NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560 Ti: Upsetting The $250 Market
by Ryan Smith on January 25, 2011 9:00 AM ESTBattlefield: Bad Company 2
The latest game in the Battlefield series - Bad Company 2 – remains as one of the cornerstone DX11 games in our benchmark suite. As BC2 doesn’t have a built-in benchmark or recording mode, here we take a FRAPS run of the jeep chase in the first act, which as an on-rails portion of the game provides very consistent results and a spectacle of explosions, trees, and more.
Even more so than HAWX, Bad Company 2 marks the closest we’ve seen the GTX 560 and the 6950 1GB. At 1920 the 6950 has a lead of under a frame per second, and it’s not until 1680 that we see the GTX 560 take any kind of lead. In this case both cards just pass the all-important 60fps mark at 1920, representing the bottom necessary for (more or less) fully fluid gameplay.
While we’re not generally interested in 2560 with the GTX 560, it is the only resolution that we run our Waterfall benchmark on, so we’ll quickly comment. NVIDIA normally does quite well here and the GTX 560 is no exception – even though it loses at this resolution on average, it’s 30% faster when it comes to minimums. We’ve seen the minimums in Crysis go the other way, so minimums seem just as game-dependent as the averages with all things considered.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
87 Comments
View All Comments
MeanBruce - Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - link
Wonder if you can tune the fans separately in SmartDoctor? Damn cool Asus!Burticus - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
I picked up a GTX460 768mb for $150 last summer. I assume the GTX560 will be down to that price point by this coming summer. I am very happy with the GTX460 except in Civ 5 and I think I am CPU limited there (Phenom II x3).So when this thing hits $150 I will sell my GTX460 on fleabay for $100 and upgrade, I guess. I wish I could buy one and stick it in my 360....
JimmiG - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
Looks like the video card market is picking up the pace again, which is both a good thing and not. I guess my GTX460 1GB from only 6 months ago now officially sucks and is only usable as a doorstop...a crippled, half-broken, semi-functional video card such as it is.On the other hand, it's great that technology is moving so fast. It just means that instead of buying a new video card and keeping it for 1.5 - 2 years, you once again have to upgrade every couple of months if you want to stay on top.
Also, regardless of the marketing, anything below a 570 *sucks* for gaming above 1680x1050. Look at the results of Stalker, Metro 2033 and Warhead. You need to drop to 1680x1050 before the 560 Ti manager near 60 FPS which is the minimum for smooth gameplay.
Soldier1969 - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
Anything below $400 is a poor mans card period, I wouldnt stoop to that level of card running 2560 x 1600 display port max settings there is no substitute!omelet - Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - link
Congratulations.silverblue - Thursday, January 27, 2011 - link
I'm sorry to say, but knowing the 560 Ti is going to be a weaker and hence far cheaper part than the 580, why did you give it any thought? :)otakuon - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
The GTX 460 is still the best card in nVidia's lineup with regards to price for performance. The 560 is just nVidia's standard interim update to keep itself relevent. I see no need for current GTX 460 owners to rush out and buy this card (or anyone who wants to replace a Fermi card for that matter) when the 600 series will be out this summer and will most likely have new arcitecture.DeerDance - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
6850 beats them in price/performance, they are start at $150 at neweggDeerDance - Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - link
I was kinda surprised by final thoughtsout of 34 pictures of fps in games, 17 won 6950, 12 gtx560 and 5 were in range of 1frame from each other (4 of those are for 6950) so I wonder why the final thoughts gave edge to GTX560.
omelet - Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - link
He may have just done an average of the percentage differences between the two.So if, for instance, the 560 won by 50% in one test and lost by 10% in each of two tests, that method would call the 560 10% faster, even though it was slower in 2/3 of the tests.Don't get me wrong, I don't think the conclusion is accurate (I think 6950 looks more powerful overall from the benchmarks), I'm just saying how I think he might have come to his conclusion.