Reference Radeon HD 5870 overclocked vs stock GTX 560 ti 2gb msi twin frozr II

• 

  Joysky on 09/08/2013 - 08:22

  +1

  post @ whirlpool = better

• 

  _Bruce_ on 09/08/2013 - 09:06

  Depends to a large degree on the resolution you are running. If you want to run at higher res and/or more monitors then the memory is much more important. Having said that I would be leaning towards the 560ti. My reasoning is that older less demanding games will not be as affected by the lack of power, and more intensive games will be hurt more by running out of VRAM. This is of course highly generalised and without benchmarking all the different games you might play with various settings it is hard to draw conclusions. You should also consider what video options you normally turn on/off (ie: texture detail/draw distance/AA).

  One point I will make, you suggest that you are holding off on purchasing hardware until DDR4. Note that this is not going to affect the GPU market at all, so you can just get one now and use it in a newer system when you get it. You may want to wait for the new range of AMD chips to come out anyway though.

  • 

    dreadpiratedan on 09/08/2013 - 10:25

    Yeah 1080p res, my bad forgot to mention. Only ever use presets then turn back or off AA. Usually trying to have at least lowest AA though. But crysis 3 turned it on it's head and I had to turn back a few settings. It's now at a sweet spot of the performance and eyecandy. Something are maxed, some mid, etc.

    And yeah GPU is not at all an influencing factor for my next build. My suspicion is alot of new hardware will pop up to accompany it. Most likely my build will include a new GPU (or temp it with whichever of these 2 I choose till I get more funds). No doubt the HD 8XX0 series will be out then, possibly even gtx 8XX so that would be pretty handy aswell.

    My objective is simply to get by semi comfortably for 6 or 8 months with my current gear, so want to give it any tiny advantge I can :p.

    Edit: Do you know what even happens if you fill your vram? That's what I'm confused about.. Will I notice it or does is simply drop what it doesn't need load up what it does? I know with my puny 768mb 460, trying to mod skyrim used to result badly. I'd be running around fine mostly, but if I'd entire a town, house or new area it would fall to it's knees for 10-20 seconds (full halt like it had frozen in most cases). But modding vs standard game vram usuage is pretty different from what I can gather.

    • 

      _Bruce_ on 09/08/2013 - 12:50

      It would think it depends large on the game. I expect the main problem to be having to load data in VRAM more often. This shouldn't slow down the processing too much, but will cause things to stutter if the renderer is waiting for this data (and/or cause texture pop).

• 

  ethereal88 on 09/08/2013 - 09:59

  Both are slow options at 1080p, you'd be lucky to crack 30FPS in modern games even at "high" settings, and that old Core 2 quad will be bottlenecking you. With the falling dollar prices are going up now and there is no point waiting. I'd either do an FX 6300 or Intel Haswell build depending on price.

  • 

    dreadpiratedan on 09/08/2013 - 10:13

    The core to quad is a push yes, but generally it is good enough. I know I'd get a reasonable performance bump going to a 2500k, 3570K, 4670k etc, but as it is, it gets by and is a good match for the 560ti. Approx $500 mobo+cpu+ram upgrade is simply not a worthy investment for 10fps give or take. I'm not sure how you're coming up with that luck to get 30fps either. In truth, it is rare for me to go below 40 on high or ultra on just about every game. Crysis 3 is the only game where I have had to play around individual settings rather than just preset high or ultra. Hell even my 460 used to go fine on high or more @1080p. The point in waiting is mainly money and lack there of it.

    • 

      _Bruce_ on 09/08/2013 - 12:47

      Actually your CPU is pretty well fine. ethereal88 doesn't have many answers that aren't 'spend more money'.

      • 

        dreadpiratedan on 09/08/2013 - 14:53

        Haha cheers bloke. Tends to be the ones who don't own the chip that have bad things to say about it. I have seen a couple posts where they have kept their gpu and upgraded the rest from a q6600 and had good performance increases. I'm frequently getting better frame-rates in games than benchmarks I've see for the card on "better" test rigs, though, so I can't complain really :p.

    • 

      ethereal88 on 09/08/2013 - 17:37

      +1

      10? More like 20-30+. Your low minimum frames and those dips you've gotten used to don't exist with a modern CPU. Metro Last Light and Crysis 3 would kill your setup on High, and your system won't last at all with BF4 and incoming next gen games this and next year. And its actually $330 right now for an FX 6300, Asus M5A97 R2 and 8GB DDR3 1866MHz RAM. Not exactly a huge pile of money.

      That pansy 560 Ti vs a 670:

      http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/598?vs=547

      vs a 7950:

      http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/645?vs=547

      You'll see similar massive jumps with a new CPU, look through techspot's CPU benchmarks.

      • 

        _Bruce_ on 09/08/2013 - 18:46

        Translation: If you need to play those specific games at high detail you will need to spend more money. Otherwise don't worry yourself.

      • 

        dreadpiratedan on 10/08/2013 - 18:14

        Lol enjoy that up vote I gave you :p damn mobile browsing spazzing out.
        With all due respect, your responses are not at all relevant and I'm not interested. I appreciate youve gonw to the effort of posting some links and all but a new build and new card is the absolute opposite of the purpose of this thread. Plus I wouldn't touch that amd poo with a stick :p.

        The 560 to is fine, the 5870 is fine. My q6600 is fine. Benchmarks mean jack all when they are all based on stock clocks.