GTX 560ti 448 vs GTX 570

I've done some research and found that the 560ti 448 is very similar to the 570 with only a few (1-5) fps behind in some benchmarks. It is also 30-50 dollars cheaper than the 570.

Which one would be a better choice? How does the 560ti 448 perform in an intense online battle in BF3 at ultra setting at 1920x1080? How is its overclocking capability?

Note that I cannot wait for the Kepler because I know that I wouldn't be able to afford them at release.

560 ti, bang per buck wise it's the best.

Also has much lower power consumption compared to GTX 570 for almost the same performance.

You can't go wrong with either one.

And it should preform very well on those settings.

And it should preform very well on those settings.

mitu123

You mean perform? Apologies, but it's a pet-peeve of mine.

Anyone here owns the 448 core 560 ti? Can it handle BF3 online at ultra setting with a smooth 40-60 fps?

Anyone here owns the 448 core 560 ti? Can it handle BF3 online at ultra setting with a smooth 40-60 fps?

yonikko

[QUOTE="yonikko"]

Anyone here owns the 448 core 560 ti? Can it handle BF3 online at ultra setting with a smooth 40-60 fps?

MonsieurX

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

And it should preform very well on those settings.

Socijalisticka

You mean perform? Apologies, but it's a pet-peeve of mine.

I've done some research and found that the 560ti 448 is very similar to the 570 with only a few (1-5) fps behind in some benchmarks. It is also 30-50 dollars cheaper than the 570.

Which one would be a better choice? How does the 560ti 448 perform in an intense online battle in BF3 at ultra setting at 1920x1080? How is its overclocking capability?

Note that I cannot wait for the Kepler because I know that I wouldn't be able to afford them at release.

yonikko

The 560ti 448 IS a 570 with one cluster of shader processors disabled.

[QUOTE="yonikko"]

I've done some research and found that the 560ti 448 is very similar to the 570 with only a few (1-5) fps behind in some benchmarks. It is also 30-50 dollars cheaper than the 570.

Which one would be a better choice? How does the 560ti 448 perform in an intense online battle in BF3 at ultra setting at 1920x1080? How is its overclocking capability?

Note that I cannot wait for the Kepler because I know that I wouldn't be able to afford them at release.

JimmyJumpy

The 560ti 448 IS a 570 with one cluster of shader processors disabled.

wait for the 7950 it will utterly rape destroy the 570/560ti just like the 7970 already rape destroyed the 580 gtx. Hell, from the looks of things even the 6950 radeon is a awesome choice if you care for bf3.

wait for the 7950 it will utterly rape destroy the 570/560ti just like the 7970 already rape destroyed the 580 gtx. Hell, from the looks of things even the 6950 radeon is a awesome choice if you care for bf3.

blaznwiipspman1

Can anyone here answer some of the questions? :|

Can anyone here answer some of the questions? :|

yonikko

not sure about the 7950 but some sites say end of january, some say middle of february. Its my guess it will be somewhere around then. It may be out of your price range though, im guessing it will cost $400 and be sold out on day 1.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500196

its what i have and i can play BF3 on ULTRA (EVERYTHING INCLUDING AA AND AF) at a constant 45-60 fps on my 1600x900 monitor

if your a fps whore it may not be for you ive had consoles my whole life and i love the difference the way it is (a huge improvement) the only time ive had it dip below 30 fps is when the smoke cloud from the bomb is dropped on the metro station but for only a second. best bang for your buck.

and this card is basically a 570 if not the same in power thanks to the factory OC

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500196

its what i have and i can play BF3 on ULTRA (EVERYTHING INCLUDING AA AND AF) at a constant 45-60 fps on my 1600x900 monitor

if your a fps whore it may not be for you ive had consoles my whole life and i love the difference the way it is (a huge improvement) the only time ive had it dip below 30 fps is when the smoke cloud from the bomb is dropped on the metro station but for only a second. best bang for your buck.

and this card is basically a 570 if not the same in power thanks to the factory OC

MW2ismygame

Edit: But the 448 version

Should be pretty similar, maybe a few frames here and there that you wont notice. If you had to ask than it means your tight on budget, so 40 bucks could be money for books, ball game, or part of a road trip :P Its up to you, but they are both good already. If you really cant decide than flip a coin.

wait for the 7950 it will utterly rape destroy the 570/560ti just like the 7970 already rape destroyed the 580 gtx. Hell, from the looks of things even the 6950 radeon is a awesome choice if you care for bf3.

