i couldn't give a conclusion as to which card was "better"

They each slot nicely into a performance/price slot that make each a good deal

So it comes down to features. And the resolution you play. For 19x12 and below and for $250 the GTX 560 Ti is damn near unbeatable. For $50 more, you can get a higher performing card that will handle higher resolutions. The only card that was temporarily "overpriced" was HD 6870 and it is now down to $220 which makes it a good deal.

Even I have a hard time believing Bittech's review where it shows the 560 beating 6950 2GB in pretty much every game. It is not what most other review sites are showing.

OTOH, I am noticing that even more than the previous AlienBabelTech reviews of Fermi/Cayman cards, the latest ABT review of the 560 show the Radeon cards (5870, 6870 and above cards excluding 6850) to be performing a bit better than what the majority of other review sites would show.. --ABT's reviews always showed the 5870 to be performing closer to the 480, compared to others... It is quite believable given the unique games that Apoppin covers.

Do you really think so? i didn't think my HD 5870 vs GTX 480 figures were very much out of line with the other sites - for the games we cover.

It depends what driver BitTech used; Did they use 10-12 or 11-1a? There is a good performance improvement from upgrading to each vendor's latest driver? It also depends on the games used

If you use HardOCP's five games - and use F1 2010 and the other 3 games that favor AMD, you will get quite a different conclusion than if you use HAWX 2, Lost Planet 2 and all the tessellation-rich games.

My goal is to bench ALL the popular games .. that way everyone will hate me


that didn't come out right

It wasn't that bad--not THAT much out of line.. and most other cards were very much in line with most others.. and hey, I said that it's believable, indeed believable!!!!!!!!! Oh, so very believable! It's not like as if you're cheating or anything.

They didn't review but 4 (2 of which, arguably, prefer Nvidia) games.....However, that was enough for them to reach the full blown conclusion that the 560 was better than the 6950 2gb. I saw this coming though, they didn't recommend (give an award) any AMD cards from this generation-besides the 6870. They didn't give the 6950 an award because they knew the 560 was "coming." You guys should try that.....Don't award a good product because you know something is "coming." (Isn't there always?)

Just nitpicking on my part.

Well, it is *amazing* to me that a tech site can pick 4 (BitTech) or 5 (HardOCP) games and make any kind of a conclusion at all -other than those particular games. Even though i use 29 games as my benching suite, i am still careful to remember that it is a SMALL review *sampling* of games.

Now as to Wolfenstein. i had a nice little chat with Nvidia. It appears that they simply haven't got to Wolfenstein yet. It is no longer "popular" and its multiplayer is deader than a doornail.
Their other OGL games are not "weak" (it could be better for ET:QW, however) as evidenced by Doom and Prey.

The reason that i include it is simple ... i really liked the game and it is not really easy on graphics cards at the highest resolution and driver setting. It is one of a few OGL games that i test and it will have to "do" until Rage 3D (and Doom 4).

Why do reviewers keep featuring HAWX and that F1 Whatever (can't remember what's called, but it prefers AMD)? Both games are (from what I gather) mediocre, and show ridiculous bias towards a particular product.

I see you featured these games in your review, and I have always genuinely wondered about this. At least you guys feature both games, unlike some people......

Edit: The game is actually called F1 2010, and appears to be a good game.

F1 2010 is a decent racing game that tries too hard to be a sim. When it was first released it was *buggy* and i didn't use it. Since the patch, it is much better and they added a decent benchmark to it.

HAWX 2 - personally i detest Ubisoft's DRM and the idiotic requirement that you be connected to the 'net to play the Single Player. However, if you like that kind of game, there isn't much like it and evidently it IS popular.

There is no reason not to use either game. And i would be remiss to show one and not the other


The only games that i feel that i am missing are the real flying sims, and maybe SC2
-- but i don't like to play either kind of game and it would be sheer torture for me to play through them and create benches for.
-- i also would like to create benchmarks for Gamebryo engine games - but they are awfully hard to make both high quality and repeatable.

Plus BitTech show the GTX 560 beating the 6970 in Dirt 2. Most other sites show it vice-versa with Dirt 2! Also, an overclocked 560 @ 955MHz and 4400MHz memory beats a stock 570 which would have been more believable if it were a 1GHz 560 with 4580MHz mem (which other sites show it losing to a 570). 4 games with a full-blown conclusion is a new low. It's aggravating how people follow this, like with women deciding to follow Islam religion or Fundamentalist Mormon religion (that heavily favors men instead of women).

*Sometimes*, using only 4 or 5 games is an excuse for being biased towards AMD or NV (re: Bittech favoring NV, HardFlaccidOCP favoring AMD).

Well it's obvious why the 560 looks exceptionally good in bit-tech:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphi ... b-review/3

They are using older drivers for every single card besides the 560.

Also Guru3D's 560 article is using older drivers for every other card in their 1920x1200 charts.

So if there is a discrepancy, then check the testing methodology. The sites that re-tested their cards with all the latest drivers are the ones basically showing these cards perform how they are priced.