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
Shihabyooo
So, seeing that Nvidia's still in the mood to release card revisions, should we assume that the GTX 595 will be more than just a rumor ?

Completely Bonkers said:
Sweetspot for me would be a "565", aka 560@28nm. :pimp:
They should have named it a 565. Like the 465, which was a locked 470 :/
Posted on Reply
#2
Casecutter
NC37 said:
Well thats one way to clear out some old 110 inventory.
My first thought exactly! As this write-up said it would have the 448-Core name, Cuda prowess is maintained that sweet. Although it didn't set clocks, TMUs, or memory bus. If it is continuing with 320-Bit that in my mind its not in the 560 family and what muddles the waters of the what naming convention are suppose to denote, but it's done plenty of time most recently with the 6790..

blibba said:
Call it a GTX565 or a GTX570SE. There, that wasn't hard, was it?
Shihabyooo said:
They should have named it a 565. Like the 465, which was a locked 470 :/
I'd agree with GTX565.

Though I'm seeing this as more a way to breach or evolve the conventional mindset of what's now a market segment that's not $100-200 (which had been a mainstream/gamer), while advance "Enthusiast class" well above $350. It isn’t about right today, but a longer-term strategy to broaden what both Nvidia/AMD have been try for a while, open a new segment with a spacious berth; the "gamer rank" for lack of a better name. The mainstream is still the lions share (in this economy), while entry cards will be curtailed at least with AMD as APU’s take on more of that.

Thier hope is to progress pricing back-up that had eroded in the 4850/GTX260 price war. I'd consider that when the next generation (28Nm) 560/6870’s come to market we could see prices for those a $230-250 and may not ever drop back to below $200 until they‘re EoL. Though given the world’s economic woes still in 2012, it might not come to pass. If yields are good and power is down, so less stringent PCB power sections… a 256-Bit card can pull-in plenty of profit at $200.
Posted on Reply
#3
Champ
well, i know what I'm putting in my next rig. I'm ballin on a poor man's budget, so hopefully I can wing two of these
Posted on Reply
#4
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
so its essentially a GTX470 on a more efficiency die
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Benetanegia said:
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.
Well, I trust W1z reviews, and his show a chip that isn't really any more efficient. The efficiency when using the same PCB is about the same at best. The GTX560/ti is nothing more than a stepping revision, I will say it is a revision, that gives marginal improvements at best. However, I don't believe the GTX570/580 are even that, I think they are the same GPU that gives no real improvements other than a better cooler and PCB.

But the biggest point that I have had is that most people compare the two at stock clocks to get that the GTX560 is such a better card. Even if you take a very bad example of a GTX460 and it only gets to 900MHz, and the GTX560 gets to 1000MHz, the difference only works out to about 11% clock speed difference. So in modern games, maybe 5FPS, it isn't the "ZOMG the GTX560 is so much better" that everyone says it is, and IMO isn't worth the much higher price premium that the GTX560 commands. I'd save the money and go with a GTX460 and be happy knowing that when it really comes down to it, there won't be any real noticeable performance difference.

And if everything is coming from the PCB, then that is my point, if they start using the old PCB again, like they have with the GTX570s.
Posted on Reply
#6
Recus
blibba said:
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.
Now make this in every mobos thread.
Posted on Reply
#7
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Recus said:
Now make this in every mobos thread.
AMD hasn't really been that better in the recent past either. I think they both need to go back to naming school.
Posted on Reply
#8
blibba
Benetanegia said:
GTX 570SE is the most appropriate name.
By this logic the 570 itself should be called a "580SE". But then 565 doesn't really make total sense either, because this suggests some later revision (e.g. GTX285).

565 and 570SE still both make a lot more sense than "560Ti 448", though. I'm not sure that part of the problem isn't the relative flexibility of the new naming scheme, but even with that considered, they've been a lot less consistent in what various naming differences mean about differences between cards than they ought to have been.

Recus said:
Now make this in every mobos thread.
Yes, it's far from just Nvidia GPUs that are guilty of this. Look at multiple Intel CPUs called the e6800, for example, and the whole 5970>6970, 5770=6770 thing on the AMD side.
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
blibba said:
By this logic the 570 itself should be called a "580SE". But then 565 doesn't really make total sense either, because this suggests some later revision (e.g. GTX285).

565 and 570SE still both make a lot more sense than "560Ti 448", though. I'm not sure that part of the problem isn't the relative flexibility of the new naming scheme, but even with that considered, they've been a lot less consistent in what various naming differences mean about differences between cards than they ought to have been.
The naming scheme in general doesn't make a lot of logical sense. The GTX580/570 cards, IMO, should have been called GTX485/475, because they are just a very minor revision of the GTX480/470. Heck, at least with the GTX285 there was a die shrink, we don't even get this, yet the new names suggest more of an improvement than the jump from GTX280 to 285.

The naming schemes on both sides suck, and it is because both sides are just trying to out do the other in marketing. Coming out with what looks like a totally new generation of cards that is really essentially identical to the last generation but with a stepping update looks better on paper and the consumers will jump at buying the latest and greatest.
Posted on Reply
#10
Benetanegia
blibba said:
By this logic the 570 itself should be called a "580SE". But then 565 doesn't really make total sense either, because this suggests some later revision (e.g. GTX285).
I had forgotten about the GTX465. It makes sense too, kinda, none of them make a lot of sense really, but those are the best options. GTX 560 448 just doesn't make a lot of sense, not based on the same chip, etc. The only logic for 570SE being the name of choice was that 560 already exists, and Nvidia has released many cut down chips that didn't really "fit" in the already "closed" lineup and called them SE before, so it makes sense to continue that trend, but like I said I forgot about the 465, so whatever... sigh 570 SE seems like a better name to me because it's based on GF110.
Posted on Reply
#11
blibba
Thing is since the numbers and letters started serving the same purpose (there are almost no different cards that have the same number (e.g. 580/570) but a different letter (e.g. GTX/GSO)) they lost a lot of flexibility in their naming system. As pointed out above, there's also the matter that we're dealing with revisions of 4 series cards. In days of old, it'd be:

GTX580 -> 485 GTX
GTX480 -> 480 GTX
GTX570 -> 485 GTS
GTX470 -> 480 GTS
GTX560 (448) -> 485 GT
GTX465 -> 480 GT
GTX560 Ti -> 465GTS
GTX460 -> 460 GTS
GTX560 -> 465 GT
GTX460 SE -> 460 GT
GTX550 Ti -> 455 GT
GTS450 -> 450 GT
etc.

This does make it seem like there are a lot of very similar cards out there, but that's because there are.

Under the new system, however, the best bet in my opinion is to leave the 580 with it's own number, so that it keeps its distance from non-flagship products, and go with 580/570/570SE or to bring back the Ultra name, and go for 580Ultra/580/580SE.
Posted on Reply
#12
HalfAHertz
Yeah forgot about the 465 too. Come to think of it I think the 465 wasn't accepted very well because of it perf/power. Maybe NV just don't want to associate the new card with it.
Posted on Reply
#13
Shihabyooo
HalfAHertz said:
Yeah forgot about the 465 too. Come to think of it I think the 465 wasn't accepted very well because of it perf/power. Maybe NV just don't want to associate the new card with it.
People were just being stupid. Not many complained about the power rec as much as they did the heat and the performance. I used a 465 before. And I found nothing wrong with it. And TBH, I would've gotten a 565 for comp for my brothers, I kinda loved that number.
Posted on Reply
#14
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
blibba said:
Thing is since the numbers and letters started serving the same purpose (there are almost no different cards that have the same number (e.g. 580/570) but a different letter (e.g. GTX/GSO) they lost a lot of flexibility in their naming system. As pointed out above, there's also the matter that we're dealing with revisions of 4 series cards. In days of old, it'd be:

GTX580 -> 485 GTX
GTX480 -> 480 GTX
GTX570 -> 485 GTS
GTX470 -> 480 GTS
GTX560 (448) -> 485 GT
GTX465 -> 480 GT
GTX560 Ti -> 465GTS
GTX460 -> 460 GTS
GTX560 -> 465 GT
GTX460 SE -> 460 GT
GTX550 Ti -> 455 GT
GTS450 -> 450 GT
etc.

This does make it seem like there are a lot of very similar cards out there, but that's because there are.

Under the new system, however, the best bet in my opinion is to leave the 580 with it's own number, so that it keeps its distance from non-flagship products, and go with 580/570/570SE or to bring back the Ultra name, and go for 580Ultra/580/580SE.
Nice comparisons there. :) I'd certainly love it if my stock overclocked GTX 580 had 'Ultra' in its name.
Posted on Reply
#15
Recus
Actually I meant motherboards.
Posted on Reply
#16
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
qubit said:
Nice comparisons there. :) I'd certainly love it if my stock overclocked GTX 580 had 'Ultra' in its name.
It's amazing, I came across a cooler for an old GFX card today, and seeing

BFG
6800 ULTRA
OVERCLOCKED

on it was amazing, if Nvidia released a new "Ultra" card, id buy it for sheer nostalgia, aside from knowing that ultra means it's the fastest one at the time.
Posted on Reply
#17
blibba
wolf said:
It's amazing, I came across a cooler for an old GFX card today, and seeing

BFG
6800 ULTRA
OVERCLOCKED

on it was amazing, if Nvidia released a new "Ultra" card, id buy it for sheer nostalgia, aside from knowing that ultra means it's the fastest one at the time.
It's fairly surprising to me that they don't hand pick a few GF110s to be 580 Ultras with higher clock speeds and lots of headroom. Maybe kit it out with 3GB of higher rated memory as standard. But I guess the board partners beat them to it with the Classified etc.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment