• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1 GB

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.22/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
The 560, well at least the MSi one, has a phenomenal cooler. And they overclock extremely well, again at least the MSi one does with its non-reference cooler. Overclocked to 1GHz and running at on average 68c when gaming is excellent. Even when I ran extended Furmark stress tests it only maxed at 73c.

Oh wow, really!?! So there is not chance a GTX470 would get an aftermarket cooler, interesting. We should just compare the aftermarket Twin Frozr II cooler to the stock GTX470 cooler than and make comments based on that comparision. Oh wait, there was a GTX470 with the exact same cooler...:twitch:...Holy Shit...THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!

And if you are lucky enough to hit 1GHz with the card, W1z's sample just barely managed that at maximum voltage, the GTX470@800MHz would still likely outperform it, and the GTX470 would probably still have voltage headroom to spare.
 
Last edited:

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.25/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
Oh wow, really!?! So there is not chance a GTX470 would get an aftermarket cooler, interesting. We should just compare the aftermarket Twin Frozr II cooler to the stock GTX470 cooler than and make comments based on that comparision. Oh wait, there was a GTX470 with the exact same cooler...:twitch:...Holy Shit...THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!

And if you are lucky enough to hit 1GHz with the card, W1z's sample just barely managed that at maximum voltage, the GTX470@800MHz would still likely outperform it, and the GTX470 would probably still has voltage headroom to spare.


oh no the 470 sucks and the 560 is the best MIDRANGE card ever. anyone want to know why a top card beats a midrange? same reason a 7900GT beats a 8600GT. last years top cards always beat this years middle ones
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.22/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
oh no the 470 sucks and the 560 is the best MIDRANGE card ever. anyone want to know why a top card beats a midrange? same reason a 7900GT beats a 8600GT. last years top cards always beat this years middle ones

This is particularly true when this generation's cards are just a minor refresh of the previous generation using the same architecture(and some would argue the same actual GPU in the GTX560's case).
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.25/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
This is particularly true when this generation's cards are just a minor refresh of the previous generation using the same architecture(and some would argue the same actual GPU in the GTX560's case).

i thought the 560 was new fermi but still had the holy hell cut out of it...
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.22/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
i thought the 560 was new fermi but still had the holy hell cut out of it...

The only people that know for sure are nVidia. It seems to me that GF114 is just GF104 with all the shaders enabled, they even have identical transistor count(while the transistor count changed between GF100 and GF110). Even the power consumption went up with the extra shaders/clock speed(while it went down between GF100 and GF110). To me that shows that there really is no difference between GF114 and GF104, or if there is any difference it is extremely minor. The slightly better overall overclocking of the GTX560 could entirely come down to the 4+1 Power design of the GTX560 vs. the 3+1 design of the GTX460.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.25/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
The only people that know for sure are nVidia. It seems to me that GF114 is just GF104 with all the shaders enabled, they even have identical transistor count(while the transistor count changed between GF100 and GF110). Even the power consumption went up with the extra shaders/clock speed(while it went down between GF100 and GF110). To me that shows that there really is no difference between GF114 and GF104, or if there is any difference it is extremely minor.

wonder if someone pops the top and measures the dies on both if that would answer this
 

jzintar

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
7 (0.00/day)
Processor i7-950 @ 4.02GHz
Motherboard Asus x58 Sabretooth
Cooling Noctua D14
Memory Corsair XMS3 6GB - 1750/7-8-7-20-1t
Video Card(s) MSi 560GTX-Ti @ 1GHz/1.2GHz/2GHz
Storage Crucial 64GB SSD Sata III/2x1TB Samsung
Display(s) HP2710m
Case Corsair 600T
Audio Device(s) Internal
Power Supply Corsair 850AX Pro
Software Windows 7 - 64bit

I know, but you pointed out it didn't have a very good cooler. None of the reference coolers for any of the cards are that great, but many of the non-reference cards are quite nice. The reason I choose the MSi card was due to the cooler, 40 bucks cheaper than a 470, and if overclocked, better performance due to higher head room to overclock due to improved thermal and power specifications for the 560 chip over the 470. Don't get me wrong the 470 MSi card is great and roughly equal except for running hotter and not overclocking as well. Review after review states those same facts.
 

jzintar

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
7 (0.00/day)
Processor i7-950 @ 4.02GHz
Motherboard Asus x58 Sabretooth
Cooling Noctua D14
Memory Corsair XMS3 6GB - 1750/7-8-7-20-1t
Video Card(s) MSi 560GTX-Ti @ 1GHz/1.2GHz/2GHz
Storage Crucial 64GB SSD Sata III/2x1TB Samsung
Display(s) HP2710m
Case Corsair 600T
Audio Device(s) Internal
Power Supply Corsair 850AX Pro
Software Windows 7 - 64bit
The only people that know for sure are nVidia. It seems to me that GF114 is just GF104 with all the shaders enabled, they even have identical transistor count(while the transistor count changed between GF100 and GF110). Even the power consumption went up with the extra shaders/clock speed(while it went down between GF100 and GF110). To me that shows that there really is no difference between GF114 and GF104, or if there is any difference it is extremely minor. The slightly better overall overclocking of the GTX560 could entirely come down to the 4+1 Power design of the GTX560 vs. the 3+1 design of the GTX460.

Here are few quotes from Anandtech's technical review that may shed some light:

GTX 560 Ti, in a nutshell, is a complete video card using the GF104 design; it is to GTX 460 what GTX 580 was to GTX 480. With the GTX 460 we saw NVIDIA disable some functional units and limit the clockspeeds, but for GTX 560 Ti they’re going all out. Every functional unit is enabled, and clockspeeds are much higher, with a core clock of 822MHz being what we believe is much closer to the original design specifications of GF104. Even though GF114 is identical to GF104 in architecture and the number of functional units, as we’re going to see the resulting video cards are quite different – GTX 560 Ti is quite a bit faster than GTX 460 most of the time.

So how is NVIDIA accomplishing this? Much like what GF110 did for GF100, GF114 is doing for GF104. NVIDIA has resorted to tinkering with the Fermi family at a low level to optimize their designs against TSMC’s mature 40nm process, paying much closer attention to the types of transistors used in order to minimize leakage. As a result of the more mature manufacturing process and NVIDIA’s optimizations, they are now able to enable previously disabled functional units and raise clock speeds while keeping these revised GPUs in the same power envelopes as their first-generation predecessors. This is allowing NVIDIA to improve performance and/or power consumption even though these revised chips are virtually identical to their predecessors.

On GF110, we saw NVIDIA choose to take moderate gains in both performance and power consumption. In the case of GF114/GTX 560 however, NVIDIA is choosing to focus on improving performance while leaving power consumption largely unchanged – GTX 460 after all was a well-balanced part in the first place, so why change what already works?

In order to achieve the larger performance jump they’re shooting for, NVIDIA is tackling this from two sides. First of course is the enabling of previously disabled functional units – GTX 460 1GB had all 32 of its ROPs and associated hardware enabled, but only 7 of its 8 SMs enabled, leaving its geometry/shading/texturing power slightly crippled from what the GF104 chip was fully capable of. Like GF110/GTX 580, GF114/GTX 560 Ti will be a fully enabled part: all 384 CUDA Cores, 64 texture units, 8 Polymorph Engines, 32 ROPs, 512KB L2 cache, 4x64bit memory controllers are present, accounted for, and functional. Thus compared to GTX 460 1GB in particular, GTX 560 Ti immediately has more shading, texturing, and geometry performance than its predecessor, with roughly a 14% advantage over a similarly clocked GTX 460 1GB.

The other aspect of improving performance is improving the clockspeed. As you may recall GTX 460 was quite the charming overclocking card, as even without GPU overvolting we could routinely get 20% or more over the stock clock speed of 675MHz; to the point where NVIDIA tried to make an unofficial product out of partner cards with these lofty overclocks. For GTX 560 Ti NVIDIA has rolled these clocks in to the product, with GTX 560 Ti shipping at an 822MHz core clock and 1002MHz (4008MHz data rate) memory clock. This represents a 147Mhz (22%) core clock increase, and a more mild 102MHz (11%) memory clock increase over the GTX 460 1GB. Coupled with the aforementioned 14% increase in SMs, and it’s clear that there’s a quite a potential performance improvement for the GTX 560 even though we’re still technically looking at the same GPU.

As NVIDIA is not looking to significantly move the power envelope on the GTX 560 Ti compared to the GTX 460 1GB, the TDP remains similar. NVIDIA never specifies an idle TDP, but with their transistor level changes it should be lower. Meanwhile load TDP is going up by 10W, from 160W on the GTX 460 1GB to 170W on the GTX 560 Ti. 10W shouldn’t make for a significant difference, but it does drive home the point that NVIDIA is focusing more on performance at the slight expense of power this time around. GF114 is pin compatible with GF104, so partners can drop it in to existing GTX 460 designs, but those designs will need to be able to handle the extra power draw and heat. NVIDIA’s own reference design has been bulked up some, as we’ll see when we dissect the card.

So while pin compatible with the 460 GF104, the internals are different.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,472 (4.22/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
I know, but you pointed out it didn't have a very good cooler. None of the reference coolers for any of the cards are that great, but many of the non-reference cards are quite nice. The reason I choose the MSi card was due to the cooler, 40 bucks cheaper than a 470, and if overclocked, better performance due to higher head room to overclock due to improved thermal and power specifications for the 560 chip over the 470. Don't get me wrong the 470 MSi card is great and roughly equal except for running hotter and not overclocking as well. Review after review states those same facts.

No, you pointed out that the GTX560 has a better cooler than the GTX470, which isn't true. Stock vs. Stock the GTX470 cooler is better. You tried to compare an aftermarket cooler to the stock GTX470 cooler to validate your comment, and we pointed out that the same aftermarket cooler came on the GTX470.

The GTX470 doesn't reach the same clock speeds as the GTX560 with the same cooler, but it still outperforms it. I've stated this several times. Even if you managed to get 1GHz on the MSI card, a GTX470@800MHz with the stock cooler would match it, and a GTX470 with the same aftermarket cooler could easily go beyond 800MHz and outperform the GTX560.

You are confusing clock speed for performance, the GTX470 doesn't need the higher clock speed because it is such a beefy card to start out with. That is why its only 5-10% behind the stock GTX560 despite a 200MHz clock disadvantage. When talking about not overclocking as well, I look at what percentage the card can overclock, not the actual final clock speeds. The GTX470, on a stock cooler, can easily hit 30% overclocks and with the Twin Frozr II it is possible to hit a 40% overclock. While the GTX560 on the Twin Frozr II still is barely breaking a 20% overclock. The 40% overclock on the GTX470 easily makes up for the inital 5-10% disadvantage and then some.

Here are few quotes from Anandtech's technical review that may shed some light:

...

So while pin compatible with the 460 GF104, the internals are different.

Yes, and as I said, it is all done from someone guessing on the outside from observations. This isn't nVidia saying this, it is some reviewer that is just guessing. I on the other hand am guessing that there is no changes, and if there are they are extremely extremely minor, and the real advantages are coming from the improved PCB design and not any real improvements on the GPU itself. Again, usually when we see improvements we see a change in transistor count(GF100 to GF110 saw a reduction in transistor count), however with the GF114 there was no change in transistor count.
 

jzintar

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
7 (0.00/day)
Processor i7-950 @ 4.02GHz
Motherboard Asus x58 Sabretooth
Cooling Noctua D14
Memory Corsair XMS3 6GB - 1750/7-8-7-20-1t
Video Card(s) MSi 560GTX-Ti @ 1GHz/1.2GHz/2GHz
Storage Crucial 64GB SSD Sata III/2x1TB Samsung
Display(s) HP2710m
Case Corsair 600T
Audio Device(s) Internal
Power Supply Corsair 850AX Pro
Software Windows 7 - 64bit
No, you pointed out that the GTX560 has a better cooler than the GTX470, which isn't true. Stock vs. Stock the GTX470 cooler is better. You tried to compare an aftermarket cooler to the stock GTX470 cooler to validate your comment, and we pointed out that the same aftermarket cooler came on the GTX470.

The GTX470 doesn't reach the same clock speeds as the GTX560 with the same cooler, but it still outperforms it. I've stated this several times. Even if you managed to get 1GHz on the MSI card, a GTX470@800MHz with the stock cooler would match it, and a GTX470 with the same aftermarket cooler could easily go beyond 800MHz and outperform the GTX560.

You are confusing clock speed for performance, the GTX470 doesn't need the higher clock speed because it is such a beefy card to start out with. That is why its only 5-10% behind the stock GTX560 despite a 200MHz clock disadvantage. When talking about not overclocking as well, I look at what percentage the card can overclock, not the actual final clock speeds. The GTX470, on a stock cooler, can easily hit 30% overclocks and with the Twin Frozr II it is possible to hit a 40% overclock. While the GTX560 on the Twin Frozr II still is barely breaking a 20% overclock. The 40% overclock on the GTX470 easily makes up for the inital 5-10% disadvantage and then some.



Yes, and as I said, it is all done from someone guessing on the outside from observations. This isn't nVidia saying this, it is some reviewer that is just guessing. I on the other hand am guessing that there is no changes, and if there are they are extremely extremely minor, and the real advantages are coming from the improved PCB design and not any real improvements on the GPU itself. Again, usually when we see improvements we see a change in transistor count(GF100 to GF110 saw a reduction in transistor count), however with the GF114 there was no change in transistor count.

Huh? I never said it had a better cooler, I said it ran cooler, which it does. All of the reference coolers are close to the same.

As to Anand just being some guy guessing, the vendors send him cards to test and detailed technical data. They seem to value his opinion.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.25/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
Huh? I never said it had a better cooler, I said it ran cooler, which it does. All of the reference coolers are close to the same.

As to Anand just being some guy guessing, the vendors send him cards to test and detailed technical data. They seem to value his opinion.

and i guessed that AMD would use certain core to make its server chips got chewed out for that one. AMD sent me chips had some ES's and stuff. so no not everyone knows their stuff.
 
Top