, + cooler = $350-$375 average, nearly double the cost of the FX 8120. To me I'm an avid believer in raw CPU power, as I favor it for games in the future (I ugprade CPU's every 3-4years, and GPU's every 1-2 years), so I side with longevity.

Thats my opinion, I hope its unbiased enough, as I'm getting tired and not wanting to re-link articles :p 
Score
0
a c 88 U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 2:30:57 AM

Yeah sorry was talking about the FX8120, its at a great price....but I do prefer the 2500K
Score
0
December 21, 2011 2:34:42 AM

Another note: it would be easy to switch from an ASUS Sabertooth AMD MoBo, to an ASUS Sabertooth Intel MoBo, they are the same price if i'm not mistaken. One thing to note on them though, is that they both only have 2 PCI Express 16x slots, so if you ever want to expand past that you would be limited. If you only want to SLI a 560 Ti 448 or 6950 or 560 Ti, in the near-term you wouldn't have a problem, but expansion past that would be difficult.

Unfortunately, I was hit hard by this decision, as I bought the board for Longevity in Jan for my I7-950, now I have to upgrade as I run a multiple monitor setup. Before I had 2x 260 GTX's, now that I'm in an upgrade year, SLI-ing two new cards, I'm keeping 1 260, to run my extra 2 monitors, so I have to upgrade my MoBo. Thats what happens when you like to have a bunch of monitors ;) 
Score
0
December 21, 2011 6:15:05 PM

I don't own an 8120 FX but own 2 rigs with 2500ks and one with an AMD 1100T. If your primary focus is gaming it's hard to justify an 8120 FX at $209 when you can buy a 2500k at $219 (newegg) or $179.99 Microcenter. Simply put, the 2500k is a much better gamer cpu. I have read that the 8150 FX( and consequently the 8120 FX) trades blows with its predecessor the AMD Thuban 1100T. I own a 1100T in a 970 Chipset mb and though it is NOT a slouch, the 2500K is faster. I have been a loyal AMD fan for many years (go back to the 386DX40!) but these SandyBridge CPUs (2500k,2600k) are World class incredible CPUs.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 10:20:30 PM

melharts said:
The article I posted before has performance on the 2500k, 2600k and 8150.

To get a little more detailed in description. The 8 Cores of the 8120/8150 which have 4 modules with 8 cores, is similiar to the 2600k, in that it has 4 Cores, with 8 Threads, inadvertently spreading processing between the 8 threads make it act like the octa core. Please please, i'm trying to keep this simple, without a lot of technical jargin. The 2500k only has 4 Cores and 4 Threads, so its capped at 4.

In summary:

The 8120/50, have 8 cores, and the 2600k has 8 threads, they're similiar in that aspect, however the 2500k and 2600k both out preform the 8150(they would do even better against the 8120, but it hasn't been tested against 2500/2600k's).

Keep in mind anything labeled "K" on an intel product means it doesn't come with a cooler, so one would need to purchase a good cooler, adding $50-$100 (For a good one). This would also mean that you could overclock very easily. As in my mind it comes 'stock' with a good cooler (since you have to buy one of your choosing).

As for your question: would you see a difference? Gaming wise a small 1-5% gain would be on average. However they big difference would be in longevity, the intel would probably last you a year or two longer between upgrading (since it preforms well over the FX 8xxx).

As for prices the 2600K is at $309.99 I think, + cooler = $350-$375 average, nearly double the cost of the FX 8120. To me I'm an avid believer in raw CPU power, as I favor it for games in the future (I ugprade CPU's every 3-4years, and GPU's every 1-2 years), so I side with longevity.

Thats my opinion, I hope its unbiased enough, as I'm getting tired and not wanting to re-link articles :p 


Thank you, for the post. So I have decided to make the switch over to intel. Im not really looking to save money with this build, i'm looking to save the reget of going halfway on anything. I've found a webpage that has CPU rendering benchmarks for solidworks, in which the 2600K topped them all(w/o overclocking). Plus I hadn't really read much into the threading aspect of the CPU, I simply saw that the FX-8 series had 8-cores and assumed that it would perform better than the i7's quad-core setup... I was wrong. I am looking forward to seeing what the overclock potential is
Score
0
December 21, 2011 10:24:13 PM

melharts said:
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.



Was i talking about Buying everything up and trying it out? or was i talking about one thing in specific...pretty sure it wass one thing. i have used both the FX and Intel CPU'S including the 2600k and 8150.

you can talk numbers, benchmarks, "stats dont lie" type of thing..

but what it all comes down to..

BUDGET. either you can get the intel CPU or you cant. the simple fact is, INTEL costs more than AMD. Same goes for Nvidia.

now, as far as multi tasking, bulldozer wins that by far. you can still game with the AMD CPU. no one is saying you cant. overclock it, enjoy it, use its full 8 cores, and game.

it will run the same way because 4.4 ghz is the same on both platforms. ;) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 21, 2011 10:42:46 PM

e-ninja said:

now, as far as multi tasking, bulldozer wins that by far. you can still game with the AMD CPU. no one is saying you cant. overclock it, enjoy it, use its full 8 cores, and game.

it will run the same way because 4.4 ghz is the same on both platforms. ;) 

4.4 ghz is completely different on the two platforms, actually. Sandy Bridge gets more of out every processor cycle than FX does, and so it's significantly better at the same clock rate. Here's a simple Tom's benchmark in which several modern processors competed on a single core and at exactly the same clock speed, 3.0 ghz. The 2500K finished their benchmark suite in 1:29.22; the old Thuban 1100T finished in 2:03.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/processor-architect...
FX wasn't out at the time of testing, but here's another bench that shows that FX is less efficient than the 1100T at equal clock rates, and therefore is significantly less efficient than the 2500K:
http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-Processor-Re...
Clock rates do not carry over.
Bulldozer does not win multitasking "by far." Actually, it usually doesn't win at all. In Tom's FX review, they discovered that "n the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Certainly you can game with FX. It'll just be a waste of money. As the review above shows, the high-end FX processors are only worth buying in very limited situations in which its eight cores can be fully and consistently utilized.

You say that it all comes down to budget, but the only FX processor that comes anywhere near Intel's high-end models costs $270. The 2500K costs $220, and it outperforms FX in all but highly threaded situations.
Score
0
!