Grudge Match From Hell : HD 6970 Vs GTX 560

[bryanW1995]

Don't feed him. Or any of them. Just ignore them as they are just trying to pollute the thread and get it locked.

pot, meet kettle.

The 560 is a great card no doubt. Overclocking it seems to provide performance up their with the 6970. Maybe not in all games, maybe not every card will hit it's full potential. However, for $249 it's an awesome card.

I agree with everything but the last bit about the price. For $249 it's an awesome card when you compare it with a 570, but I think that a 460 for $150 is a much much better deal than a 560 for $250 in most circumstances. also, a 6950 2gb is now $260 AR, that's a better deal than $250 for a gtx 560 imho.

 

[happy medium]

It was unclear from how you wrote the post, but yes I agree that gtx 560 ti is a much better card for 1920x1080 than a gtx 580.

I didn't OC the gtx 260, it was a factory pre-overclocked card at 655 core. Even at the default factory clocks I got errors in seti, I actually downclocked it for a while. As far as overclocking cpus, that used to be a very different situation b/c they all had the same core, just some of them came with higher default clocks. that would be like nvidia having a gtx 580 with 512 cores, 772 core and 1200 memory, but also having cheaper cards with identical features but, say, 700/1100 clocks for the gtx 570 and 650/1000 clocks for the gtx 560. Plus, they would need to have market dominance the way intel does, with a reasonable estimate by overclockers that, say, a gtx 560 would easily surpass a stock gtx 580 by a large margin with overclocking.

As you well know, my gtx 460 overclocks quite well, and I've taken advantage of that.

I've always overclocked my computer components. I do it whether I have a 5570 or a gtx 580, and I would also do it on a 980x or an 1100t. I think that many users here are the same, and that's why so many don't understand the point of comparing a highly OC'd 560 to a stock 6870; we would OC either one, and the 6970 would still be clearly faster after it was overclocked.

So any thoughts on my q9550 vs q9770 vs the gtx560 vs 6970 theory?
Here it is again in case you missed it.

quote:

I bought my q9500 because I could overclock it to perform like a chip that costs $100's of dollars more. I didn't pick a q9650 because it only offered a small amount of performance boost compared to my q9550 for over a 100$ more.

I consider the gtx560 overclocked to be my q9550 and the 6970 to be my q9650 in comparison.

So back to the question, If everyone thought it was great to buy a q9550 and overclock it to q9650/q9700 levels and save 100$/400$, why is there so much drama about doing the same for a video card.

I think its great for us video card buyers to have this option @ 1900x1080.I would never tell someone to go buy a gtx580 for 500$ , when they could just overclock a gtx570 for 315$.

 

[bryanW1995]

it's different, what you're describing would be comparable to saying: I bought a phenom II x4 955 and oc'd it to i7 950. They're diferent architectures, they have different strengths/weaknesses. It might still be a good idea to do it, but it's not a guaranteed slam dunk like taking, say, my q9450 and overclocking it far above qx9775 stock clocks. comparing 560 to 6970 (or 570/580/460 for that matter) can be useful some of the time, but different cards are more effective compared to their competition at different resolutions, and overclocking in many of those instances is secondary. Generally speaking an nvidia fan would take 560 at 1680x1050, most likely 560 (with 570 a possibility based upon current street price) at 1920x1080, 570 at 1920x1200, and 580 at anything higher than that. Overclock the 560 so that it performs like a 580 at 2560x1600 and it will still be bandwidth-limited and still only have 1gb of memory. run a gtx 580 at 1680x1050 and, in almost every case, you're wasting power/energy/heat/noise/money by using your ferrari to drive to the grocery store.

 

[happy medium]

It might still be a good idea to do it, but it's not a guaranteed slam dunk like taking, say, my q9450 and overclocking it far above qx9775 stock clocks. comparing 560 to 6970 (or 570/580/460 for that matter) can be useful some of the time, but different cards are more effective compared to their competition at different resolutions

I wasn't looking for a slam dunk, but a resonable way to compare and I think the cpu analogy was a good one and for the most part you seem to agree.

We are always gonna have the ifs, ands, and the buts, like what about 2500x1600 or mabe one game plays better on a certain card or this card uses a ton more power, bla, bla, bla,ect, ect, ect.

But in this case as per the thread title, the overclocked gtx560 is definitly looking like a winner at normal everyday resolutions vs the 6970 or even the gtx580 for that matter.

 

[MrK6]

We are always gonna have the ifs, ands, and the buts, like what about 2500x1600 or mabe one game plays better on a certain card or this card uses a ton more power, bla, bla, bla,ect, ect, ect.

But in this case as per the thread title, the overclocked gtx560 is definitly looking like a winner at normal everyday resolutions vs the 6970 or even the gtx580 for that matter.

