Nvidia GTX 560 Ti vs Radeon HD 6950

[jwalker52]

Ok i know this is most likely a repeated question but my situation is a slight bit different. I'm buying all my parts in about two weeks and i want to get the GPU choice done so i can be set until next year. I'm stuck between these three. Most of my friends say i should go with Nvidia because of physx since i'm going to be play plenty of games that will use this perk.(Duke Nukem to start). I plan on playing on a 720p(but it does display in 1080p). My main goal is all my games on ultra, especially Skyrim with mods.

EVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 Ti: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130610
I like this one because in comparison of speed clocks its already OC'd and its at a good price

EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti- 448 Cores: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130738
I saw this one in a video, kid was playing MW3 and it looked like on my ps3.

ASUS Radeon HD 6950 2GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121431
This is considerable since it it's the same price as the 448 cores version and it has an extra GB of memory.

Now i have seen around that you only need over 1 GB of Ram on a gpu if you're playing at high resolutions, which i believe I'm not. So if the 6950 is the best bet ill go for the 1 gb version to save a few bucks. But the 6950 have lower clock speeds and "stream processing units" in comparison to cores which is confusing.

I'm going to be using the GPU with a i5-2500(don't really care for OC unless i can afford it, my budget is $1000), 8 GB of 1600mhz ram, a sata 6gb/s hard drive.

Here's a comparison page with all my considerations with specs available next to eachother. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600030348%20600094002&IsNodeId=1&page=2&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&CompareItemList=48%7C14-130-610%5E14-130-610-TS%2C14-121-431%5E14-121-431-TS%2C14-150-523%5E14-150-523-TS%2C14-130-738%5E14-130-738-TS

 

[gregcky]

IIRC, the 448 core 560 TI is a limited edition, with similar speeds to a stock 570. You are right in only needing more gpu ram if you play on higher resolution (you won't be). I'm usually one to go for AMD GPU's (have a 5850 myself) but in this case i would go for the 448core 560TI if you can afford it. It should provide much better performance.

 

[Gordon Freeman]

IIRC, the 448 core 560 TI is a limited edition, with similar speeds to a stock 570. You are right in only needing more gpu ram if you play on higher resolution (you won't be). I'm usually one to go for AMD GPU's (have a 5850 myself) but in this case i would go for the 448core 560TI if you can afford it. It should provide much better performance.

Just based on the fact that 6950 is $100 cheaper than 570 and gives great performance I would take a 6950 any day because with 570 you do not get near enough $100 more performance.

 

[jwalker52]

IIRC, the 448 core 560 TI is a limited edition, with similar speeds to a stock 570. You are right in only needing more gpu ram if you play on higher resolution (you won't be). I'm usually one to go for AMD GPU's (have a 5850 myself) but in this case i would go for the 448core 560TI if you can afford it. It should provide much better performance.

So more cores over higher clocks in the super clock? and i would go for the AMD ones but PhysX is in 80% of the games i'm looking to play. I can afford the 448 cores but will i really need all the extra cores with 8 gb ram and an i5- 2500? I don't want to spend the extra money unless its worth it

 

[Gordon Freeman]

So more cores over higher clocks in the super clock? and i would go for the AMD ones but PhysX is in 80% of the games i'm looking to play. I can afford the 448 cores but will i really need all the extra cores with 8 gb ram and an i5- 2500? I don't want to spend the extra money unless its worth it

Well Physx is in all of 5 games and Batman AC get bogged down when its on so you can scratch another off the list. Don't buy into the hype and do research objectively and always be loyal to your wallet. That being said a 448 core is kinda a wast because 560ti can be clocked to 570 speeds and 570 can be clocked even higher than both.

 

[alrobichaud]

Ok i know this is most likely a repeated question but my situation is a slight bit different. I'm buying all my parts in about two weeks and i want to get the GPU choice done so i can be set until next year. I'm stuck between these three. Most of my friends say i should go with Nvidia because of physx since i'm going to be play plenty of games that will use this perk.(Duke Nukem to start). I plan on playing on a 720p(but it does display in 1080p). My main goal is all my games on ultra, especially Skyrim with mods.

EVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 560 Ti: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130610
I like this one because in comparison of speed clocks its already OC'd and its at a good price

EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti- 448 Cores: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130738
I saw this one in a video, kid was playing MW3 and it looked like on my ps3.

ASUS Radeon HD 6950 2GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121431
This is considerable since it it's the same price as the 448 cores version and it has an extra GB of memory.

Now i have seen around that you only need over 1 GB of Ram on a gpu if you're playing at high resolutions, which i believe I'm not. So if the 6950 is the best bet ill go for the 1 gb version to save a few bucks. But the 6950 have lower clock speeds and "stream processing units" in comparison to cores which is confusing.

I'm going to be using the GPU with a i5-2500(don't really care for OC unless i can afford it, my budget is $1000), 8 GB of 1600mhz ram, a sata 6gb/s hard drive.

Here's a comparison page with all my considerations with specs available next to eachother. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600030348%20600094002&IsNodeId=1&page=2&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&CompareItemList=48%7C14-130-610%5E14-130-610-TS%2C14-121-431%5E14-121-431-TS%2C14-150-523%5E14-150-523-TS%2C14-130-738%5E14-130-738-TS

Sorry but it is hard finding any benchmark in 720 but this is a good comparison at 1080. Not sure about the games you are playing but it should help you decide which gpu to buy. BTW, any of those cards will struggle to play the newest games such as skyrim in ultra even at 720 and still maintain good framerates.

 

[jwalker52]

Well Physx is in all of 5 games and Batman AC get bogged down when its on so you can scratch another off the list. Don't buy into the hype and do research objectively and always be loyal to your wallet. That being said a 448 core is kinda a wast because 560ti can be clocked to 570 speeds and 570 can be clocked even higher than both.

So basically got with the 560 ti super clocked? or go with an AMD since you said PhysX is all hype?
Thanks for the help Everyone.
The posts have narrowed me down to the superclocked 560 Ti or the 6950 1 GB. So what's the best for BF3, Skyrim, Arkham, MW3, and Duke Nukem?

 

[Gordon Freeman]

So basically got with the 560 ti super clocked? or go with an AMD since you said PhysX is all hype?
Thanks for the help Everyone.
The posts have narrowed me down to the superclocked 560 Ti or the 6950 1 GB. So what's the best for BF3, Skyrim, Arkham, MW3, and Duke Nukem?

6950 is cheaper than 448 and faster than 448 so ...

 

[alrobichaud]

Well for bf3, the chart pretty much sums it up between the 560ti and 6950 1GB. Just google some benchmarks for the games you play. Personally, I would not be too concerned with making sure your gpu uses physx. You will find that both nvidia and amd do better in some games and worse in others.

 

[jwalker52]

6950 is cheaper than 448 and faster than 448 so ...

Well i'm completely off the 448 core for the start, but i've seen that the superclocked 560 ti does better in all games i like than the 6950 1GB. If anything i can just SLI later on. Thanks Everyone

 

[Gordon Freeman]

Well i'm completely off the 448 core for the start, but i've seen that the superclocked 560 ti does better in all games i like than the 6950 1GB. If anything i can just SLI later on. Thanks Everyone

Don't buy into the hype 6950 is faster than any 560ti stock for stock and they both overclock LOL

 

[17seconds]

If you play Batman, an Nvidia card with PhysX is essential:

[flash=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/v/j7lr7B9k9SA?version=3&feature=player_embedded[/flash]

 

[Gordon Freeman]

If you play Batman, an Nvidia card with PhysX is essential:

[flash=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/v/j7lr7B9k9SA?version=3&feature=player_embedded[/flash]

LOL I played Batman and I turned Physx off I can do without a floppy cape and some garbage in the air floating around and a few more pieces of glass that break etc LOL Physics in games have been around and Havok and Unreal etc do it better than Nvidia because Nvidia is out to create a Monopoly sales Marketing Gimmick 101.

 

[iPansophitus]

PhysX is really not essential. I played through Arkham City without it, and I was very satisfied.

I'm not sure if you've purchased the card yet, it sounds like you have, but if not, buy the 6950. Buying an nVidia card isn't a great idea at the moment. Kepler is around the corner, so investing in something more expensive isn't smart, and AMD is much cheaper.

