Tom's Graphics Card Guide: 32 Mid-Range Cards Benchmarked

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I enjoyed this article - thanks Igor.

Quite impressed with the 6850 ... all round a winner.

The 560 Ti has tons of grunt but is a beast to cool ... surely the 3 fan cooler idea is just stupid ... it is only going to get noisier over time ... and full of dust. I'd watercool one of these ... fans are just not sufficient.

 

+1 I have a 6950 Twin Frozer 2 and its a beat and cost only $269 after rebate :) I think other on this thred have found alot of those OC 560TI in this test are closer to $300 than $250. And the cooling makes a diff. I had a different 6950 unlocked to 6970 specs and get more FPS in benches with this OCed 6950 :)
 
I posted the second comment (2nd in position) on this review about how 6950s are pwned by the 560s, which is downright ridiculous. My comment was deleted. Is this what you do Toms, to comments that show your biased opinions? Pathetic.
 

not necessarily, it also depends on how you state such comments.
but I have thought the same in the past.
 
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]Geforces dominate benchmarks because we have used 10 variants of overclocked 560Ti cards against stock clocked few Radeons (6950) here and there. And also, we don't show which drivers and control panel settings we have used because that would reveal our trickery. Why is Tom always hating AMD/ATI?[/citation]


I don't know about that. Ati cards always dominate their "best graphics for the money comparisons"
 

This is true and I can say I have my 6950 in no small part because of toms :) and Im very happy with it :bounce:
 


I would use ATI if I could. I always favored their cards, but Phillips HDTV's Don't play nice with ATI cards because of HDCP issues (my model atleast). I am happy with nvidia though. It works well. Both companies have pros and cons. I don't think Toms favors either one. This test was biased towards nvidia, but that was because of the cards that were given to them to test. Toms doesn't buy most of the stuff they have to test. They are samples given by different companies.
 
[citation][nom]Article[/nom] In terms of performance, the GeForce cards are generally ahead of the Radeons, but they are also more expensive and handicapped by higher power consumption. This has a negative impact on their efficiency. There is also room for improvement when it comes to performance per watt.[/citation]

How can you say that when you're comparing non-reference and OC'ed GTX cards to reference Radeons. Saying that none reference Radeons weren't available seems to be a poor excuse for your mistake. Especially that the reference 560Ti's are getting slaughtered in every test by the reference 6950s even in power consumption and efficiency
 
The Gigabyte Windforce GTX Ti used in this review, is it the SOC version of the Gigabyte card? Both the standard and the OC version make use of "Windforce". Any help would be appreciated.
 
The Gigabyte Windforce GTX Ti used in this review, is it the SOC version of the Gigabyte card? Both the standard and the OC version make use of "Windforce". Any help would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
windforce I believe is just the non OEM cooling components kind of like sapphire vapor-x.
you have your base design (GeForce, nVidia, OEM) and then there is the company's (actual manufacturer) signature design.
you have to cross-reference the actual clock speeds to verify exactly which one in particular.
 
After over 10 years of using Tom's Hardware the elimination of the 2560X1600 in your benchmarks was the straw that broke the camels back for me. As the owner of a 30inch 2560X1600 monitor this benchmark was the most important to me, especially since so many high end cards would have excellent 1920X1080 performance but end up stumbling on 2560X1600 performance.

Sometimes the mainstream is not always the best place to position yourselves when dealing with Technology, as today's bleeding edge is tomorrow's mainstream.
 
pretty much solidified my decision: Radeon 6870 for now.
Cheaper than anything else close to it and pretty much guaranteed to run anything at best settings without my power bill or my room temperature skyrocketing.
P.S. glad I waited through the crazy-priced 5000 series Radeons. may have performed slightly faster but for almost 2x the price and with less DX11 compatibility I would've felt ripped off now if I'd bought one.
 
[citation][nom]Ezareth[/nom]After over 10 years of using Tom's Hardware the elimination of the 2560X1600 in your benchmarks was the straw that broke the camels back for me. As the owner of a 30inch 2560X1600 monitor this benchmark was the most important to me, especially since so many high end cards would have excellent 1920X1080 performance but end up stumbling on 2560X1600 performance.Sometimes the mainstream is not always the best place to position yourselves when dealing with Technology, as today's bleeding edge is tomorrow's mainstream.[/citation]

Well, How many of TH's regular readers have 30" displays?
 
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]Geforces dominate benchmarks because we have used 10 variants of overclocked 560Ti cards against stock clocked few Radeons (6950) here and there. And also, we don't show which drivers and control panel settings we have used because that would reveal our trickery. Why is Tom always hating AMD/ATI?[/citation]If "Tom" really hated AMD/ATI I don't think we'd be seeing so many of them on the "Best Graphics Cards for [month]" lists.
 
2560x1600 res is a really small minority and especially in this review its useless. Soon if not already there are more triple monitor users than 30" users.

GTX 560 Ti OC cards cost about the same in my country as the 6950 reference models so I find it a fair comparison. And you can use your own wits too when comparing, it's not that hard.

The article btw is from German TH so it kinda explains the card selection, and why you won't get any answers here.
 
I like how the last page has Efficiency, Gamer Performance, and Low Noise, but at this price point (well, any price point below Top Shelf), there also needs to be a Price/Performance category too.
 
[citation][nom]Ezareth[/nom]After over 10 years of using Tom's Hardware the elimination of the 2560X1600 in your benchmarks was the straw that broke the camels back for me. As the owner of a 30inch 2560X1600 monitor this benchmark was the most important to me, especially since so many high end cards would have excellent 1920X1080 performance but end up stumbling on 2560X1600 performance.Sometimes the mainstream is not always the best place to position yourselves when dealing with Technology, as today's bleeding edge is tomorrow's mainstream.[/citation]

I still test 2560x1600 in all of our launch stories.
 

I guess he expected the test of 2560x1600 in this article for some reason? Maybe he needs you guys to tell him mid range cards will suck at that resolution......
 

a database of widescreen resolutions would also be nice, including 2D, 3D, Eyefinity and so on.
just a suggestion.
I have a widescreen 23" @ 1920x1080 and a triple 17" set-up @ 3840x1024.
thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom