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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

mikenygmail

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
362
0
18,780
0
Limited supply, so if you're considering SLI as a possibility, don't buy it... or buy 2. Heck, just buy a 6950 2 GB and unlock it to 6970 specs.
 

mikenygmail

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
362
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]More expensive than the comparable 6950 2 GB, with half the RAM? Sorry Nvidia, no deal.[/citation]

My bad, just noticed the 1280 MB of RAM vs the 1 GB of the standard 560 ti.
This is actually almost cool, but it should be 1.5 GB if Nvidia expects people to really take notice.
 

_Pez_

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2010
415
0
18,810
10
Wow did you all see that those 6950's performed better than the new card, maybe I shall consider buying 2 HD 6950, the most efficient and better bang for my pesos. LOL but i'll wait for the new cards XD of ATI/AMD
 

jemm

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2010
2,359
0
20,160
102
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core is the same as the GeForce GTX 570, apart from few diferences in the Texture Units, Shader Cores and Full Color ROPs.
 

madsweeney

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2011
35
0
18,540
1
Comparing BF3 (main reason I'm thinking of upgrading) a radeon 6870 has identical frame rates, yet can be had for $125 less? Am I missing something here?
 

lothdk

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2010
881
0
19,160
69


Take a look at AnandTech's review, they include the 6870 in their benchmark, and the GTX 560 Ti 448 is 10%-50% faster depending on game and resolution.
 
I hope this will help get VGA cards selling for the Xmas season. On the average nVidia out sells AMD about 5 to 2, customers are still having too many driver issues with AMD, they return them and ask for an nVidia even though they cost more. AMD needs to get their driver issues resolved.
 

dalauder

Splendid
[citation][nom]scatman[/nom]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.[/citation]Reviews typically compare a special card like this to it's alternatives--that's why all the cards here are comparable.

On a major card launch, like the GTX 560Ti, you'll see it benchmarked against a larger variety and you can compare that, as the 100% baseline for these tests, to how the GTX 560Ti did against a GTX 460 1GB at launch.

Then compare how a GTX 460 1GB did (use Google) to a GTS 250 to get an idea of how this card compares to an older card like an 8800GT. If you want something specific--you have to do the work yourself!

So VERY roughly, GTX 560Ti 448 = 112% of GTX 560Ti. GTX 560Ti = 140% of GTX 460 1GB. GTX 460 1GB = 200% of GTS 250. GTS 250 = 130% 8800GT. That means a GTX 560Ti = 1.12*1.4*2*1.3 8800GT = 400% of 8800GT, or 4x the fps--which sounds about right. Of course, an 8800GT only has 512MB of DDR3 VRAM, so there are other drawbacks where you'll have to reduce texture settings with old cards. I don't know what old card you're thinking of, but an 8800GT is a good comparison card.

You can't compare low end integrated to a high end graphics card--it's like comparing a bicycle to a special edition Corvette. They both can get you from A to B--but they barely are serving the same purpose.
 

dalauder

Splendid
[citation][nom]buzznut[/nom]And now we see why they brought this card out, for enthusiasts to OC faster than a GTX 570. Its nVidia's version of the unlockable 6950s.[/citation]GTX 560Ti's already OC faster than a GTX 570. NVidia wasn't lying when they said it's because they have a stockpile of GF110's with 14 functioning blocks. If they wanted a version of unlockable 6950's, they would have left the connection to the 1 extra block (to make it a 570) and given two bioses so people could try to brick one.

Pretty much all cards OC to the level of the next one--just keep in mind that the next one usually OC's too (although I don't recall if GTX 480's were good OC'ers).
 

dalauder

Splendid
[citation][nom]jemm[/nom]GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core is the same as the GeForce GTX 570, apart from few diferences in the Texture Units, Shader Cores and Full Color ROPs.[/citation]Congratulations, you can read a table.

No, this difference isn't monumental--but it's about the same as what separated a GTX 470 and GTX 480. The difference between top-end components is usually only 5% performance and $100. That's why most people tend to recommend a GTX 560Ti if you overclock and a 6950 1GB if you don't. Anything beyond that really hurts you on price/performance.
 

zloginet

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2008
438
0
18,790
3
[citation][nom]badtaylorx[/nom]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 Calibrei highly doubt itthe other thing that stands out here is AMD's ever increasing performance on the HD 6970!!![/citation]


About the 6970 performance increase... They did a great job with their recent drivers... Added almost 10fps in BF3..... I own a MSI R6970 Lightning TwinFrozrIII and can attest to this along with a few sites showing such.
 

Onikage

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
28
0
18,530
0
448 ti is a crappy a videocard if u ask me,, 6950 1gb is so much better in every way,, and its cheaper too !
The Amd Cards are clearly a winner here .
 

kyuuketsuki

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
264
2
18,785
0
The way those graphs are done make them a bit misleading, since the card's positions are fixed and, therefore, sometimes the 560ti 448 is on top of the 6950 despite actually having lower performance. Generally, with graphs like these, they're arranged so that the highest performing card for that particular bench is on top and it goes down from there.

Not a big thing, just saying.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]Kyuuketsuki[/nom]The way those graphs are done make them a bit misleading, since the card's positions are fixed and, therefore, sometimes the 560ti 448 is on top of the 6950 despite actually having lower performance. Generally, with graphs like these, they're arranged so that the highest performing card for that particular bench is on top and it goes down from there.Not a big thing, just saying.[/citation]


How is that misleading? The position is the same from graph to graph. They're ordered by price.
 

Headspin_69

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2011
917
0
19,010
10
[citation][nom]wolfram23[/nom]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...[/citation]
The VRAM deals with texture and complete object pop in and not so much framerate if at all so with 2gb of VRAM @ 1080p you should see little if any pop ins with any game but I know for a fact 1gb and under will have pop ins @ 1680x1050 and higher resolution in some newer games like Skyrim and many more.
 

zooted

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2010
1,414
0
19,360
29
[citation][nom]BLACKSCI[/nom]Plus I believe that people forget that BF3 is also a very cpu bound game too.[/citation] No it isn't, any modern dual core can run the game if you have enough gpu power.
 

Headspin_69

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2011
917
0
19,010
10
[citation][nom]zloginet[/nom]About the 6970 performance increase... They did a great job with their recent drivers... Added almost 10fps in BF3..... I own a MSI R6970 Lightning TwinFrozrIII and can attest to this along with a few sites showing such.[/citation]
cool
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY