- Status
So now all we do is compare to cards released in the last year?
How about a comparison for people who care? (the ones still using a gtx 2xx or a hd 47xx/48xx and that are likely to start looking to upgrade).
Least you could do is add a percentage based chart to pre compare the fully tested cards in your benchmarks with said 'older' cards.
Hell you could even have added a 5770 in the benchmarks to at least give people a frame of reference to the 26x / 4xxx.
Moderator Edit: Don't make bogus claims, unless you have something to back it up.
How about a comparison for people who care? (the ones still using a gtx 2xx or a hd 47xx/48xx and that are likely to start looking to upgrade).
Least you could do is add a percentage based chart to pre compare the fully tested cards in your benchmarks with said 'older' cards.
Hell you could even have added a 5770 in the benchmarks to at least give people a frame of reference to the 26x / 4xxx.
Moderator Edit: Don't make bogus claims, unless you have something to back it up.
nemo888
Distinguished
- May 18, 2008
- 24
- 0
- 18,510
Yawn. All the games are made for older consoles then ported. Unless they screw up the port you won't see any difference with a human eye by wasting money upgrading this year. PC gaming is the ugly half sister who doesn't get any love now. Maybe when the recession is over and the consoles hardware is overly dated will we see PC gaming rise again.
damric
Illustrious
- Sep 17, 2010
- 8,017
- 72
- 37,990
Nice looking card, particularly the binned Gigabyte ones that do 1GHZ, but it's not really exciting me as when the GTX 460 launched. I'm happy I got the HD6850 on sale for $165 ($150 after rebate). I can't justify the extra $80-90, when I can easily overclock over 1GHZ to nearly match performance of the $250 cards if needed. I really liked the last page regarding the HD 6950 1GB, although it's also another pointless card. Value gets even more absurd if you compare getting a top tier card versus simply crossfiring/SLI HD6850/GTX460.
- Jul 4, 2008
- 1,878
- 9
- 19,795
Ian,
In all frankness, I'd rather add more game testing to the limited time we get with each of these cards before they're launched than explore 5-10% overclocks. And while people on the market might not be buying GTX 460, everyone who already purchased one and is now looking for an upgrade can apply those results to their decisions.
While I'd expect that the Tom's Hardware audience is savvy enough to know that a 5-10% overclock is going to yield a roughly comparable increase in performance in graphics-limited settings/resolutions, I'm more concerned with precedent. Look at the GTX 560 Ti launch for a perfect example. *On launch day* there were at least six different speeds of GF114-based cards to choose from. Which ones get tested? All of them? Of course, giving that concession to one vendor obligates equal treatment to AMD, too. With no standardization of clocks except for the reference models, it's really a chaotic marketplace. Right now, our configuration matches the information you find on Nvidia's *own* Web site referencing the GTX 460. The only reason their marketing department is after us to overclock, overclock, overclock is to improve its standing against AMD's stuff. Abiding that will only encourage more push-back from the other side. Like I said, it's bad precedent. More appropriate would be a completely separate story covering graphics overclocking using some of these tweaked SKUs. And that's something I'd absolutely consider!
I suggested to Nvidia that it create a new model for higher-clocked GF104 boards if it wanted us to start testing hand-picked SKUs running 10-15% faster than reference. I suspect that's why we're seeing Ti reintroduced now (I imagine there will be additional GF114-based boards). That's a fair approach in my opinion. Otherwise, there's really no end to the madness that is each of these companies picking SKUs that they think best represent the market.
As for the second message, I'm not entirely sure what legal redress we have in cases like that. I took pictures, forwarded to the C-level folks, and let them handle the cease and desist. Unfortunately, I have to imagine retail product went out with that logo, though.
Also, you're right about recommending the 6950 2 GB specifically for the unlock. We do mention things like potential unlocking for Phenom IIs, for example, but we acknowledge the risk involved. Of course, flashing a graphics card's firmware is more complex than a simple motherboard BIOS switch. It's obviously an interesting and exciting possibility, but Techpowerup is doing a great job covering that mod, and I'm not sure there's any additional value we could offer by redoing what they've already done there.
I've shifted away from STALKER, given its age, but I might be able to get Unigine tested the next time I set up a graphics test bed (should be soon). Any settings in particular you use?
As always, thanks for your feedback
Chris
In all frankness, I'd rather add more game testing to the limited time we get with each of these cards before they're launched than explore 5-10% overclocks. And while people on the market might not be buying GTX 460, everyone who already purchased one and is now looking for an upgrade can apply those results to their decisions.
While I'd expect that the Tom's Hardware audience is savvy enough to know that a 5-10% overclock is going to yield a roughly comparable increase in performance in graphics-limited settings/resolutions, I'm more concerned with precedent. Look at the GTX 560 Ti launch for a perfect example. *On launch day* there were at least six different speeds of GF114-based cards to choose from. Which ones get tested? All of them? Of course, giving that concession to one vendor obligates equal treatment to AMD, too. With no standardization of clocks except for the reference models, it's really a chaotic marketplace. Right now, our configuration matches the information you find on Nvidia's *own* Web site referencing the GTX 460. The only reason their marketing department is after us to overclock, overclock, overclock is to improve its standing against AMD's stuff. Abiding that will only encourage more push-back from the other side. Like I said, it's bad precedent. More appropriate would be a completely separate story covering graphics overclocking using some of these tweaked SKUs. And that's something I'd absolutely consider!
I suggested to Nvidia that it create a new model for higher-clocked GF104 boards if it wanted us to start testing hand-picked SKUs running 10-15% faster than reference. I suspect that's why we're seeing Ti reintroduced now (I imagine there will be additional GF114-based boards). That's a fair approach in my opinion. Otherwise, there's really no end to the madness that is each of these companies picking SKUs that they think best represent the market.
As for the second message, I'm not entirely sure what legal redress we have in cases like that. I took pictures, forwarded to the C-level folks, and let them handle the cease and desist. Unfortunately, I have to imagine retail product went out with that logo, though.
Also, you're right about recommending the 6950 2 GB specifically for the unlock. We do mention things like potential unlocking for Phenom IIs, for example, but we acknowledge the risk involved. Of course, flashing a graphics card's firmware is more complex than a simple motherboard BIOS switch. It's obviously an interesting and exciting possibility, but Techpowerup is doing a great job covering that mod, and I'm not sure there's any additional value we could offer by redoing what they've already done there.
I've shifted away from STALKER, given its age, but I might be able to get Unigine tested the next time I set up a graphics test bed (should be soon). Any settings in particular you use?
As always, thanks for your feedback
Chris
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
cangelini writes:
> In all frankness, I'd rather add more game testing to the limited time
> we get with each of these cards before they're launched than explore
> 5-10% overclocks. ...
Understandable. 8)
> ... And while people on the market might not be buying
> GTX 460, everyone who already purchased one and is now looking for an
> upgrade can apply those results to their decisions.
That's why I've done my own tests, comparing to older cards like the
8800GT, so people using older configs can more easily work out what
an upgrade will/might do. They should be able to cross reference with
existing reviews.
> perfect example. *On launch day* there were at least six different
> speeds of GF114-based cards to choose from. Which ones get tested? All
Hmm, good point.
> appropriate would be a completely separate story covering graphics
> overclocking using some of these tweaked SKUs. And that's something I'd
> absolutely consider!
Good idea!
Anand got into a right muddle over this. They included the FTW in their
68xx launch review, which sparked a big row, but then didn't include it
in later reviews. At least your 560 article is consistent.
> 10-15% faster than reference. I suspect that's why we're seeing Ti
> reintroduced now (I imagine there will be additional GF114-based
Certainly brings back memories. I can remember comparing a Ti4600 to
an SGI Octane2 V12 back in 2002 or something.
(Ti was much faster,
but the texture quality was garbage). Ah yes, the marketing zoids do
love the power of nostalgia.
I doubt they'll adopt your suggestion though. It would remove one of
their marketing 'weapons' re battling AMD's launches (and vice versa
I suppose).
> folks, and let them handle the cease and desist. Unfortunately, I have
> to imagine retail product went out with that logo, though.
Indeed. In my case I just caved in of course, bought my own copy of the
Replay box for posterity. Here's the article btw.
> Also, you're right about recommending the 6950 2 GB specifically for
> the unlock. We do mention things like potential unlocking for Phenom
It wouldn't be so bad if the cards didn't cost quite so much. :|
> I've shifted away from STALKER, given its age, but I might be able to
> get Unigine tested the next time I set up a graphics test bed (should
> be soon). Any settings in particular you use?
See:
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/uniginebench.txt
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/uniginebench2.txt
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/uniginebench3.txt
In general I've been using (with Shaders High and HDR ON if available):
- 1280x1024, no AA, 8x AF.
- 1920x1080, 4x AA, 8x AF.
- 2048x1536, 4x (Heaven and Tropics) or 8x (Sanctuary) AA, 16x AF.
...testing DX9/10/11 in each case, but free to just test whatever you're
able to re time available, etc. I suppose probably the 1920x1080 setting
would be the most useful.
> As always, thanks for your feedback
Most welcome!!
Btw, here's an oddity for you (pass this round the office); have a
quick look at my Stalker results:
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/stalkercopbench.txt
Why does the 4890 do so well for the SUN test? (whereas it's really bad
for the RAIN test, average for DAY/NIGHT) Beats the heck outa me. My
friend would sure like to know.
Ian.
> In all frankness, I'd rather add more game testing to the limited time
> we get with each of these cards before they're launched than explore
> 5-10% overclocks. ...
Understandable. 8)
> ... And while people on the market might not be buying
> GTX 460, everyone who already purchased one and is now looking for an
> upgrade can apply those results to their decisions.
That's why I've done my own tests, comparing to older cards like the
8800GT, so people using older configs can more easily work out what
an upgrade will/might do. They should be able to cross reference with
existing reviews.
> perfect example. *On launch day* there were at least six different
> speeds of GF114-based cards to choose from. Which ones get tested? All
Hmm, good point.
> appropriate would be a completely separate story covering graphics
> overclocking using some of these tweaked SKUs. And that's something I'd
> absolutely consider!
Good idea!
Anand got into a right muddle over this. They included the FTW in their
68xx launch review, which sparked a big row, but then didn't include it
in later reviews. At least your 560 article is consistent.
> 10-15% faster than reference. I suspect that's why we're seeing Ti
> reintroduced now (I imagine there will be additional GF114-based
Certainly brings back memories.
I can remember comparing a Ti4600 toan SGI Octane2 V12 back in 2002 or something.
(Ti was much faster,but the texture quality was garbage). Ah yes, the marketing zoids do
love the power of nostalgia.
I doubt they'll adopt your suggestion though. It would remove one of
their marketing 'weapons' re battling AMD's launches (and vice versa
I suppose).
> folks, and let them handle the cease and desist. Unfortunately, I have
> to imagine retail product went out with that logo, though.
Indeed. In my case I just caved in of course, bought my own copy of the
Replay box for posterity.
Here's the article btw.> Also, you're right about recommending the 6950 2 GB specifically for
> the unlock. We do mention things like potential unlocking for Phenom
It wouldn't be so bad if the cards didn't cost quite so much. :|
> I've shifted away from STALKER, given its age, but I might be able to
> get Unigine tested the next time I set up a graphics test bed (should
> be soon). Any settings in particular you use?
See:
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/uniginebench.txt
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/uniginebench2.txt
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/uniginebench3.txt
In general I've been using (with Shaders High and HDR ON if available):
- 1280x1024, no AA, 8x AF.
- 1920x1080, 4x AA, 8x AF.
- 2048x1536, 4x (Heaven and Tropics) or 8x (Sanctuary) AA, 16x AF.
...testing DX9/10/11 in each case, but free to just test whatever you're
able to re time available, etc. I suppose probably the 1920x1080 setting
would be the most useful.
> As always, thanks for your feedback
Most welcome!!
Btw, here's an oddity for you (pass this round the office); have a
quick look at my Stalker results:
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/stalkercopbench.txt
Why does the 4890 do so well for the SUN test? (whereas it's really bad
for the RAIN test, average for DAY/NIGHT) Beats the heck outa me. My
friend would sure like to know.
Ian.
guardianangel42
Distinguished
- Jan 18, 2010
- 554
- 0
- 18,990
Well, this would make a great replacement for my GTX 275, especially the gigabyte version.
