NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560: The Top To Bottom Factory Overclock
by Ryan Smith on May 17, 2011 9:00 AM ESTNVIDIA’s GF104 and GF114 GPUs have been a solid success for the company so far. 10 months after GF104 launched the GTX 460 series, NVIDIA has slowly been supplementing and replacing their former $200 king. In January we saw the launch of the GF114 based GTX 560 Ti, which gave us our first look at what a fully enabled GF1x4 GPU could do. However the GTX 560 Ti was positioned above the GTX 460 series in both performance and price, so it was more an addition to their lineup than a replacement for GTX 460.
With each GF11x GPU effectively being a half-step above its GF10x predecessor, NVIDIA’s replacement strategy has been to split a 400 series card’s original market between two GF11x GPUs. For the GTX 460, on the low-end this was partially split off into the GTX 550 Ti, which came fairly close to the GTX 460 768MB’s performance. The GTX 460 1GB has remained in place however, and today NVIDIA is finally starting to change that with the GeForce GTX 560. Based upon the same GF114 GPU as the GTX 560 Ti, the GTX 560 will be the GTX 460 1GB’s eventual high-end successor and NVIDIA’s new $200 card.
| GTX 570 | GTX 560 Ti | GTX 560 | GTX 460 1GB | |
| Stream Processors | 480 | 384 | 336 | 336 |
| Texture Address / Filtering | 60/60 | 64/64 | 56/56 | 56/56 |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| Core Clock | 732MHz | 822MHz | >=810MHz | 675MHz |
| Shader Clock | 1464MHz | 1644MHz | >=1620MHz | 1350MHz |
| Memory Clock | 950MHz (3800MHz data rate) GDDR5 | 1002Mhz (4008MHz data rate) GDDR5 | >=1001Mhz (4004MHz data rate) GDDR5 | 900Mhz (3.6GHz data rate) GDDR5 |
| Memory Bus Width | 320-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| Frame Buffer | 1.25GB | 1GB | 1GB | 1GB |
| FP64 | 1/8 FP32 | 1/12 FP32 | 1/12 FP32 | 1/12 FP32 |
| Transistor Count | 3B | 1.95B | 1.95B | 1.95B |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 40nm | TSMC 40nm | TSMC 40nm | TSMC 40nm |
| Price Point | $329 | ~$239 | ~$199 | ~$160 |
The GTX 560 is basically a higher clocked version of the GTX 460 1GB. The GTX 460 used a cut-down configuration of the GF104, and GTX 560 will be doing the same with GF114. As a result both cards have the same 336 SPs, 7 SMs, 32 ROPs, 512KB of L2 cache, and 1GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit memory bus. In terms of performance the deciding factor between the two will be the clockspeed, and in terms of power consumption the main factors will be a combination of clockspeed, voltage, and GF114’s transistor leakage improvements over GF104. All told, NVIDIA’s base configuration for a GTX 560 puts the card at 810MHz for the core clock and 4004MHz (data rate) for the memory clock, which compared to the reference GTX 460 1GB is 135MHz (20%) faster for the core clock and 404MHz (11%) faster for the memory clock. NVIDIA puts the TDP at 150W, which is 10W under the GTX 460 1GB.
With that said, this launch is going to be more chaotic than usual for an NVIDIA mid-range product launch. While NVIDIA and AMD both encourage their partners to differentiate their mid-range cards based on a number of factors including factory overclocks and the cooler used, these products are always launched alongside a reference card. However for the GTX 560 this is going to be a reference-less launch: NVIDIA is not doing a retail reference design for the GTX 560. This is a fairly common situation for the low-end, where we’ll often test a reference design that never is used for retail cards, but it’s quite unusual to not have a reference design for a mid-range card.
As a result, in lieu of a reference card to refer to we have a bit of chaos in terms of the specs of the cards launching today. As long as you’re willing to spend a bit more in power, GF114 clocks really well, something that we’ve seen in the past on the GTX 560 Ti. This has lead to partners launching a number of factory overclocked GTX 560 Ti cards and few if any reference clocked cards, as the retail market does not have the stringent power requiements of the OEM market. So while OEMs have been using reference clocked cards for the lowest power consumption, most retail cards are overclocked. Here are the clocks we're seeing with the GTX 560 launch lineup.
| GeForce GTX 560 Launch Card List | ||||
| Card | Core Clock | Memory Clock | ||
| ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Top | 925 MHz | 4200 MHz | ||
| ASUS GeForce GTX 560 OC | 850 MHz | 4200 MHz | ||
| Palit GeForce GTX 560 SP | 900 MHz | 4080 MHz | ||
| MSI GeForce GTX 560 Twin FrozrII OC | 870 MHz | 4080 MHz | ||
| Zotac GeForce GTX 560 AMP! | 950 MHz | 4400 MHz | ||
| KFA2 GeForce GTX 560 EXOC | 900 MHz | 4080 MHz | ||
| Sparkle GeForce GTX 560 Calibre | 900 MHz | 4488 MHz | ||
| EVGA GeForce GTX 560 SC | 850 MHz | 4104 MHz | ||
| Galaxy GeForce GTX 560 GC | 900 MHz | 4004 MHz | ||
This is why NVIDIA has decided to forgo a reference card altogether, and is leaving both card designs and clocks up to their partners. As a result, we expect every GTX 560 we’ll see on the retail market will have some kind of a factory overclock, and all of them will be using a custom design. Clocks will be all over the place, while designs are largely recycled GTX 460/GTX 560 Ti designs. This means we’ll see a variety of cards, but there’s a lack of anything we can point to as a baseline. Reference clocked cards may show up in the market, but even NVIDIA is unsure of it at this time. The list of retail cards that NVIDIA has given us has a range of core clocks between 850MHz and 950MHz, meaning the performance of some of these cards is going to be noticeably different from the others. Our testing methodology has changed some as a result, which we’ll get to in depth in our testing methodology section.
With a wide variety of GTX 560 card designs and clocks, there’s also going to be a variety of prices. The MSRP for the GTX 560 is $199, as NVIDIA’s primary target for this card is the lucrative $200 market. However with factory overclocks in excess of 125MHz, NVIDIA’s partners are also using these cards to fill in the gap between the GTX 560 and the GTX 560 Ti. So the slower 850MHz-900MHz cards will be around $199, while the fastest cards will be closer to $220-$230. Case in point, the card we’re testing today is the ASUS GTX 560 DirectCU II Top, ASUS’s highest clocked card. While their 850MHz OC card will be $199, the Top will be at $219.
For the time being NVIDIA won’t have a ton of competition from AMD right at $200. With the exception of an errant card now and then, Radeon HD 6950 prices are normally $220+; meanwhile Radeon HD 6870 prices are between $170 and $220, with the bulk of those cards being well under $200. So for the slower GTX 560s their closest competition will be factory overclocked 6870s and factory overclocked GTX 460s, the latter of which are expected to persist for at least a few more months. Meanwhile for the faster GTX 560s the competition will be cheap GTX 560 Tis and potentially the 1GB 6950. The mid-range market is still competitive, but for the moment NVIDIA is the only one with a card specifically aligned for $199.
| May 2011 Video Card Prices | ||
| NVIDIA | Price | AMD |
| $700 | Radeon HD 6990 | |
| $480 | ||
| $320 | Radeon HD 6970 | |
| $260 | Radeon HD 6950 2GB | |
| $230 | Radeon HD 6950 1GB | |
| $200 | ||
| $180 | Radeon HD 6870 | |
| $160 | Radeon HD 6850 | |
| $150 | Radeon HD 6790 | |
| $130 | ||
Finally, I’d like to once again make note of the naming choice of a video card. I’m beginning to sound like a broken record here and I know it, but video card naming this last year has been frustrating. NVIDIA has a prefix (GTX), a model number (560), and a suffix (Ti), except when they don’t have a suffix. With the existence of a prefix and a model number, a suffix was already superfluous, but it’s particularly problematic when some cards have a suffix and some don’t. Remember the days of the GeForce 6800 series, and how whenever you wanted to talk about the vanilla 6800, no one could easily tell if you were talking about the series or the non-suffixed card? Well we’re back to those days; GTX 560 is both a series and a specific video card. Suffixes are fine as long as they’re always used, but when they’re not these situations can lead to confusion.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link
We always include MIRs in our pricing, given their prevalence. With MIRs, there are no fewer than 6 6870s at Newegg below $180 (and a 7th at $183).C'DaleRider - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - link
"I don't know where you guys are getting this information, but the Radeon HD 6870 IS NOT at $180."Actually, I don't know where YOU are getting your misinformed information.
Right now, on Newegg, 6870's are as low as $162 after rebate, $182 before rebate. (An XFX card, btw.)
Take a look......
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub...
Now, maybe you'll get your facts correct before posting drivel.
L. - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
Don't feed teh trollz ;)Stas - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - link
Idk, I paid $160 for my Sapphire HD6870 with dual fans 2 months ago o.Oaraczynski - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link
...would those 'in the know' know whether games like the witcher2 and skyrim would be better off with the nvidia or amd line?TheJian - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - link
Witcher 2 doesn't use Aurora engine, all new now so wait for it to be put in some sites benchmarking. Same with skyrim, it uses a new Creation engine, and also 100% dynamic lighting with lots of snow and cliffs (which this engine is designed for).Sorry. Not much worth extrapolating other than we have no idea who will win later :) If we're being honest anyway. I suppose a quick google might get a hit on the devs opinions.
Sunsmasher - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link
Your comments about confusing naming are very valid.I've long ago come to the conclusion that the confusing naming issue is a deliberate strategy by Nvidia.
They WANT to create confusion to make it more difficult for less sophisticated buyers
to compare cards head to head and Nvidia can thereby pick up a few more sales than they would otherwise.
The proof that this is deliberate is the fact that they Keep Doing It.
Otherwise, they would have very straightforward, very easily compared naming conventions:
Higher numbers = more power, GT not as powerful as GTX, etc.
An unfortunate state of affairs, but not about to change even with writers often complaining about it.
Fortunately, there are resources on the web that compare cards head to head.
TheJian - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - link
They're not trying to confuse you. They're just trying to sell every chip they can. A lot of dies have defects etc that cause them to release a plethora of cards at different speeds, features disabled (possibly due to defects in dies) etc. Die shrinks cause problems too. Sometimes they save enough in power/heat to warrant a new release # or model. Take the GTX 260. The core216 came out, fixed heat issues and was a good 10% faster. People would want to identify the faster/cooler cards and not get screwed. I hate Motherboard makers not listing the REV prominently on the box, or in ads. It's tough to buy online when I'm after a specific rev. This is more a tech issue than a company deliberately ticking us off.If you don't mind paying MUCH higher prices, they can go ahead an toss all defective dies and get back to 3 product lines with easily seen performance advantages between the 3. AMD, Intel, Nvidia, etc they all have this problem. Of course progress would really slow down if they take this route. A person going into the store and seeing a 6750 card, might find a 5850 sitting next to it for $200 and wonder what the heck is going on...LOL. I could almost say the same about the 6850. That 6850 should blow away a 5850, I mean its a whole 1000 higher right? Confusing yes? But that 5850 beats the 6850 by about 10% in everything. There are a lot of these examples. Heck this time NV let the manufacturers decide everything (clock/memory/ref design).
In an age of small margins, just about everything in your PC being a commodity, and shareholders demanding every last dollar they can get from company X, you should just get used to tons of products not performing too differently. Really, I can make up my mind in one night of reading reviews on 3-4 websites. By the end of the night I can decide how to spend my money and be fairly certain I'm not making a big mistake. But yeah, if you're not willing to do some homework, get ready to buy something that's completely disappointing on occasion. But you're already here, no worries :) We have hardware review sites, because stores shelves and floor reps at fry's don't help us at all... :) I pity marketing dept's trying to work with all these dies/re-launches/binning etc that probably cause them nightmares...LOL Could they do better here and there? Probably. Would I like to try to make us all happy? HECK NO. :) I take that back, I wouldn't mind taking a crack at intel naming. :)
sysdawg - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link
Ryan,Thanks for your reviews. On page 3 you write "on the ATI side we’re using the Catalyst 11.5a hotfix"...but is that the case for all the AMD cards? The same page lists three drivers being used: Catalyst 10.10e, 11.4, and 11.5a. And for the Nvidia cards, you also list three drivers: 262.99, 270.51 beta, and 275.20 beta. If you could help, I'd specifically like to know which drivers were used for the GTX 580 and the Radeon 6970. And since I'm going to be running at 2560x1600, it would also help to know which drivers were used for those 2 cards in your March 24 review (of the GTX 590), since that review included that resolution. My thinking is that if the drivers are reasonably current for both cards, then it is closer to being 'apples to apples'.
Thanks in advance, and thank you again for your reviews.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - link
Cat 10.10e: Radeon 3xxx/4xxx.Cat 11.4: Radeon 5xxx/6850/6970
Cat 11.5: Radeon 6870/6950
262.99: GeForce 2xx
270.51: GeForce 4xx, 580/570/550
275.20: GeForce GTX 560 Ti, GTX 460, GTX 560
As for the March 24th review of the GTX 590, all the high end cards were on 266/267 drivers or the Catalyst 10.4 preview drivers respectively. Those were the newest drivers at the time of that publication.
And I apologize for the somewhat chaotic nature of the driver selection. We benchmark many different cards, redoing them for every single driver revision simply isn't practical. The relevant cards will be updated for any given article, and many (if not all) of the cards are updated if there's a major driver release that significantly impacts performance.