GTX 560 Coming soon!

[saaya]

1200 on air? holy shT!

and eyefinity is the reason amd should charge more for their cards wtf???
considering 570s cost 100$ more than 560s, the 560 actually looks like the best card to get...

actually, the best price perf card to get is the 560 imo, the best highend card to get is the 570, and the best entry level card to get seems to be the 460...
amds lineup really sucks right now... cant believe they screwed up so bad...
all they got is eyefinity and a theoretical transistor efficiency and die size advantage, and thats it
i dont get it though, amd has the advantage in theory, but they lose in almost every segment in reality...
i guess its cause they were too damn greedy when it came to transistor budgets for their chips, and yields on 40nm are so good now that nvidias chips have good enough yields even though they are larger...

makes sense, with perfect yields double the transistors result in only double the chip cost, and with a chip costing around 35$ thats not a big deal...
so 35$ more and you get almost double the performance... so if yields are good, keeping transistor budgets low and focusing on transistor efficiency doesnt make a big difference

it seems to be a re-occuring ati problem, as most of their refreshes underperform because they keep the chips too small.
in theory, this should mean atis 2xnm chips will rock again though, as there yields will be an issue again and you have to get as much out of your limited transistor budget as possible... but for now... amd cards are just not worth their money imo...

i dont know... nvidia has usually the fastest card, but they charge a bonus for it, fair enough.
then every now and then they have awesome price perf cards, like the 560 now.

ati used to offer the same or MORE performance than nvidias competing products for a LOWER price...
lately ati tries to sell their cards for as much as they can and are really greedy, not offering any great deals for quite a while...
fair enough, charging as much as you can works, but im pretty sure they could have sold more cards if they had cut prices and created an awesome price perf part... the reduced profits per card would have been made up by the increased volume... this is how it used to work for ati... they could have sold their 8500 and 9700 for even more, but they didnt and thats what made them so popular...

[bakalu]

Kinda smart idea on behalf of AMD releasing the 11.1a i think it is which should keep the 69XX cards above the 560's kinda smart strategy.. These 560's do clock like kings, even up to 1200 without any problems on air..

are you sure, show me the link ?

[tajoh111]

I think he is talking about monstru overclocking study.

[Lanek]

1200mhz and only 21K GPU score ? something is wrong there.

Lol edit, the screen of Jonny was too little and i was read his test.. this score was with 1000mhz ... still rather low when a 5870@1000 do 24K+ in vantage gpu score

[Sam_oslo]

1200 on air? holy shT!

and eyefinity is the reason amd should charge more for their cards wtf???
considering 570s cost 100$ more than 560s, the 560 actually looks like the best card to get...

actually, the best price perf card to get is the 560 imo, the best highend card to get is the 570, and the best entry level card to get seems to be the 460...
amds lineup really sucks right now... cant believe they screwed up so bad...
all they got is eyefinity and a theoretical transistor efficiency and die size advantage, and thats it
i dont get it though, amd has the advantage in theory, but they lose in almost every segment in reality...
i guess its cause they were too damn greedy when it came to transistor budgets for their chips, and yields on 40nm are so good now that nvidias chips have good enough yields even though they are larger...

makes sense, with perfect yields double the transistors result in only double the chip cost, and with a chip costing around 35$ thats not a big deal...
so 35$ more and you get almost double the performance... so if yields are good, keeping transistor budgets low and focusing on transistor efficiency doesnt make a big difference

it seems to be a re-occuring ati problem, as most of their refreshes underperform because they keep the chips too small.
in theory, this should mean atis 2xnm chips will rock again though, as there yields will be an issue again and you have to get as much out of your limited transistor budget as possible... but for now... amd cards are just not worth their money imo...

i dont know... nvidia has usually the fastest card, but they charge a bonus for it, fair enough.
then every now and then they have awesome price perf cards, like the 560 now.

ati used to offer the same or MORE performance than nvidias competing products for a LOWER price...
lately ati tries to sell their cards for as much as they can and are really greedy, not offering any great deals for quite a while...
fair enough, charging as much as you can works, but im pretty sure they could have sold more cards if they had cut prices and created an awesome price perf part... the reduced profits per card would have been made up by the increased volume... this is how it used to work for ati... they could have sold their 8500 and 9700 for even more, but they didnt and thats what made them so popular...

You have many good points there.

I personally, have always reacted when people argue with die-size, transistor-count, yield (and other manufacturing costs). Because as you've mentioned correctly "costing around 35$ thats not a big deal...". The real cost is in R&D, PR, sales and such. Manufacturing cost is not a big chunk of the total cost. and that's why the sales-volume becomes a really important factor.

AMD could make a bigger 6970 chip and beat/match 580 actually. They could double the transistor-count (for only 35$ +/- some, not a big deal) without hitting the heat or power usage wall. They could easily spend 35$ (+/- some) and do it, but they underestimated the flexibility of Fermi-architecture. They thought 580 was a 480 + "minor"-improvements, and they wouldn't need more to beat it. they didn't expect such a good 580 really. That was the first mistake in this round.

The second mistake (and even bigger) came when they released 6950-1GB. They spend time and money to make a "change", but they chose to "degraded" the 6950-2GB and use it for a mainstream-fight. In my opinion, it was really bad move, they should somehow (i dunno how) "upgrade" the 6970 to take a fight with 580. This move didn't beat 560, but created a big mess for them too. Now they have many cards that "performs the same for most gamers" on their hand.


nVidia did a really good job with 560. They got the upper-hand over 6950-1Gb/2GB, in performance/OCing/power-usage for most gamers, and they priced it under too, at start!

But the mainstream is not about performance-crown, its' all about price/performance-ratio, and as you mentioned, AMD can still drop the prices and put up a good price-fight. They made a good attempt already at the first day of 560-release, but it will be interesting to see nVidia's counter-attack.

AMD may get problems following nVidia in an aggressive price-war tho, because 560 is a mainstream card, and has been developed for a "cheap" marked, while AMD is using those "degraded" high-end cards to fight. It will be interesting to see how far they can follow nVidia in near future.

It can get really ugly, depending on nVidi's resistivity. 560 got a good price already, but I'm still crossing finger for $199. It will be interesting to see that

[Lanek]

Again Sam, you forget the most important thing about 6970 .... they have need decrease their initial design, after staying in 40nm.. the 6970 allready have an high TDP ... If they was in 32nm, they could have surely put 6-8 more SMID and surely too push some different things in addition .... It's not the case, so they have do what they can do on a so short time. It's maybe why we see some counter performance in some games vs 5870 ( slower in Dirt2, slower at low resolution, slower in some other games.. or is it just a driver question ? not sure )

They have sell allready 35M of DX11 GPU's sold in 2010 .... ( 16M on July 2010 ).. I think their strategy was to be able to maintain their profit, and waiting next gen in 28nm.. not get the crown of the faster single gpu cards ... then will come the 6990 for enthusiast ( whatever we can think about dual gpu cards . )

[Jodiuh]

significant? in this chart we're looking at crap fps from every card.

Because they test SP only and not in real conditions, this chart reflects what I've seen from 470 and 6870 in an actual online 32/32 server frag fest. In SP, the cards can be very close. But once you start exploding MCOMs in your face, 6870 FPS falls hard and 470 wins by about that % shown in the chart.

So which one of these do I want? The Gigabyte Super OC 1Ghz? The MSI Twin Frozr/freezer, whatever, terrible name!? The Asus?

SKYMTL: I'd love to have your input on this.

[duploxxx]

Different environments, different test conditions, GPU samples, etc can all impact upon the results methinks.

thx for the try but I do prefer to trust the data provided by anandtech rather then you
sites that measure the total power consumption of the system always end up with higher power consumption with the default cards btw, not mentioning the OC parts....

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/17/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4135/n...-250-market/16
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...60-ti-review/7

You have many good points there.

I personally, have always reacted when people argue with die-size, transistor-count, yield (and other manufacturing costs). Because as you've mentioned correctly "costing around 35$ thats not a big deal...". The real cost is in R&D, PR, sales and such. Manufacturing cost is not a big chunk of the total cost. and that's why the sales-volume becomes a really important factor.

AMD could make a bigger 6970 chip and beat/match 580 actually. They could double the transistor-count (for only 35$ +/- some, not a big deal) without hitting the heat or power usage wall. They could easily spend 35$ (+/- some) and do it, but they underestimated the flexibility of Fermi-architecture. They thought 580 was a 480 + "minor"-improvements, and they wouldn't need more to beat it. they didn't expect such a good 580 really. That was the first mistake in this round.

The second mistake (and even bigger) came when they released 6950-1GB. They spend time and money to make a "change", but they chose to "degraded" the 6950-2GB and use it for a mainstream-fight. In my opinion, it was really bad move, they should somehow (i dunno how) "upgrade" the 6970 to take a fight with 580. This move didn't beat 560, but created a big mess for them too. Now they have many cards that "performs the same for most gamers" on their hand.


nVidia did a really good job with 560. They got the upper-hand over 6950-1Gb/2GB, in performance/OCing/power-usage for most gamers, and they priced it under too, at start!

But the mainstream is not about performance-crown, its' all about price/performance-ratio, and as you mentioned, AMD can still drop the prices and put up a good price-fight. They made a good attempt already at the first day of 560-release, but it will be interesting to see nVidia's counter-attack.

AMD may get problems following nVidia in an aggressive price-war tho, because 560 is a mainstream card, and has been developed for a "cheap" marked, while AMD is using those "degraded" high-end cards to fight. It will be interesting to see how far they can follow nVidia in near future.

It can get really ugly, depending on nVidi's resistivity. 560 got a good price already, but I'm still crossing finger for $199. It will be interesting to see that

ATI always use there dual card for the high-end, it was never the intention with 6970 and yes performance wasn't that great from 69xx series, forgot a few months ago where 6870 totally destroyed prices 460-465-470, ah you probably don't, you're still pissed for that.

NV has to regain marketshare and profit these days from there initial fermi losses, so I won't think they will drop 560 any time soon as long as they don't need to, they have upset the board makers a long time with the 2xx and 4xx series.

OH you also need to start talking with few GPU marketing folks from NV and ATI to get a better idea about the market, the 69xx-68xx or 56x are not mainstream cards, they call them performance - enthousiast. The real mainstream is like the 65-66xx series where the mass volume is from OEM supplies

and the best entry level card to get seems to be the 460...

did you ever check any price/performance/power of the 68xx series against the 460???
not to mention NV still doesn't have anything against the 57xx ehh rebranded 67xx series.

[Johnny87au]

hey guys according to hazzan he has the 1200 AIR clocked screeny, just waiting for him to post it..

[Pantsu]

GF114 seems to have quite a variance in oc ability. A lot of the reviews can't make 950 Mhz yet Gigabyte sells binned 1GHz cards and the best OCs in reviews seem to be around 1050 Mhz. Looks like the Gigabyte SOC would be the card to pick, but somehow I think the availability will be limited and the price ends up higher than what it should be.

To me GTX 560 seems a great card if it manages to OC to 1Ghz+ rather than "only" 900Mhz+. AMD certainly doesn't need to do anything more than what it did by dropping prices and introducing the 1GB 6950. I really don't see how AMD is in trouble because of GTX 560 like some people seem to think. They'll soon have the 6990 too for the performance crown. It makes absolutely no sense for AMD to start making huge chips like Nvidia, it would completely break their sweet spot strategy that has worked extremely well since 3800 series. You really want another R600 or a GF100?

[Jodiuh]

Overclocker's club looked @ both the Asus and the MSI. I clipped a pic of both sinks...I think the winner's pretty clear, lol.

[Mungri]

Overclocker's club looked @ both the Asus and the MSI. I clipped a pic of both sinks...I think the winner's pretty clear, lol.

LOL!!!!

Good thing I went for the MSIs, and they were £27 cheaper too

[Sam_oslo]

GF114 seems to have quite a variance in oc ability. A lot of the reviews can't make 950 Mhz yet Gigabyte sells binned 1GHz cards and the best OCs in reviews seem to be around 1050 Mhz. Looks like the Gigabyte SOC would be the card to pick, but somehow I think the availability will be limited and the price ends up higher than what it should be.

To me GTX 560 seems a great card if it manages to OC to 1Ghz+ rather than "only" 900Mhz+. AMD certainly doesn't need to do anything more than what it did by dropping prices and introducing the 1GB 6950. I really don't see how AMD is in trouble because of GTX 560 like some people seem to think. They'll soon have the 6990 too for the performance crown. It makes absolutely no sense for AMD to start making huge chips like Nvidia, it would completely break their sweet spot strategy that has worked extremely well since 3800 series. You really want another R600 or a GF100?

Interesting, dose it mean there is several different biding of 560 are out there? Maybe I have to use my Intel batch#-hunting skills here too?


Yeah, 6990 is still a wild card in AMDs hand. It better be competitive, and be on time, too. It will be interesting to see how this "new" redesigned/re-freshed (or whatever you want to call it) chip will do after that nasty delay.
If it can't stand to the hype, AMD may be in trouble, because nVidia has at least a couple of options for a double-GPU (2x560, 2x570) to trough on it and ruin it just at release time. Lets hope it can deliver what we all are expecting, and be on time too.

[Johnny87au]

8mm heatpipes x4, dam they are friggin huge..

[Jodiuh]

The Asus almost looks like a Northbridge cooler. Now just waiting for the Egg promo on the MSI...oooh! Maybe Metro 2033!

[Mungri]

I'll have more pics + benchies of my MSIs up soon in the MSI 560 thread. This way you get to see some actual retail non cherry picked cards and how they manage .

Wiping my drivers now, brb.

[tajoh111]

thx for the try but I do prefer to trust the data provided by anandtech rather then you
sites that measure the total power consumption of the system always end up with higher power consumption with the default cards btw, not mentioning the OC parts....

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1533/17/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4135/n...-250-market/16
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...60-ti-review/7




ATI always use there dual card for the high-end, it was never the intention with 6970 and yes performance wasn't that great from 69xx series, forgot a few months ago where 6870 totally destroyed prices 460-465-470, ah you probably don't, you're still pissed for that.

NV has to regain marketshare and profit these days from there initial fermi losses, so I won't think they will drop 560 any time soon as long as they don't need to, they have upset the board makers a long time with the 2xx and 4xx series.

OH you also need to start talking with few GPU marketing folks from NV and ATI to get a better idea about the market, the 69xx-68xx or 56x are not mainstream cards, they call them performance - enthousiast. The real mainstream is like the 65-66xx series where the mass volume is from OEM supplies



did you ever check any price/performance/power of the 68xx series against the 460???

The 6970 was entirely meant to go against the gtx 480. There is no doubt about it(not the gtx 580 which no one expected to even come out this soon). If you look at the power profile of the 6970, it has the characteristic of a high end 500 dollar card.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...D_6970/27.html

From a wattage perspective, the 6970 has a more similar power output to the 5970 then any recent single GPU from AMD in the last 3 years. The only thing that approaches this level of power consumption from them is the 2900xt which was definitely AMD enthusiast single GPU card.

In addition, the 6970 itself will probably not be able to make it into the dual GPU 6990, unless they the card savagely underclocked(i.e 650 or less considering the 5970 725mhz speed) or shatter the power barrier(these cards use more power than gtx 285 during gaming and the dual card of that was a disaster).

Considering the power characteristics, the 6950 seems the perfect GPU to put into the 6990 as it has the perfect power envelope and unlike the 5870, it might be able to be clocked closer to its reference clocks even in dual card form.

The 6970 to me was AMD attempt to take back the single GPU crown which they haven't held onto in 4 years. The proof is how many sacrifices they made and how many unwise business decisions in retrospect with the card they made and the pricing they are currently at. The power usage increase between the 6970 and 6950 are too much considering how much performance is gained. The only reason I can imagine why they made this sacrifice was to gain the extra performance needed to beat the gtx 480 and capture the crown.

The 6970 first off uses too much power to be used as a dual GPU part as mentioned earlier. In addition the 69xx series is too cheap a price to be a smart business move for them. The 6950 price is 299 while the 6870 was 239. Considering the 50% die size increase, the 1gb of extra memory, the better vapor chamber cooler, the larger and more complex PCB, the 6950 is too cheap to be a smart business move for AMD. Same with the 6970. It is the same price as the 5870 but sounds significantly pricier to make.

What happened is surprise competition popped up which wrestle AMD down into a lower price point then they wanted. Which is why the 6870 was priced more in line with the features/cost to make because it had no competition initially; compared to the 69xx series which had lots of competition from the get go and had to be priced lower as a result. If NV didn't release the 5xx series, I am certain we would be paying higher prices.

[RaZz!]

Interesting, dose it mean there is several different biding of 560 are out there? Maybe I have to use my Intel batch#-hunting skills here too?


Yeah, 6990 is still a wild card in AMDs hand. It better be competitive, and be on time, too. It will be interesting to see how this "new" redesigned/re-freshed (or whatever you want to call it) chip will do after that nasty delay.
If it can't stand to the hype, AMD may be in trouble, because nVidia has at least a couple of options for a double-GPU (2x560, 2x570) to trough on it and ruin it just at release time. Lets hope it can deliver what we all are expecting, and be on time too.

mh, for me, dual-gpu cards are always pretty unspectacular, since 2 single-gpu cards in crossfire/sli give a pretty good estimate of the performance

since crossfire scaling is very good with these 6900's the 6990 will be a hell of a card.
the only thing that worries me a bit is powertune and whether it turns out as a bottleneck or not. though, i'm sure amd won't disappoint.

[Pantsu]

I don't see the few extra shaders making a lot of difference in power consumption. The difference between 6950 and 6970 power consumption is mostly due to voltage difference. My guess is Antilles will be 2x full Caymans at 6950 clocks. They'll probably use PowerTune to enforce the 300W limit, but otherwise this will probably suck as much power as the 4870x2 does. Remember 4870 sucked power like nobody's business, yet they used it for 4870x2. If they could do such a card back then, why couldn't they do it now?

[SKYMTL]

Kinda smart idea on behalf of AMD releasing the 11.1a i think it is which should keep the 69XX cards above the 560's kinda smart strategy..

I actually retested all of the AMD cards with the 11.1a prior to the review. The real differences were really not all that much other than a huge improvement in F1 2010 DX11 2560 x 1600 8xMSAA. AvP got a small boost as well but otherwise, the performance between the previous WHQL and the newest "hotfix" was next to nothing.

So which one of these do I want? The Gigabyte Super OC 1Ghz? The MSI Twin Frozr/freezer, whatever, terrible name!? The Asus?

SKYMTL: I'd love to have your input on this.

I have the ASUS and MSI here along with an EVGA card. Still waiting on the GB for some reason.

Personally, I think it is a tossup between the three you mentioned and pricing should win out in the end. The MSI may have a substantially better LOOKING heatsink with higher performance heatpipes but the difference between it and the ASUS card will likely only be a few degrees celcius. Will you notice the difference? Not likely since from my understanding, overclocking on these cards is limited not by cooling performance but rather by the cores themselves.

So in the end I would just pick up whichever one is least expensive. Just be aware that Gigabyte's warranty begins from the MANUFACTURING date rather than the purchase date.

[bamtan2]

Overclocker's club looked @ both the Asus and the MSI. I clipped a pic of both sinks...I think the winner's pretty clear, lol.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...560coolers.jpg

It isn't 4x8mm, just look at them. Many of the twin frozr coolers include two different sizes of heatpipe.

[Mungri]

It isn't 4x8mm, just look at them. Many of the twin frozr coolers include two different sizes of heatpipe.

They are 8mm, it says so on my box, and all 4 heatpipes are the same size.

68 degrees max @ 900 Mhz in 3d mark Vantage and 11 is super nice, and I even took out my Antec spotcool fan, these MSI cards dont need it (top card was 68 max, bottom was 66 at 900 Mhz).

Oh no I take that back - in the picture the middle two do look smaller! I dont want to open my case again now or take one out to measure

[Manicdan]

I have the ASUS and MSI here along with an EVGA card. Still waiting on the GB for some reason.

Personally, I think it is a tossup between the three you mentioned and pricing should win out in the end. The MSI may have a substantially better LOOKING heatsink with higher performance heatpipes but the difference between it and the ASUS card will likely only be a few degrees celcius. Will you notice the difference? Not likely since from my understanding, overclocking on these cards is limited not by cooling performance but rather by the cores themselves.

So in the end I would just pick up whichever one is least expensive. Just be aware that Gigabyte's warranty begins from the MANUFACTURING date rather than the purchase date.

heres a great place that has all 3 gpus, Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI
there is a difference, and its not that much.
in the end it looks like waiting for the Gigabyte card is the way to go

Images of cards and their specs:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20293/3

results:




the funny part is how well the stock cooling does (even though its at much lower clocks)

[bamtan2]

They are 8mm, it says so on my box, and all 4 heatpipes are the same size.

68 degrees max @ 900 Mhz in 3d mark Vantage and 11 is super nice, and I even took out my Antec spotcool fan, these MSI cards dont need it (top card was 68 max, bottom was 66 at 900 Mhz).

Oh no I take that back - in the picture the middle two do look smaller! I dont want to open my case again now or take one out to measure

two are 8mm http://us.msi.com/index.php?func=pro...6&prod_no=2087

[xdan]

the funny part is how well the stock cooling does (even though its at much lower clocks)

Well it has as well 3 Cu heatpipes as well as copper base.
Just it has small fins area in order to disipate more efficient the heat.
This first introduced reference cooler with GTX 460 it's a sucess also and will be probably used for future mainstream 28nm Nvidia cards.