NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560 Ti w/448 Cores: GTX 570 On A Budget
by Ryan Smith on November 29, 2011 9:00 AM ESTHAWX, Civ V, Battlefield BC2, & STALKER
HAWX is one of the oldest games in our current test suite, and as a result high framerates are a common occurrence. Even at 2560 everything can top 100fps, but there is still a clear preference in the results for NVIDIA’s cards. At 1920 the GTX 560-448 is 9% ahead of the 6970, while the fact that it has the same number of ROPS as the GTX 570 keeps it extremely close to NVIDIA’s next step up.
As AMD has still not implemented multithreaded command lists – an optional part of the DX11 API that CivV heavily uses – NVIDIA continues to do much better than AMD here. At 1920 the GTX 560-448 is ahead of the 6970 by 36%, or 16fps. Within NVIDIA’s product lineup things are rather consistent, with Zotac’s overclock closing the gap on the GTX 570.
Looking at Battlefield: Bad Company 2, BC2 continues to provide some of the most balanced results in our test suite. The GTX 560-448 beats the 6950, but only by a little over 1fps. Compared to NVIDIA’s lineup the GTX 560-448 is a few percent behind the GTX 570, with Zotac’s overclock closing the gap. Though at only 1920, any of these cards can average better than 60fps.
Meanwhile our BC2 waterfall benchmark shakes things up. Everything drops below 30fps, with the GTX 560-448 and other NVIDIA GF11o cards weathering better than AMD’s cards.
Our next benchmark is the STALKER: Call of Prypriat benchmark. On cards with 1GB of VRAM or less it can be overly taxing, but with more than 1GB of VRAM the bottleneck shifts to rendering. At this point it’s another balanced benchmark, with the GTX 560-448 placing slightly ahead of AMD’s 6950, and very close to the GTX 570. Zotac’s overclock can’t close the gap, but it’s close.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
80 Comments
View All Comments
venomblade - Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - link
Is it a type-o how the 560 ti 448 has a mem clock of 900mhz and yet you say it has an effective speed of 3800mhz? Shouldn't it be 3600mhz?Ryan Smith - Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - link
Heh, it turns out doing math on a plane is harder than I thought. Thanks for that. Fixed.JonnyDough - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
Good strategy to be getting rid of bad chips and appearing to dominate a bit more of the high end market, even if it is the same product. Still, they are not necessarily better cards than what AMD offers, and remember how late Fermi was coming to the game. AMD will soon have the 7000 series, which everyone but the NVidia camp and its followers are awaiting. =)Finally - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
Anand doesn't offer any Price/Performance comparisons. If they did, the HD6850 and HD6870 haven been clogging the first 2 places for several months now...JonnyDough - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
"NVIDIA is purposely introducing namespace collisions, and while they have their reasons I don’t believe them to be good enough"Its really no surprise, Nvidia has been f'n up names since Matrox was around. Whoever keeps naming their cards should have been fired in 1997.
If you were to post one only one comment here with the ability to rate it to 1000 that said "Nvidia sucks at naming their video cards" it would be rated up to 1001. Their confusing naming schemes are one big reason I buy AMD's video cards. At least with AMD I can keep track of what I am buying. I don't even bother keeping up with Nvidia cards for this very reason. You would think that a simple numbering system based on performance would suffice, and additional letters for things that specialty cards support. For instance, if only specific rare cards could do CUDA processing, then add a "C" moniker. This isn't hard Nvidia. Fix it with your next generation, or keep losing customers because of your stupidity.
silverblue - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
Yes, but AMD aren't perfect either; the 6770 and 5770 spring to mind.NVIDIA reminds me of Intel albeit not so bad; with Intel you have to research whether the chip you're looking at even supports VT-d.
Finally - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
I don't care much for names, although I found their re-re-re-branding of the 8800GT atrocious... Well, I just tend to go for the GPU maker that offer me the most bang for the buck - and none of these cards have cost me more than 150€... my last 3 cards where 7600GT, HD4850 and now it's an HD6870. German hardware review page always offers a Performance/€ comparison table and that's where I look before I go shopping.Finally - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
...and their name is computerbase dot deBurticus - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
Good for Nvidia to be able to utilized slightly flawed chips... but what's the consumer value here? The price point @ $300 puts it next or very close to GTX 570. Why not just get one of those? The 560 TI's are finally getting down to the $200 range.... maybe if the 448 core version was $250 instead of $300.Matrices - Thursday, December 1, 2011 - link
Agreed. The pricing is off the mark. 570s are $330 to $350 and 560 Tis can be had for $200 to $220 with minor rebates.The $290-$300 price point of this thing is skewed too far in the wrong direction.