GTX 560 Coming soon!

nice looks like my next buy

http://tof.canardpc.com/view/c9c19e7...aa08cc250e.jpg

Well, this card looks to be the same size board as GB 460SCO version, the rumor of board partners able to use similar PCB's appears to be true.:)
The card looks identical to the 460 @ newegg now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ImageG...20Video%20Card

Now I'm almost sure we will get some short GTX 560's for SFF builds. Can't wait for lanch.:D

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6...65x5osf95k.jpg

http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-39288-1-1.html

Quote:

---

Voltage to 1.15v, modify the BIOS does not increase the higher voltage. Up to 1065 has been a core. Oh very good. AMD at this voltage it can not run this frequency. Wow haha.
Is valid and cards, you know, but absolutely can not say oh. Haha.

---

woot 1065 MHz @1150mV!! my 460 only can run 925MHz @1150mV


%20 faster than my GTX 460 945/4680MHz @ Graphics score
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/72044

%6 lower than HD6950 @925/5800MHz @Graphics score
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4...k11details.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cold2010

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6348/234830bs2sbz65x5osf95k.jpg[/IMG]

http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-39288-1-1.html

---

That's how a little OC-monster should be turned into a big OC-monster :D A little extra voltage can do wonders.
I like that 1065 OC. Those shader @2130MHz will soon be running faster than my CPU. :clap:

Like I expected, these things will be amazing overclockers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaktus1907

woot 1065 MHz @1150mV!! my 460 only can run 925MHz @1150mV


%20 faster than my GTX 460 945/4680MHz @ Graphics score
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/72044

%6 lower than HD6950 @925/5800MHz @Graphics score
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4...k11details.jpg

---

HD6950@6970 with same good cpu
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...5P6218info.jpg

P6218 and 1075/1475

+17.7% higher ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaktus1907

woot 1065 MHz @1150mV!! my 460 only can run 925MHz @1150mV

---

Looks good. About the same clocks as 69x0 cards. Just hope they don't hard stop at around 1100, also...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilgamesh

HD6950@6970 with same good cpu
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...5P6218info.jpg

P6218 and 1075/1475

+17.7% higher ;)

---

true but this is not meant to fight the 6950/6970 more so the 6870....which is will utterly destroy... looking to be a freaking SWEET card...IF it's priced well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

true but this is not meant to fight the 6950/6970 more so the 6870....which is will utterly destroy... looking to be a freaking SWEET card...IF it's priced well.

---

Yeah, 560 is the 3th in nVidias single-GPU line up (560> 570>580 line), and actually falls into mainstream, but AMD has chosen to use it's 2th GPU 6950 and "degrade" it to a 1GB-mainstream to fight it.

That's not a fare fight, LOL, and then AMD may even get the upper hand in performance (maybe, but we have to wait and see).
But even then, the mainstream-battle is not about performance-crown, it's all about price/performance.
The battle is going to be fought in price-arena, in this round.

If I'm not mistaking, nVidia is going to price this well, but nVidia shouldn't have a big problem to put a big blow on 275$, after all this their mainstream card. We have to wait and see how aggressive they will get, tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

Yeah, 560 is the 3th in nVidias single-GPU line up (560> 570>580 line), and actually falls into mainstream, but AMD has chosen to use it's 2th GPU 6950 and "degrade" it to a 1GB-mainstream to fight it.

That's not a fare fight, LOL, and then AMD may even get the upper hand in performance (maybe, but we have to wait and see).
But even then, this mainstream-battle is not about performance-crown, it's all about price/performance.
The battle is going to be fought in price-arena, in this round.

If I'm not mistaking, nVidia is going to price this well, but nVidia shouldn't have big difficulties to put a big blow on 275$. We have to wait and see how aggressive this will get, tho.

---

interesting perspective

but isnt the die of a 6950 still smaller than a 560?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

but isnt the die of a 6950 still smaller than a 560?

---

Not from what I recall, 460 is smaller and I would expect 560 to be very similar, 6950 is larger than cypress isn't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

interesting perspective

but isnt the die of a 6950 still smaller than a 560?

---

No. Cayman is 389mm2 and GF114 is ~367mm2 probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

interesting perspective

but isnt the die of a 6950 still smaller than a 560?

---

I don't care about die size, yields, number of transistors, etc .. I don't know if these factors affect the manufacturing costs either.
As far as I know, they use most on R&D, not manufacturing, but anyways why should I care? Shareholders and those on payroll should care about these stuff.

As a consumer, I don't know, and don't care how much it cost to produce these cards. I only care about the price/performance/power usage for a mainstream card.

ok so the best of the GF114 vs the worse of the Caymen and both are about the same size
and that means one should have much more room for a price drop thats still profitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

ok so the best of the GF114 vs the worse of the Caymen and both are about the same size
and that means one should have much more room for a price drop thats still profitable.

---

Well you also have to consider the other factors such as voltage regulation and memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

ok so the best of the GF114 vs the worse of the Caymen and both are about the same size
and that means one should have much more room for a price drop thats still profitable.

---

Profitable for who? Are you a shareholder or on the payroll? If not, why do you care?

AMD has started with 275$, just $20 under the price they were asking for high-end card. (It could actually be unlocked to the highest end)
Are you saying that nVidia vil have problems to put a big blow on it with a mainstream card?

We can speculate on number of transistors, dies size, yield, etc .. but you need to see the different between high-end and mainstream pricing to catch this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

Well you also have to consider the other factors such as voltage regulation and memory.

---

true,
so perf/watt is important since it means less: heatsink, vrms, PSU, and electric bill.
ive done the math before and comparing the mid range, the difference between good and bad (in real cases) came to 25$ across 18 months, which is quite significant and definitely a factor in purchasing.
between more common things the difference is about 5-10$ for the one with a little worse perf/watt, and thats just to the electric bill.

and the memory is probably not that much different, and not going to impact profitability nearly as much as the chip size does.

in the end the architecture is going to decide so many of the little things that end up going into the final cost.
looking at just price and just performance can give you what is now or what is predicted for a launch, but offers very little forecast into how it will evolve in the upcoming months when products shift, eol, or drop in price.

Cayman is 2.64 billion transistors and gf104 is 1.95 billion. Why is it that their size is so similar. As far as transistors/performance NV is better. But they lose what matters, the die size per transistor battle.

Why is fermi so inefficient in this regard?

I've seen this kind of component-cost arguments before.

It's a tricky one, because only GPU-designer directly involved in development can talk about it.
I don't think we should speculate on stuff nobody has a deep and correct understanding about.

Each of us can speculate and would never agree, because only a few knows what's really going on in nVidia or AMD's R&D or fabs.
So lets cut these speculations and talk about how many $ we have to pay for the performance. That's what we all understand, and that's only thing a consumer cares about, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

So lets cut these speculations and talk about how many $ we have to pay for the performance. That's what we all understand, and that's only thing a consumer cares about, actually.

---

What this guy said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

So lets cut these speculations and talk about how many $ we have to pay for the performance. That's what we all understand, and that's only thing a consumer cares about, actually.

---

so you dont care about the hidden costs? like operating costs, or future upgrade costs?

Wow sweet freaking card, its looking like nvidia has amd across the entire range this should trigger the price cut card :P

Nvidia would have to almost equal 6970 with 560 to be on the same level if you consider die size. GF104 (and GF114 presumably) is only slightly smaller than Cayman so cost per chip is about the same from a manufacturing point of view. In that sense Nvidia is still behind AMD, but GF114 will certainly bring them closer than what they were with GF104. And being close means more competition -> lower prices. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

so you dont care about the hidden costs? like operating costs, or future upgrade costs?

---

To be honest, I don't know, and I don't care.
I don't think you know either, maybe you have heard from somebody somewhere. Then you repleted it until you believed it yourself.

Are you an engineer in nVidia'a R&D? Or are you directly involved in nVidias fabs? If not, how do you know? these guys keeps these stuff as a business secret.
Nowhere, nowhere you can see a official document that nVidia or AMD explain these stuff.

tell me how do got all these detail info about nVidia's biasness secret?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

To be honest, I don't know, and I don't care.
I don't think you know either, maybe you have heard from somebody somewhere. Then you repleted it until you believed it yourself.

Are you an engineer in nVidia'a R&D? Or are you directly involved in nVidias fabs? If not, how do you know? these guys keeps these stuff as a business secret.
Nowhere, nowhere you can see a official document that nVidia or AMD explain these stuff.

tell me how do got all these detail info about nVidia's biasness secret?

---

your taking the idea a little extreme,
finding the operating cost of a gpu is simply the cost of power consumption.
the future costs is determining if the card will drop quickly in price for if/when you plan to pick up a second, or if you plan to watercool it do you need a full cover block or will it do ok with a universal and some sinks on the vrms, or if you need to buy a deeper case because of the size, or more fans because it dumps air in the case instead of exhaust only.

i guess when you buy a car you only look at the horsepower and price, not how many doors it has (for when you have a family) or what the fuel mileage it gets, or how much the insurance cost is. same concept, different product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

your taking the idea a little extreme,
finding the operating cost of a gpu is simply the cost of power consumption.
the future costs is determining if the card will drop quickly in price for if/when you plan to pick up a second, or if you plan to watercool it do you need a full cover block or will it do ok with a universal and some sinks on the vrms, or if you need to buy a deeper case because of the size, or more fans because it dumps air in the case instead of exhaust only.

i guess when you buy a car you only look at the horsepower and price, not how many doors it has (for when you have a family) or what the fuel mileage it gets, or how much the insurance cost is. same concept, different product.

---

Maybe I've taken it a bit to the extrema, but I was trying to underline a important point.
Lets talk about what we all understand. All these die size, transistor counts, yield, is over my head. I don't understand what you are talking about, and i don't think you understand it either.

So lets get to the ground and talk about what we all understand. Price, performance, power-usage. benching, FPS, and such ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantsu

Nvidia would have to almost equal 6970 with 560 to be on the same level if you consider die size. GF104 (and GF114 presumably) is only slightly smaller than Cayman so cost per chip is about the same from a manufacturing point of view. In that sense Nvidia is still behind AMD, but GF114 will certainly bring them closer than what they were with GF104. And being close means more competition -> lower prices. :clap:

---

Its can also be assumed that given a die of equal size the one with less complexity such as less transistors could also be cheaper for yield reasons and actual production time even though raw base material costs are the same.

It's all semantics trying to argue the cost associated with a product for which no one in the argument has a firm grasp of actual production costs or whether there is different negotiated pricing between different companies.

At the end of the day you pay for the performance, whats under the heat spreader or how that performance is achieved is irrelevant to most.

This isn't about the GTX 560 against the 6970; there's likely to be a $150 MSRP price difference between those two cards. The competition would be between the GTX560 and whatever AMD can actually manage to segment into that price bracket.

No matter how you look at it though, if it's true that when overclocked this thing can match or beat a GTX480, and can do so on a consistent basis, then for that price the winner is US...the consumer.

I'll most likely have to ebay my 460s for a pair of these, but only if they are £175 or less. If not I'll wait for them to drop in price first.

I like the 1000 Mhz + overclocks and 384 shaders very much =D

Zotac GTX 560 Ti

http://www.teknobiyotik.com/media/ca...titled-1_8.jpg

http://www.teknobiyotik.com/donanim/...ran-karti.html

339$ + Tax same as HD6950

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

At the end of the day you pay for the performance, whats under the heat spreader or how that performance is achieved is irrelevant to most.

---

People may feel that die size is irrelevant, but these things dictate the competitive landscape and the prices are dependant on that. While a GTX 460 is a superb card for the consumer, Nvidia probably wasn't too happy selling it for such a low price. It's their margins that drive the development further and so it is in our best interest in the long term that AMD and Nvidia have similar BoM for the same category of products. Of course we can't know what deals Nvidia or AMD have with TSMC or what are the total costs involved, but die size is probably the single biggest factor when considering the price of a GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantsu

People may feel that die size is irrelevant, but these things dictate the competitive landscape and the prices are dependant on that. While a GTX 460 is a superb card for the consumer, Nvidia probably wasn't too happy selling it for such a low price. It's their margins that drive the development further and so it is in our best interest in the long term that AMD and Nvidia have similar BoM for the same category of products. Of course we can't know what deals Nvidia or AMD have with TSMC or what are the total costs involved, but die size is probably the single biggest factor when considering the price of a GPU.

---

Considering Nvidia has managed to stay profitable all the while investing in R&D not just in consumer desktop/mobile video cards I would say worrying about their business sense is unwarranted.

There is too much emphasis on die size alone, its akin to saying AMD can't make any money with their low prices and die sizes compared to Intel, yet they've managed to return to sustained profitability in a depressed economy.

Sure die size has to play a role in cost but arguing the implications of that role is semantics.

The operating and incidental costs of owning a graphics card are trivial. It's futile trying to spin them as important unless you have hard numbers. Given the cost of electricity you shouldn't be worrying about that unless you're on welfare.

With respect to transistor density nVidia and AMD count and use their transistors differently. One reason for the density difference could simply be physical constraints - running shaders at 1600Mhz isn't free. The scheduling and scoreboarding logic on nVidia chips is also much more complex and may not be high-density friendly. There's also been talk of AMD simply being better at semi-conductor design. In the end none of that matters to an end user of the product though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

Yeah, 560 is the 3th in nVidias single-GPU line up (560> 570>580 line), and actually falls into mainstream, but AMD has chosen to use it's 2th GPU 6950 and "degrade" it to a 1GB-mainstream to fight it.

That's not a fare fight, LOL, and then AMD may even get the upper hand in performance (maybe, but we have to wait and see).
But even then, the mainstream-battle is not about performance-crown, it's all about price/performance.
The battle is going to be fought in price-arena, in this round.

If I'm not mistaking, nVidia is going to price this well, but nVidia shouldn't have a big problem to put a big blow on 275$, after all this their mainstream card. We have to wait and see how aggressive they will get, tho.

---

Im not right with you, a 6870 PCS+ (940mhz ) with actual driver completely destroy a HD5870 ( so largely faster of the 470 ), XFX release this month a 975mhz version of it .... As i don't see the 560 at 480 level ( so 570 level ), im not really sure you will see a bad fight allready between 560 & 6870 ... let's alone the 6950 1gb, the card will be largely covered between the new 6870's and the 69501gb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

Im not right with you, a 6870 PCS+ (940mhz ) with actual driver completely destroy a HD5870 ( so largely faster of the 470 ), XFX release this month a 975mhz version of it .... As i don't see the 560 at 480 level ( so 570 level ), im not really sure you will see a bad fight allready between 560 & 6870 ... let's alone the 6950 1gb, the card will be largely covered between the new 6870's and the 69501gb.

---

I have owned and benched both a 6870 and a 5870 in the same system in a direct comparison and thats flat out wrong... the only thing i could get the 6870 to win in was Heaven extreme tess but a stock GTX 460 beat both of the 6870 and the 5870 anyways.

you also seem to forget the GTX 470 OCs MUCH MUCH better then a 5870 or 6870...

also did you not see the 3DMark11 numbers of the 1GHZ core where almost on par with a stock GTX 480 so if you can show me a bench were an OCed 6870 is any-ware near as fast as a GTX 480/570 then maybe I will believe you.

the biggest threat the GTX 560 will have will be the HD6950 1GB but I am willing to bet the 560 will be a decent bunch cheaper. IMO AMD will need to drop the 6870 to $200 or under. which would be totally awesome for everyone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

That's how a little OC-monster should be turned into a big OC-monster :D A little extra voltage can do wonders.
I like that 1065 OC. Those shader @2130MHz will soon be running faster than my CPU. :clap:

---

If thats the case these would be great Physx card seeming as physx cards run better with more shaders then higher clock speeds, Yes its a bit OP for a physx card but just saying :D


@Sam-olso

The zotac h67 seems like a decent board for a H67 series, WIFI, HDMI 1.4a which supports blu-ray etc, But i dont see the point comparing these to AMD fusion/atom's.. Surely these use x3 tdp of the fusions..

Guys no way is this 560 going to be under 300,This card is a power house and will sell like crazzy,I say newegg will have them for 300-350

More screenys!
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3130/gtx5602.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6442/gtx560.jpg

Those are the same shots that where posted early on in the thread, same gtx 570 memory bus typo as well.

Only one of them is.. Just adding more details for everyone.. Review will be up soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

Only one of them is.. Just adding more details for everyone.. Review will be up soon!

---

Well they have both been posted, post #1 & #82:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...95&postcount=1

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=82

Not knocking your efforts or anything but I simply recalled seeing these already.

http://img.techpowerup.org/110122/N560GTX.png

http://pccyber.com/?v=Product&i=VC-M...0GTX-TI+TWIN+F

Seems like it's already selling in Canada :confused:

So the MSRP is going to be $250-260? Sounds about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vardant

So the MSRP is going to be $250-260? Sounds about right.

---

Is it the final/official price?

I was just surfing to find some info that could dismiss that unbelievable "339$ + Tax same as HD6950" claim

The $250 is much better, but I'm still crossing fingers for less.

Here i captured one (before it disappears, LOL) 268 CAD

http://img.techpowerup.org/110122/Capture082.jpg

It says 1280MB
:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaktus1907

Zotac GTX 560 Ti

snip

http://www.teknobiyotik.com/donanim/...ran-karti.html
here
339$ + Tax same as HD6950

---

and here it says 320-bit bus and 170W TDP. Typos everywhere :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpuTnicK

It says 1280MB
:confused:

---

LOL, yeah, that's either a typos, or maybe 560 is coming in different flowers.
1208MB sounds like a early-typos tho, but I wouldn't get surprised to see a 2048MB, soon or later.

Hmmm, saw this...GTX 560 Ti, SLI, 3DM11-X:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

IMO AMD will need to drop the 6870 to $200 or under. which would be totally awesome for everyone...

---

Thats what im waiting for :)

I'll take it with 1280 meg if its going to be £175 like the 460 was on launch =D

Quote:

---

Hmmm, saw this...GTX 560 Ti, SLI, 3DM11-X

---

thx man:)

yeah boy :rehab:

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5296/62528384.jpg
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4296/52926767.jpg

3Dmark11
Single Card Performance
Single Card Extreme

How much are the 460s scoring with a 2600k in 3dm11??

Galaxy GTX560Ti GC Version, close to the public board 835MHz/4GHz.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2600/90688727.jpg

Galaxy GTX560Ti WhiteEdition（950MHz/4.4GHz）

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8033/23581369.jpg

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6797/96306635.jpg

http://www.coolpc.com.tw/phpBB2/view...867a42#p283205

the white pcb looks awesome , something really unique, i thought they come stock with 1ghz on the core ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cold2010

Galaxy GTX560Ti GC Version, close to the public board 835MHz/4GHz.

[...]

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6797/96306635.jpg

[...]

---

the white pcb looks awesome :eek:

*edit*
lol, Johnny87au, you beat me to it :D

White PCB! :eek: Also, decent VRM section, and convenient 8 + 6 pin connectors placement... I like it already! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

the white pcb looks awesome :eek:

*edit*
lol, Johnny87au, you beat me to it :D

---

lol :ROTF:

Thank you cold2010 :up:

it would be uber awesomeness if they switched coolers between GC and WE.. WE's cooler looks noisy and weak but GC looks boss :D

^ You are welcome :)

EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti FPB 1024 MB GDDR5

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4333/65338864.jpg


Good Looking :up:

wow, 560s seem to be awesome!
hope they wont be overpriced, over 300$ for oced cards sound way overpriced...

and is it just me or do all those heatsinks look dirt cheap?
the crown goes to galaxy once more, with a heatsink that looks like it falls apart when you push on it rofl... :lol:

but damn that white pcb is nice!!! and the pwm looks sweet too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

wow, 560s seem to be awesome!
hope they wont be overpriced, over 300$ for oced cards sound way overpriced...

and is it just me or do all those heatsinks look dirt cheap?
the crown goes to galaxy once more, with a heatsink that looks like it falls apart when you push on it rofl... :lol:

but damn that white pcb is nice!!! and the pwm looks sweet too!

---

Yeah, 300$ is too much even for a OCed one. That seams to be a fake (or maybe a greedy pre-order) price.

Are you comparing them with those mighty coolers on 4xx-series?
These cheap, crappy and falling coolers are suggesting 560 is so cool that it will be doing just fine even if the cooler falls apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

wow, 560s seem to be awesome!
hope they wont be overpriced, over 300$ for oced cards sound way overpriced...

and is it just me or do all those heatsinks look dirt cheap?
the crown goes to galaxy once more, with a heatsink that looks like it falls apart when you push on it rofl... :lol:

but damn that white pcb is nice!!! and the pwm looks sweet too!

---

If the MSI twin model is $267.99 in canada, I really don't think we'll see $300+ considering that was one of the most expensive GTX 460 models. Maybe a pre-watercooled card, but that's probably the ONLY way we'll see them over $300.

Of course, out-side of america stores seem to be out of their minds, so I can speak on them. :rofl:

The MSI Twin Frozr, despite the terrible name, is a very good GPU cooler. Plus you get overvolting and overclocking covered by the warranty, those will be my first choice.

The Galaxies looks sweeeet... but an 8-pin power connector???? :eek:

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6297/49996048.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8303/73896022.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4774/98283722.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7186/24808139.jpg

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1055/81438102.jpg

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/703/57318856.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3163/59894274.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1826/40505710.gif

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3641/52539761.jpg

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/7...gtx560ti30.gif

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4404/63720510.gif

http://www.coolpc.com.tw/phpBB2/view...fdca43#p283325

Oh, 950mhz and 210W TDP, that's why the 8-pin power connector... funnily that card only gets one fan, the slower card gets two. :|

210W? I'd rather get the 570 instead, the nonref cooling on these are bound to be catastrophically bad (at least loud, I bet most of the OEMs do much less testing than nV/ATI reference designs).

Personally, I think the white PCB looks hideous.

Yes but you are canadian ( it's a joke don't take it bad, ) caribou !!

8 chips similar to the 460, 8+6pin connectors hmm

Any guesses about what the 4 additional chips on the backside of that Galaxy white edition are for?

NEC/TOKIN capacitors

http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/12/...460_HOF_10.jpg

http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/12/...460_HOF_11.jpg

SOURCE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

210W? I'd rather get the 570 instead, the nonref cooling on these are bound to be catastrophically bad (at least loud, I bet most of the OEMs do much less testing than nV/ATI reference designs).

---

I think these "catastrophically bad" coolers are good new in a couple of ways.

They indicate a cool 560 chip.

It also means parters got free hand to do what they want with 560 from the start, that's a really good news.
Then, you may also find some good coolers soon, but in worst case you can always stick to reference-design.

i doubt this means 560s run cool... but i welcome it as well as im unlikely to use the ref cooler anyways :D
and if they can oc to 1g with these cheap coolers, thats a good sign for overclocking :D

We have to wait and see how cool/hot it will get, but if we are going to speculate based on current info (lack of it), then these "cheap" coolers are suggesting a cool 560, but we have to wait and see before taking the speculation to the next level.

Yeah, agree, 1GHz on a "cheap" cooler means this little OC-monster can fast turn to a big OC-monster with a "expensive" cooler + a bit more voltage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cold2010

[IMG]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6297/49996048.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8303/73896022.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4774/98283722.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7186/24808139.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1055/81438102.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/703/57318856.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3163/59894274.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1826/40505710.gif[IMG]

[IMG]http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/3641/52539761.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/7473/coolpcgalaxygtx560ti30.gif[IMG]

[IMG]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4404/63720510.gif[IMG]

http://www.coolpc.com.tw/phpBB2/view...fdca43#p283325

---

Thanks again cold2010, always good links :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

I think these "catastrophically bad" coolers are good new in a couple of ways.

They indicate a cool 560 chip.

It also means parters got free hand to do what they want with 560 from the start, that's a really good news.
Then, you may also find some good coolers soon, but in worst case you can always stick to reference-design.

---

it's not indicate anything instead it cost them cheaper ... hé we are speaking about industry, they are not here for anything instead of do money .

we have no idea yet on how much have been push the clock speed for match the performance they AIM ( it's cost less to push a core instead of design a new one for match a performance aim ofc when it's possible ) ...

But i agree with the fact thoses card look to be nice overclocker for now ... i just want don't want to push hope before get the numbers.

if these really cost ~250€ and are almost as fast as a gtx570, i feel ripped off for buying a 570 :<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

if these really cost ~250€ and are almost as fast as a gtx570, i feel ripped off for buying a 570 :<

---

I'm afraid that's just the start, you may feel more ripped soon.
The price-war hasn't started yet, but my local dealer has already a weekend-sale with 14% off on 570:
http://img.techpowerup.org/110123/Capture085.jpg

If you have plans to get rid of that thing, you better hurry, before the real war kicks inn.

well, i have yet to receive it... availability of the evga gtx570's is abysmal. ordered from 2 different shops and i'm waiting 2 weeks already... if i won't get it next week i'll cancel the order and just have a look how prices on these 560's are.

btw: ~2900 nok = 365 €, which is pretty expensive. the regular price of the golden sample in germany atm is ~310€. the cheapest 570 here costs 292 €. i really doubt the prices will fall even further.

