# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1 GB



## W1zzard (Jan 25, 2011)

NVIDIA's new GeForce GTX 560 Ti is priced at the sweet spot of $249. It comes with a redesigned graphics processor that enables higher clock speeds and lower power consumption. NVIDIA's reference design board excels with nice overclocking potential and low fan noise.

*Show full review*


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jan 25, 2011)

Great review, as always. Nothing groundbreaking, priced there where the performance is: between a 6870 and 6950. Interesting to see how the 1GB version of the 6950 performs, since it's priced at about the same as this card.


----------



## overclocking101 (Jan 25, 2011)

wow the 560's perform insanely well


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 25, 2011)

Great reviews as always but going by the overclocking results in two reviews up so far it looks like the gigabyte 1GHz super overclock card might be the 560 to buy and even more so as with extra voltage this card did not manage to reach 1GHz.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jan 25, 2011)

not bad clocks for a ref card maybe with uncapped voltage u can hit higher clockers but still 943/1240/1885mhz ain't that bad 0.0

but i would like to see the MSI Twin Frozr II version how it will do in oc ^^;


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 25, 2011)

puma99dk| said:


> not bad clocks for a ref card maybe with uncapped voltage u can hit higher clockers but still 943/1240/1885mhz ain't that bad 0.0
> 
> but i would like to see the MSI Twin Frozr II version how it will do in oc ^^;



I think the better cooling may help the overclock as this sample was heading very close to 100c with the extra voltage/overclock.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 25, 2011)

first thing digg for this awesome review, 2nd thing can open thins voltage limit w1zzrd for more overclocking, 3rd thing great job w1zzard


----------



## horik (Jan 25, 2011)

what drivers where used for the 6900 cards?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 25, 2011)

I think i might do some SLI with these cards!


----------



## KainXS (Jan 25, 2011)

so they oc to 6970+ performance, damn, this might be what I buy to replace my aging 8800GS

GF114 looks good

hmmm so amd dropped prices to counter huh


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 25, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I think i might do some SLI with these cards!



With the performance of a stock speed 470 so close to the 560 i have to ask why you would not just get a second 470 and overclock it like you have the one you own now and probably gain more performance than a pair of 560's?


----------



## arroyo (Jan 25, 2011)

!!! WARNING, THIS IS FANBOY POST !!!

So HD6950 with unlocked shaders is still the best option


----------



## dir_d (Jan 25, 2011)

Great card and great price but it seemed to lack in DX11 titles, maybe a driver will fix that.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jan 25, 2011)

Its performance is almost identical to EVGA's FTW Edition, ftw cost 199 USD 
Don't missunderstand me, the performance is excellent but it should cost 230 USD 
Right now i'd buy this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130596


----------



## sportechie (Jan 25, 2011)

puma99dk| said:


> not bad clocks for a ref card maybe with uncapped voltage u can hit higher clockers but still 943/1240/1885mhz ain't that bad 0.0
> 
> but i would like to see the MSI Twin Frozr II version how it will do in oc ^^;



Here is review for MSI GTX 560 Twin Frozr II:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-review-msi-n560gtx-ti-twinfrozr-ii/10960-11.html


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jan 25, 2011)

Looking good.  I wonder what price cuts exactly we can expect on 68xx now. Got mine a month ago so even more glad they were only $155 AR shipped.


----------



## cyriene (Jan 25, 2011)

Seems the 6950 beats it at high resolutions where I'll be playing.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jan 25, 2011)

Anything above 1920x1200 should be driven by dual GPU especially at today's prices.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 25, 2011)

Great review for an awesome performing card.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Jan 25, 2011)

cyriene said:


> Seems the 6950 beats it at high resolutions where I'll be playing.



Yes 6950 beats it.But the Gigabyte 1Ghz version of this card beats both 6950 and GTX570.I've heard that its priced around $270.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jan 25, 2011)

Great review.

Man, I am very disappointed with the 560.  It is basically a faster, OC, 460.  There are zero improvements in relative power consumption or in the performance per watt statistics. I was expecting better: same power envelope as 460, with better performance. But no.

The 6950 wins on every measure of performance and performance per watt.  I was hoping for a better contender from nV.  Booh!


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Jan 25, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Great review.
> 
> Man, I am very disappointed with the 560.  It is basically a faster, OC, 460.  There are zero improvements in relative power consumption or in the performance per watt statistics. I was expecting better: same power envelope as 460, with better performance. But no.
> 
> The 6950 wins on every measure of performance and performance per watt.  I was hoping for a better contender from nV.  Booh!



Gigabyte's GTX460 SOC which is clocked at 1Ghz is available for ~$10 less than a 6950.It beats both 6950 and gtx570.I'm waiting for its review here at TPU.

6950 still wins at performance per watt.Thanks to AMD's power efficient architecture.


----------



## smartidiot89 (Jan 25, 2011)

Performs as expected, very nice... Power Consumption is abit to high but I am not complaining personally

Considering how it overclocks it looks like a great alternative for gamers and enthusiasts.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Jan 25, 2011)

Only one SLI finger.GTX560 is meant to replace GTX470 which can be tri or even quad sli'ed


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 25, 2011)

This is a nice card. Kudos to NV.


----------



## erocker (Jan 25, 2011)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Only one SLI finger.GTX560 is meant to replace GTX470 which can be tri or even quad sli'ed



GTX 560 is the GTX 460 replacement. GTX 570 is the GTX 470 replacement.


----------



## smartidiot89 (Jan 25, 2011)

hardcore_gamer said:


> Only one SLI finger.GTX560 is meant to replace GTX470 which can be tri or even quad sli'ed


Seems Nvidia are only gonna allow Tri and Quad-SLI on their top-end GPU's. Makes sense really, but abit sad...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 25, 2011)

At first I was like "Wowz this card is really great!  It outperfomrs my GTX470, I need to get one!"  Then I saw the default clock speed and was like "Meh, no wonder it is better."

I think it would be interesting to see a GTX560 and GTX460 go head to head at the same clock speed.  I'm interested in how much of this "improvement" is actual improvement and how much of it is just "ZOMG lets jack up the reference clock speed and make it totally awesome-sause!"


----------



## iLLz (Jan 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> At first I was like "Wowz this card is really great!  It outperfomrs my GTX470, I need to get one!"  Then I saw the default clock speed and was like "Meh, no wonder it is better."
> 
> I think it would be interesting to see a GTX560 and GTX460 go head to head at the same clock speed.  I'm interested in how much of this "improvement" is actual improvement and how much of it is just "ZOMG lets jack up the reference clock speed and make it totally awesome-sause!"



Well, I am sure there will be at least some improvement since they went with a fully unlocked 460 core.  (384SM vs 336SM)


----------



## Cheeseball (Jan 26, 2011)

Considering that GF114 is a fully working GF104 chip, running at a high core clock is pretty impressive.

Encoding and compiling tasks should be way faster than the GTX 460 768MB.


----------



## Changnoi (Jan 26, 2011)

I wonder if they'll release the GTS550 on this core like they released the GTS450 on the GF104 core. That would be a good thing only if it comes with more shaders enabled; otherwise it will be pretty lukewarm like every other card with half its shaders disabled (GTS450, 9600GSO).

This GTX560 is pretty cool, but it's just a tad too expensive to really kick the HD6950 in the balls. Especially since the HD6950 can be flashed to a 6970 so easily . If this card cost $200 it would be THE card to have. It may get there soon as board partners duke it out between them offering rebates and the occasional sale.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Changnoi said:


> I wonder if they'll release the GTS550 on this core like they released the GTS450 on the GF104 core. That would be a good thing only if it comes with more shaders enabled; otherwise it will be pretty lukewarm like every other card with half its shaders disabled (GTS450, 9600GSO).
> 
> This GTX560 is pretty cool, but it's just a tad too expensive to really kick the HD6950 in the balls. Especially since the HD6950 can be flashed to a 6970 so easily . If this card cost $200 it would be THE card to have. It may get there soon as board partners duke it out between them offering rebates and the occasional sale.



This and the GTX460 both use the GF114.  The GTS450 use GF104, but it already has all the shaders enabled in the GTS450, if they made a GTS550 based on GF104 it would likely have the memory bus fully enabled to 192-bit.

And the 9600GSO/8800GS was hardly luke warm, it was one of the best bang for the buck cards of its time.

And the times of flashing a HD6950 to HD6870 is ending quickly. From what I've seen the stock on the shelves are the last of the cards that can unlock, new shipments aren't going to be able to unlock anymore(in fact W1z just reviewed a card that couldn't unlock).


----------



## wolf (Jan 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> This and the GTX460 both use the GF114.



the GTX460 uses GF104 and the 560 uses GF114, essentially the same specs, but just like GF100 to 110, it has been secret sauced a bit. and we see all the sp's enabled.



newtekie1 said:


> The GTS450 use GF10*6*, but it already has all the shaders enabled in the GTS450, if they made a GTS550 based on GF10*6* it would likely have the memory bus fully enabled to 192-bit.



corrected and yeah, it will probably be called GF116 and still have 192 sp's but use the full 192-bit bus and 24 ROPS, likely giving it in excess of GTX260 performance given the right clocks, and better power consumption.

and on a fantastic note we see the Gigabyte SOC model falling basically par with a GTX570/480/HD6970 while pulling 195 watt, thats a feat in its own imo, great card.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 26, 2011)

Nice card, performs well, temps are finally good, but still cant beat my 4870X2, unless Sli.

Wont be upgrading anytime soon.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Jan 26, 2011)

erocker said:


> GTX 560 is the GTX 460 replacement. GTX 570 is the GTX 470 replacement.



TH says that its the 470 replacement.

"Up until today, the company had one card left employing its original Fermi-based GPU: GeForce GTX 470. The 470 filled an important gap in Nvidia’s portfolio at $259 (between the $200 GTX 460 and $349 GTX 570).GF100 says its final farewell today, just under a year after its original introduction. It’s being replaced by the GeForce GTX 560 Ti."


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

wolf said:


> the GTX460 uses GF104 and the 560 uses GF114, essentially the same specs, but just like GF100 to 110, it has been secret sauced a bit. and we see all the sp's enabled.



Yeah, your right, except I meant they both use GF104, I typod.  They didn't change anything between GF104 and GF114, they just called it GF114 with GTX560 to prevent all the raging fanboys from starting that renaming bullshit.  I would bet they didn't do a think to change the core between GF104 and GF114 other than maybe a stepping change to improve yeilds or something.


----------



## wolf (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, your right, except I meant they both use GF104, I typod.  They didn't change anything between GF104 and GF114, they just called it GF114 with GTX560 to prevent all the raging fanboys from starting that renaming bullshit.  I would bet they didn't do a think to change the core between GF104 and GF114 other than maybe a stepping change to improve yeilds or something.



stepping is what I'd put it down to, close to Nvidia's own words is "transistor level enhancements to reduce electrical leakage", which from what I've seen purely enables higher clocks at lower voltages, which is all they really needed (combined with all 384 sp's) to have another midrange winner on their hands.

I'd be tempted by a Gigabyte SOC GTX560 if my 460 wasnt so damn good @ 900mhz core


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Feb 1, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Nice card, performs well, temps are finally good, but still cant beat my 4870X2, unless Sli.
> 
> Wont be upgrading anytime soon.




I have the same card. I'm waiting for the 6990.That will be a worthy upgrade


----------



## HellZaQ (Feb 1, 2011)

Green and black...it's  good fusion


----------



## Cruc1al (Feb 2, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Nice card, performs well, temps are finally good, but still cant beat my 4870X2, unless Sli.
> 
> Wont be upgrading anytime soon.



Eh? No one runs 560 at stock clocks. Pick any of the factory OC'ed cards and you already have at least 5% better averages than 4870x2, and considerably more stable FPS. Most well cooled 560 will however OC near or around GTX 570 performance which is 10-15% better than 4870x2. 

Nevertheless even if there wasn't any performance advantage, the upgrade is worth it just for the vastly reduced noise, temperature and power consumption (compared to stock 4870x2 cooler).


----------



## Melvis (Feb 2, 2011)

Cruc1al said:


> Eh? No one runs 560 at stock clocks. Pick any of the factory OC'ed cards and you already have at least 5% better averages than 4870x2, and considerably more stable FPS. Most well cooled 560 will however OC near or around GTX 570 performance which is 10-15% better than 4870x2.
> 
> Nevertheless even if there wasn't any performance advantage, the upgrade is worth it just for the vastly reduced noise, temperature and power consumption (compared to stock 4870x2 cooler).



You could say the same thing with the 4870X2, overclock it abit and bla bla bla

Im not going to spend $300 on a new card just to get a possible 5% increase in performance (OC) Temps arnt that bad with my 4870X2 80c max in summer, noise and power consumption yes but when you own a card like this you dont realy care. Again not worth the $300 just to cover those few things. The 4870X2 can play anything without any problems, until then im sticking with it.


----------



## jzintar (Mar 4, 2011)

puma99dk| said:


> not bad clocks for a ref card maybe with uncapped voltage u can hit higher clockers but still 943/1240/1885mhz ain't that bad 0.0
> 
> but i would like to see the MSI Twin Frozr II version how it will do in oc ^^;



Just built a new system with the MSi Twin Frozr II version yesterday. It overclocks and cools extremely well.

Running at 1GHz/1.2GHz/2GHz/1.075V @ 73c max temp under burn-in stress test (idle 36c)

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/23rss/

Notice that its a 14% overclock across the board on top of the already overclocked reference values


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2011)

hardcore_gamer said:


> TH says that its the 470 replacement.
> 
> "Up until today, the company had one card left employing its original Fermi-based GPU: GeForce GTX 470. The 470 filled an important gap in Nvidia’s portfolio at $259 (between the $200 GTX 460 and $349 GTX 570).GF100 says its final farewell today, just under a year after its original introduction. It’s being replaced by the GeForce GTX 560 Ti."



pretty shitty replacement it cost the same and when you oc them both the 470 beats the 560


----------



## jzintar (Mar 4, 2011)

cdawall said:


> pretty shitty replacement it cost the same and when you oc them both the 470 beats the 560



No idea where you are getting your information from, but 470's typiclly run 20-40 more than a 560. And looking at 3DMARK11 benchmarks as an example you have a reference 470 @ P4351 with a reference 560 @ P4311. So you get the same performance at slightly less cost and with better heat and power figures. And typical 560's overclock much further than similar 470's.

As an example my 560 runs at 1GHz and scores P5048 with 3DMARK11. That's better than a 6950 and almost up to 570 numbers (P5300). Heck I have been able to clock a good bit higher, but I like to keep my temps in the low 70's.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2011)

jzintar said:


> No idea where you are getting your information from, but 470's typiclly run 20-40 more than a 560. And looking at 3DMARK11 benchmarks as an example you have a reference 470 @ P4351 with a reference 560 @ P4311. So you get the same performance at slightly less cost and with better heat and power figures. And typical 560's overclock much further than similar 470's.
> 
> As an example my 560 runs at 1GHz and scores P5048 with 3DMARK11. That's better than a 6950 and almost up to 570 numbers (P5300). Heck I have been able to clock a good bit higher, but I like to keep my temps in the low 70's.



and my 470 was $190 off of newegg. it runs a 800mhz core on the stock HSF and can still go higher at those clocks P54xx is pretty common in 3d11. cheapest 560 i could find was $30 more than my card.


----------



## jzintar (Mar 4, 2011)

cdawall said:


> and my 470 was $190 off of newegg. it runs a 800mhz core on the stock HSF and can still go higher at those clocks P54xx is pretty common in 3d11. cheapest 560 i could find was $30 more than my card.



No idea what specific card you got, or what deal you came upon on Newegg, but go look at prices now and compare vendors pricing for 560 vs 470 cards and you will see 470's run more. As an example of an apples to apples comparison the Twin Frozr II 470 vs same model 560 is a 40 dollar increase in price. Same for pretty much all other vendors. As always on newegg, you can catch some good deals if you are patient keep checking. I got two free games with my card valued at 59 total for the two. Factor that in and you could say my 560 was only 189.

As to the 3DMARK11 numbers, they only become a true way to compare when the same base system is used to test each card.

Here is an excellent example for the MSi Twin Frozr II showing head to head numbers, that were dead on to what I saw on my system after purchasing:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-n560gtx-ti-twin-frozer-ii-review/20

So same performance as 470 with better cooling, power usage, and higher overclock for a bit less money = win in my book.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 4, 2011)

jzintar said:


> No idea what specific card you got, or what deal you came upon on Newegg, but go look at prices now and compare vendors pricing for 560 vs 470 cards and you will see 470's run more. As an example of an apples to apples comparison the Twin Frozr II 470 vs same model 560 is a 40 dollar increase in price. Same for pretty much all other vendors. As always on newegg, you can catch some good deals if you are patient keep checking. I got two free games with my card valued at 59 total for the two. Factor that in and you could say my 560 was only 189.



While it did replace the GTX470 in price, it really replaced the GTX460 in the lineup.



jzintar said:


> As to the 3DMARK11 numbers, they only become a true way to compare when the same base system is used to test each card.
> 
> Here is an excellent example for the MSi Twin Frozr II showing head to head numbers, that were dead on to what I saw on my system after purchasing:
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-n560gtx-ti-twin-frozer-ii-review/20
> ...



I've already gone over this, nVidia was extremely conservative with the clock speeds on the first Fermi cards.  However, once you overclock a GTX470, an overclocked GTX560 can't beat it because the GTX470 is just a stronger card at heart.  Yes, if you buy a GTX560 you get GTX470 performance with _weaker cooling_, less power usage, and a higher clock speed, but you also get a card that is very close to its maximum already that doesn't overclock very well at all.  If you guy a GTX470 you get GTX560 performance with better cooling, slightly higher power usage, and once overclocker higher performance than you could ever get from a GTX560.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2011)

jzintar said:


> No idea what specific card you got, or what deal you came upon on Newegg, but go look at prices now and compare vendors pricing for 560 vs 470 cards and you will see 470's run more. As an example of an apples to apples comparison the Twin Frozr II 470 vs same model 560 is a 40 dollar increase in price. Same for pretty much all other vendors. As always on newegg, you can catch some good deals if you are patient keep checking. I got two free games with my card valued at 59 total for the two. Factor that in and you could say my 560 was only 189.
> 
> As to the 3DMARK11 numbers, they only become a true way to compare when the same base system is used to test each card.
> 
> ...



Recertified: PNY RVCGGTX470XXB GeForce GTX 470 (Fe...
Recertified: EVGA 012-P3-1470-RX GeForce GTX 470 (...



newtekie1 said:


> While it did replace the GTX470 in price, it really replaced the GTX460 in the lineup.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already gone over this, nVidia was extremely conservative with the clock speeds on the first Fermi cards.  However, once you overclock a GTX470, an overclocked GTX560 can't beat it because the GTX470 is just a stronger card at heart.  Yes, if you buy a GTX560 you get GTX470 performance with _weaker cooling_, less power usage, and a higher clock speed, but you also get a card that is very close to its maximum already that doesn't overclock very well at all.  If you guy a GTX470 you get GTX560 performance with better cooling, slightly higher power usage, and once overclocker higher performance than you could ever get from a GTX560.



i was wondering if you would point out that the 560 did not have as good of a cooler...


----------



## jzintar (Mar 5, 2011)

i was wondering if you would point out that the 560 did not have as good of a cooler...[/QUOTE]

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.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2011)

jzintar said:


> 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.



same cooler on a GTX470

MSI N470GTX Twin Frozr II GeForce GTX 470 (Fermi) ...


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 5, 2011)

jzintar said:


> 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......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.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 5, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 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......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 (Mar 5, 2011)

cdawall said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2011)

cdawall said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2011)

cdawall said:


> same cooler on a GTX470
> 
> MSI N470GTX Twin Frozr II GeForce GTX 470 (Fermi) ...



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 (Mar 5, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2011)

jzintar said:


> 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.



jzintar said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 6, 2011)

jzintar said:


> 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.


----------

