Originally Posted by Lord Xeb
I got my 560 Ti to 1030 core which is essentially as fast as 570 so 560 Ti over a 6950.
You do know that a 6950 will also do about 1Ghz right? Its not about the number but the % over stock. A 6950 @ 1Ghz is overclocked ~25% from stock, and a 560 Ti @ 1030 is overclocked ~25%.. so the performance difference would be the same as it would be at stock, presuming the memory also overclocks the same, but the memory itself gives a larger performance boost to the 6950 than it would to the 560 Ti, meaning the 6950 would be faster.
I don't understand why people would say a 560 Ti overclocks much
better when they, on average, overclock about the same. There are the odd 560 Ti's that will go further but its all luck of the draw. Why would somebody buy a slower card (at stock) for more when you can get a faster card (at stock also) for less. Its like having the choice of buying a 300HP Evo X or one with 400HP, and going for the one that is 300 and then tuning it up (overclocking). It would be better just to get the 400HP one.. forgive the weird analogy.
Originally Posted by Chuckclc
I voted 560Ti, I was surprised to see so many votes for the 6950. Especially if you are using just one monitor and are using 1920x1080 resolution. If you are going higher like your sig rig monitor at x1600 resolution then you may benefit from the extra V Ram.
He's comparing the 1GB 6950 in the OP not 2GB.