Trouble is, there aren't any games that I need it for. Don't play HAWX or HAWX 2, don't plan on getting Metro 2033, don't really play racing games, and most of my projected game purchases (Portal 2, Deus Ex, maybe Crysis 2, Dead Space 2, and Mass Effect 3) are done for Xbox because I can share the game with my brother (His computer is crap).
So until STALKER 2 comes out I probably won't buy a new card (Unless mine dies, which is a distinct possibility).
Trouble is, there aren't any games that I need it for. Don't play HAWX or HAWX 2, don't plan on getting Metro 2033, don't really play racing games, and most of my projected game purchases (Portal 2, Deus Ex, maybe Crysis 2, Dead Space 2, and Mass Effect 3) are done for Xbox because I can share the game with my brother (His computer is crap).
So until STALKER 2 comes out I probably won't buy a new card (Unless mine dies, which is a distinct possibility).
[citation][nom]universalremonster[/nom]"If you’re good with Google, you can even find a couple of GeForce4 Ti 4200 reviews I wrote back in 2002. Great, now I feel really old."Haha, no need.. I was reading it back then! After reading about the 3 different Ti cards here at Toms's, I went middle of the road and picked up the Ti4400 at Best Buy. I remember wanting to read up on it as it was a big deal being my first "enthusiast" gaming video card. =D So as far as the new (old) naming scheme goes I vote 'yes' because it brings back fond memories... even though I've been buying ATi cards since the 9700 Pro. Thanks for the write up![/citation]
Had to stop reading comments after this one. My first build featured a 4400, followed by a 9800 pro, and then strictly ati
Had to stop reading comments after this one. My first build featured a 4400, followed by a 9800 pro
, and then strictly ati
jasonh8806
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2010
- 94
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]So, what happened to HD6950's competition ?Guess AMD was right about it being in a class of it's own......................[/citation]
It looks to me like the 560 is a better performer when you take in to account that it costs 50 bucks less and can be overclocked to 1 Ghz+
It looks to me like the 560 is a better performer when you take in to account that it costs 50 bucks less and can be overclocked to 1 Ghz+
jasonh8806
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2010
- 94
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]damric[/nom]6950 can also be overclocked in excess of 1GHZ, as well as additional shaders unlocked, surpassing stock 580 performance, so what's your point?[/citation]
Not to burst your bubble but I'm almost certain that whether or not you "unlock" it to a 6970 and overclock it which I've seen they don't overclock very well but even if it does it will not outperform a gtx 580... That seems naive and makes you sound like an AMD fanboy. I think Nvidia did an excellent job with the 560 and I would have chose the 6950 until this card came out. Everybody has their own preference though
Not to burst your bubble but I'm almost certain that whether or not you "unlock" it to a 6970 and overclock it which I've seen they don't overclock very well but even if it does it will not outperform a gtx 580... That seems naive and makes you sound like an AMD fanboy. I think Nvidia did an excellent job with the 560 and I would have chose the 6950 until this card came out. Everybody has their own preference though
Anik8
Distinguished
- Sep 17, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 19,010
huh biggest joke I've heard till now,a 6950, after unlocking and OCing can beat a 580?Even a OCed 6970 can't do that.Furthermore even through OCing a 6950 never scale as good as a 560 does through OCing.This was a baseless biased statement by 'damric'.
jasonh8806
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2010
- 94
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]Anik8[/nom]huh biggest joke I've heard till now,a 6950, after unlocking and OCing can beat a 580?Even a OCed 6970 can't do that.Furthermore even through OCing a 6950 never scale as good as a 560 does through OCing.This was a baseless biased statement by 'damric'.[/citation]
Totally agree. It's easy to pick out people that are either misinformed or are fanboys...
Totally agree. It's easy to pick out people that are either misinformed or are fanboys...
damric
Illustrious
- Sep 17, 2010
- 8,017
- 72
- 37,990
Actually, all 6xxx series cards clock very well. You can skim through the review database over at TPU and see for yourself that 69xx's typically clock around 950core BEFORE adding extra voltage, taking them right under the gtx 580. Adding voltage to get around 1050core gets it right over stock gtx 580.
