NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560 Ti: Upsetting The $250 Market

87 Comments

View All Comments

• ggathagan - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  I believe you mean "Apparently Anandtech's efforts to find good writers were in vain."

• phoible4 - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  The GTX560 looks interesting. However, prices for 768MB 460s are hitting rock bottom. I just paid $90 for one from TigerDirect (after rebates), and it looks like there are a few under $130 on Newegg. It seems like it would cost about the same to run SLI 460s and 1 560 (assuming your case can handle it), and I can guess that the SLI config would be faster in most games.
  
  I actually kind of expected NVidia to release a dual-chip 460 as their next-gen 580, and take a page out of AMD's playbook (wonder how hot/loud that would be).

• Belard - Thursday, January 27, 2011 - link

  The GF 460-768mb are slow compared to their 1Gb versions. They run out of memory way too quick. But for $90... that would be a great deal that is worthwhile. Newegg is showing $150 on avg for the 768mb 460s. Which is about $25 less than a newer 6850 card which is easily faster. Its even faster than the 1GB 460 and cost less.

• mosox - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  [quoteAMD’s scramble to launch the Radeon HD 6950 1GB has produced a card with similar levels of performance and pricing as the GTX 560 Ti, making it impossible to just blindly recommend the GTX 560 Ti.[/quote]
  
  What? The 6950 2GB is faster than the 560 and the The 6950 2GB is FASTER than the 6950 2GB at every resolution except the highest ones like 2560x1600.
  
  This is from Tom's:
  
  

  Of course, mid-week, a 1 GB card showed up, so I ran it through our complete benchmark suite. In just about every case, the smaller frame buffer (and tighter memory timings) yields one or two more frames per second than the 2 GB model. It's not worth rehashing in a page full of charts. Literally, expect one or two more frames per second across the board.

• mosox - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  Read that as The 6950 1GB is FASTER than the 6950 2GB, sorry.

• Visual - Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - link

  you read that right - "tighter memory timings"

• ritalinkid18 - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  I would just like to say, very nice article... well written and informative. I've been a fan of anandtech for many years and the GPU articles never disappoint.
  
  Is it just me or does anyone else find reading about Nvidia's architecture a lot more interesting?
  
  Also, I really hate that the comments are filled with people that say you are bias towards NVIDIA. To all those people, PLEASE go read the some other reviews. A majority of them praise the 560. This article is more critical of the 560 value than most.

• jonks - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  "The GTX 560 is always faster than the GTX 470, but never immensely so; and at higher resolutions the GTX 470 still has an advantage."
  
  So the 560 is always faster than the 470 except when it's not. :)

• poohbear - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  wow the gpu market is definitely intense! nvidia and AMD are neck & neck now, very nice time to buy a vid card!

• 7Enigma - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link

  Thanks again Ryan and Anandtech for keeping the 4870 in your charts for 1920X1200 res. I've always read the new gpu reviews and been saddened that although the new cards are fast they were still not approaching 2X the performance of my 4870. With the constant name change with the same parts, or slightly faster parts, it's taken until just about now to have a card worth the upgrade.
  
  Now my question is will I see the performance improvement in GAMES using my C2D 8500 (OC'd to 3.8GHz), or do I need to rebuild the system with Sandy Bridge to actually see the 2X GPU performance?