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

wait for the 7950 it will utterly rape destroy the 570/560ti just like the 7970 already rape destroyed the 580 gtx. Hell, from the looks of things even the 6950 radeon is a awesome choice if you care for bf3.

V4LENT1NE

AMD fanboy crap? Is there something wrong with the statement I made?

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

wait for the 7950 it will utterly rape destroy the 570/560ti just like the 7970 already rape destroyed the 580 gtx. Hell, from the looks of things even the 6950 radeon is a awesome choice if you care for bf3.

blaznwiipspman1

AMD fanboy crap? Is there something wrong with the statement I made?

I think the point that V4LENT1NE is trying to make here is that the OP came in asking about Nvidia cards and you swoop on by with your "AMD is better" opinion that you carry with you.

How's about next time you offer some advice or answer questions the OP is asking and then suggest alternatives such as, "If you want a GTX 560Ti 448, you might want to look at the HD 6950 or HD 6970 from AMD - those would be it's direct competition." or something similar like that.

Also, your advice to wait for something better would mean that the OP should wait to see what the 7xx series from Nvidia has to offer. It's supposed to be coming out 2nd quarter this year. What's another 3-5 months of waiting in the grand scheme of things? Then it just becomes a waiting game.

I'm not sure what the point of the GTX 560Ti 448 is; it's maybe 5% slower then a GTX 570 and costs about 5-10% less all while still requiring a similar power draw. It doesn't beat out the HD 6970, but beats the HD 6950. It's cheaper than the HD 6970, but more expensive than the HD 6950....much like the GTX 570 is as well (for the most part). It just seems like it's an oddly placed and priced GPU, but maybe I'm missing something. You'll save a few bucks (unless you find a good deal on a GTX 570) over the GTX 570 and be down around 5% in performance.

In the end, I'd say get whatever one fits your budget better or you find the better deal on. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see the price on both cards creep down a little once the HD 7950/7870/7850 come out in February, but that's just my opinion.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"] Omg something new that is coming out months after something old is going to have better peformance omg lets dance! I see your still spewing your AMD fanboy crap on these forums at every possible chance. You really will use any oppertunity to say an AMD card is faster than an Nvidia one, its sad as hell.

neatfeatguy

AMD fanboy crap? Is there something wrong with the statement I made?

I think the point that V4LENT1NE is trying to make here is that the OP came in asking about Nvidia cards and you swoop on by with your "AMD is better" opinion that you carry with you.

How's about next time you offer some advice or answer questions the OP is asking and then suggest alternatives such as, "If you want a GTX 560Ti 448, you might want to look at the HD 6950 or HD 6970 from AMD - those would be it's direct competition." or something similar like that.

Also, your advice to wait for something better would mean that the OP should wait to see what the 7xx series from Nvidia has to offer. It's supposed to be coming out 2nd quarter this year. What's another 3-5 months of waiting in the grand scheme of things? Then it just becomes a waiting game.

I'm not sure what the point of the GTX 560Ti 448 is; it's maybe 5% slower then a GTX 570 and costs about 5-10% less all while still requiring a similar power draw. It doesn't beat out the HD 6970, but beats the HD 6950. It's cheaper than the HD 6970, but more expensive than the HD 6950....much like the GTX 570 is as well (for the most part). It just seems like it's an oddly placed and priced GPU, but maybe I'm missing something. You'll save a few bucks (unless you find a good deal on a GTX 570) over the GTX 570 and be down around 5% in performance.

In the end, I'd say get whatever one fits your budget better or you find the better deal on. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see the price on both cards creep down a little once the HD 7950/7870/7850 come out in February, but that's just my opinion.

the 7950 is better than the 570 is an opinion? Its a fact. It will likely beat the 580gtx by 5-10% at stock and completely fly away once ocd. This ain't a matter of opinion, its just a superior card. Telling him to wait a few weeks for the 7950 isn't fanboy drivel, its common sense at this point. The 6xx nvidia series will probably be on par with the radeon 7xxx series, so waiting for that is pointless

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

And it should preform very well on those settings.

Socijalisticka

You mean perform? Apologies, but it's a pet-peeve of mine.

Mine also.

It just seems like it's an oddly placed and priced GPU, but maybe I'm missing something. You'll save a few bucks (unless you find a good deal on a GTX 570) over the GTX 570 and be down around 5% in performance.

neatfeatguy

Actually it's more than just a "few bucks" - $50-60 in fact. That is a 15% price reduction (1.00-295/345)(100%) for only a slight drop in performance. For some people this is a deal breaker. It also uses much less power than a GTX 570.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

And it should preform very well on those settings.

GummiRaccoon

You mean perform? Apologies, but it's a pet-peeve of mine.

Mine also.

I would say get a basic 560TI, it overclcoks well and maxes almost all games on a siingle monitor and it's cheaper than the 448 cores. It can be sold in another year without too much money lost and then you just upgrade to NVIDIA's next GPU series (which means you can effectively by-pass AMD). 79xx series is a no-go because AMD releases their next line of GPUs in desperation too early (once again) and so the prices have become inflated.

(which means you can effectively by-pass AMD).

ShimmerMan

because AMD releases their next line of GPUs in desperation too early (once again)ShimmerMan

LOL

For the record Mr. Fanboy, the 5870/5850 was a HUGE success.

I would say get a basic 560TI, it overclcoks well and maxes almost all games on a siingle monitor and it's cheaper than the 448 cores. It can be sold in another year without too much money lost and then you just upgrade to NVIDIA's next GPU series (which means you can effectively by-pass AMD). 79xx series is a no-go because AMD releases their next line of GPUs in desperation too early (once again) and so the prices have become inflated.

ShimmerMan

what are u talking about in desperation? If i remember correctly, it was nvidia that launched the 400 series in april 2010, and then the 500 series 7 months later in november lmao....just because the radeon 5000 series was taking a crap all over nvidia. AMD released the 5000 series in september 2009, 6000 series in october 2010, and the 7000 series released in January 2012. All according to wikipedia....so yeah there goes your credibility. Radeon 79xx raped the 580 gtx. The only one desperate here is nvidia. Well, the geforce 500 series have lasted a while this time, so it should be about time they release the 600 series.

You keep comparing a 79xx with a 580GTX, first of all this is ATI's next line of GPUs.. Of course it will be faster than Nvidia's old line of GPus. And why do you keep using the word "rape".. haha the 7970 is about 15% faster than the 580GTX, do you think this is shaming 580 owners? because really it's not. In the UK I can go now and get a 580GTX and it will support physx, good drivers ambient occlusion all for £350, where as the cheapest 7970 at the moment is about £450. The 79xx at the moment is poor value for money, definitely not worth raving on about on forums.

You keep comparing a 79xx with a 580GTX, first of all this is ATI's next line of GPUs.. Of course it will be faster than Nvidia's old line of GPus. And why do you keep using the word "rape".. haha the 7970 is about 15% faster than the 580GTX, do you think this is shaming 580 owners? because really it's not. In the UK I can go now and get a 580GTX and it will support physx, good drivers ambient occlusion all for £350, where as the cheapest 7970 at the moment is about £450. The 79xx at the moment is poor value for money, definitely not worth raving on about on forums.

ShimmerMan

Have fun with with that 6850 and no Ambient Occlusion in Skyrim or MW3, crappy drivers, no Physx, poor DX11 performance. And in the words ofblaznwiipspman1, is this opinion? No its fact. hahaha. AMD fanboys make me laugh.

ShimmerMan

You don't deserve my time.

haha the 7970 is about 15% faster than the 580GTX

ShimmerMan

The door is that way. Or do you need me to lead you to it?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/09/amd_radeon_hd_7970_overclocking_performance_review/7

The Radeon HD 7970 has a lot of overclocking headroom. Also consider the fact that our Radeon HD 7970 is based on a stock heatsink and fan with a reference PCB, and we are experience overclocking potential such as this? Now consider the potential that exists when add-in-board partners build customized PCBs, customized power circuitry, customized components, customized BIOS, and custom heatsink and fan units. We might see even greater overclocking potential and performance to be had out of the Radeon HD 7970. This isn't the end of overclocking by any means with the Radeon HD 7970, this is just the beginning, and the beginning is already leaps and bounds better than the last generation.

Muahah that's a overclcoked 7970 vs a stock 580 GTX. Stupid comparison, and HardOCP are known for being AMD bias anyway. I have seen results from "users" on overclockers forum and the vantage and 3Dmark results point towards around 15-20%. Sure this will change depending on the game, and with better drivers but the fact is you should be wondering what will happen to AMD's 7xxx when Nvidia launches 600 series. Not boasting because AMD's next GPU line up can beat a video card which was released in 2010.

Muahah that's a overclcoked 7970 vs a stock 580 GTX.

ShimmerMan

Oh my god, I'm laughing so hard right now.

Do you really want to insist on making more of the fool you already are?

