Linus called us 560ti owners out on the WAN show. Shall we compare notes?

[Dnoble24]

I ran a 560ti, and it's strong little chugger at this point. I remember getting 25-40FPS on HIGH settings in the BF4 beta. With that said, i've discovered since reading about GPU specs that there's a LOT of out right fabrication on the internet in regards to GPU performance.  

 

It reminds me a lot of how Console gamers can pretend to love their new console a TON even though there's nothing to play on it, and they barely use it. *COUGH ps4 COUGH*

[LOST TALE]

its a preety capable card it beats a 150$ new card 

It depends which 150$ card

[GamerDude]

I understand that Linus has issues with peeps who make sweeping statements about their mid range cards. Many a times, I've seen posts where posters claims their *insert mid range nVidia/AMD cards* 'can max out *insert graphically intensive game title* at 1080P'. When I say max out, I mean maxed to the hilt, only exceptions I'd make are specific brand features like PhysX, TressFX and such. Medium ingame setting does not count as maxing out a game.....maxing out all ingame features without AA or having AA at medium does not count as 'max' to me.

[Liam-Wabbit]

One good example of one person listen to part of a conversation and misconstrual of it's intended meaning  

560ti is a good gaming card, no one debating that

[XionEternum]

I don't believe you.

Ultra frequently does not always mean "maxed out." Most games with presets take settings pretty high, but then going into custom you'll find some settings not at their highest values. Don't care enough about EA games to use Origin and thus will likely never test BF4 or check the settings in it to confirm it follows this same standard. Also, x2-MSAA isn't really that significant of a hit on framerate, but x2-SSAA can half it in many cases.

 

I ran a 560ti, and it's strong little chugger at this point. I remember getting 25-40FPS on HIGH settings in the BF4 beta. With that said, i've discovered since reading about GPU specs that there's a LOT of out right fabrication on the internet in regards to GPU performance.  

 

It reminds me a lot of how Console gamers can pretend to love their new console a TON even though there's nothing to play on it, and they barely use it. *COUGH ps4 COUGH*

It's largely a combination of exaggeration and misunderstanding; Some just want to brag, others don't really know what they are talking about.

 

I understand that Linus has issues with peeps who make sweeping statements about their mid range cards. Many a times, I've seen posts where posters claims their *insert mid range nVidia/AMD cards* 'can max out *insert graphically intensive game title* at 1080P'. When I say max out, I mean maxed to the hilt, only exceptions I'd make are specific brand features like PhysX, TressFX and such. Medium ingame setting does not count as maxing out a game.....maxing out all ingame features without AA or having AA at medium does not count as 'max' to me.

Problem with that is; Why care? Nobody with any amount of common sense would pay such claims any merit and go straight for definitive benchmarking done by professionals. Those without the common sense to do that shouldn't be building their PC in the first place. Linus's issue with this is unfounded and not based on reality; sure it's annoying, but I'ld rather just point and laugh than get upset and rant about it. To each their own, but not the point of the post.

[KylSp]

I believe both static and in-game benchmarking have equal merit. The latter takes significantly more time to do hence why this is just a quick few I can do right away with what I have on that system. Currently downloading more games and software and will possibly update tomorrow.

 

Static benchmarks are for vendors to sell cards, that's it.

[XionEternum]

Static benchmarks are for vendors to sell cards, that's it.

No, if you've taken the time to compare like I have, you'ld see a correlation between average in-game benchmark results on a broad scale and static benchmarks. Besides, most static benchmarks use dedicated graphics engines that serve as advertizement to purchase them for game development. If a particular graphics card works particularly well compared to others of similar price in say Unigine's benchmarks, then it'll undoubtedly perform with the same variance to those other graphics cards in games that use Unigine's engine. Same applies to Futuremark and others. Get back to your research, you've got more to learn.

 

My initial example was intentional: 3DMark, Unigine and two AMD-optimized games. Unigine is notoriously nVidia-optimized, and 3DMark is on Futuremark's engine and they are sponsored by MSI and Gigabyte who both vendor both AMD and nVidia so 3DMark tends to be the most fair assessment of raw potential in any graphics card. Whether or not that potential is utilized is on a game-by-game basis no matter the engine, and is heavily influenced by CPU batching of graphics data to the GPU via the API used. And here comes Mantle and HSA to shake everything up and give us our money's worth from high-end graphics cards. So, your belief that static benchmarks are just for vendors to sell graphics cards is likely about to explode in your face. Time will tell.

