GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores Review Comment Thread

[shark974]

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Yaaawn.

Fanboys don't seem to realize that the review was released more than a weeks ago.....before additional rebates were put in place for certain AMD cards.

And even with the rebates for AMD cards, I think most will agree with me that the 448 core card is STILL a better buy due to everything from driver support to overclockability.

/end response.

Driver support is pretty fanboy nonsense/message board noise imo. My 4890 never seems to have any of these alleged horrible driver issues. If anything I notice more problems with Nvidia cards (example, when BF3 came out some forum posters were saying even factory overclocked Nvidia cards needed to be turned down to stock to avoid problem in the game. WTF?).

Overclockability is a good point. But again useless on a VRAM limited card imo.

The rest boils down to you just ignoring the main problem, limited VRAM. Guess we agree to strongly disagree there.

But again, if you benched against a 1Gb 6950, your value proposition would have looked a lot different. And I dont see how you can say a 1GB 6950 isn't viable but a 1.28 GB card is....

I think the 560 Ti 448 would be a recommendable card if a 2560 MB version existed, but then again that would probably bump the cost $30+

[Soultribunal]

Driver issues are not Fanboi Based.
When Catalyst updates kept breaking my Crossfire support on my 6850's I finally got fed up. Sometimes it would boot with Crossfire, somtimes it wouldn't. And no, the cards weren't defective. Even XFX had done and RMA and cards tested perfect.

Coupled that with my friends constant issues with certain games (EVE and AA support, Wow and Eyefinity issues) its a real problem. Not something imagined in his head.

I have worked with almost every card in the 6000 series, an I would much rather backtrack to the 5000 series or 4 series (I have a 4890) than work with the new ones and there problems.

-ST

[SKYMTL]

Originally Posted by shark974

Driver support is pretty fanboy nonsense/message board noise imo. My 4890 never seems to have any of these alleged horrible driver issues. If anything I notice more problems with Nvidia cards (example, when BF3 came out some forum posters were saying even factory overclocked Nvidia cards needed to be turned down to stock to avoid problem in the game. WTF?).

So the complete lack of Skyrim support was fanboy nonsense?

AMD Game Forums - Xfire and skyrim low FPS

Guess HardOCP was just making things up too: HARDOCP - Conclusion - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Performance and IQ Review

For the record, AMD took three WEEKS to fix performance.


Next up we have Rage.

Was Bethesda themselves BSing? Bethesda: Rage AMD Drivers


Can 34 pages of pretty negative comments about AMD's lack of BF3 support be wrong: Battlefield 3 Crossfire issues? Complete list of known fix's here! 11.11c link inside!

For the record, it took them two releases to sort of nail things down and performance is STILL not up to par.

Overclockability is a good point. But again useless on a VRAM limited card imo.

The rest boils down to you just ignoring the main problem, limited VRAM. Guess we agree to strongly disagree there.

Where do you see ANY limitation of VRAM other than Shogun 2? Remember this isn't a card that is supposed to target the 2560 crowd.

And I did bench against a 1GB HD 6950....

[morphy]

If I can weigh in here. I consider the 560Ti 448c an upper midrange card. For $300 it's reasonable for a card meant for 1920x1080/1200. Due I expect to play Ultra all the time with 1280Mb VRAM? Probably not - I'll go Ultra but scale down a bit on textures and still get very good fps.

As for the 6950 with 2GB sure you could do Ultra but you will trade off fps vs the 560Ti448. Eye candy is great but you still need the horsepower to keep up the eye candy.

I think AMD drivers are great - for single GPU cards. Not so good for Crossfire. My last 2 cards were AMD single cards and they served me well. As problem free as a card can get.

[AkG]

Who in there right mind spends 800+ on a monitor then uses a single gpu that only costs 3bills? You will run out of performance (ie Frames per second) long before memory becomes an issue with that kind of combo. This is why I personally consider the 448 to be a better fit for 24" or less monitors...as it makes a lot more sense to pair a 3bill monitor with a 3bill gpu.

Personally...I dont even consider a single 580 to be a great fit for 27 or 30 inch monitors.

YMMV...but fanbois sure are entertaining! :)

[poohbear]

why do you have the resolution 1920x1200 in your benchmarks? 1920x 1080 is by far the most dominant resolution on the market today (you even state Nvidia & AMD acknowledge this and are targeting it), and yet you're showing benchmarks using 1920x1200 because...? Look @ the Steam survery for November 2011, 24% have 1920x1080 (the highest number & its growing), and only 8% have 1920x1200(that percentage is falling). Get with the times please.

[SugarJ]

Why would he do the tests at a marginally lower resolution? If a card runs a game at 50 FPS at 1920x1200, it will be better at 1920x1080. Those members that have 16:10 monitors instead of 16:9 ones appreciate the fact that the more demanding resolution is tested. The only time it would make a difference is if a game is unplayable at 1920x1200, it might be borderline playable at 1080, but still not enjoyable.

[rjbarker]

Who in there right mind spends 800+ on a monitor then uses a single gpu that only costs 3bills? You will run out of performance (ie Frames per second) long before memory becomes an issue with that kind of combo. This is why I personally consider the 448 to be a better fit for 24" or less monitors...as it makes a lot more sense to pair a 3bill monitor with a 3bill gpu.

Personally...I dont even consider a single 580 to be a great fit for 27 or 30 inch monitors.

Your are absolutely correct, these most recent titles coming out run absolutely great on a 580 SLi config at 2560 x 1440, a single Card you most certainly would have to dial back some settings!!! As far as that 560 ti 448 Core goes...I threw two of the 560 ti's in a recent build, along with an older Evga X58 SLi Board and my old I7 920...the thing rocks at 1920 x 1200 Res (there 1GB Cards), would imagine things would only be that much better with these two new 560 ti's !!

[GT7R]

While I think that at the current generation NVIDIA are superior, they being a bit greedy with the VRAM for their cards. The 570 & 580 surely deserve 2 gigs and the 560 should get 1.5 at least... everyone I know who wanted to SLI 2 580's (usually for high res performance) was looking at the 3 GB versions.
Heck they did it since the 8800 with endless memory options (320, 512, 768, 1024)... with VRAM being so sheap these days, why? Maybe it's just one more way of charging more for their products (knowing that there will be a demand for higher memory cards).