Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need help finding a comparable card .....

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 15, 2012 10:44:49 PM

Back in November I had excellent help from everyone here with my new PC build. For my GPU, I had a few recommendations from people telling me to look into the Radeon HD 6950 2gb for my price range (lol surprisingly it's still the exact same price on newegg). Anyways, the card is great and all but it's giving me this annoying error message for a few games: your card does not support pixel shader model 2.0 - pretty sure the GPU supports up to 5.0 shader model. This happens with most of my steam games - CS:GO Beta, MW3, BF3, etc. I've made threads on here, on the steam forums and no results. I'm currently in contact with the manufacturer (XFX) to see if they can help resolve my issue.

My question for you guys is what NVIDIA card is comparable to the 6950 2gb? Would it be the 560 ti Fermi? I'll check the benchmarks but I also want your recommendations because you guys are great! Thanks!
a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2012 11:16:56 PM

Yes I believe the GTX 560ti is comparable. Try updating your DirectX drivers, and reinstall the lastest AMD Catalyst drivers.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 15, 2012 11:25:25 PM

GTX 560 Ti or GTX 560 Ti 448 (Seeing as how the prices are so close now).

But I agree with redeemer, try updating your drivers first and see if that resolves your issue.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 16, 2012 12:03:17 AM

Drivers have been updated and I do have the latest DX installed.
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 12:06:02 AM

I had NVIDIA in the past and never had problems with those cards. I knew I should have stuck with my gut shot to go with the 560 but I was convinced into getting the 6950 2gb. What other NVIDIA cards would you guys recommend for the 200-250 USD price range?
m
0
l
a c 196 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 12:23:49 AM

The GTX560Ti is about a couple of percent slower than the 6950 2GB, and the GTX560 Ti 448 is faster than the 6950 2GB, but there are better choices in that pricerange.

If you want to make a price jump a little bit, this would be the optimal Nvidia choice:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you are strict within the budget, this would be your choice:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Any one of those will do.
m
0
l
a c 196 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 12:25:22 AM

Before you decide that you want to throw more money at your problem though I would say you should look at some other options. The 6950 is still a really good card, and we would be happy to help you with your problem to save you some cash.

I'll help you out, I've got a 6950 2GB as well.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 12:30:55 AM

that 2.0 error isn't the card it has to be something else. you just haven't figured it out yet. did you uninstall and reinstall steam ? did you clean out drivers and start again.... only installing what you need and nothing else ? ( try it without the CCC and the HDMI sound drivers. )

what happens when you play games that aren't "hooked" to steam..... or aren't internet necessary ?
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 12:53:42 AM

Deemo13 said:
The GTX560Ti is about a couple of percent slower than the 6950 2GB, and the GTX560 Ti 448 is faster than the 6950 2GB, but there are better choices in that pricerange.

If you want to make a price jump a little bit, this would be the optimal Nvidia choice:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you are strict within the budget, this would be your choice:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Any one of those will do.


I want to stay away from any radeon products. I will look into the 570 ti 448
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 12:56:04 AM

Deemo13 said:
Before you decide that you want to throw more money at your problem though I would say you should look at some other options. The 6950 is still a really good card, and we would be happy to help you with your problem to save you some cash.

I'll help you out, I've got a 6950 2GB as well.



Well, I was def gonna sell the card first hopefully make 200 dollars for it.

I've tried posting the problem here in this forum and other forums, tried tech support for mw3, nothing. There are a bunch of other people posting on the steam forums with this problem too. I'm just sick of waiting for solutions to appear, i've tried everything other than formatting and I don't think that will do.
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 12:58:38 AM

swifty_morgan said:
that 2.0 error isn't the card it has to be something else. you just haven't figured it out yet. did you uninstall and reinstall steam ? did you clean out drivers and start again.... only installing what you need and nothing else ? ( try it without the CCC and the HDMI sound drivers. )

what happens when you play games that aren't "hooked" to steam..... or aren't internet necessary ?


believe me, it's the card. I've uninstalled and reinstalled many times, verified game integrity, no luck. When I made a post about this on the steam forums, other people said they had the same problem. I don't play any other games besides steam games. I just bought MW3 a few days ago and I can't even play it. Why would I try it without CCC? I even updated my driver today, no luck.
m
0
l
a c 105 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 1:56:41 AM

you said you posted on other forums. did you give up this quickly on those too. sounds like you need something to complain about and AMD is it. if you put some effort into it we could find a solution. blowing off suggestions isn't going to help..... ( why not run CCC )...or ( why not eliminate HDMI sound drivers )...... your money. i could care less. as much as i hate to give up without trying as much as possible I'll say adios.
m
0
l
a c 196 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 1:57:20 AM

So what is a detailed description of the problem?
m
0
l
a c 609 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 2:02:03 AM

You can get a GTX 560 Ti pretty cheap these days. Overclocked to 950 mhz, they are as fast as a 6970.
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 2:29:52 PM

swifty_morgan said:
you said you posted on other forums. did you give up this quickly on those too. sounds like you need something to complain about and AMD is it. if you put some effort into it we could find a solution. blowing off suggestions isn't going to help..... ( why not run CCC )...or ( why not eliminate HDMI sound drivers )...... your money. i could care less. as much as i hate to give up without trying as much as possible I'll say adios.


This has been occurring for 8 months...who said anything about giving up immediately? I have spent countless hours sifting through forum searches, talking to all types of techies, troubleshooting, uninstalling/reinstalling, etc. What would you do after 8 months of dead ends?
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 2:34:32 PM

Deemo13 said:
So what is a detailed description of the problem?


I load a game, eg: Call of Duty Modern Warefare 3 on steam and it closes immediately saying something like "your video card does not support pixel shader model 3.0" when it clearly supports 5.0. Device manager shows the 6950 installed properly and the drivers have been wiped and reinstalled countless times. I have uninstalled steam and the games numerous times. I can play other games on steam, for example, CS:S and TF2 work just fine. It seems like the newer games are giving me the problem.
m
0
l
a c 196 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 6:18:21 PM

If you dont want to spend the money on the new card you could possibly re-install Windows if you are willing. I'm the type that doesnt really like to solve problems by buying new stuff; I'd rather fix the old stuff.
m
0
l
July 16, 2012 9:15:08 PM

Deemo13 said:
If you dont want to spend the money on the new card you could possibly re-install Windows if you are willing. I'm the type that doesnt really like to solve problems by buying new stuff; I'd rather fix the old stuff.



In one of your earlier posts you talked about the 448 being "faster" than the regular 560 Ti. Why does the 448 Fermi 1.2gb have a slower "Core clock" compared to the regular 560 Ti fermi?
m
0
l
a c 609 U Graphics card
July 16, 2012 9:55:52 PM

The regular GTX 560 Ti is clocked higher than the 448 core model, but only has 384 cores. This difference is the key to delivering higher performance despite a slower core clock. The 448 core model is actually based on the GTX 570, rather than being an enhanced GTX 560 Ti, and carries the same stock clock speed as a GTX 570. So by "faster" we mean "more performance".
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_56...
m
0
l
a c 196 U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 1:07:09 AM

mulberry said:
In one of your earlier posts you talked about the 448 being "faster" than the regular 560 Ti. Why does the 448 Fermi 1.2gb have a slower "Core clock" compared to the regular 560 Ti fermi?


As matto17secs said, the GTX560 Ti 448 is basically an underclocked GTX570. The GTX560Ti only has 384 cores, but is clocked higher.

Look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

The 448 is really not that much of an improvement over the 560Ti or the 6950. In fact its in the same tier.

You could get a 7850 thats cheaper and performs faster. Did you try your current card in another friend's computer to see if the problem persists? If it works in another system, there is no need to replace something that works. And if it works in a friends system, there is a chance that the problem is going to persist anyway.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 2:59:29 PM

Deemo13 said:
As matto17secs said, the GTX560 Ti 448 is basically an underclocked GTX570. The GTX560Ti only has 384 cores, but is clocked higher.

Look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

The 448 is really not that much of an improvement over the 560Ti or the 6950. In fact its in the same tier.

You could get a 7850 thats cheaper and performs faster. Did you try your current card in another friend's computer to see if the problem persists? If it works in another system, there is no need to replace something that works. And if it works in a friends system, there is a chance that the problem is going to persist anyway.


Look at the specs on this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

has 480 cuda core's compared to the 448 on the 560. this is also cheaper w/ free shipping. only thing I noticed is has less "Effective Memory Clock"
m
0
l
a c 609 U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 3:25:24 PM

Be careful with the GTX 480. They tend to be quite noisy. I used to own one. If it was me, I would go for the GTX 560 Ti 448 core model. The GTX 570's are pretty good deals now too.

These cards are much better options than a reference GTX 480.

MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr II: $240 w/free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

MSI GTX 560 Ti 448 cores Twin Frozr III PE/OC: $200 after rebate w/free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 3:45:44 PM

17seconds said:
Be careful with the GTX 480. They tend to be quite noisy. I used to own one. If it was me, I would go for the GTX 560 Ti 448 core model. The GTX 570's are pretty good deals now too.

These cards are much better options than a reference GTX 480.

MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr II: $240 w/free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

MSI GTX 560 Ti 448 cores Twin Frozr III PE/OC: $200 after rebate w/free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


which of the 2 would you get and why?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 4:00:21 PM

17seconds said:
Be careful with the GTX 480. They tend to be quite noisy. I used to own one. If it was me, I would go for the GTX 560 Ti 448 core model. The GTX 570's are pretty good deals now too.

These cards are much better options than a reference GTX 480.

MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr II: $240 w/free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

MSI GTX 560 Ti 448 cores Twin Frozr III PE/OC: $200 after rebate w/free shipping
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


+1

@ OP

I would choose the GTX 560 Ti 448. It's cheaper after rebate and the performance difference is VERY little compared to a 570. Just look at the graph matto17secs posted.
m
0
l
a c 609 U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 4:18:37 PM

Yeah, I would also go for the 560 448 cores Twin Frozr III. Despite coming factory overclocked, that review also shows it still having considerable headroom for further overclocking. The Twin Frozr III cooler is a nice improvement over the Twin Frozr II.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 5:33:56 PM

17seconds said:
Yeah, I would also go for the 560 448 cores Twin Frozr III. Despite coming factory overclocked, that review also shows it still having considerable headroom for further overclocking. The Twin Frozr III cooler is a nice improvement over the Twin Frozr II.


If I don't plan on overclocking (never have, probably never will) you still think the twin frozr III is the viable option?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 5:43:37 PM

The reason why I would personally pick the Twin Frozr III over a reference design is due to the noise.

They're significantly quieter and offer much cooler operation :)  regardless of overclock, I would still pick it up.
m
0
l
July 17, 2012 5:50:07 PM

I don't care about noise as much as I care about performance.
m
0
l
a c 609 U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 5:54:57 PM

All these cards are neck and neck in performance.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2012 9:28:15 PM

17seconds said:
All these cards are neck and neck in performance.


^ This
m
0
l
!