A winner for what? It's second place to the 6950 2GB in almost every comparable metric. The 6950 2GB is about $20 more, proportionally much faster from a price/performance comparison, and can easily be flashed to a 6970. The GTX 560 needs to be <$225 to make the performance hit worth it.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

So any thoughts on my q9550 vs q9770 vs the gtx560 vs 6970 theory?
Here it is again in case you missed it.

quote:

I bought my q9500 because I could overclock it to perform like a chip that costs $100's of dollars more. I didn't pick a q9650 because it only offered a small amount of performance boost compared to my q9550 for over a 100$ more.

I consider the gtx560 overclocked to be my q9550 and the 6970 to be my q9650 in comparison.

So back to the question, If everyone thought it was great to buy a q9550 and overclock it to q9650/q9700 levels and save 100$/400$, why is there so much drama about doing the same for a video card.

I think its great for us video card buyers to have this option @ 1900x1080.I would never tell someone to go buy a gtx580 for 500$ , when they could just overclock a gtx570 for 315$.

A complete red herring argument. You're fabricating an argument that no one is arguing.

But even if we play along, Gaia already covered the points. You're using an inaccurate analogy, because video cards and processors aren't quite the same. All Penryn chips are exactly the same and differ from clockspeed. A GF114 is not the same as a GF110 is not the same as Cayman is not the same as Cypress is not the same as etc. And from $100 cards to $300 cards, you can overclock just about all of them up a tier, the same you can with the 560. You overclocked your 5750 past 5770 levels. A $150-200 460 (SE or otherwise), 5850, 6850 can reach 560 levels.

 

[Lonyo]

A complete red herring argument. You're fabricating an argument that no one is arguing.

But even if we play along, Gaia already covered the points. You're using an inaccurate analogy, because video cards and processors aren't quite the same. All Penryn chips are exactly the same and differ from clockspeed. A GF114 is not the same as a GF110 is not the same as Cayman is not the same as Cypress is not the same as etc. And from $100 cards to $300 cards, you can overclock just about all of them up a tier, the same you can with the 560. You overclocked your 5750 past 5770 levels. A $150-200 460 (SE or otherwise), 5850, 6850 can reach 560 levels.

I think it's most the way the thread was worded and titled, in such as way that suggests the comparison was meant to be fair.

You don't have a grudge match between two boxers and put weights in the gloves of one of them and say "hey, here's a head to head/grudge match", because people can see one has been given an advantage.

 

[happy medium]

I think it's most the way the thread was worded and titled, in such as way that suggests the comparison was meant to be fair.

You don't have a grudge match between two boxers and put weights in the gloves of one of them and say "hey, here's a head to head/grudge match", because people can see one has been given an advantage.

You can if the fight is a virtual draw and the one pair of gloves cost 33&#37; less.:biggrin:

All kidding aside, yea the wording could have been better.

 

[MentalIlness]

So how many more pages is this thread going to go with the debating/arguing over which card is better ? Everyone has their own beliefs. So each individual can buy what ever they want, and to h3ll with what others think.

Why does anyone really need to justify their purchase to another forum user ? If someone asks for a recommendation, then by all means, recommend. But recommend several options for the buyer to choose from. And leave it at that and do not try to persuade the buyer further in one direction.

If it were this way, I'd imagine they'd be several forum users that would post threads, and never get a response because of what they try to spin, and eventually it might stop if flame posts are "ignored".

If someone says they "prefer" NV ...Or "prefer" AMD....Then recommend what they "prefer". Dont try to spin crap to get them to go with something that the poster wants them to have. How is that helping the person deciding ?

I've certainly had my share of debates. And I am over it. I wont debate anymore. Ill take recommendations, and choose for myself. And if someone wants to argue in the thread, it won't make any difference to me. The buyers choice is the buyers choice, not the users arguing trying to say which is better. So just stop already.

I'm not sure Ive seen a thread started since the GTX460 was released that had not had arguing/debating/whiney users/fanboys in it. Whether it was AMD or NV ...

It's old. And its ruining the forums.

 

[Skurge]

So any thoughts on my q9550 vs q9770 vs the gtx560 vs 6970 theory?
Here it is again in case you missed it.

That is an EXTREMELY poor analogy. Those 2 CPUs have the same advantage, disadvantages, cache, architecture, you name it, they are identical in every metric except clock speed.

There is nothing similar about a 560 and a 6970. Different memory, different clocks, different amount of memory, different architecture. I don't know how you can even make that comparison. They are so different that a 6970 is as fast a 560s in SLI at 2560x1600+AA and higher.