[QUOTE="ShimmerMan"]

Muahah that's a overclcoked 7970 vs a stock 580 GTX.

kaitanuvax

Oh my god, I'm laughing so hard right now.

[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]

[QUOTE="ShimmerMan"]

Muahah that's a overclcoked 7970 vs a stock 580 GTX.

MW2ismygame

Oh my god, I'm laughing so hard right now.

Uh, lets see, I was responding to a claim that the 7970 was only 15% stronger than the GTX 580 when in actuality its more like 50-60%, and I get a "so what"? Whatever.

[QUOTE="ShimmerMan"]

Muahah that's a overclcoked 7970 vs a stock 580 GTX.

kaitanuvax

Oh my god, I'm laughing so hard right now.

Do you really want to insist on making more of the fool you already are?

HAHa You're the fool as you're getting excited because a new-gen card beating a card released in 2010.

The GTX they benchmarked was at stock settings (ie factory settings). Yes it's a factory overclocked cardbut when I say stock I mean they made no attempt at all to overclock the 580(which shows their bias). Many people have gotten the Galaxy 580 up to 950MHZ; and also why did they benchmark a 1.5gb 580GTX when there are many 3gb models out there. The 7970 is a 3gb card so why not also use a 580 3gb card. Bad comparison, the 580 would of lost a lot of marks in this benchmark due to a low overclock and the 3gb on higher resolutions, bad comparison with much bias. As I said I trust user benchmarks much more and with current drivers it seems the 7970 is about 20% better.

[QUOTE="ShimmerMan"]

You keep comparing a 79xx with a 580GTX, first of all this is ATI's next line of GPUs.. Of course it will be faster than Nvidia's old line of GPus. And why do you keep using the word "rape".. haha the 7970 is about 15% faster than the 580GTX, do you think this is shaming 580 owners? because really it's not. In the UK I can go now and get a 580GTX and it will support physx, good drivers ambient occlusion all for £350, where as the cheapest 7970 at the moment is about £450. The 79xx at the moment is poor value for money, definitely not worth raving on about on forums.

jaycouvera

If I waited for nvidia to release a product on time I'd be waiting forever.

You keep comparing a 79xx with a 580GTX, first of all this is ATI's next line of GPUs.. Of course it will be faster than Nvidia's old line of GPus. And why do you keep using the word "rape".. haha the 7970 is about 15% faster than the 580GTX, do you think this is shaming 580 owners? because really it's not. In the UK I can go now and get a 580GTX and it will support physx, good drivers ambient occlusion all for £350, where as the cheapest 7970 at the moment is about £450. The 79xx at the moment is poor value for money, definitely not worth raving on about on forums.

ShimmerMan

Oh, so you want to talk max OC now? You realize that Sapphire's coming out with a 1335mhz factory OCed 7970?

Are you seriously saying 1.5GB of vRAM is limiting the GTX 580?

Quiet, please. I don't want to lower my brain cells anymore.

HAHAH are you a noob? What resolution were those benchmarks you just posted taken at. Do you know the original HardOCP 7970 benchmarks you posted on the previous page were using 2560x1600 resolution and Eyefinity, 3gb video memory makes a difference at these resolutions - especially in games such as BF3.

So to answer your question, yes 1.5gb memory definitely limits the 580 at such high resolutions. Probably by a good 5-10%.

HAHAH are you a noob? What resolution were those benchmarks you just posted taken at. Do you know the original HardOCP 7970 benchmarks you posted on the previous page were using 2560x1600 resolution and Eyefinity, 3gb video memory makes a difference at these resolutions - especially in games such as BF3.

So to answer your question, yes 1.5gb memory definitely limits the 580 at such high resolutions. Probably by a good 5-10%.

ShimmerMan

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln.

[QUOTE="ShimmerMan"]

HAHAH are you a noob? What resolution were those benchmarks you just posted taken at. Do you know the original HardOCP 7970 benchmarks you posted on the previous page were using 2560x1600 resolution and Eyefinity, 3gb video memory makes a difference at these resolutions - especially in games such as BF3.

So to answer your question, yes 1.5gb memory definitely limits the 580 at such high resolutions. Probably by a good 5-10%.

kaitanuvax

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln.

a stock 580 GTX.

ShimmerMan

Muhahaa, ok I see the benchmarks were at 5760 resolution. The problem here though is ...

A: the titles being benchmarked are not hard texture hitters. And the titles in that list which do use high detailed textures did show a performance increase with 3gb (namely SC2 and Metro). The rest of the games have poor textures in comparison.