Most importantly, don't let people downplay the importance of video memory. Most games these days need around 1.5GB-2GB of VRAM at 1080p. If you only have 1GB card (like the 560Ti you are looking at), it will be a massive bottleneck in SLI, and cause increased stutter. Trust me, I have a lot of experienced this first hand.

 

[Gordon Freeman]

PhysX is really not essential. I played through Arkham City without it, and I was very satisfied.

I'm not sure if you've purchased the card yet, it sounds like you have, but if not, buy the 6950. Buying an nVidia card isn't a great idea at the moment. Kepler is around the corner, so investing in something more expensive isn't smart, and AMD is much cheaper.

Most importantly, don't let people downplay the importance of video memory. Most games these days need around 1.5GB-2GB of VRAM at 1080p. If you only have 1GB card (like the 560Ti you are looking at), it will be a massive bottleneck in SLI, and cause increased stutter. Trust me, I have a lot of experienced this first hand.

I agree with you on the Physx thing and about the V-Ram well that's why I will stay on my nice Samsung 2ms high contrast 1680x1050 monitor because performance is important to me and eye candy does not make me keep playing a game the game play does. PS Physics is in referent to Physics not ((( Nvidia Physx* ))) Physics has to do with how physical objects naturally relate to the world around them but Nvidia claims it is eye candy by its intrinsically flawed nature all Nvidias Physx* is marketing shlock is all it is LOL that slows the game down.

 

[dummos]

when i played arkham on my 6970 i put my old 460 in as a dedicated physx card and it made no difference at all if anything it ran worse

 

[jwalker52]

Dummos: well a 6970 vs a 460 is a landslide difference, and the 560 ti im looking at is still a landslide.

Matto: Well now I'm thinking about not getting batman. I just rented it for my ps3 and it bored me. But great vid bro if i was to get it i'd make sure i have Physx for the eye candy

Gordon: "Don't buy into the hype 6950 is faster than any 560ti stock for stock and they both overclock LOL"
The 560 ti im looking at is super clocked and still has more room to overclock according to others reviews on Newegg. It has higher clocks and equal memory of the 6950.

iPansophitus: I haven't bought the card yet, ill be doing so at the beginning of February. So i should go for a two GB card?

I'm really looking for high compatibility in the long run and Nvidia seems to be offering it, but i want to get a card that ill be set with for a few months(6-9).

On another not i just put up a comparison on newegg of two 6950's and two 560 ti(including the super clock). And the only thing i don't understand is processing cores vs stream processing units. the Nvidias have 384 cores vs the 1408 stream units in the AMD. The AMD have way lower clocks (4212 from the super 560 ti and 1300 from the 2gb radeon). Can anyone enlighten me on the difference between the stream units and the cores, that's what has messed me up the most.

 

[Gordon Freeman]

Dummos: well a 6970 vs a 460 is a landslide difference, and the 560 ti im looking at is still a landslide.

Matto: Well now I'm thinking about not getting batman. I just rented it for my ps3 and it bored me. But great vid bro if i was to get it i'd make sure i have Physx for the eye candy

Gordon: "Don't buy into the hype 6950 is faster than any 560ti stock for stock and they both overclock LOL"
The 560 ti im looking at is super clocked and still has more room to overclock according to others reviews on Newegg. It has higher clocks and equal memory of the 6950.

iPansophitus: I haven't bought the card yet, ill be doing so at the beginning of February. So i should go for a two GB card?

I'm really looking for high compatibility in the long run and Nvidia seems to be offering it, but i want to get a card that ill be set with for a few months(6-9).

On another not i just put up a comparison on newegg of two 6950's and two 560 ti(including the super clock). And the only thing i don't understand is processing cores vs stream processing units. the Nvidias have 384 cores vs the 1408 stream units in the AMD. The AMD have way lower clocks (4212 from the super 560 ti and 1300 from the 2gb radeon). Can anyone enlighten me on the difference between the stream units and the cores, that's what has messed me up the most.

Inch and centimeter they both add up to accomplish the same end result.

 

[jwalker52]

Best answer selected by jwalker52.