NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560 Ti w/448 Cores: GTX 570 On A Budget
by Ryan Smith on November 29, 2011 9:00 AM ESTDIRT 2, Mass Effect 2, Wolfenstein, & Compute Performance
With DIRT 2 our benchmarks once again swing back in favor of NVIDIA. At 1920 the GTX 560-448 is 14% of the 6970, never mind the 6950. The advantage over the GTX 560 Ti is even greater, with the GTX 560-448 coming in at nearly 20% faster. Throw on Zotac’s overclock and now the GTX 560-448 is as fast as the GTX 570. If you still don’t believe the GTX 560-448 is really a slower GTX 570, then this should be rather convincing proof.
And we swing back the other way with Mass Effect 2. The GTX 560-448 falls short of the 6950 by 5%, and compared to the GTX 560 Ti it only leads by 6%, highlighting the fact that GF110 and GF104 can be very different architectures at times. Furthermore as Mass Effect 2 responds well to memory bandwidth, even with Zotac’s overclock the GTX 560-448 still comes up a bit short of the GTX 570. This is one of the few cases where the GTX 570 has a distinct benefit even with its limited advantage on paper.
On our final game, the OpenGL based Wolfenstein, AMD and NVIDIA once more swap places with the 6950 squeaking out a small lead over the GTX 560-448. As with other cases where the GTX 560-448 fails to gain on AMD’s cards, it also fails to differentiate itself much from the GTX 560 Ti, this time only taking a meager 4% lead.
Our final performance benchmark is a quick look at compute performance using the Civilization V texture decompression test. In spite of this not benefiting from NVIDIA’s multithreading optimizations, NVIDIA’s drivers and architecture still give the GTX 560-448 a solid lead over AMD’s cards. The benefit over the GTX 560 Ti is also more pronounced at 16%. Interestingly in spite of the GTX 570’s compute performance advantage on paper, the GTX 560-448 can tie it at stock clocks and overtake it with Zotac’s overclock, showcasing that this benchmark isn’t exclusively tied to compute performance.
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.