[XionEternum]

Edit to original post was added after the above posts.

[Equlix]

I had a 560ti overclocked to 960hz at 1440p before I upgraded. Most steam games were more than playable but bf3/4, ffxiv, dayz and other heavy hitters were 30ish fps at med w/ low shadows. It was a beast card and did better than I expected at 1440p and still is pretty good if you play indi or older games.

[XionEternum]

I had a 560ti overclocked to 960hz at 1440p before I upgraded. Most steam games were more than playable but bf3/4, ffxiv, dayz and other heavy hitters were 30ish fps at med w/ low shadows. It was a beast card and did better than I expected at 1440p and still is pretty good if you play indi or older games.

Yeah, reason I currently run an R9-290X with a Tempest Overlord AG 2560x1440 120Hz monitor. I'm set for a LONG time now.

[GamerDude]

Problem with that is; Why care? Nobody with any amount of common sense would pay such claims any merit and go straight for definitive benchmarking done by professionals. Those without the common sense to do that shouldn't be building their PC in the first place. Linus's issue with this is unfounded and not based on reality; sure it's annoying, but I'ld rather just point and laugh than get upset and rant about it. To each their own, but not the point of the post.

You assume that posters asking or reading such threads are savvy enough to know when someone who makes such a claim is simply talking smack. Sure, I know, but I can't assume others who might have read such claims would know truth from fairytale. I'd a GB WF2 GTX560 Ti a while back, it was a good card, I had gotten it for S3D gaming, but I knew its limitations as newer and more demanding games were released. That was why I'd sold it while it could still command a good price and replaced it with a pair of GTX670 in SLi. I've been to shops that sell hardware, and have heard guys asking the shop guy to recommend a good gaming card, these may be first time builders who might know a little something about assembling a system, but aren't too clear as to what a good gaming card might be (we all had got to start somewhere, right?). People who make sweeping claims like, "My GTX560 Ti 448 cores can max out any game at 1080P" when they actually mean, perhaps near max ingame setting but w/o AA.....these are the kind of claims that must be brought to light. I'm sure you've seen such claims in other forums as well, and when I see such posts, I feel it behooves me to point them out.

[rentaspoon]

Still waiting for pics 560ti owners! But that said my GT210 OC is running battlefield 3 at 30FPS!

-Cough- at 640x480 -Cough-

[flibberdipper]

As long as he doesn't say anything about us Sempron owners... I'm happy.

[t0ps]

As long as he doesn't say anything about us Sempron owners... I'm happy.

 

My sentiments on this whole thread exactly, without actually pointing out whats going on here. Good popcorn read nevertheless.

 

The only thing that irked me here was the little semantics blurb behind "full details". A cup is full, therefore it is filled to the max. I am done my rant. Thank you.

[Equlix]

Still waiting for pics 560ti owners! But that said my GT210 OC is running battlefield 3 at 30FPS!

-Cough- at 640x480 -Cough-

http://imgur.com/XRLfVxG OP delivered

[ohitsluca]

Those games must look great with no AA

[rentaspoon]

http://imgur.com/XRLfVxG OP delivered

Great will look at it later as I can't download anything on my mobile (thats t-mobile for you).

[binman13]

I think you guys are reading too much into what he said.

He was criticising people who talk bullshit about how well their hardware performs, he could have said other stuff, like people who say that an i3 is perfect for high-end gaming, or people who say that 4GB of RAM is totally more than enough.

[ccaian]

My 7970, 780 and 780 ti can't max out games at 1080p. Enough said. 560ti? Give me a break. I used to own one before I sold it to buy my 7970 and it runs modern games at MEDIUM to HIGH settings, not even able to touch ultra.

 

Great card, 10/10 would recommend but lets be real, it costs about 150$. If a 150$ could max out every game then well then lets just get rid of every card above a 760 then why don't we? I mean they're pointless right?

[XionEternum]

You assume that posters asking or reading such threads are savvy enough to know when someone who makes such a claim is simply talking smack. Sure, I know, but I can't assume others who might have read such claims would know truth from fairytale. I'd a GB WF2 GTX560 Ti a while back, it was a good card, I had gotten it for S3D gaming, but I knew its limitations as newer and more demanding games were released. That was why I'd sold it while it could still command a good price and replaced it with a pair of GTX670 in SLi. I've been to shops that sell hardware, and have heard guys asking the shop guy to recommend a good gaming card, these may be first time builders who might know a little something about assembling a system, but aren't too clear as to what a good gaming card might be (we all had got to start somewhere, right?). People who make sweeping claims like, "My GTX560 Ti 448 cores can max out any game at 1080P" when they actually mean, perhaps near max ingame setting but w/o AA.....these are the kind of claims that must be brought to light. I'm sure you've seen such claims in other forums as well, and when I see such posts, I feel it behooves me to point them out.

Frankly, I've only ever seen such claims in Youtube comments. Most going out of their way to join and share in a tech forum who say it are likely just trolling for a cheap laugh. Yes, we all had to start somewhere; I started with no local tech store and dialup internet to research how to build and already had a strong grasp on the simple fact in most cases you "get what you pay for" on a brand-by-brand basis. Yes, this was back when ATI still existed in name. However, this comes full-circle: I cannot see how someone ready to invest hundreds if not thousands of USD for their first build wouldn't want to fully understand what they are getting into. I can see -in a certain business settings- someone wanting to exploit a client's lack of knowledge for a larger margin in building a custom order PC, or trying to sell a particular graphics card at a ridiculous margin to some poor sap with more money that common sense. All boils down to what I already said: "Nobody with any amount of common sense would pay such claims any merit and go straight for definitive benchmarking done by professionals. Those without the common sense to do that shouldn't be building their PC in the first place."

 

Now, are we done with this roundabout nonsense and going to start focusing on the topic, or does nobody with a GTX560ti or 448 want to do their own benchmarking with their graphics card(s)?

[XionEternum]

My sentiments on this whole thread exactly, without actually pointing out whats going on here. Good popcorn read nevertheless.

 

The only thing that irked me here was the little semantics blurb behind "full details". A cup is full, therefore it is filled to the max. I am done my rant. Thank you.

Agreed on this first point, but out of popcorn.

 

As to the second; I've said my piece on this more than I care to, and it's not the point of the post. It may be the reason, but not the point. Debating semantics of what someone says with the fanboys that idolize him is beyond pointless. That said, I'll respond to all further needless white-knighting with: "Not the point of the post, please read the main post and stay on topic." As to your cup reference, most consider a centimeter below the rim 'full' or it'll spill. Bad analogy. Try again?

 

Those games must look great with no AA

Actually, they do look pretty good. Jaggies from lack of AA aren't pronounced on a 1920x1200 or even 1080p enough to care too much. As I already said though: Yes, you will notice them if you are looking for them, or if you have a dark contrast against a high contrast. I've even moved on to a 1440p @ 120Hz and AA is even less important at that and any resolution higher. Full-retinal display wouldn't need AA at all. So yeah, AA is primarily for lower resolutions where individual pixel lines are blended for a cleaner look, and is less effective and more demanding at higher resolution. And before you suggest another BS point of debate; my eyes are fine, had an exam just a few months ago. Now, go study up on AA before posting such a useless point of debate; "That was already clarified in the original post!"

 

I think you guys are reading too much into what he said.

He was criticising people who talk bullshit about how well their hardware performs, he could have said other stuff, like people who say that an i3 is perfect for high-end gaming, or people who say that 4GB of RAM is totally more than enough.

Nobody is saying that, you should actually read the thread first if you're going to white-knight for your hero Linus.

"Not the point of the post, please read the main post and stay on topic."

 

My 7970, 780 and 780 ti can't max out games at 1080p. Enough said. 560ti? Give me a break. I used to own one before I sold it to buy my 7970 and it runs modern games at MEDIUM to HIGH settings, not even able to touch ultra.

 

Great card, 10/10 would recommend but lets be real, it costs about 150$. If a 150$ could max out every game then well then lets just get rid of every card above a 760 then why don't we? I mean they're pointless right?

Really? You have all three of those and can't max anything out at 1080p? Are some of the settings disabled? Is your CPU a single-core 777Mhz PowerPC chip? Something has got to be wrong with your PC if you are unable to turn all your settings to their maximum. Does Minecraft even run on it? How about Flash games, can you play those? Slender or other Unity games?

Please, don't post stupid, or get treated stupid.

 

Now, true in presumption you meant ALL games at 60+ frames per second. No single card can do that yet and we have DirectX to thank for that. They are capable of it though once either Mantle takes root and/or DirectX gets overhauled.

But frankly when you have players in Planetside 2 complaining about low FPS at medium/high settings with a 3570K and GTX680 when the same system I was beta testing that game with is the one I'm sampling here and had it also maxed w/o AA for 30-60 fps depending on battle size, yeah; pretty sure these entry-level cards have a competing bite in them with the current state of affairs. However, nobody here is claiming a basic reference non-OCed 560ti can max everything. So...

"Not the point of the post, please read the main post and stay on topic."

[binman13]

Agreed on this first point, but out of popcorn.

 

As to the second; I've said my piece on this more than I care to, and it's not the point of the post. It may be the reason, but not the point. Debating semantics of what someone says with the fanboys that idolize him is beyond pointless. That said, I'll respond to all further needless white-knighting with: "Not the point of the post, please read the main post and stay on topic." As to your cup reference, most consider a centimeter below the rim 'full' or it'll spill. Bad analogy. Try again?

 

Actually, they do look pretty good. Jaggies from lack of AA aren't pronounced on a 1920x1200 or even 1080p enough to care too much. As I already said though: Yes, you will notice them if you are looking for them, or if you have a dark contrast against a high contrast. I've even moved on to a 1440p @ 120Hz and AA is even less important at that and any resolution higher. Full-retinal display wouldn't need AA at all. So yeah, AA is primarily for lower resolutions where individual pixel lines are blended for a cleaner look, and is less effective and more demanding at higher resolution. And before you suggest another BS point of debate; my eyes are fine, had an exam just a few months ago. Now, go study up on AA before posting such a useless point of debate; "That was already clarified in the original post!"

 

Nobody is saying that, you should actually read the thread first if you're going to white-knight for your hero Linus.

"Not the point of the post, please read the main post and stay on topic."

 

Really? You have all three of those and can't max anything out at 1080p? Are some of the settings disabled? Is your CPU a single-core 777Mhz PowerPC chip? Something has got to be wrong with your PC if you are unable to turn all your settings to their maximum. Does Minecraft even run on it? How about Flash games, can you play those? Slender or other Unity games?

Please, don't post stupid, or get treated stupid.

 

Now, true in presumption you meant ALL games at 60+ frames per second. No single card can do that yet and we have DirectX to thank for that. They are capable of it though once either Mantle takes root and/or DirectX gets overhauled.

But frankly when you have players in Planetside 2 complaining about low FPS at medium/high settings with a 3570K and GTX680 when the same system I was beta testing that game with is the one I'm sampling here and had it also maxed w/o AA for 30-60 fps depending on battle size, yeah; pretty sure these entry-level cards have a competing bite in them with the current state of affairs. However, nobody here is claiming a basic reference non-OCed 560ti can max everything. So...

"Not the point of the post, please read the main post and stay on topic."

Mate, dont stroll around here with your 40 posts history and act like a moderator.

And what he said about "maxing out all games with a 560 ti isnt going to happen" is because thats what Linus was originally talking about! Linus criticised people who go around saying that a 560 ti will max out any game! Your post was incoherent and convoluted so it's not his fault that he couldnt interpret your meaning.

And in response to your original post, your benchmarks werent of the games "maxed out at 1080p" so what was even the point.

[MegaDave91]

Linus' point is valid though. People often claim their mid-end graphics cards run every new title with all settings maxed.. Which often is completely bogus.

Yeah it's funny how people keep saying that with every new game that comes out. 

[MeltyMoon]

BF4 Lags for me with 2 7950s on 1440p

[m2rt]

I had 2 560Ti s in sli when they were launched with 2500k - mainly built for BF3 release. They were ok but nothing special because of the 1gb vram limitation ,couldnt play at ULTRA.