You can do that with any card. 6850 can be overclocked to be as fast as a 560 for $100 less, same with the 460. 6950 can be overclocked to be as fast as a 580, same with the 570. Yet all you mention is the 560 like you have some kind of love affair with it. That 560 is overpriced as you can get 2 6850s or 460s for the same price. It isn't even that far ahead of $199 6870s. Same goes with the 6950, but it has some advantages, like it doesn't fall apart at higher resolutions and crossfire makes a much bigger difference than with the 560.

That is the what you are paying for with a 6970 that Bryan mentioned. No amount of overclocking will bridge that gap.

 

[GaiaHunter]

You can if the fight is a virtual draw and the one pair of gloves cost 33&#37; less.:biggrin:

Except the more expensive ones will keep your fingers warmed in the north pole and london, while the cheaper ones will only keep your warmed in london.

So if you only plan to stay in london, the cheaper ones are a better choice but if you go to the poles, the more expensive ones make more sense.

Of course you also have the option to get a pair of red gloves that cost the same as those cheap green gloves.

All kidding aside, yea the wording could have been better.

It just seems like the thread would be about really super crazy overclockings that would bring these cards to the verge of burning, like that old thread that pitted Cypress vs GF100 at speeds of over 1GHz, and what you get is some very Earthly benchmarks...

 

[Teizo]

lol, 2 biased nvidia benchmarks. I always get a kick out of reviews like this.

I'm not saying they aren't valid but most people on here assume things like this will happen.

why not benchmark Far cry 2 and hawx 2 aswell while they are at it

Crysis is not Nvidia biased. Not in the slightest. In every review out there, at their refernce settings, the AMD conterparts outperform Nvidia's by a clear margin. Dirt2 on the other hand, yeah..Nvidia does much better in. But not Crysis. Even though Crysis is a TWIMTBP game...AMD/ATI hold their own and outperforms Nvidia in just about every price segment.

 

[Wreckage]

Crysis is not Nvidia biased. Not in the slightest. In every review out there, at their refernce settings, the AMD conterparts outperform Nvidia's by a clear margin. Dirt2 on the other hand, yeah..Nvidia does much better in. But not Crysis. Even though Crysis is a TWIMTBP game...AMD/ATI hold their own and outperforms Nvidia in just about every price segment.

Occam's razor: "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one"

These games are not "NVIDIA biased", NVIDIA cards just offer better performance.

 

[MentalIlness]

Occam's razor: "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one"

These games are not "NVIDIA biased", NVIDIA cards just offer better performance.

If that was the case, then the Nvidia card would outperform the AMD equivalent card in "all" games tested. Not just a few. So in other words, yes they are Nvidia biased.

 

[Wreckage]

If that was the case, then the Nvidia card would outperform the AMD equivalent card in "all" games tested. Not just a few. So in other words, yes they are Nvidia biased.

560 > 6870
570 > 6950
580 > 6970

Seems pretty simple.

 

[lavaheadache]

Crysis is not Nvidia biased. Not in the slightest. In every review out there, at their refernce settings, the AMD conterparts outperform Nvidia's by a clear margin. Dirt2 on the other hand, yeah..Nvidia does much better in. But not Crysis. Even though Crysis is a TWIMTBP game...AMD/ATI hold their own and outperforms Nvidia in just about every price segment.

he edited the op since my post.

 

[dust]

That theory is a bit different, since there are no differences between a q9550 and a q9450 other than stock speed.

That's what I've been telling my CPU also, however it can't seem to find that extra .5 multi

 

[MentalIlness]

560 > 6870
570 > 6950
580 > 6970

Seems pretty simple.

You typed in numbers with no link. Would you like a few links that shows each of those AMD cards where they outperform the NV card ?

Nah, I'm sure you can find them on your own, because arguing over something so trivial is just childish.....because you and I both know it is true anyway. It all depends on what the game is dude. Which I am sure you know already.

I just read a review today, where a 6870 Black Edition XFX was outrunning a GTX560 stock. But in "most games" the GTX560 is superior. Like I said, depends on the game/settings/resolution and other factors.

Take 2500 resolution....the 6970 outperforms the GTX580 in many games and others it doesn't come close. But any resolution lower than that, and the GTX580 wins by a good amount. And 2500 resolution cannot be taken from the equation just because it shows a card in a better light than the other.

---->Which means.....depends on the game/settings/resolution<----

Winning is winning. I dont care if it is 1 win out of a 100. And based on your post I quoted, your referring to every game on the market that NV is better.I guess I just don't understand why people just don't speak the truth, especially when they know its the truth. But.....welcome to Video Cards and Graphics

 

[3DVagabond]

So any thoughts on my q9550 vs q9770 vs the gtx560 vs 6970 theory?
Here it is again in case you missed it.

quote:

I bought my q9500 because I could overclock it to perform like a chip that costs $100's of dollars more. I didn't pick a q9650 because it only offered a small amount of performance boost compared to my q9550 for over a 100$ more.

I consider the gtx560 overclocked to be my q9550 and the 6970 to be my q9650 in comparison.

So back to the question, If everyone thought it was great to buy a q9550 and overclock it to q9650/q9700 levels and save 100$/400$, why is there so much drama about doing the same for a video card.

I think its great for us video card buyers to have this option @ 1900x1080.I would never tell someone to go buy a gtx580 for 500$ , when they could just overclock a gtx570 for 315$.

Not a good comparison. Your 9550 and a 9650 are exactly the same chip (As is/was the 9450. The one you really should have bought for best bang for your dollar. If it was available, of course.). The 560 and 6970 are two different pieces of tech. doing the same job, but still completely different. Nothing about them is the same.

Your comparison would be valid between a 6950 2gig and a 6970. They are the same thing and you can flash the 6950 to the same spec as the 6970. Just as you can with a Q9450, Q9550, or Q9650 (overclock, not flash, obviously).

 

[Tempered81]

560 > 6870
570 > 6950
580 > 6970

Seems pretty simple.

5970 > Nvidia

Hey, this is simple!

 

[Wreckage]

I've certainly had my share of debates. And I am over it. I wont debate anymore.

OK

You typed in numbers with no link. Would you like a few links that shows each of those AMD cards where they outperform the NV card ?

Are you saying there are AMD biased games?

 

[MentalIlness]

560 > 6870
570 > 6950
580 > 6970

Seems pretty simple.

OK



Are you saying there are AMD biased games?

Yep. I am. There are AMD biased games, and there are NV biased games. Maybe not biased per say......but coded to run better on one companies hardware over the other. Money talks....it happens, get over it.

 

[Elfear]

560 > 6870
570 > 6950
580 > 6970

Seems pretty simple.

Actually I have a simple concept for you. Do you think people buy graphics cards (or most any consumer item for that matter) based on price or based on a sequential list of each companies offerings? Serious question. I'm really curious if that's how you buy cars too.

Consumer: "Your GT500 really sucks compared to the 911 Turbo S I just drove. Do you really expect to compete with this thing?"

Ford Salesman: "Sir our car costs half as much."

Consumer: "Price has nothing to do with it man! I've got the sequential list right here!"

 

[Aristotelian]

Cut out the personal attacks; that's what degrades these threads, not differing opinions.

The reason why a number of people (including myself) have received an infraction and a number of warnings with respect to these "personal attacks" is precisely because this isn't a matter of opinion.

It is not my opinion that if you overclock card X and compare it to an overclocked card y that this represents a fair comparison. It is not my opinion that if you overclock card X and compare it to a stock clocked card Y that this is an unfair comparison in cases where stock clocked card Y can overclock as well.

The reason why people are risking their posting histories on this forum is precisely because there's a fact at stake. This fact is with respect to 'review fairness'. I've never seen more biased reviews/bad journalism/bad reviews as the video card reviews that are done by many of the sites out there. Using 2 games to conclude that x is faster than y OVERALL? Using one USER overclocked card against another stock clocked card and concluding that the former is faster than the latter ALWAYS?

Let's put it this way: Show me one review that has a user overclocked 5850 against a stock clocked 460, that concludes that the 5850 is much faster than the stock clocked 460 ALWAYS, as was done in many of the 460 (user overclocked) reviews and in many posts on this sub-forum. JUST ONE. This is why so many 'zoners' are up in arms at these comparisons: they just don't happen to Nvidia.

There is a controversy here. Performance is an objective matter (that can fluctuate based on drivers, games and so forth, but it is quantifiable and not a matter of debate). This is why I tend to read Alienbabeltech reviews (comprehensive games list, check out this one: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=23490&all=1). Take a look at the hardware list: They use only factory overclocked cards. They use lots of games. They offer conclusions re: raw performance and price/performance (if that's your thing). That's a comprehensive review. I wish their testing was cited far more frequently. So many other shoddy, frankly garbage reviews, are brought to this forum as if they support the conclusions often made.

Guess what - they don't. And there are a number of people who notice it.

 

[Aristotelian]

You can if the fight is a virtual draw and the one pair of gloves cost 33&#37; less.:biggrin:

All kidding aside, yea the wording could have been better.

This is the type of reasoning I'm referring to. Price does not enter into the performance comparisons. First you need to get the performance comparison down (that is, overclock both cards), then you look at the price. You don't overclock one, keep posting (shall I count them, now?) that the overclocked one is cheaper, leave the other one at stock clocks, and then proclaim the first one is faster. Why? Read above.