1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti with 448 Cores Launched

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,855 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    1c3d0g, hhumas, cadaveca and 1 other person say thanks.
  2. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,855 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
  3. Scatler

    Scatler

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    103 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    39
    [​IMG]

    My money is ready.
     
  4. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,559 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    954
    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.
     
  5. John Doe Guest

    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.
     
  6. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,855 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Aside from GF110, clock speeds, and overclocking headroom.
     
  7. onethreehill

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Messages:
    187 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    58
  8. John Doe Guest

    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
     
  10. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,559 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    954
    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.
     
  11. John Doe Guest

    Uhm, no. Look closer.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  12. AthlonX2

    AthlonX2 HyperVtX™

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,224 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    unlockable to a GTX570 i wonder if?
     
  13. borden5 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    66 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    isn't hd 6950 2gb give you better price/performance?
     
  14. claylomax

    claylomax

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,612 (0.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    261
    Location:
    London
    You're so right. GTX 470/480 were underclocked or overvolted, call it whatever you like. :rockout:
     
  15. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
  16. John Doe Guest

    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.
     
  17. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
     
  18. John Doe Guest

    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.
     
  19. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,559 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    954
  20. John Doe Guest

    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.
     
  21. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
     
  22. entropy13

    entropy13

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,964 (2.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    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.
     
  23. John Doe Guest

    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.
     
  24. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,117 (6.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,177
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  25. John Doe Guest

    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.

    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.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page