Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core: A Card With Overclocking Potential

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core Review: GF110 On A Diet
By

A quick average of frame rates at 1080p sheds a little more light on how these cards match up in our benchmark suite. Bear in mind that we're excluding the new Batman game due to its show-stopping DirectX 11 bug.

Despite significantly different frame rates observable on a game by game basis, the field averages out in a way that puts each card pretty close to the others. Let's focus on Nvidia's GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core, though.

The new card’s performance is about 12% higher than the standard GeForce GTX 560 Ti in our tests. Again, that figure will rise and fall depending on the game you're playing, the resolution you use, and the settings you choose. The point is that there's a quantifiable difference, and the case can be made for spending an extra $55 over the vanilla GTX 560 Ti for this 448-core version.

The problem is that AMD's Radeon HD 6950 1 GB is almost as fast, but it costs $45 less. If you're satisfied with its stock performance and planning to play at 1920x1080, there’s little reason to opt for more than a Radeon HD 6950 1 GB. It has the best price/performance ratio, matching the 2 GB version's performance and nipping at Nvidia's new GTX 560 Ti 448 Core.

But overclocking enthusiasts may see the competitive landscape a little differently. The $265 Radeon HD 6950 2 GB doesn't look like much of a contender compared to the cheaper 1 GB card. However, it gives you the chance to match the $350 Radeon HD 6970, if you're able to unlock its disabled GPU resources through a BIOS modification. Until now, there wasn’t a sub-$300 GeForce in Nvidia's line-up able to facilitate that same level of performance.

Our tests indicate that Nvidia's GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core introduces the potential for big gains via tweaking. As we saw from our overclocking tests, this board can sail past a pricier GeForce GTX 570 at its stock settings. The idea that AMD's Radeon HD 6950 might be unlocked is great, but it doesn't have as much overclocking headroom.

We're happy to see a sub-$300 option catering to enthusiasts with a penchant for Nvidia's product line. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core doesn't detract from the allure of AMD's Radeon HD 6950 2 GB, if you're willing to chance a firmware flash. But with that said, competition is a good thing in this space. More than anything, it's too bad that the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core is being introduced with the expectation that it'll disappear soon. After all, it shows promise at its stock settings, while serving up value in its overclocking headroom. We're sure there will be power users happy to snatch up these GF110-based boards while they last.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 74 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 16 Hide
    cleeve , November 29, 2011 12:55 PM
    nhat11In the battlefield 3 tests, why aren't the testers testing the settings on Ultra? I don't care about settings on high.


    Because none of these cards are fast enough to run on Ultra unless you're going to drop resolution, and nobody buys this class of card to run below 1080p.

    We try to make our benchmark settings realistic, not theoretical.
  • 15 Hide
    tmk221 , November 29, 2011 12:46 PM
    nice gpu but it's to expensive compared to 6950...
  • 13 Hide
    zooted , November 29, 2011 2:52 PM
    This article just makes the 6950 1gb look very attractive.
Other Comments
  • -1 Hide
    borden5 , November 29, 2011 12:45 PM
    this one trade blows with 6950 2gb and cost about $30 more hm?
  • 15 Hide
    tmk221 , November 29, 2011 12:46 PM
    nice gpu but it's to expensive compared to 6950...
  • -6 Hide
    Ernst56 , November 29, 2011 12:47 PM
    I just recently replaced an aging 8800 GTS with the 2GB Twin Frozr 560TI card. I have a large case with 7 fans and with a fan profile running the Twin Frozr at 70%, I can overclock to well past 570 performance.

    Since I got the card, with a game, for $249, I'm very happy. An hour of MW3 or SC2 at max settings shows a max temp of 53C.
  • -7 Hide
    nhat11 , November 29, 2011 12:49 PM
    In the battlefield 3 tests, why aren't the testers testing the settings on Ultra? I don't care about settings on high.
  • 0 Hide
    borden5 , November 29, 2011 12:50 PM
    thanks for great article, does anyone notice the 6950 1gb vs 2gb give same performance even tho at higher resolution ??
  • 16 Hide
    cleeve , November 29, 2011 12:55 PM
    nhat11In the battlefield 3 tests, why aren't the testers testing the settings on Ultra? I don't care about settings on high.


    Because none of these cards are fast enough to run on Ultra unless you're going to drop resolution, and nobody buys this class of card to run below 1080p.

    We try to make our benchmark settings realistic, not theoretical.
  • 12 Hide
    jimmy-bee , November 29, 2011 1:04 PM
    Wow, I hate to see the death of 1920 x 1200 resolution monitor to be replaced by 1080P. But liked this benchmark since I have a 560Ti. Always used Tom's benchmarks to help me decide on video cards.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 29, 2011 1:16 PM
    I'm with nhat11.

    I play my BF3 on Ultra settings and 1080p with the 6950 2GB. Ans this is not "theoretical". So if the framerate its 10fps everybody should know.

  • 3 Hide
    dontcrosthestreams , November 29, 2011 1:27 PM
    "the nordics".......skyrim joke please.
  • 3 Hide
    wolfram23 , November 29, 2011 1:31 PM
    I always find it almost shocking that the 6950 1gb and 2gb models have basically identical framerates even at 2560x1600 in all of these super demanding games. Do we really need more than 1gb VRAM? I always think about going triple monitors, and always think my 1gb is going to be a drawback...
  • 1 Hide
    badtaylorx , November 29, 2011 1:35 PM
    it really bugs me when Nvidia does this crap!!!

    id like to see if this thing is any better than a Sparkle GTX 560 Ti DF Calibre

    i highly doubt it


    the other thing that stands out here is AMD's ever increasing performance on the HD 6970!!!
  • 0 Hide
    lothdk , November 29, 2011 1:42 PM
    On the Zotac page you write

    Quote:
    Zotac’s option is based on its GeForce GTX 570 AMP! Edition card.
    ..
    The 448-core card doesn't get the designation of being one of Zotac's AMP! models


    yet in the conclusion on the same page you write

    Quote:
    The Zotac GeForce GTX 560 AMP! Edition has an MSRP of $299


    Either I am misunderstanding this, or one of those are wrong.
  • -3 Hide
    theconsolegamer , November 29, 2011 1:43 PM
    Ernst56I just recently replaced an aging 8800 GTS with the 2GB Twin Frozr 560TI card. I have a large case with 7 fans and with a fan profile running the Twin Frozr at 70%, I can overclock to well past 570 performance.Since I got the card, with a game, for $249, I'm very happy. An hour of MW3 or SC2 at max settings shows a max temp of 53C.

    I've used a GTX560ti in school with BF3 and it gets mid 50's Celcius with room temp of 60f with A/C.
  • 7 Hide
    fulle , November 29, 2011 2:03 PM
    My favorite part of the review was how min FPS values were included for Batman, AND the comment that the game was unplayable in the first set of tests due unacceptable min values.

    Too many times do I see this sort of thing overlooked. Great job!
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , November 29, 2011 2:09 PM
    how the hell were those temperatures so low ?
    i mean 34c is in idle mode for my msi r6950 tf3 pe/oc
  • 5 Hide
    banthracis , November 29, 2011 2:17 PM
    wolfram23I always find it almost shocking that the 6950 1gb and 2gb models have basically identical framerates even at 2560x1600 in all of these super demanding games. Do we really need more than 1gb VRAM? I always think about going triple monitors, and always think my 1gb is going to be a drawback...


    2560x1600 is 4mp whilst 3 1080p monitors is 6mp, a 50% increase. This makes a significant difference especially if you enable AA options. On a xfire 5850 setup I used to run, several games simply would not run at all (Shogun 2, GTA IV, Crysis come to mind) at 3240x1920, but would run fine if I lowered the resolution. Switching to a 2x 2gb 6950 setup allowed 3240x1920 to run.

    Remember, most review sites simply do no do multi monitor reviews. If the cases where they are done, like the below HardOCP article, there are very clear cases where VRAM walls are hit in triple monitor gaming. In this specific case, tri fire 6970 were able to beat tri sli 580's simply because the 580's didn't have sufficient VRAM even with 1.5gb.

    Is VRAM an issue at 1080p? No. Don't bother worrying about it. However if you're using multimonitorssetups, it makes a big difference.
    http://hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review/2
  • 0 Hide
    Yuka , November 29, 2011 2:36 PM
    Ok, here are the ingredients:

    - Short lived "special" video card
    - XMas season
    - Option to unlock/OC to the next tier
    - Limited quantity

    Ok, this might not be in everybody's pleasure to read, but I think it's a sadistic way to get more green juice out of fanbois. This card will be at the GTX570 levels or more (price wise). Supply and demand tell me so.

    I don't know if we'll be able to recommend this card at all =/

    Cheers!
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 29, 2011 2:39 PM
    Why oh why there is never a good low end integrated or at least reasonably priced GPU given for comaprison in the charts. The numbers are quite helpless until I understand how much money I must spend to get N time the performance. People buy card only very rarely - and mostly are coming from low end or at least 2-3 generations back - never from another super card. So at least one low end comparison would be nice to show what this amount of money can do.
  • 3 Hide
    banthracis , November 29, 2011 2:52 PM
    scatmanWhy oh why there is never a good low end integrated or at least reasonably priced GPU given for comaprison in the charts. The numbers are quite helpless until I understand how much money I must spend to get N time the performance. People buy card only very rarely - and mostly are coming from low end or at least 2-3 generations back - never from another super card. So at least one low end comparison would be nice to show what this amount of money can do.



    You'll have to define reasonably priced. For many enthusiast's a $250 card is a reasonable price. As for integrated cards, no point including them in the test and they simply will not run the majority of these tests. Adding the equivalent of a line saying zero for each of these test's is kinda silly.

    To get >0 for integrated cards you'd need much lower settings which are no longer representative of the common settings used by gamers and wouldn't allow the high end GPU to distinguish amongst themselves since they wouldn't be stressed. You'll have shifted bottleneck to CPU and at that point you''ll essentially be looking at a CPU performance graph.
  • -9 Hide
    spookyman , November 29, 2011 2:52 PM
    So would a GTX 590 be able to beat it?
Display more comments