Tuesday, October 25th 2011

Revised GF110-based GTX 560 Ti On The Way: a GTX 570 In Disguise?

Those on a budget looking to upgrade their graphics cards might do well to wait a little while, NVIDIA is preparing an upgraded GTX 560 Ti. The current model is based on the GF114 GPU which has 384 CUDA cores, 32 TMUs, a 256-bit memory interface and 1GB VRAM. However, the new model discards the GF114 GPU and replaces it with the beefier GF110 GPU that's used on the GTX 570 & GTX 580 cards. As one would expect, this GPU will be cut down compared to its bigger brothers, featuring 448 CUDA cores, 56 TMUs, a 320-bit memory bus and likely 1280MB VRAM. Another improvement comes in the form of two SLI connectors, allowing 3-card setups to be built, but the cost compared to using more powerful cards must of course be considered before such a build is attempted. The new card will be called the "GTX 560 Ti (448 Core)", which follows a similar convention that was used with the GTX 260 when NVIDIA upgraded it to the GTX 260 (216 Core). Given that the memory bus and memory size are now the same as that of the GTX 570, it brings with it the intriguing possibility that such cards may be unlocked to full GTX 570 performance by enterprising enthusiasts who are not afraid of risking their warranty in their unending quest for better performance.

The new card will of course be faster, but will also use a bit more power and is expected to compete with overclocked HD 6950 2GB cards. For those who are not experts in remembering model numbers and specifications separating very similar products and are thus confused by the various models currently on offer, all looking superficially the same of course, this new variant will unfortunately only increase their distress. Hopefully, the older and weaker models will soon disappear, bringing some sanity to the marketplace. As it stands though, there will now be four base models to choose from: GTX 560, GTX 560 Ti, GTX 560 Ti (OEM) and now, GTX 560 Ti (448 Core), so buyers should do their homework and look carefully at product naming and descriptions before putting down their hard-earned money on a GTX 560-based card. This is especially important, as it's expected to look the same as the old version. No word on pricing or release date yet, but one hopes that it would cost about the same as the current GTX 560 Ti, or come down in price shortly after.Sources: VR-Zone, TweakTown
Add your own comment

42 Comments on Revised GF110-based GTX 560 Ti On The Way: a GTX 570 In Disguise?

#1
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Thanks to Recus for the lead. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#2
HalfAHertz
Thanks to Nvidia for the ingenious name.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#3
cheesy999
so will this push down the prices on the old ones?
Posted on Reply
#4
Sasqui
Who wrote the first paragraph? ... I like it. :)

by: qubit
it brings with it the intriguing possibility that such cards may be unlocked to full GTX 570 performance by enterprising enthusiasts who are not afraid of risking their warranty in their unending quest for better performance.
Posted on Reply
#6
NC37
Well thats one way to clear out some old 110 inventory.
Posted on Reply
#7
blibba
Nvidia, I love you guys, but can you get your lives sorted in the naming department? I mean what does it say about your products that you can't even manage a naming system that makes sense or has any apparent logical system?

Call it a GTX565 or a GTX570SE. There, that wasn't hard, was it?

If you for some obscure reason don't fancy the higher numbers, try GTX560Di (Diamond as opposed to Titanium), GTX560 Ultra or GTX560+, but really even those names suggest that this is a closely related part... which it isn't!

If you like, for a perfectly reasonable retainer, I'll name all your products and sort out the Engrish on your board partners' press releases. Make a TPU account and PM me.
Posted on Reply
#8
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: blibba
Nvidia, I love you guys, but can you get your lives sorted in the naming department? I mean what does it say about your products that you can't even manage a naming system that makes sense or has any apparent logical system?

Call it a GTX565 or a GTX570SE. There, that wasn't hard, was it?

If you for some obscure reason don't fancy the higher numbers, try GTX560Di (Diamond as opposed to Titanium), GTX560 Ultra or GTX560+, but really even those names suggest that this is a closely related part... which it isn't!

If you like, for a perfectly reasonable retainer, I'll name all your products and sort out the Engrish on your board partner's press releases. Make a TPU account and PM me.
Great post, but I love the bold bit, especially. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#9
arnoo1
i like,
maybe this proof that kepler is around the corner
Posted on Reply
#10
Lionheart
So wants happening with the GTX 570? They phazing them out or.......:wtf:
Posted on Reply
#12
The Von Matrices
Exact same specifications as a GTX 470; I think I'll stick with mine.
Posted on Reply
#13
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: The Von Matrices
Exact same specifications as a GTX 470; I think I'll stick with mine.
I reckon stock performance will be higher and power draw and heat lower, but it well may noy be worth upgrading from a 470. The reviews will tell us that.

I'd say if you wanted to upgrade, get a 580 now, or wait for the next gen.
Posted on Reply
#14
xBruce88x
hopefully the 560/560 oem/560ti will drop in price soon as that will probably be my next gpu
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: qubit
I reckon stock performance will be higher and power draw and heat lower, but it well may noy be worth upgrading from a 470. The reviews will tell us that.

I'd say if you wanted to upgrade, get a 580 now, or wait for the next gen.
I reckon power draw will be within a watt or two, and the higher performance will come down to nothing more than higher stock clocks. But people will go on about how much better it performs than the GTX470 ignoring the higher clock speeds just like they did with the GTX560 vs. 460...

Now the real question will be if they will start re-using the GTX470 PCBs like they've started to do with the GTX570s?
Posted on Reply
#16
Benetanegia
by: newtekie1
I reckon power draw will be within a watt or two, and the higher performance will come down to nothing more than higher stock clocks. But people will go on about how much better it performs than the GTX470 ignoring the higher clock speeds just like they did with the GTX560 vs. 460...
No one ignores the higher clocks, quite the opposite. But those higher clocks were achieved without increasing the power consumption as much a a similarly clocked GTX460 would. I happen to have a GTX460 and when OCed to 800+ Mhz, power consumption goes up to nearly 190w, up from 150w. GTX 560 (non-ti) which is the one with same amount of SPs as the GTX460 has (and iirc it has a stock clock of 820 Mhz) does not consume anything close to 190w. GTX 560 can also be OCed to 1000+ Mhz on air, good luck getting even close to that with a GTX460.

I don't really know what problem you have with the GTX 5xx series, but you've been saying the same thing since it was released. Yes you can OC GTX4xx cards to match their GTX5xx counterparts at stock, but overclock GTX5xx cards and there's simply no contest. Believe me, there's nothing I'd like more than running my GTX460 at 1000+ Mhz, it's just never going to happen. Same thing with GTX470 versus GTX570 and probably this new card will clock slightly better even.



http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_560_Twin_Frozr_II_OC/25.html
Posted on Reply
#18
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: newtekie1
I reckon power draw will be within a watt or two, and the higher performance will come down to nothing more than higher stock clocks. But people will go on about how much better it performs than the GTX470 ignoring the higher clock speeds just like they did with the GTX560 vs. 460...

Now the real question will be if they will start re-using the GTX470 PCBs like they've started to do with the GTX570s?
Yeah, could well be right, NT. I wonder how many reviewers are going to comment on the PCBs? Is it a significant point to consider when buying a card? I'm thinking about things like build quality, VRM strength, overclocking ability etc.
Posted on Reply
#19
LAN_deRf_HA
No matter how you spin it going from a 4xx to a 5xx series card doesn't make a lick of sense right now. They've been out forever in terms of cards and haven't dropped more than $10 in price since launch. That'd be fine a month in but these things are all about to be EOL'd by radically improved 28nm replacements. This is simply not the time to buy a graphics card.

It's been tough for me to resist getting a new card but I know it will pay off big time.
Posted on Reply
#20
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: LAN_deRf_HA
No matter how you spin it going from a 4xx to a 5xx series card doesn't make a lick of sense right now. They've been out forever in terms of cards and haven't dropped more than $10 in price since launch. That'd be fine a month in but these things are all about to be EOL'd by radically improved 28nm replacements. This is simply not the time to buy a graphics card.

It's been tough for me to resist getting a new card but I know it will pay off big time.
Well, the new AMD cards are a good three months away and it looks like nvidia are further away than that. So yes, it can still make sense, especially if you sell that card afterwards. There's no definitive answer on this one and the devil's in the details.
Posted on Reply
#21
ViperXTR
anyone knew about the GTX 460 1GB V2 and GTX 460 SE V2? >8D

also, perhaps these are 570's with some bad yields and disabled some parts of the chips to make em profitable, or maybe they are just gettin rid of the old stocks of 570's
GeForce FX 5900XT/5900SE anyone? >_>

GTX 570 SE or GTX 565 Ti would be fine i guess,

GeForce GTFO 560 Ti >_>
Posted on Reply
#22
mediasorcerer
by: blibba
Nvidia, I love you guys, but can you get your lives sorted in the naming department? I mean what does it say about your products that you can't even manage a naming system that makes sense or has any apparent logical system?

Call it a GTX565 or a GTX570SE. There, that wasn't hard, was it?

If you for some obscure reason don't fancy the higher numbers, try GTX560Di (Diamond as opposed to Titanium), GTX560 Ultra or GTX560+, but really even those names suggest that this is a closely related part... which it isn't!

If you like, for a perfectly reasonable retainer, I'll name all your products and sort out the Engrish on your board partner's press releases. Make a TPU account and PM me.
haha good point,they al;l do it i think,i wonder if its not somehow deliberate,keep the consumer confused,haha,maybe.

pays to do your homework these days say what.
to the writer=good article and well written too,thanx.
Posted on Reply
#23
xtremesv
I don't see the reason for waiting if you're an overclocker. Current tuned 560 Ti based on GF114 are perfectly capable of getting very close to stock 570 performance. And there are several options of 560 Ti which come factory overclocked and offer a pretty decent room to push them even further.

The "overhauled" 560 Ti will get crappy binned GF110's, probably with little overclocking capabilities.
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Benetanegia
No one ignores the higher clocks, quite the opposite.
Yes, they generally do. Just go look at all the "ZOMG the GTX560 ti performs better than the GTX470!!!!" threads. They ignore the fact that the GTX470 has piss poor clock speeds by default.
But those higher clocks were achieved without increasing the power consumption as much a a similarly clocked GTX460 would.
Correct, but that is due to the improved power design of the PCB, not really due to the core. Look at the reference PCB of the GTX560 and the GTX460 and you'll see why the GTX560 is more power efficient.

by: Benetanegia
I happen to have a GTX460 and when OCed to 800+ Mhz, power consumption goes up to nearly 190w, up from 150w. GTX 560 (non-ti) which is the one with same amount of SPs as the GTX460 has (and iirc it has a stock clock of 820 Mhz) does not consume anything close to 190w.
Really? Because the GTX 460 Hawk with its stock clock of 780MHz peaks at only 143w, and averages only 122w. So how did you come up with 190w and 150w stock? Perhaps there is something to that better PWM design, ya think?


by: Benetanegia
GTX 560 can also be OCed to 1000+ Mhz on air, good luck getting even close to that with a GTX460.
Yeah, it can be overclocked to 1000MHz+, but it also can't. At least most can't. As for getting close to that, my reference PCB GTX460 got to 850MHz, and that was without the voltage unlocked.

But really, we should compare the two cards with the same PCB. The MSI GTX460 Hawk and the MSI GTX560 Twin Frozr II. Same PCB, same cooler, same everything, except the core.

Maximum overclock for the GTX460 Hawk was 940MHz. Maximum overclock of the GTX560 Twin Frozr II was 945MHz. Yeah, I guess the 5MHz would make a difference.:rolleyes:

More interestingly the GTX560 got hotter while achieving this clock speed, and the fans were running faster.:eek: And what does more heat mean? You guessed it, more power consumption.

So the two cards, with the same PCB and cooler, hit almost identical clock speed and the GTX560 actually consumed more power...

by: Benetanegia
I don't really know what problem you have with the GTX 5xx series, but you've been saying the same thing since it was released. Yes you can OC GTX4xx cards to match their GTX5xx counterparts at stock, but overclock GTX5xx cards and there's simply no contest. Believe me, there's nothing I'd like more than running my GTX460 at 1000+ Mhz, it's just never going to happen. Same thing with GTX470 versus GTX570 and probably this new card will clock slightly better even.
Read above and you will see. The GTX500 series was overhype because the reviews looked better because they had higher stock clock speeds. But when you really look at it, they are only marginally better at overclocking and power consumption at best.
Posted on Reply
#25
Benetanegia
by: newtekie1
Yes, they generally do. Just go look at all the "ZOMG the GTX560 ti performs better than the GTX470!!!!" threads. They ignore the fact that the GTX470 has piss poor clock speeds by default.



Correct, but that is due to the improved power design of the PCB, not really due to the core. Look at the reference PCB of the GTX560 and the GTX460 and you'll see why the GTX560 is more power efficient.



Really? Because the GTX 460 Hawk with its stock clock of 780MHz peaks at only 143w, and averages only 122w. So how did you come up with 190w and 150w stock? Perhaps there is something to that better PWM design, ya think?




Yeah, it can be overclocked to 1000MHz+, but it also can't. At least most can't. As for getting close to that, my reference PCB GTX460 got to 850MHz, and that was without the voltage unlocked.

But really, we should compare the two cards with the same PCB. The MSI GTX460 Hawk and the MSI GTX560 Twin Frozr II. Same PCB, same cooler, same everything, except the core.

Maximum overclock for the GTX460 Hawk was 940MHz. Maximum overclock of the GTX560 Twin Frozr II was 945MHz. Yeah, I guess the 5MHz would make a difference.:rolleyes:

More interestingly the GTX560 got hotter while achieving this clock speed, and the fans were running faster.:eek: And what does more heat mean? You guessed it, more power consumption.

So the two cards, with the same PCB and cooler, hit almost identical clock speed and the GTX560 actually consumed more power...



Read above and you will see. The GTX500 series was overhype because the reviews looked better because they had higher stock clock speeds. But when you really look at it, they are only marginally better at overclocking and power consumption at best.
They are still better cards overall Newtekie. The MSI cards getting similar clocks and thermals is almost irrelevant. There's plenty of other 560's that DO OC to over 1000 Mhz. Some almost 1100 Mhz, arguably on the same condition that the MSI GTX460 Hawk achieves 950 Mhz.

I'm not sure, but as far as I can tell the Gigabyte SOC's use the same PCB and cooler and the 560 is faster and it clocks significantly better.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-460-soc-review/18
http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-gtx-560-ti-soc-review/20

I wouldn't say 100 Mhz is insignificant, PCB and cooling being equal. I guess we could argue forever, you have your opinion and your data and I have my opinion and my data. I still strongly believe that I am right and you are wrong or just simply exagerating a situation of 2 chips being "the same""just a revision".

EDIT: BTW

http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-gtx-560-ti-hawk-review/21 - GTX 560 Ti Hawk 1029 Mhz
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-gtx-460-hawk-review/20 - GTX 460 Hawk 952 Mhz
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/25/msi_n560gtxti_hawk_video_card_review/8 - 1056 Mhz

Again, I wouldn't say 70-100 Mhz is insignificant on basically the same card. Also in the Guru3d reviews the 460 had a perceived consumption of 206w and the 560 Ti 195w (Gigabyte) and 205w vs 213w respectively (MSI). And that's the Ti with extra of 48 SP. Wherever I look I see a more efficient chip.

And yes, my card does 850 Mhz without touching the voltages and 900 Mhz with some more juice, maybe 950 Mhz if i dare to really push it, but that's about it. 1050 Mhz that so many 560's achieve is really unnattainable.

And IF all the improvements came only from the PCB (which I don't agree with), so what? The new ones are still better and this new GTX560 448SP will probably be better, even if only because the PCB and VRM is better. Mainly due to the PCB being that of the 570, and the chip being a crippled one.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment