PDA

View Full Version : Which to get: GTX 570 ($310) or 6950 ($250)?


Pages : [1] 2

Moo
02-17-11, 12:42 PM
Trying to decide between a 570 and 6950.

Newegg has these prices AR:

HIS Radeon 6950 2GB = $250 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161355&cm_re=radeon_6950_2gb-_-14-161-355-_-Product)

PNY GTX 570 = $310 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133370&cm_re=gtx_570-_-14-133-370-_-Product)

Lower noise & power requirement are always nice... don't know if the 2GB on the 6950 is more future-proof than then 1.25GB on the 570...

Recommendations? If I get the 6950 I will probably just unlock teh shaders (lee)

Rummy
02-17-11, 01:05 PM
What resolution do you play at?

Moo
02-17-11, 01:28 PM
What resolution do you play at?

1920 x 1200

Roadhog
02-17-11, 01:33 PM
6950

Bigbuck
02-17-11, 01:43 PM
My 6950 2GB has handle everything I can throw at it at 1920x1080. Haven't tried unlocking it to a 6970 and don't see a need to until something starts pushing it. Looking at the titles coming out this year I don't think anything really will either.

Roadhog
02-17-11, 01:49 PM
You should ask yourself if you want to spend $60 more for 5fps.

Madpistol
02-17-11, 06:21 PM
The GTX 570 is the faster card. The 2GB of framebuffer on the 6950 will serve you better on future games, though.

john19055
02-18-11, 06:17 AM
I would go with the 6950 and there is a good chance that it will flash to a 6970.

Rollo
02-18-11, 06:32 AM
The GTX 570 is the faster card. The 2GB of framebuffer on the 6950 will serve you better on future games, though.

Unless Madpistol is a software developer working on a game that will require more than 1.28GB of VRAM at the OPs native res, I don't know how he (or anyone) can make this prediction.

The fact of the matter is most games are console ports, and consoles don't have 2GB of VRAM. The VRAM issue is only in play if the OP is thinking about going to three monitors, which hasn't been stated here.

For the hardware he has, the GTX570 is the better choice. Unlocking a 6950 isn't guaranteed, and has destroyed cards.

As far as the reputed "5fps difference" goes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/video/radeon-hd6970-hd6950/charts/24_69vs470aa_big.png

Revs
02-18-11, 06:59 AM
6950

The 570's extra cost is hard to justify and IMO ATI cards can get away with less AA due to the way it's implemented.

And yes Rollo, it is, on almost all the games that matter, only about 5% slower... http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-6950-6970-review/

Euphoria
02-18-11, 08:43 AM
I agree with Rollo. GTX570 is way better than 6950, it even beats HD6970 in most of the games.
That's the whole reason I went with GTX570.

I like ATI, and I was a happy HD4870 user but this time Nvidia has the upper hand.

Moo
02-18-11, 08:46 AM
Thanks for the responses.

I have a special interest in RPGs such as Fallout & Oblivion with the hi-rez user mods (and Skyrim when it comes out).

Which card will serve me better?

Redeemed
02-18-11, 11:10 AM
Unless Madpistol is a software developer working on a game that will require more than 1.28GB of VRAM at the OPs native res, I don't know how he (or anyone) can make this prediction.

The fact of the matter is most games are console ports, and consoles don't have 2GB of VRAM. The VRAM issue is only in play if the OP is thinking about going to three monitors, which hasn't been stated here.

For the hardware he has, the GTX570 is the better choice. Unlocking a 6950 isn't guaranteed, and has destroyed cards.

As far as the reputed "5fps difference" goes:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/video/radeon-hd6970-hd6950/charts/24_69vs470aa_big.png

Wait- adding tons of AA wont increase framebuffer usage? :wtf: I never new AA had was free in regards to framebuffer usage! :wonder:

Even for "console ports", tacking on AA increases framebuffer usage considerably. The higher the level of AA, the higher the framebuffer usage.

Thanks for the responses.

I have a special interest in RPGs such as Fallout & Oblivion with the hi-rez user mods (and Skyrim when it comes out).

Which card will serve me better?

6950 all the way. :)

Roadhog
02-18-11, 11:13 AM
Wait- adding tons of AA wont increase framebuffer usage? :wtf: I never new AA had was free in regards to framebuffer usage! :wonder:


Edge Detect AA doesn't Increase frame buffer usage. But I don't think nvidia has that feature.

Bigbuck
02-18-11, 11:24 AM
what processor do you use and how much RAM do you have?

i5 2500K stock clocks and 4GB 1333 I think it is.

Revs
02-18-11, 11:29 AM
I was just browsing and came across a post which explains what I thought when I first did the swap to ATi, and the main reason I'll be sticking with them unless they really mess up..

When I got my ATI 9800 XT and my HD 5970, I noticed something is "different" about AMD AA. It looks "better" and "sharper" in motion. I can't explain it. I do like their digital vibrance (color saturation) better than Nvidia on my monitor. I had a GTX 280 FTW when I upgraded to the HD 5970. I always picked high quality for bother Nvidia and AMD in the control panel.

It's true. ATi does give a more vibrant image and, to me at least, 2xAA on ATi looks as good as 4x or even 8x did on my 260.

So there :p

Redeemed
02-18-11, 11:36 AM
Edge Detect AA doesn't Increase frame buffer usage. But I don't think nvidia has that feature.

Really? I did not know this. I'll have to read up on this AA method more. :)

Rollo
02-19-11, 07:42 AM
Wait- adding tons of AA wont increase framebuffer usage? :wtf: I never new AA had was free in regards to framebuffer usage! :wonder:

Even for "console ports", tacking on AA increases framebuffer usage considerably. The higher the level of AA, the higher the framebuffer usage.



6950 all the way. :)

If your point is "Wait! At 32X MSAA you will exceed the 1.28GB framebuffer of the 570 but not 2GB framebuffer of the 6950!" don't you think that the argument would be more credible with some benchmarks that show the high AA is playable on the 6950, and what the VRAM usage is?

Revs
02-19-11, 09:51 AM
There are many games (Crysis, Metro, GTA, etc), mods and texture packs that would make good use of that memory. It might not effect fps too much overall but it does reduce texture swapping in fast moving scenes.

Rollo
02-19-11, 10:09 AM
There are many games (Crysis, Metro, GTA, etc), mods and texture packs that would make good use of that memory. It might not effect fps too much overall but it does reduce texture swapping in fast moving scenes.

OK that's a good theory, but this still isn't proof the 6950 would be better to have in these situations.

And what about these hypothetical situations? "maybe you could turn up the the AA high enough to find a setting where the 6950 would be better to have?" or "there are some game mods out there that might make a 6950 better to have"?

This stuff is supposed to outweigh:

1. Total dominance by the 570>6950 at the 8XAA benches at 19X10 I linked to
2. Possibility to use 3d Vision
3. Ability to use PhysX
4. Ability to force ambient occlusion
5. Games launching with NVIDIA specific features like the AA in BatmanAA and the water in Just Cause II
6. CUDA apps
7. Folding superiority

All I see on the ATi side is:
1. Single card Eyefinity (not in play here, and I guarantee you a 6950 isn't a 1080P Eyefinity solution)
2. You might be able to find some setting or mod where that memory would come in handy.

Seems like a very long way from the above to "6950 all the way!".

Revs
02-19-11, 11:15 AM
This stuff is supposed to outweigh:

1. Total dominance by the 570>6950 at the 8XAA benches at 19X10 I linked to
There are known problems in some of those games with 8xAA specifically. You just picked the one which made the 6950 look bad when it's probable it'll be fixed with a driver

2. Possibility to use 3d Vision
Personal preference, but I'm not keen.

3. Ability to use PhysX
See sig

4. Ability to force ambient occlusion
Fair enough

5. Games launching with NVIDIA specific features like the AA in BatmanAA and the water in Just Cause II
That's the devs fault, not ATi's. TBH I hadn't noticed the lack of AA in Batman and JC2 is crap

6. CUDA apps
Which ones might your average gamer use?

7. Folding superiority
Fair enough, if you fold

I see you also ignored my comments about ATi AA doing a better job and the colours being better.

At the end of the day, if you fold, want 3D or if you want PhysX but don't want to run the GenL mod, nV is the obvious choice. But if like me you don't want 3D and don't need Cuda, the 6950 is better value.

Also, keep in mind that my gfx card history is; 6800GT, 7900GTX, 8800GTS SLI, 8800GT SLI, 260GTX SLI, 5850 CF ;)

XDanger
02-19-11, 12:19 PM
You should ask yourself if you want to spend $60 more for 5fps.

I didn't.

That was the deciding factor for me.

The 560ti 2gb would have been the real competition in my mind if it came out before Christmas, But it didn't.

Moo
02-19-11, 01:33 PM
Folks, I ordered this 6950 (http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-TechBargains&cm_mmc=AFC-TechBargains-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16814131384) for $230 AR. Not too shabby...

Thanks for all the input :)

Rollo
02-19-11, 05:28 PM
Folks, I ordered this 6950 (http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-TechBargains&cm_mmc=AFC-TechBargains-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16814131384) for $230 AR. Not too shabby...

Thanks for all the input :)

What?! You are doomed!

Heh- should be a good card for you, enjoy. :)

Madpistol
02-19-11, 05:57 PM
Folks, I ordered this 6950 (http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-TechBargains&cm_mmc=AFC-TechBargains-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16814131384) for $230 AR. Not too shabby...

Thanks for all the input :)

Nice! Enjoy it. :)