B: texture dependant games (such as BF3) will benefit from 3gb vram. This has already been tested. BF3 easily goes over 1.5gb Ram at 2570X1600 resolution.

From HardOCP...

VRAM Usage

"Battlefield 3reportedly uses quite a bit of VRAM, more so than other games recently. We wanted to test this, since the GTX 580 has 1.5GB on board, the HD 6970 has 2GB and the HD 7970 has 3GB. We used MSI Afterburner to turn on OSD which shows VRAM usage in-game. Our results are as follows.

Galaxy MDT GTX 580- At Highest Playable Settings, total VRAM usage was 1.422GB.

Radeon HD 7970- At Highest Playable Settings, total VRAM usage was 1.846GB.

Radeon HD 6970- At Highest Playable Settings, total VRAM usage was 1.513GB.

BF3can certainly use more video RAM if it is there."

As I said the 7970 currently has 15-20% increase. In games optimized for AMD obviously that percentage goes higher. In games optiimized for Nvidia that percentage lessens. For example BM:AC that percentage is only 10%..

7970 currently has no where close to 50-60% increase over 580GTX 3gb. Complete hyperbole, as I said if you compare a 580 vs a 7970, both 3gb models and average out across all the top PC games. The percentage will be more in the region 20%, not 50-60%.

[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]

[QUOTE="ShimmerMan"]

HAHAH are you a noob? What resolution were those benchmarks you just posted taken at. Do you know the original HardOCP 7970 benchmarks you posted on the previous page were using 2560x1600 resolution and Eyefinity, 3gb video memory makes a difference at these resolutions - especially in games such as BF3.

So to answer your question, yes 1.5gb memory definitely limits the 580 at such high resolutions. Probably by a good 5-10%.

superclocked

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln.

En boca cerrada no entran moscas

the spanish version

He's making this too easy for me.

[QUOTE="neatfeatguy"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

AMD fanboy crap? Is there something wrong with the statement I made?

blaznwiipspman1

I think the point that V4LENT1NE is trying to make here is that the OP came in asking about Nvidia cards and you swoop on by with your "AMD is better" opinion that you carry with you.

How's about next time you offer some advice or answer questions the OP is asking and then suggest alternatives such as, "If you want a GTX 560Ti 448, you might want to look at the HD 6950 or HD 6970 from AMD - those would be it's direct competition." or something similar like that.

Also, your advice to wait for something better would mean that the OP should wait to see what the 7xx series from Nvidia has to offer. It's supposed to be coming out 2nd quarter this year. What's another 3-5 months of waiting in the grand scheme of things? Then it just becomes a waiting game.

I'm not sure what the point of the GTX 560Ti 448 is; it's maybe 5% slower then a GTX 570 and costs about 5-10% less all while still requiring a similar power draw. It doesn't beat out the HD 6970, but beats the HD 6950. It's cheaper than the HD 6970, but more expensive than the HD 6950....much like the GTX 570 is as well (for the most part). It just seems like it's an oddly placed and priced GPU, but maybe I'm missing something. You'll save a few bucks (unless you find a good deal on a GTX 570) over the GTX 570 and be down around 5% in performance.

In the end, I'd say get whatever one fits your budget better or you find the better deal on. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see the price on both cards creep down a little once the HD 7950/7870/7850 come out in February, but that's just my opinion.

the 7950 is better than the 570 is an opinion? Its a fact. It will likely beat the 580gtx by 5-10% at stock and completely fly away once ocd. This ain't a matter of opinion, its just a superior card. Telling him to wait a few weeks for the 7950 isn't fanboy drivel, its common sense at this point. The 6xx nvidia series will probably be on par with the radeon 7xxx series, so waiting for that is pointless

I must have missed all those benchmarks for the 7950....I'll keep searching, but I haven't come across any yet. Hard to say a product will be better then another product if you have nothing to base it off of except a guess/opinion. As you even said "It will likely beat...". If you have proof, I'd love to see it because I haven't found anything official yet.

You also took my message out of context about waiting. I never said you came off as an "AMD fanboy" if you told someone to wait, I said telling the OP to wait isn't any different then someone telling him to wait for the new Nvidia cards to come out. The cycle continues in that manner and you keep waiting.

I said you come off as a fanboy when you swoop on by with your "AMD is better" opinion that you carry with you.It's good to have a company you enjoy and back up, but all your posts (that I've read) are about AMD is so much better. This is why people on the forums here don't take you too seriously when you start spouting that. When you help people out and give help (not just AMD is better, don't get Nvidia) it's a different story.