Grudge Match From Hell : HD 6970 Vs GTX 560

[happy medium]

LOL, if you're point is purely conjecture and changing/ignoring goalposts. You're backpeddling on performance here...

No you were wrong and not man enough to admit it.
The goal post was a gtx560 SOC @ 1000 core vs a 6950 @ 1000 core and power consumption, and I booted it right through the goal post and you along with it.

edit: i might be wrong about the performance, sorry, I havent seen any reviews on that yet, but at least I can admit it.
Goodnight.


You are making this personal, in an inflammatory way, which is counter-productive and likely to bait the intended into escalating the situation.

This is not productive and not helpful to the discourse of the thread topic. Baiting is not acceptable.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Aristotelian]

Wow that was a great 1,2,3 and 4th post. hahahahaha
And welcome to the forums Bakalu.

You learned a lot from someone posting benchmarks that a GTX580 is faster than a 6870? I'm happy for you!

"the 580 is faster than the 6870 therefore Fermi owns you lolz" - Riveting argument.

You probably have me on ignore by now (not that this is an issue for me) but your post (and his) are simply troll posts.


Your personal assessment of any given fellow colleague's post is your business...but you have no business stating your disparaging opinion on such matters in a technical forum such as this.

Please read, and reflect upon, the following comments taken directly from our AnandTech Forum Guidelines:

We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.

Now I ask you, what part of the text quoted above is reflected in your stating the following?

...your post (and his) are simply troll posts

These kinds of personal attacks and insults need to stop. They are not acceptable.

If the posts contain factually inaccurate or misrepresented information then you are expected to limit your response to that of presenting the correct facts and information, or if necessary report the post in question and leave the matter to the moderation team.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Why is not fair. Compare performance. At stock clock

NVIDIA : GTX 560 Ti < GTX 570 < GTX 480 < GTX 580
AMD : HD 6870 < HD 5870 < HD 6950 < HD 6970

GTX 560 Ti @ 1015/1075 Vs HD 6970 @ 890/1375 : Fourth Vs First class

if you say GTX 560 Ti @ 1015/1075 GTX Vs HD 6970 @ 890/1375 is not fair.

What do you think about ?

HD 6870 @ 1000/1120 Vs GTX 580 default : Fourth Vs First class

fair or unfair

Uh... why are you assigning them into classes? That doesn't even make any practical sense. And then you include a GTX 480 and 5870. Ok. Why? They're EOL. Why did you not include the 5970 too? Even though this is irrelevant, that would push the 6870 to the fifth class. There's a reason why these cards are priced the way they are, and it's more than how fast they are relative to their own brand. Your class vs class is a limited and practically useless way of looking at the scenario.

Testing a 6870 vs a 580 is not fair for either card, since you don't test under the same conditions. Also it's nice you overclocked your 560 as far as it can go for your first comparison but you don't give the same treatment to the 6870. Not that it would change end result of it being slower than a 580, but it's an interesting double standard you are setting.

 

[Aristotelian]

Not that it would change end result of it being slower than a 580, but it's an interesting double standard you are setting.

Setting? This has been going on for a long time, hence the amount of 'whining' in this thread. It's merely a constant trend for people trying to push Nvidia as the only option for bang for the buck solutions.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

No you were wrong and not man enough to admit it.
The goal post was a gtx560 SOC @ 1000 core vs a 6950 @ 1000 core and power consumption, and I booted it right through the goal post and you along with it.

edit: i might be wrong about the performance, sorry, I havent seen any reviews on that yet, but at least I can admit it.
Goodnight.

I'm sorry, but you don't even remember what you said...

The only real difference in these cards @ 1000 core is the 6950 is much louder, hotter and uses more power. You will need to pump more voltage into the 6950.

For a few more dollars (13$?) you can just buy a gigabyte SOC @ 1000 core garaunteed and it runs much more cool and quiet and uses much less power.

If all you can do is resort to personal attacks then just don't say anything. You haven't provided and valid data to this discussion and you back-peddle out of all of your statements.