Not that I care. I can kill either one cheaper with crossfire 6850's clocked to 1030core.
And no, I'm not a red or green fanboy. I'm a common sense fanboy, especially when it comes to dollars and performance.
dark_lord69
Splendid
- Jun 6, 2006
- 3,227
- 8
- 22,015
I make $400 every weekend and...
I would never spend that much on a video card.
$100 - $150 After that range your money really starts to give dwindling returns on preformance. Plus by this time next year that $250 card will be worth about $150 (or less) and that is when I will snatch it up.
I would never spend that much on a video card.
$100 - $150 After that range your money really starts to give dwindling returns on preformance. Plus by this time next year that $250 card will be worth about $150 (or less) and that is when I will snatch it up.
jasonh8806
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2010
- 94
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]I make $400 every weekend and...I would never spend that much on a video card.$100 - $150 After that range your money really starts to give dwindling returns on preformance. Plus by this time next year that $250 card will be worth about $150 (or less) and that is when I will snatch it up.[/citation]
I found some benchmarks with the 6970 at 970 or 980 core and the numbers show it about on par with the 570 in most everything when it's overclocked... Now take into account that the 570 does tesselation much better and is cheaper why is the 6970 better unless you take 6950, unlock it to a 6970, and overclock it. Not to mention you could overclock the nvidia cards and go farther ahead. I don't think the 580 is worth the money either, don't get me wrong. In all honesty shouldn't the 560 be compared to the 6870 since it's the closest competitor in price? If that's the comparison then the 560 walks away hands down.
I found some benchmarks with the 6970 at 970 or 980 core and the numbers show it about on par with the 570 in most everything when it's overclocked... Now take into account that the 570 does tesselation much better and is cheaper why is the 6970 better unless you take 6950, unlock it to a 6970, and overclock it. Not to mention you could overclock the nvidia cards and go farther ahead. I don't think the 580 is worth the money either, don't get me wrong. In all honesty shouldn't the 560 be compared to the 6870 since it's the closest competitor in price? If that's the comparison then the 560 walks away hands down.
vidiotking
Distinguished
- May 1, 2008
- 9
- 0
- 18,510
does anyone know, does this card suffer from the 2 monitor w/ different resolutions bug like its bigger brothers? I'm torn over that issue. May spring for a 3rd monitor and an ati card if it does have the resolution bug.
vidiotking
Distinguished
- May 1, 2008
- 9
- 0
- 18,510
does anyone know, does this card suffer from the 2 monitor w/ different resolutions bug like its bigger brothers? I'm torn over that issue. May spring for a 3rd monitor and an ati card if it does have the resolution bug.
gamesmachine
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2010
- 12
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]I wish they still included Crysis in the testing suite... it's the most graphically demanding game I have, and it gives me a good frame of reference to compare how my 8800GTS 320 compares against whatever card they are reviewing. It would still strain a new card but it provides an easy link to see how an old card compares to a new one (from what I've seen, the 470 is really the first single card solution that is able to handle maxed settings @ 1080p).Oh well... there's always Crysis 2. (I'm planning to upgrade my card to something that handles Skyrim & Crysis 2... so at least 1 more year surviving on my 8800gts 320, which honestly still handles most games well without AA, particularly if they are UE3 based. Best $270 I ever spent back in 2007).[/citation]
I totally agree, I have two 8800Gt's in SLI, on nVidia's website they say its the "new 8800gt" as that was advertised to be a great buy to allow people with normal budgets to play Crysis at a reasonable frame rate. Wish they would reduce the heat further and return to Single Slot configurations, I like space around my graphics cards, and to be able to use all my PCIe/PCI slots.
The 560 Ti is quite tempting though, but the 570 with the higher number of CUDA cores also has my attention. Great article.
I totally agree, I have two 8800Gt's in SLI, on nVidia's website they say its the "new 8800gt" as that was advertised to be a great buy to allow people with normal budgets to play Crysis at a reasonable frame rate. Wish they would reduce the heat further and return to Single Slot configurations, I like space around my graphics cards, and to be able to use all my PCIe/PCI slots.
The 560 Ti is quite tempting though, but the 570 with the higher number of CUDA cores also has my attention. Great article.
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 3
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram