• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

keep 6950 or get 570?

dave343

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,875
I picked up a 6950 2gb over the weekend but haven't opened it yet, still undecided. I usually prefer NV mainly for the driver support, but went with the 6950 this time around mostly for the 2gb feature. The evga 570 (non-sc) is $50 more and I'm thinking I'd like to go this route.
Reading reviews, it seems games with Tess enabled, amd can't keep up, plus it's always nice to have physx even if it's only used once every 5000yrs. Any reasons to keep the 6950 or go for the 570? I was hoping evga would have a 560/570 with 2gb.

** Update **

So I took back the (non-unlockable) 6950 for the 6970, and it turns out they had a open box unlockable 6950. As a bonus, they gave me 10% off, so basically I scored an unlockable 6950 for $250+taxes!!

The store guy mentioned they had quite a few 6950's (1st version cards) returned, citing the reason from the customer's as they couldn't figure out the unlocking...
 
Last edited:
Unlocking the 6950 to a 6970 is the reason I bought them. Haven't seen a direct comparison but I think it beats the 570.
 
Just use the GPU bench feature over at Anandtech to help you decide.

The 6950 is a great card, especially when unlocked.
 
If youre a Nvidia fan then itll probably bug the crap out of you that you didnt go with the 570. If you havent opened the 6950 yet and you can exchange it and not lose anything with something stupid like a restocking fee, I say get the 570. Its a great card and you wouldnt have to deal with iffy drivers.

Honestly, Id keep the 6950 cause the small frame rate increase youd get aint worth $50 to me.
 
Both sides have their issues with drivers. The 6950 can be unlocked to give it even more of a performance lead over the slower and more expensive GTX570.


Seems like a no brainer to me unless you really need the extra options like physx and better folding.
 
I was making the same decision a few weeks ago and went with a GTX570 rather than a 6970.
Performance between the two cards seemed relatively close—Nvidia would win in some titles, and AMD would win in others, and in some games, they were more-or-less equally matched.

However, what I started to notice was that in the games where Nvidia had a lead, it tended to be a much bigger gap than the games where AMD had a lead, and Nvidia were coming out on top in more of the games that were relevant to me.

Not only that, but in anything that used tessellation, Nvidia was ahead by a considerable margin, and I would expect to see more games utilising tessellation as time goes on. You also have the option of PhysX and while it's not used that often, it is something else that you don't get with AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/306?vs=292&i=188.191.194.238.200.203.206.210.213.216.219.221

I had also been hearing from friends that were frustrated with AMD drivers, and I knew that I had no major problems with Nvidia's drivers. I also own a 3DTV and it looked like AMD's solution wasn't nearly as robust as Nvidia's 3DTV Play/3D Vision.


So far I'm pretty happy with it, and have yet to play a game that I can't run at 60fps at 1920x1080 when maxed out, and I mean stuck at 60fps, without ever dropping below it. The only thing I ever have to adjust to keep it there is the level of antialiasing. In Civ V I need 2xMSAA to stay above 60fps in the late game for example. Other games I can use 4x, 8x, even supersampling.
 
570's poofing with bad VRMs and such and the fact that you can unlock that beast to a 6970 I'd say just keep the 6970.
 
When will games take advantage of 2gb cards? BF3/Skyrim? or we talking 1-2yrs from now.
 
^^^ They are rightn now, especially if you use eyefinity/surround. The extra vram does wonders.
 
I think you're going to run into performance issues long before you run out of memory with these cards on a single display.

If you're running a surround setup it's definitely possible to go over 1.3GB though. I don't see why Skyrim would be taxing on the VRAM, it's a console game.
 
If you're using a single monitor at 1080p, then you shouldn't run into any of the problems with the drivers anyway. Most driver support falters when using multiple GPUs or multiple monitors. This begs the question -- how much higher framerates do you need at 1080p? The higher end cards start to place more emphasis on better higher resolution gaming (like 2560 x 1440/1600) or two + displays. AMD has better multi monitor support while nVidia has better 3D display support. AMD's 3D is basically worthless in the sense that no one supports it. I myself have been debating whether to get a 6950 to run 3 monitors. nVidia needs two cards to support 3 monitors.

I'd keep the 6950 and save the money on the 570, especially if you might ever want to game across multiple monitors.
 
yeah, I'm still regretting getting these GTX570 cards before waiting on more news of the HD6950... specifically the unlock.
 
@andrewfee: It seems like most of the games that Nvidia has a lead in are not going to matter because AMD has good frame rate in those games anyway. On the other hand it seems like the games that AMD leads in are the more demanding games where AMDs lead actually makes a difference in game play. I can't remember where it was I read it but, those games where more modern and AMD's architecture was aimed more toward where games are heading. And the games out now and the foreseeable future games are only showng a moderate benefit from tess.
 
Part of the 6000 series redesign was rearranging the GPUs for better efficency (better yields I think too) and to point the Radeons into a more competitive direction for future games. My last two cards have been 400 series nVidias -- I still want a 6950. I have one in my cart right now, I'm just debating whether I really need it or not. I do like nVidia's drivers better, but that's only because I don't like the Catlyst control center. Most people just slap the card in, install the drivers, and never have a problem.
 
ckryan said:
Part of the 6000 series redesign was rearranging the GPUs for better efficency (better yields I think too) and to point the Radeons into a more competitive direction for future games. My last two cards have been 400 series nVidias -- I still want a 6950. I have one in my cart right now, I'm just debating whether I really need it or not. I do like nVidia's drivers better, but that's only because I don't like the Catlyst control center. Most people just slap the card in, install the drivers, and never have a problem.
Click to expand...

yeah, I've decided to wait on the HD7000 series and hope the rumours of a 384bit bus are true, since that would (hopefulyl) indicate a 3GB reference card :D At my res (2560x1440), I'm already feeling the bite of 1.2GB VRAM...
 
flexcore said:
@andrewfee: It seems like most of the games that Nvidia has a lead in are not going to matter because AMD has good frame rate in those games anyway. On the other hand it seems like the games that AMD leads in are the more demanding games where AMDs lead actually makes a difference in game play. I can't remember where it was I read it but, those games where more modern and AMD's architecture was aimed more toward where games are heading. And the games out now and the foreseeable future games are only showng a moderate benefit from tess.
Click to expand...

I believe from a gaming standpoint, AMDs design has better pixel shading performance. Nvidia's has better geometry and vertex shading performance. Synthetic benchmarks will show this for the most part. An example of this difference in an actual game is Civ 5, the world map screen (geometry heavy) performs better on current Nvidia's, while the leader screens (pixel shader heavy) performs better on AMDs. For instance Metro2033 even with tessellation, the pixel shader workload is still the most dominant by far, so AMDs do better.

As for what type of design will benefit the future, that isn't really predictable. BF3 for instance is said to utilize DirectCompute (which I believe Nvidia is faster at in practice still by quite a bit) for graphics work. It was also last demoed on a GTX 580? Anything here is quite speculative, unless of course you have more industry insider sources/information.

AMDs design however is quite a lot better overall for current use, as the performance/watt comparisons shows. It isn't so much Fermi is inefficient in the sense it doesn't do anything except produce heat, but more so that what it does isn't as used/usable currently. AMD adopted a more "market" approach when designing GPUs. AMd themselves do realize where their current design is behind Nvidia's however, and specifically made changes for the higher end 6000s to address this. Whereas Nvidia for Fermi tried more so to build a GPU that the market would revolve around. Funnily this is somewhat similar to where 3dfx went wrong.
 
limitedaccess said:
I believe from a gaming standpoint, AMDs design has better pixel shading performance. Nvidia's has better geometry and vertex shading performance. Synthetic benchmarks will show this for the most part. An example of this difference in an actual game is Civ 5, the world map screen (geometry heavy) performs better on current Nvidia's, while the leader screens (pixel shader heavy) performs better on AMDs. For instance Metro2033 even with tessellation, the pixel shader workload is still the most dominant by far, so AMDs do better.

As for what type of design will benefit the future, that isn't really predictable. BF3 for instance is said to utilize DirectCompute (which I believe Nvidia is faster at in practice still by quite a bit) for graphics work. It was also last demoed on a GTX 580? Anything here is quite speculative, unless of course you have more industry insider sources/information.

AMDs design however is quite a lot better overall for current use, as the performance/watt comparison shows. It isn't so much Fermi is inefficient in the sense it doesn't do anything except produce heat, but more so that what it does isn't as used/usable currently. AMD adopted a more "market" approach when designing GPUs, whereas Nvidia for Fermi tried more so to build a GPU that the market would revolve around. Funnily this is somewhat similar to where 3dfx went wrong.
Click to expand...

also pushing underutilized propritary APIs did the same. Funny how nVidia is now pushing Physx :p (though CUDA is still holding it's own, as a hobby developer myself).
 
No special industry insider info, just what I'm sure we all have read around the web and some of my own thoughts.

Ya Nvidia is making some rather poor choices. Atleast thats how I see it sitting on the side lines. :)

Some of these choices are due to using Fermi in pro gfx market. and it does excel there. I think they have to much tess in Fermi, it's just not being used that much.
 
Are upcoming games (within 2011/2012) going to be utilizing Tess to the extent that Unigine Heaven does, or is that something we'll see 2+ years down the road?
 
Last edited:
I think most games will not exceed the capabilities of consoles, so tesselation will remain fairly meaningless for a few years to come. Not to mention that it's difficult to implement/use for now.

Something else that might happen is sort of a PC gaming renaissance, where developers and consumers alike realize just how far ahead hardware on the PC platform is and return focus to it before next generation consoles are released. That might be more of a pipe dream of mine, though. ;)
 
AMD drivers are definitely iffy. However, id definitely stick with your 6950, unlock it, and overclock it.

Ive never really had an issue with nV drivers, i had a 260 for 2 years, 9800gtx, 8800gt, 7900GTO, going way back.

Ive had several issues with AMD drivers in the 6 weeks ive used them. They range from issues with installing the drivers, to CCC causing my PC to hardlock on start up, and crossfire not being available in CCC. That being said, a simple driver clean and reinstall took care of each issue. Also, you will most likely find that different AMD drivers will give you different levels of stability. Ive also found that trying to install anything AMD without a full clean up can cause issues. So id say be prepared to clean and reinstall drivers multiple times until you get a stable configuration.
 
nissanztt90 said:
AMD drivers are definitely iffy. However, id definitely stick with your 6950, unlock it, and overclock it.

Ive never really had an issue with nV drivers, i had a 260 for 2 years, 9800gtx, 8800gt, 7900GTO, going way back.

Ive had several issues with AMD drivers in the 6 weeks ive used them. They range from issues with installing the drivers, to CCC causing my PC to hardlock on start up, and crossfire not being available in CCC. That being said, a simple driver clean and reinstall took care of each issue. Also, you will most likely find that different AMD drivers will give you different levels of stability. Ive also found that trying to install anything AMD without a full clean up can cause issues. So id say be prepared to clean and reinstall drivers multiple times until you get a stable configuration.
Click to expand...

Considering how the forums are still discussing about the NVDIA cards that went up in smoke when using the wrong driver, I find the above post rather amusing. Especially since NVIDIA now has had two drivers that cause the cards to die.
 
In terms of vram usage, dragon age 2 at 1680x1050 4xAA max settings apart from SSAO can use 1gb, as does crysis 2 same rez, max settings in parts. IMO the extra mem on the 6950 could well become significant before you next upgrade.
 
Pantalaimon said:
Considering how the forums are still discussing about the NVDIA cards that went up in smoke when using the wrong driver, I find the above post rather amusing.
Click to expand...

The guy told his experience with drivers. Not what he read that happened to some other guy. If you find that amusing more power to you LOL
 
Both have their issues. If you play the BF series though, Nvidia appears to generally work better than AMD. The 6950 is a great card imo but yeah. In BF I would prefer Nvidia.
 
spaceman said:
If you play the BF series though, Nvidia appears to generally work better than AMD. The 6950 is a great card imo but yeah. In BF I would prefer Nvidia.
Click to expand...

BF3 is the main one I'm looking forward too, but I'm also a big Oblivion fan so Skyrim too.

I don't OC my stuff, no time, and if I have the time I'd rather spend it burning up Crysis 2 so I probably won't bother with unlocking the 6950.
99% into First Person titles, run 1650/1080, no AA, only AF, have no interest now or future for eyefinity/dual monitor setups. But I like my eye candy turned all the way up :D
 
I am honestly waiting on the nvidia refresh. Might get a cheap nvidia card to replace my 5850 for a bit. Nvidia needs to step it up with the vram and poping caps issues before I spend any signifigant $$ on a gpu.
 
I chose the 6950 2gb because i run a single 24" monitor at 1920x1200.
Unlocked and OC'd the card and its is running perfectly.
I'm maxing out all my games with no issues
Currently playing Bulletstorm, Crysis 2, BC2 and L4D2
 
Is this a spam thread?

Who buys a 6950 or 570 to not use any AA on any game...

might as well buy a 460 GTX then and save yourself some cash...

Otherwise keep the 6950 and unlock is to get as good as performance as a 6970
 
DASHlT said:
Is this a spam thread?

Who buys a 6950 or 570 to not use any AA on any game...
Click to expand...

Have never used AA in any game, I just like cranking the eye candy all the way. Sure it looks good when applied, but there are so many different methods of AA now, it's confusing as f__k, and I never cared much for it. I do however like to crank the AF :)
 
dave343 said:
Have never used AA in any game, I just like cranking the eye candy all the way. Sure it looks good when applied, but there are so many different methods of AA now, it's confusing as f__k, and I never cared much for it. I do however like to crank the AF :)
Click to expand...

When you say you like to crank all the eyecandy on....well when you dont use AA, you arent cranking all the eyecandy on.

So your saying since you dont understand how the AA modes work, thats its too confusing for you to figure out, which is why you leave it off?

Just do some research or find a good review on the different methods of AA. I think even Hardocp explains new AA methods in video card reviews for you to find out.

Max eyecandy = having AA on..
 
I'd have to agree with DASHIT, a 6950 and especially a 570 seems like a huge waste at that resolution if you're not even going to turn AA on. You don't have to know how it works at all, just crank it up in-game to the highest setting that gets you playable framerates like you would with AF. At 1920x1080 my 6950 hasn't met a game yet that it can't handle even 2xAA at max settings (other than Metro, where it's only AAA or 4xAA). It does make the game look much better.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Ive had several issues with AMD drivers in the 6 weeks ive used them. They range from issues with installing the drivers, to CCC causing my PC to hardlock on start up, and crossfire not being available in CCC. That being said, a simple driver clean and reinstall took care of each issue.
Click to expand...


LOL i liked that..


"Definately Iffy" but then "I fixed them by a reinstall"

sounds like a little PEBKAC

to the OP..

the Drivers from both manufacturers are fine. If you look you'll see both have issues and both have strengths. People saying things like "definately" and stating it like a fact doesn't make it true.

i've gone from 7800GT to X1900XTX to 8800GT to 4850 to 4870 to GTX 460 and now to a 5870.

Just install the 6950 and start playing
 
NativeAlien said:
I'd have to agree with DASHIT, a 6950 and especially a 570 seems like a huge waste at that resolution if you're not even going to turn AA on. You don't have to know how it works at all, just crank it up in-game to the highest setting that gets you playable framerates like you would with AF. At 1920x1080 my 6950 hasn't met a game yet that it can't handle even 2xAA at max settings (other than Metro, where it's only AAA or 4xAA). It does make the game look much better.
Click to expand...

I agree. OP should save money and get a lower class card like 6850/460 if he has no plans for AA at 1680x1050. Cards such as 570/6950's are wasted in such situations, thanks to console ports.
 
Elsie said:
In terms of vram usage, dragon age 2 at 1680x1050 4xAA max settings apart from SSAO can use 1gb, as does crysis 2 same rez, max settings in parts. IMO the extra mem on the 6950 could well become significant before you next upgrade.
Click to expand...

crysis 1 or 2? My GTX570 is only reporting 800MB MAX VRAM in crysis2 (mostly 600-700MB VRAM useage on most levels) throughout the campain. 1080p, maxxed settings (no clue about AA, I know Crysis has some sort of forced MLAA in it, however).
I agree on newer games using more VRAM, however, I just don't think crysis 2 is the best example...
 
I just confirmed (by the PN/Sku) my 6950 is the newer version without the Bios switch, and won't unlock. So even if I wanted too, that idea is out the window. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top