You claimed the SOC will use much less power but that has not been proven and you haven't provided any data to back it up. Meanwhile I see loads of data that is contradicting your claim of "much less power". You yourself even admitted to it, so just go ahead and admit you are completely wrong. Be man enough? I mean, I see exactly what you're trying to do here. You aren't fooling me. I mean this has to be a joke. You just said you haven't seen any reviews... but you know it uses more power? A fine contradiction.

And statements like this "and I booted it right through the goal post and you along with it" make you look like you're missing the point entirely. Because the issue is simply more than 1000 vs 1000.

So far the important fact, the root of this issue pre-dating this thread, is that the 6950 will deliver better performance at lower power - stock or overclocked. But you keep promoting the opposite idea, even though you have no concrete evidence and you just admitted to not seeing the evidence?

 

[Sind]

What a waste of bandwidth. At least use the same system if your going to post nonsense. Further the other posters were right, the original comparison in the OP is beyond flawed.

 

[dust]

Hey look! 6870 benches! Thanks!

 

[Lonyo]

Wow that was a great 1,2,3 and 4th post. hahahahaha
And welcome to the forums Bakalu.

"Great" if you're an idiot.
Also, since when was the HD6970 the best AMD card? Last I heard, the HD5970 exists.
And that's ignoring the completely idiotic logic of comparing cards based on where they are in the lineup anyway.


Your assessment on the intelligence of a fellow colleague's post is your business...but you have no business stating your disparaging opinion on such matters in a technical forum such as this.

Please read, and reflect upon, the following comments taken directly from our AnandTech Forum Guidelines:

We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.

Now I ask you, what part of the text quoted above is reflected in your stating the following?

"Great" if you're an idiot.

These kinds of personal attacks and insults need to stop. They are not acceptable.

If the posts contain factually inaccurate or misrepresented information then you are expected to limit your response to that of presenting the correct facts and information, or if necessary report the post in question and leave the matter to the moderation team.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Bearach]

Why GTX 560 Ti @ 1015/1075 win HD 6970 @ 890/1375 (benchmark with the same resolution 1680*1050)

HD 6870 @ 1000/1120 (benchmark at 1680*1050) loser GTX 580 default (benchmark at 1920*1080)

Because Fermi architecture is wonderful, and Barts / Cayman architecture is too bad.

What more you can say ?

Fermi isn't a bad architecture, nor is Barts/Cayman, but you're not seeing the point. Would it be fair, to unlock, and have a heavily overclocked 6950 against a 570 that has little to no overclocking and then declare the 6950 the winner?

What should have been posted is, you can match and beat a nearly stock 6970 if you can overclock your 560Ti. That would have been right, and shown the card right... but it wasn't stated like that, it was stated as a head to head implying that the 560Ti beats the 6970 regardless.

Which is not true, as others have said the 6970 can overclock too, all the cards above the 560Ti can, and that means you can match their performance which is good but once both overclock they reach the same conclusion again (in most cases), the 560Ti slower.

Lets end it like this, a 560Ti could be overclocked to match/beat a nearly stock 6970 if your chip is good and call it a day, the benchmarks would have been impressive if presented correctly.

 

[Skurge]

I can get it up to 1500 easy.

I just didn't because it doesn't have that big of an impact, BRB testing.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/535099?show_ads=true&page=/3dm11/535099?key=TReTrdPVe7r4YQbbZKxaVZc2F5pa39
P5753
1000/1400

3D marks performance preset is at 1280x720, that's why I always thought it was dumb. probably why memory isn't making much difference.

Sorry to keep asking, but could you try some real games?

 

[Skurge]

a 900mhz GTX560 is still slower than a 6950 that's at stock. So the 560 needs 100mhz over the 6950 to equal it at lower resolutions.

The 6950 is just untouchable here.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_asus_gtx560ti/16.htm

The 6950 doesn't even need to reach 1ghz to beat a a 1ghz 560, (also while using less power) so with a 6950 you still have 100mhz to spare and a lot more bandwidth.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...w-and-sli-performance-aliens-vs-predator.html
http://translate.googleusercontent....gdmNufqWYMh_boHbruwaI1mIn-Q#abschnitt_ratings
not to mention the 560s poor scaling at high settings. Theres that bandwidth deficiency I keep talking about.

Don't get me wrong, the 560 is a great card, but it is no 460, 4850, 8800gt, 6600gt or 9500pro.

 

[Ares1214]

Wow, this thread is hilarious. A 6870 losing to a 580? No way... I mean, lets not even take into considering the fact that for the price of 1 580, you can almost fit 3 6870's (which isnt possible) so lets just say 2 6870's:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...n=6870&amp;x=0&amp;y=0

6870's cost $189-229 with/without MIR.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-587-_-Product

GTX 580 costs $499. So i mean. How about we take one 580, OC it to the max, and then take 2 6870's in Xfire, and OC them to the max. That would actually be a mildly interesting test.

And then you compare the 560 which has an extremely high OC to a 6970 with an OC of 10 MHz. I mean, the 560 had an OC of 25%, and the 6970 had 1%. I mean that makes perfect sense doesnt it? All the smug Nvidia fans need to quit it with these BS benchmarks saying "Oh look, the 6970 is overpriced, it loses to a card that costs a lot less and is OC'ed to the max". Easily the most overpriced card is the GTX 580. It costs 2x more than the GTX 560. Why dont we see anybody going on about how the GTX 580 needs a price cut?

Then AMD fans need to realize the GTX 560 IS a great card, and it WILL OC to beat higher priced cards, and with some degree of ease. This thread is a flaming POS with the amount of fanboy's in here. Why dont we run real world benchmarks? 1920x1080, max settings (8AA), and stock vs stock, OC vs OC, SLI vs Xfire, price to performance. Such as 2x max OC'ed 560's in SLI vs the GTX 580 max OC'ed, thats a perfect $ to $ comparison. Or maybe 2 6850's in Xfire max OC'ed vs 1 GTX 560 max oc'ed, as that scenario is only about $100 of from each other. Maybe even 2x 6950 vs 2x GTX 560 both clocked to use the same amount of power and at stock to see straight up Scaling performance. Those are the benchmarks that should be made, not these BS benchmarks that either only give Nvidia advantages, or tell the already obvious.

 

[bryanW1995]

What's the deal with comparing one super overclocked card vs one (almost) stock one?

And 1680x1050...really? REALLY??? Is ANYONE, other than laptop users, using that resolution with any of the modern Nvidia or AMD cards??? Anyone? Out of the half dozen or so friends at work I have that game, I don't know a single one that uses less than 1080p on their main display. Unless it's on their laptop. The only people running that resolution that I know in person are using old P4 or athlon 64 systems. :\

This review is akin to, with the previous generation, taking a way overclocked gtx470 that's as fast or faster than a stock 480 and saying look see, the 480 is pointless... Now 560 is a good card with a lot of potential, but at the resolutions people are actually going to be using, and at clocks people are going to be using, thinking that it stands up to the 6970 is disingenuous, imho. I also disagree that the 570 and the 6970 are overpriced. I think they are priced right about where they should be--which to buy just depends on what features you want really (eyefinity? cuda for cs5? etc).

1680x1050 and 1920x1080 are by far the two most common gaming resolutions these days. As previously mentioned, some games can bring even a gtx 580 to its knees at those resolutions with enough AA/AF. I for one have a gtx 460 and game at 1680x1050 btw.

 

[bryanW1995]

This I agree with, I thought the 6970 was overpriced before a GTX 560 showed up.

I don't think that 6970 is overpriced just b/c it's such a strong competitor at very high resolution, so much so in fact that we constantly see people recommending 6970 over 580 or, especially 6970 xfire over 580 sli.

 

[bryanW1995]

The only real difference in these cards @ 1000 core is the 6950 is much louder, hotter and uses more power. You will need to pump more voltage into the 6950.

For a few more dollars (13$?) you can just buy a gigabyte SOC @ 1000 core garaunteed and it runs much more cool and quiet and uses much less power.

Call it cherry picked chips or whatever, it does not change the fact that this chip is the better chip.

incorrect. 6950 uses less power but has a weaker cooling solution so it runs slightly hotter/louder. however, it also has rear exhaust so it's not pumping all that hot air back into your case. For some users it is a slight + for one card or the other, but overal they are quite similar in noise/heat/power as a whole.

 

[bryanW1995]

Maybe you should actually, you know, read the discussion instead of concluding that it is:

a) AMD Owners (FALSE) getting "angry) because,
b) AMD's flagship single gpu card is slower (and cheaper) than Nvidia's flagship single gpu card.

That's a ridiculous interpretation of the point that has been made many times, by a number of different people, who own Nvidia hardware. Thanks!

he's not entirely wrong. It's true that some of us nvidia card owners think that some of our members go a bit over the top in promoting the green team, but generally speaking the people get really torqued about threads like this are the true zoners who would never buy anything without a daamit badge on it.

 

[Lonyo]

Go read the 560 reviews thread.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2137991

It all sounds like damage control. If only they could do it without insulting everyone it would not be so bad.

Generally when a thread makes AMD look bad they will act like this to get the thread locked.

This thread doesn't make AMD look bad, it makes the person who did the benchmarks look bad.

 

[Aristotelian]

he's not entirely wrong. It's true that some of us nvidia card owners think that some of our members go a bit over the top in promoting the green team, but generally speaking the people get really torqued about threads like this are the true zoners who would never buy anything without a daamit badge on it.

I have been posting for months against comparisons such as these (overclocked versus stock). It has earned me a place on the ignore lists of some of Nvidia's biggest loudmouths on this forum (and I get infractions for pointing it out while their FUD is posted without mitigation!). Please don't confuse a desire for fair benchmarking practices, inferences and conclusions to denote 'zoners'. I'm sure there are people who think of this as some sort of 'my football team is better than yours' but they are simply idiots who have no way of backing up their claims, and it shows in their posting style (on both sides).

The point is: plenty of people have posted arguments in this thread regarding the unfair benchmarking practices and conclusions present in this thread, and none of those arguments have been debunked.

Furthermore, ever wonder why these sensationalized threads get the most views? Probably because there are so many people rushing to squash the unjustified thinking that is rampant in these threads. Or is everyone who says "If you overclock one card you should overclock the other too" biased?

If reviewers started overclocking AMD cards and leaving Nvidia cards at stock clocks, you don't think Nvidia's support group would rush to the forums to post "But Nvidia's cards overclock too!" - As it stands now you can easily point to a number of people whose sole purpose is to flaunt only the overclocking ability of Nvidia's cards. Imagine if that oc'ing ability was ignored?


Mod challenges and callouts are not acceptable.

and I get infractions for pointing it out while their FUD is posted without mitigation!

Implying that there is a lack of fairness in the application of the AnandTech Posting Guidelines and/or some sort of agenda on behalf of the AnandTech moderation team that leads to biased moderation is not productive.

Impugning the integrity of the moderator staff is not productive.

If you have cause for belief that such is occurring you are expected to post your concerns and proof thereof in the proper venue, Moderator Discussions, where you will have the audience of every moderator on staff including the Forum Directors.

You know how to use the report post link, report the post and leave the matter to the moderation staff.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[notty22]

I enjoy reading reviews like this : Extreme Overclocking Experience Starring Palit GeForce GTX 460 Sonic Platinum
We will probably see more articles like this showcasing the gtx 560 power

 

[Aristotelian]

I enjoy reading reviews like this : Extreme Overclocking Experience Starring Palit GeForce GTX 460 Sonic Platinum
We will probably see more articles like this showcasing the gtx 560 power

This is precisely the sort of review people have an issue with. Are you just trolling, now?


Member callouts are not acceptable.

If you have your suspicions then you are expected to report the post, leave the matter to the moderation staff and take no further public action on the matter.

Are you just trolling, now?

Moderator Idontcare

 

[bryanW1995]

I have been posting for months against comparisons such as these (overclocked versus stock). It has earned me a place on the ignore lists of some of Nvidia's biggest loudmouths on this forum (and I get infractions for pointing it out while their FUD is posted without mitigation!). Please don't confuse a desire for fair benchmarking practices, inferences and conclusions to denote 'zoners'. I'm sure there are people who think of this as some sort of 'my football team is better than yours' but they are simply idiots who have no way of backing up their claims, and it shows in their posting style (on both sides).

The point is: plenty of people have posted arguments in this thread regarding the unfair benchmarking practices and conclusions present in this thread, and none of those arguments have been debunked.

Furthermore, ever wonder why these sensationalized threads get the most views? Probably because there are so many people rushing to squash the unjustified thinking that is rampant in these threads. Or is everyone who says "If you overclock one card you should overclock the other too" biased?

If reviewers started overclocking AMD cards and leaving Nvidia cards at stock clocks, you don't think Nvidia's support group would rush to the forums to post "But Nvidia's cards overclock too!" - As it stands now you can easily point to a number of people whose sole purpose is to flaunt only the overclocking ability of Nvidia's cards. Imagine if that oc'ing ability was ignored?

Oh, I agree with most of the points that you've made in the thread, I just didn't agree with the one that I quoted. It pisses me off to constantly have to weed through fanboy comparisons of cards with miniscule differences, however, at least this beats the alternative of one camp or the other completely dominating.

 

[thilanliyan]

Edit: we were not talking about which card was faster. At least I wasn't. I really don't know. My arguement started at post #112.

If you weren't then there's loads of cards that will sip like 50w instead of the 195w of the card you were pimping. I'm guessing if you equalize the performance of these cards, the 6950 will either consume less or will be very close. And actually in the 2nd link I gave, performance is similar (1GHz+ 560 vs. ~900MHz 6950) and the 560 then consumes a lot more power (not the SOC, those were 2 OCed regular 560s).

And as cusideabelincoln pointed out, you said "the only difference" between these cards at 1GHz core is heat/power...well firstly that is completely wrong since performance will be very different. And I don't think power consumption will be "much less" on the 560 either. It is already consuming more at stock...the 6950 may end up consuming more at 1GHz core but it wouldn't be MUCH more. And then again we get back to performance, where the 1GHz core 6950 will be a lot faster.

 

[Skurge]

This is precisely the sort of review people have an issue with. Are you just trolling, now?

Probably.

The only kind of overclocking review that should be done is one like this.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2778/7

Both cards overclocked to their max, in a variety of games at different settings. It's sad these don't get done more often.

 

[happy medium]

And actually in the 2nd link I gave, performance is similar (1GHz+ 560 vs. ~900MHz 6950) and the 560 then consumes a lot more power.

All fine and dandy and I agree, but when you push a 6950 above that, you use much more power because you need to pump much more voltage into these puppy's, that was my point. Meanwhile the gtx 560 SOC is allready at 1000 core. ALso it has been shown that it will reach 1044 core on stock voltage, try that with a 6950.
We were talking about the 275$ Gigabyte SOC not a regular gtx560, its 13$ more then a 6950.

In the past if we had a 275$ card at 1000 core from the factory performing up to par with cards 100$ more in heat, power consumption, noise and performance, we would all be saying how great the card is, why not now? I don't understand?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

In the past if we had a 275$ card at 1000 core from the factory performing up to par with cards 100$ more in heat, power consumption, noise and performance, we would all be saying how great the card is, why not now? I don't understand?

You're changing the argument (red herring, fallacy), because no one is saying the card is not great.

but when you push a 6950 above that, you use much more power because you need to pump much more voltage into these puppy's, that was my point.

And this point doesn't mean anything. We are comparing the 6950 to the 560 here. We have one test from tweaktown showing the cards are roughly the same clockspeed are fairly close in power draw. We have tests from techpowerup showing a discrepancy in power consumption (560 uses more) when the cards are at the same clockspeed. Your point may be some 6950s need more voltage, but you have not shown how that correlates to power consumption in relation to the 560.