I suggest you cancel it right away. It's delayed and you got a good excuse to get away cheap.

If you cancel those, you may find a good and cheap 560 next week. If you (for some strange reasons) still will have 570, then if you can look around, you may find good discount and sales-prices on 570.

EDIT:
2900 NOK is usually more like 290 €, because nVidia operates with a "special" European price, and that's not bases on $. Usually, my local dealers multiply the €-price by 10 to find the NOK-price for nVidia-products.

I don't know how 570-prices will develop in near future, but this round will possibly affect that too. It depends on how aggressively they will fight in this round, and I'm counting on a very aggressive nVidia.
I don't think it's a good idea to shop any GPU right now, I would wait and check the ground next week before buying anything.

Time to get rid of my HD6870 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

if these really cost ~250€ and are almost as fast as a gtx570, i feel ripped off for buying a 570 :<

---

It's going to be a very similar situation as 460-470. When overclocked to ca. 850mhz the 460 is roughly as fast as a stock 470. Here it will be the same, get the 560 close to 1GHz, then it will be similar to a stock 570. Which can be overclocked too. ;)

If somebody's main intrest is gaming in 19x12 or less, then IMO the GTX560 is the more economical choice. If it is computing too, then clearly 570. That is, if somebody only considers nVidia. Cause the HD6870 will be even more economical, if the anticipated price drop happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imamage

Time to get rid of my HD6870 :)

---

You do realize, it's not going to be faster by more than 10%, for a lot more watts, don't you? :p:

Yeah! That's the spirit! Down with the Radeons! Down with Packers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

You do realize, it's not going to be faster by more than 10%, for a lot more watts, don't you? :p:

---

Thats a rhetorical claim, what constitutes allot more watts, 10% is based on what? Looking at the power consumption numbers of the 460 & 6870 I have a hard to believing there's going to be a big difference in power consumption relative to actual performance.

I mentioned this back on pg.3, but its worth bringing up again for those (like myself) who have been hemming and hawing between the 560 and 570...

The 560 will have HD bitstreaming capabilities over HDMI where the 570/580 do not. This is a major feature for me. The fact that OCed 560s seem to be nipping right on the heels of a stock 570 is great news and makes this a easy decision for me. A MSRP of $249 (or less) would make me a happy camper. I game at 1920x1080, typically dont use more than 2x/4x AA on a 4+ Ghz i7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

You do realize, it's not going to be faster by more than 10%, for a lot more watts, don't you? :p:

---

translating: You do realize, that besides paying monthly for the extra performance you will also be free from ATI's driv3r hell, don't you? :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jodiuh

Yeah! That's the spirit! Down with the Radeons! Down with Packers!

---

omg! :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

10% is based on what?

---

It's based on pure logic of product positioning. It has to beat the 6870 convincingly, so at least 5% faster and cannot get too close to the 570, so not more than 10% faster, since it would get within another 10% to the 570.

Regarding power consumption, we will have to wait and see what does nVidia mean this time, when saying 180W. If it's total board power, like all cards except the X70 and X80 are being reported, then the perf/watt ratio of a 560 and 6870 can be quite close to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D4rkn3ss

translating: You do realize, that besides paying monthly for the extra performance you will also be free from ATI's driv3r hell, don't you? :p:

---

Yes, because nVidia drivers have never ever given nobody hell. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

It's based on pure logic of product positioning. It has to beat the 6870 convincingly, so at least 5% faster and cannot get too close to the 570, so not more than 10% faster, since it would get within another 10% to the 570.

---

Pure logic from benchmarks of the GTX 460 (overclocked) vs AMD's current mid range line up convincingly indicate that the GTX 560 will come out ahead of the 6870, and if overclocked to 1 Ghz+ will strongly rival the GTX 570 / 480 and AMD 6900 cards.

Product positioning is nowhere near as reliable a means of comparison as the chip's specification and benchmark numbers are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Pure logic from benchmarks of the GTX 460 (overclocked) vs AMD's current mid range line up convincingly indicate that the GTX 560 will come out ahead of the 6870, and if overclocked to 1 Ghz+ will strongly rival the GTX 570 / 480 and AMD 6900 cards.

---

That's exactly what I said above and have been claiming from the beginning. Thanks for confirming my estimates. :up:

The "product positioning" logic doesn't apply any longer. The 6950-1GB is a living proof of that, it's "positioned" right up to 6950-2GB's back. LOL. The 6950-2GB can also be unlocked right up to 6970's too. What kind of "product positioning" is that?

Now it's nVidia's turn to release a OCed-monster like 560 that can go right up 570's back, LOL.

Invalid arguments. First, you love to use the word "degrading" on the 1GB version, when in fact it's simply aimed at slightly different market, so they don't compete that hard as you think they do. Second, unlocking is not officially supported and a "do on your won risk" thing. Same like overclocking.

Two days (or three?) left, then the BS will stop. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Yes, because nVidia drivers have never ever given nobody hell. :rolleyes:

---

pfff please.. you can't even begin to compare.. not in a decade nor even with AMD/ATI only.. it's like a joke :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

Invalid arguments. First, you love to use the word "degrading" on the 1GB version, when in fact it's simply aimed at slightly different market, so they don't compete that hard as you think they do. Second, unlocking is not officially supported and a "do on your won risk" thing. Same like overclocking.

Two days (or three?) left, then the BS will stop. :rolleyes:

---

It's easy to trough "Invalid arguments" and "BS" on others, but you need something better than that to prove your claims. I suggest we keep it civilized.

It's degraded form 2GB to 1GB, what would you call it, an upgrade?

How does 6950-1GB aim to a different marked? I can't see it, Could you please explain this with constructive arguments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

It's degraded form 2GB to 1GB, what would you call it, an upgrade?

---

It's a matter of order of introduction, as simple as that. If the 1GB came earlier and now the 2GB was introduced, would you call it an upgrade? I doubt it, I wouldn't either. Going further, the GTX570 came a month after the GTX580. Is it a "downgrade" too? No, it's aimed at a different market (sorted by price and performance as the main differentiating factors).

Quote:

---

How does 6950-1GB aim to a different marked? I can't see it, Could you please explain this with constructive arguments?

---

That one is even simpler, the 1GB is for 19x12 folks, the 2GB is for 25x16 and higher - the eyefinity folks. Yes, AMD can do triple monitors with just one card, so a 2GB card has bigger market than such card from nVidia. 2GB would also appeal to the OpenCL folks more than just 1GB. Sure, the 2GB can do 19x12 just fine too, but it's overkill, except for very few games currently.

If the difference is only 20$/€, I can't see how buying an HD6950 1GB could be a smart choice over an HD6950 2GB...

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

It's a matter of order of introduction, as simple as that. If the 1GB came earlier and now the 2GB was introduced, would you call it an upgrade?

---

Sure, adding more memory IS an upgrade, adding more memory to your computer is considered an upgrade whether its used or not it is an upgrade.

Quote:

---

Going further, the GTX570 came a month after the GTX580. Is it a "downgrade" too? No, it's aimed at a different market (sorted by price and performance as the main differentiating factors).

---

Absolutely the 570 is a downgraded 580, both gf110 cores but the 570 is gimped in shaders & memory so it is in fact a downgrade from a 580 and cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

It's a matter of order of introduction, as simple as that. If the 1GB came earlier and now the 2GB was introduced, would you call it an upgrade? I doubt it, I wouldn't either. Going further, the GTX570 came a month after the GTX580. Is it a "downgrade" too? No, it's aimed at a different market (sorted by price and performance as the main differentiating factors).


That one is even simpler, the 1GB is for 19x12 folks, the 2GB is for 25x16 and higher - the eyefinity folks. Yes, AMD can do triple monitors with just one card, so a 2GB card has bigger market than such card from nVidia. 2GB would also appeal to the OpenCL folks more than just 1GB. Sure, the 2GB can do 19x12 just fine too, but it's overkill, except for very few games currently.

---

GTX570 is a downgrade version of GTX580, indeed. But that's much cheaper too, and that's why it can aim to another marked.

6950-1GB is a downgrade, but not as much, specially not the price. Most gamers will get the same performance with both, and you pay almost the same price too. It means. it is aiming to the same marked, but that marked doesn't exists in reality. Because nobody would buy 1GB just for the sake of $20 ,that's 0.07% price-difference compared to 2GB, but this can be unlocked to 6970. No sane person would buy 1GB then.

The 1GB is aiming to the same marked as 2GB, but that's actually a 6970 which you get for just $20 more in reality, so it means that's both same marked, and no marked for 1GB it in reality.