Friday, May 13th 2011

GeForce GTX 560 Confirmed for 17th May

NVIDIA confirmed its latest performance GPU, the GeForce GTX 560 (not to be confused with GTX 560 Ti), for launch on May 17, 2011. GeForce.com staff put up a new video on YouTube that displayed the card itself (looks very similar to to GTX 460), and run a few upcoming games on it, including the much anticipated Duke Nukem Forever, Alice: Madness Returns, and Rift.

NVIDIA claims that the new card should be able to handle most DirectX 11 games at 1080p resolution. In the Duke Nukem Forever run, the 3DVision features of the GTX 560 were shown. On Alice: Madness Returns, a variety of NVIDIA PhysX effects were shown, mostly particle and fluid dynamics. Lastly, the anticipated MMO Rift was able to run at 1080p with very high frame-rates and low GPU temperatures. Based on the GF114 GPU, the GTX 560 features 336 CUDA cores, 1 GB of GDDR5 memory over a 256-bit wide memory interface.

Check out the video for some cool in-game footage.

Add your own comment

31 Comments on GeForce GTX 560 Confirmed for 17th May

#1
caleb
Nice vid but the texture level setting on Duke looked like the game was made in 1999.
Looks like it will run OK in RPG with HD res.
Posted on Reply
#3
RejZoR
PhysX nonsense again. Game on the left looks like its from 1999 where on the right it looks like it's from today. Why do they downgrade non-PhysX games so much that they look below any acceptable level even for today...
Posted on Reply
#4
kaktus1907
by: LAN_deRf_HA
So this is identical to the 460?
overclocked GTX 460.. it's GF114 therefore it should draw less power and generate less heat at same clocks though
Posted on Reply
#5
Jonap_1st
by: btarunr
Lastly, the anticipated MMO Rift was able to run at 1080p with very high frame-rates and low GPU temperatures.
30 fps is average framerate, they talk like they were run quake 3 on fermi..
Posted on Reply
#6
blibba
by: LAN_deRf_HA
So this is identical to the 460?
It's an overclocked 460 with the GTX5 series optimisations.
Posted on Reply
#7
NC37
Roughly a optimized 460 yeah. But they make it sound like you need one just to play new games. Pfft, I play things just fine maxed out 1080 with my 460.

Oh well, hopefully this means lower 460 prices and more people trying to sell used 460s. My SLI senses are tingling! :D
Posted on Reply
#8
Lionheart
Nice card, nice games, gay advertising nerd guy.....^_^
Posted on Reply
#9
jalex3
all i can say is MEH. as for the video duke meh, alice to much physx and nothing without it (like most other flagship physx games).
Posted on Reply
#10
Over_Lord
News Editor
Come on, a GTX460 with higher clocks and higher price tag? Not cool..
Posted on Reply
#12
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
It is going to be interesting to see if they stuck with the GTX560 Ti PCB, or went with the GTX460 PCB w/ only 4 power phases. I'm guessing they went with the GTX460 PCB, which means we can finally see that GF114 isn't any better than GF104, the better power consumption and better overclocking came from moving to a 5 Phase PWM from a 4, not really from anything done to the GPU.

by: RejZoR
PhysX nonsense again. Game on the left looks like its from 1999 where on the right it looks like it's from today. Why do they downgrade non-PhysX games so much that they look below any acceptable level even for today...
The textures were identical between the two, the only improvement was the PhysX effects.
Posted on Reply
#13
HalfAHertz
Noooo why does Alice require GPU physx? :( I was hoping that it would be a decent game...Can't they at least have an intermediate option where the physx effects are rendered by the CPU and are scaled down a bit? They don't look that intensive...
Posted on Reply
#14
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: HalfAHertz
Noooo why does Alice require GPU physx? :( I was hoping that it would be a decent game...
It doesn't require it, and it will be. I don't think having a bunch of oil on the ground will really make the game all that more playable...

by: HalfAHertz
Can't they at least have an intermediate option where the physx effects are rendered by the CPU and are scaled down a bit? They don't look that intensive...
Every PhysX game in existance has that.
Posted on Reply
#15
Casecutter
Just a basic rename... Using cleaned-up 2Gen silicon, and clocks about like the Über versions something they already achieve by cherry-pick’n GF104 stuff. While when you have nothing to tout, you trump PhyX on some TWIMTBP releases. :shadedshu

Not surprising, but as this will probably be one of those releases that don't have AIB holding to any strict reference design, so we’ll see offerings from cost effective-premium depending PCB/power control right out of the gate. Though all this might just indicate that there will be less "mid-stream" models that provide good OC’n potential.

As long as Nvidia can simply parlay over from GTX460 and maintain a reasonable price structure as presently it's not going to change anything. The market will linger/stagnant for probably the next 8 months until 28Nm parts arrive.
Posted on Reply
#16
devguy
NVIDIA claims that the new card should be able to handle most DirectX 11 games at 1080p resolution.
Why do they make that claim, and then release a video of a bunch of DX9 games running at 1080p?
Posted on Reply
#17
WarraWarra
Building a new I7-2600k p67 desktop and need some advice.
Been away from desktop parts for a while so stupid question.

I am concerned that the ati 6970-2gb or 580gtx would not be enough to run basic games at 1440x900~1080p and I see this IGP equivalent video card GTX560 that is the same as the GTX560ti and people are still able to play games and still buying this card ??

Why would anyone want to buy this card ? :confused:

I am lost, is the ATI6970 then overkill or is the games falling behind the technology ?

$250~$350 budget.
Posted on Reply
#18
RejZoR
by: newtekie1
It is going to be interesting to see if they stuck with the GTX560 Ti PCB, or went with the GTX460 PCB w/ only 4 power phases. I'm guessing they went with the GTX460 PCB, which means we can finally see that GF114 isn't any better than GF104, the better power consumption and better overclocking came from moving to a 5 Phase PWM from a 4, not really from anything done to the GPU.



The textures were identical between the two, the only improvement was the PhysX effects.
3/4 of those effects could be done on any gfx card. And the textures are the least of a problem. Look at particles and smoke. Something gfx cards can render anytime you want in any amount. But here on PhysX the smoke remains where on regular gfx it fades away so fast it's almost ridiculous. Games faded away effects quickly a decade ago because gfx cards were not fast enough to handle all that. That's no excuse today.
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: RejZoR
3/4 of those effects could be done on any gfx card. And the textures are the least of a problem. Look at particles and smoke. Something gfx cards can render anytime you want in any amount. But here on PhysX the smoke remains where on regular gfx it fades away so fast it's almost ridiculous. Games faded away effects quickly a decade ago because gfx cards were not fast enough to handle all that. That's no excuse today.
The difference is that the smoke and particles are volumetric. Any GPU can render smoke, yes, but what they can't* do is calculate how that smoke interacts with the player or some other character when they run through it. Same thing with the oil on the ground. What you are complaining about is what PhysX adds to the game, and was the point of them showing the side by side comparision. They aren't purposely making the non-PhysX game look worse than normal, that is just what the game would look like without PhysX.

* I say can't with a little bit of a note here, in reality any modern GPU could handle PhysX, so really any GPU could calculate these effect. However, obviously since PhysX is nVidia
's technology it doesn't work on ATi card, and that is a whole other descussion that is way off topic from this thead.
Posted on Reply
#20
LAN_deRf_HA
I don't even think those effects are worth the performance hit. Just about every physx simulation I've seen has seemed like it belonged in a low res phone game. The simulations are all comprised of balls and it's pretty bad when you can actually tell that by looking at it. The ball count is always just too low. Looks awful.
Posted on Reply
#21
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
as long at it replaces the tantalizing price-point of the GTX460 this is good news, hopefully if the core tweaks are adequate this may even oc better than any 460 to date, rivaling a 560 Ti at the 1ghz barrier.
Posted on Reply
#22
Jonap_1st
by: WarraWarra
Building a new I7-2600k p67 desktop and need some advice.
Been away from desktop parts for a while so stupid question.

I am concerned that the ati 6970-2gb or 580gtx would not be enough to run basic games at 1440x900~1080p and I see this IGP equivalent video card GTX560 that is the same as the GTX560ti and people are still able to play games and still buying this card ??

Why would anyone want to buy this card ? :confused:

I am lost, is the ATI6970 then overkill or is the games falling behind the technology ?

$250~$350 budget.
aside your "confusing" explanation, i suggest you can buy 6970 and GTX570, cheapest from both of them still priced around $340..
Posted on Reply
#23
AsRock
TPU addict
by: caleb
Nice vid but the texture level setting on Duke looked like the game was made in 1999.
Looks like it will run OK in RPG with HD res.
WOW what you been taking because i don't want any as it makes things a lot worse than they actually are lol.


How ever the demo should be out soon YAY.
Posted on Reply
#24
Velvet Wafer
Oh man, i would have never imagined, that after 14 Years of Development, Duke Nukem will be also a console port:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment