NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti with 448 Cores Launched

[btarunr]

NVIDIA released its newest graphics card model specifically for the winter shopping season, the limited edition GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 cores. Not only is this a limited edition launch, but also targeting only specific markets in North America and Europe. This includes the United States and Canada in North America; and the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the Nordics in Europe. The new card is based on the 40 nanometer GF110 GPU instead of the GF114 that the regular GTX 560 Ti is based on. This allows NVIDIA to add 64 more CUDA cores (448 vs. 384), 25% more memory (1280 MB vs. 1024), and a 25% wider memory bus (320 bit vs. 256).

The new limited edition GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 cores features clock speeds identical to those on the GeForce GTX 570, at 732 MHz core, 1464 MHz CUDA cores, and 950 MHz (3.80 GHz effective) GDDR5 memory. Since it’s based on the GF110 board, this new card is also capable of 3-way SLI, something the regular GTX 560 Ti isn’t. The card draws power from two 6-pin PCIe power connectors. Display outputs typically include two DVI and a mini-HDMI. Add-in card vendors are free to design their own graphics cards based on this chip, and so expect most GTX 560 Ti 448 core cards to look similar to non-reference GTX 570 ones. ZOTAC, Inno3D, EVGA, Palit, Gainward, ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI will have graphics cards based on this chip. Prices should typically start at US $289.

[btarunr]

Reviews on TechPowerUp!

• ASUS GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores DirectCu II
• ZOTAC GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores
• MSI GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr III

[Scatler]

My money is ready.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Aside from the G110 core this is basically a 470, spec wise. Even has the same max power consumption, though I'd say that's mostly coincidental.

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

Aside from the G110 core this is basically a 470, spec wise. Even has the same max power consumption, though I'd say that's mostly coincidental.

Well, not at all. It's all coincidental. I saw one or two of these boards without coolers on them, same PCB as 570 with that weak 4-phase power. It has a different cooler, PCB and such than a 470. Seems like non-ref is the way to go again. These VRM issues are getting stupid. Cards are failing to cheap out on a FET or two. Like a building that collapses due to lack of a brick or two.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

Aside from the G110 core this is basically a 470, spec wise. Even has the same max power consumption, though I'd say that's mostly coincidental.

Aside from GF110, clock speeds, and overclocking headroom.

[onethreehill]

List of Reviews
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...n560gtx448_pe/
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=837&Itemid=72
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5153/n...70-on-a-budget
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...es-review.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...abyte-msi.html
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...tx-560-ti-448/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...cs-Card-Review
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDI...re-GPU-Review/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...8-core-review/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-ge...-power-review/
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...0-ti-448-core/
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22071

Actually, the 470 has a huge OC'ing headroom. More than most other cards I can recall. It has a low stock clock at 600 core, but can get up to 800-850. And has a lot to gain from it's core. More than the 570's that're limited by VRM.

[Benetanegia]

According o W1zzard's measurements it consumes like 50w less than the 570 at max load, and 20-30w less on average, so it should be fine.

Honestly I didn't expect this much from this card. Performance is almost on par with GTX 570 (or HD6970), but it consumes a lot less while doing so. I expected the opposite tbh, similar power consumption as the 570 with "significantly" reduced performance, similar to the difference between 570 and 580. The 570 was really bottlenecked by memory/ROPs after all.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Well, not at all. It's all coincidental. I saw one or two of these boards without coolers on them, same PCB as 570 with that weak 4-phase power. It has a different cooler, PCB and such than a 470. Seems like non-ref is the way to go again. These VRM issues are getting stupid. Cards are failing to cheap out on a FET or two. Like a building that collapses due to lack of a brick or two.

No, not all. It's as I said. The power consumption part is surely coincidental due to the core, board, and PCB changes, but those specs being the same (448, 40, 320, 1280) is not. There's only so many choices with this architecture.

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

No, not all. It's as I said. The power consumption part is surely coincidental due to the core, board, and PCB changes, but those specs being the same (448, 40, 320, 1280) is not.

Uhm, no. Look closer.

[AthlonX2]

unlockable to a GTX570 i wonder if?

[borden5]

isn't hd 6950 2gb give you better price/performance?

[claylomax]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Actually, the 470 has a huge OC'ing headroom. More than most other cards I can recall. It has a low stock clock at 600 core, but can get up to 800-850. And has a lot to gain from it's core. More than the 570's that're limited by VRM.

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9696/haux2.jpg

You're so right. GTX 470/480 were underclocked or overvolted, call it whatever you like.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Uhm, no. Look closer.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Zotac/GeFo...mages/arch.jpg

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GeFor...mages/arch.jpg

Identical. At least when it comes to overall architecture and amount of enabled parts, both GTX470 and this card are identical, as your pictures show.

I don't understand what are you trying to say.

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

Identical. At least when it comes to overall architecture and amount of enabled parts, both GTX470 and this card are identical, as your pictures show.

I don't understand what are you trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is, the 470 had two rasterisers disabled over 480. Other hand, the 570 had one disabled over 580, so they had to disable one more to slow it down. It's coincidental, not done on purpose for the card to be similar to a 470.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by John Doe

What I'm trying to say is, the 470 had two rasterisers disabled over 480. Other hand, the 570 had one disabled over 580, so they had to disable one more to slow it down. It's coincidental, not done on purpose for the card to be similar to a 470.

Uff. Erm no. Al three, GTX470, 570 and 560 ti 448 have one rasterizer disabled*.

*To be precise they have one memory controler disabled which on practice disables one rasterizer too (or at least it disables the capabilities of one rasterizer, since one rasterizer cannot write to memory). In reality no rasterizer is really disabled afaik, but at any given time there's going to be one rasterizer that cannot write to memory, making it useless.

Now the 570 and 480 have one SM (shader multiprocessor) disabled and the 470 and 560 ti 448 have 2 disabled, each SM has 32 SP, so the 480 and 570 have 512-32= 480 and 560 ti 448 and 470 have 521-64= 448.

The end result is that the specs of the 470 and 560 ti 448SP are exactly the same. It's not coincidental, it's the only posibility considering the architecture and how many blocks have been disabled.

You're failing to understand. It doesn't matter. That is what it was going to be. The card isn't built ON PURPOSE to be like a 470. With two disabled, it becomes similar to a 470 in it's block config.

He's saying they made the card to be like a 470. They didn't. This card isn't a 470 period. It only has it's shader config fallen in the same boat.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Uhm, no. Look closer.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Zotac/GeFo...mages/arch.jpg

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GeFor...mages/arch.jpg

Chillax. At this point it's like you're discussing something else with someone else. Perhaps it's my fault that the connection between the words "basic" and "spec" was imprinted into you negatively. I'll consider your irrelevant debate a result of conversational error.

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

Chillax. At this point it's like you're discussing something else with someone else. Perhaps it's my fault that the connection between the words "basic" and "spec" was imprinted into you negatively. I'll consider your irrelevant debate a result of conversational error.

Look, this card is most closer to a 570. It should be called a "watered down 570" or something, not a 470. The 470 is built on a different PCB, cooler, and with a different, higher OC'ability potential. The only things they two have in common is the shader config.

[Benetanegia]

No one said they made it on purpose, but the end result is a card that spec wise, is identical, except for clocks. It's not coincidental, it is the only posibility considering they use a chip that s identical in it's overall architecture to that in the GTX470, and they disabled the exact same amount of blocks.

And no spec wise, this card is much closer to a 470 than to a 570. It's identical. Add the fact that the chip itself is 95% identical too and the similarity is simply far greater than when compared to the 570 which has one blovk less disabled. Like I said I fail to see what you are trying to proof, but so far it makes no sense.

[entropy13]

It's 1% worse in perf than the 570. It's 2% better in perf/watt than the 570. It's 12% better in perf/$ than the 570. It essentially is a short-term "bridge" between the 560 Ti and the 570 in price and performance. And a limited one at that.

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

No one said they made it on purpose, but the end result is a card that spec wise, is identical, except for clocks. It's not coincidental, it is the only posibility considering they use a chip that s identical in it's overall architecture to that in the GTX470, and they disabled the exact same amount of blocks.

And no spec wise, this card is much closer to a 470 than to a 570. It's identical. Add the fact that the chip itself is 95% identical too and the similarity is simply far greater than when compared to the 570 which has one blovk less disabled. Like I said I fail to see what you are trying to proof, but so far it makes no sense.

I'm talking about the card's built itself, the board. Not the core. This card IS NOT a 470. It's more of a 570 than a 470. 470's weren't based on a bunch of non-ref designs thrown across. You're the one that's not understanding what's being spoken here. He said the card is simply a 470, and it isn't. GIGO.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA

No, not all. It's as I said. The power consumption part is surely coincidental due to the core, board, and PCB changes, but those specs being the same (448, 40, 320, 1280) is not. There's only so many choices with this architecture.

I don't think it is coincidental at all, since GF110 is basically identical to GF100. So why wouldn't power consumption be basically identical when using the same PWM configuration and same Core configuration?

And I've had my GTX470 overvolted and overclocked since pretty much the day I got it, which was only a few days after launch, and I've yet to have any issues with the "weak" PWM. But you have to use restraint, which I think nVidia knew when they limitted the voltage on the GTX470 to 1.087v. I've seen people that have unlocked the voltage in the BIOS to allow 1.2v, and ran it there, only to have the PWM pop shortly after. I think nVidia should have limitted the GTX570 to 1.10v, that is as high as I will go on my GTX470, and even then I won't run it 24/7.

Originally Posted by John Doe

Look, this card is most closer to a 570. It should be called a "watered down 570" or something, not a 470. The 470 is built on a different PCB, cooler, and with a different, higher OC'ability potential. The only things they two have in common is the shader config.

Different PCB? No, there is no reference PCB, so the card maker can use whatever PCB they want. In fact, ASUS used the same PCB they've been using since the GTX400 days... And MSI even went back to using the GTX470's PCB with their GTX570s.

As for the GTX470 having a higher OC potential, I don't know how you came up with that. I bet these GTX560 448 cards fly once you start giving them some voltage.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I don't think it is coincidental at all, since GF110 is basically identical to GF100. So why wouldn't power consumption be basically identical when using the same PWM configuration and same Core configuration?

And I've had my GTX470 overvolted and overclocked since pretty much the day I got it, which was only a few days after launch, and I've yet to have any issues with the "weak" PWM. But you have to use restraint, which I think nVidia knew when they limitted the voltage on the GTX470 to 1.087v. I've seen people that have unlocked the voltage in the BIOS to allow 1.2v, and ran it there, only to have the PWM pop shortly after. I think nVidia should have limitted the GTX570 to 1.10v, that is as high as I will go on my GTX470, and even then I won't run it 24/7.

The 470 and the 570 in no way use the same VRM. Different inductors, different soldering job, different buck converter.

It's the 570 that has a weak VRM, not the 470. The reference 470 can easily be heavily OC'ed. To 1.087, 900 core. I've 4 of those cards here. 570's on the other hand had VRM issues. They failed on many people over OCN in the 570 club thread.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Different PCB? No, there is no reference PCB, so the card maker can use whatever PCB they want. In fact, ASUS used their GTX400 PCB...

The card on the picture of OP is the reference design. It's not being sold yet, but has it's PCB pictures (same as 570) out there.