GTX 480 or GTX 570?

Burlsey · 8 Jun 2011 at 11:28

Sorry to ask this question guys.
I need a new graphics card, my 8800GTS took a dive a few days ago.
It's for my main computer, I do play games hope to play BF3 when it comes out, so with that in mind do I go for the:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-222-AS

Or spend the exta and get:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-112-MS&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1010

Or something completly different?

Help

Many thanks.

drifting · 8 Jun 2011 at 11:32

480 is better than 570 due to extra vram, if noise is not a problem. I would choose either 480 or 6950.

arnoldma · 8 Jun 2011 at 11:57

what res. detail settings etc...? 570 beats 480 albeit only 1%, but it is a newer generation, uses less power, less heat - will last longer. i'd go for that.

plus, in 6ish months 480 will be not one but TWO generations old!

drifting · 8 Jun 2011 at 12:04

arnoldma said:
what res. detail settings etc...? 570 beats 480 albeit only 1%, but it is a newer generation, uses less power, less heat - will last longer. i'd go for that.

plus, in 6ish months 480 will be not one but TWO generations old!

It will last shorter than 480. One example would be that 570 cannot afford to run Shogun 2 DX11 at max already, and this is just Year 2011.

Talking about architecture, do you really think there can be much difference between GF100 and GF110?

arc@css · 8 Jun 2011 at 12:20

daveash · 8 Jun 2011 at 12:32

480, if you can stretch to one with a third party cooler then they can overclock to pretty much 580 speeds.

Burlsey · 8 Jun 2011 at 12:36

So this would be good?

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-079-GI

Thank you all for the replies

arnoldma · 8 Jun 2011 at 13:05

"it will last shorter than 480" what???

i'd like to see your proof of when 480 is better than 570, my source - techpowerup is pretty reliable, i think.

the main question is WHY buy last generation when the current generation is better in everyway - price & performance?

Leeroy123 · 8 Jun 2011 at 13:10

neither, get 2 460's and sli them. cheaper option than a 580 and performs as well if not better.

MooMoo444 · 8 Jun 2011 at 13:10

arnoldma said:
"it will last shorter than 480" what???

i'd like to see your proof of when 480 is better than 570, my source - techpowerup is pretty reliable, i think.

the main question is WHY buy last generation when the current generation is better in everyway - price & performance?

570 might have the slighest performance edge over a 480 - but in high resolution scenarios with large amounts of AA, the 480 will reign supreme. It has more vRAM to play with.

When you're gaming and your vRAM is maxed, the game will feel sluggish even at high FPS.

arnoldma · 8 Jun 2011 at 13:14

also:

performance per watt here, 570 is just killing 480!

higher resolution 2560x1440:

it might make a difference from 2gb to 1.2gb - which is why i went for 6970 for my 2560 monitor, but 1.5 to 1.2, really doubt it.

sorry guys, i just dont see the advantage of going 480 over 570...

Tute · 8 Jun 2011 at 13:15

The GTX570. You're looking at two cards that are damn near identical in performance, but the GTX570 will be a lot quieter.

drifting · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:01

arnoldma said:
also:

performance per watt here, 570 is just killing 480!

higher resolution 2560x1440:

it might make a difference from 2gb to 1.2gb - which is why i went for 6970 for my 2560 monitor, but 1.5 to 1.2, really doubt it.

sorry guys, i just dont see the advantage of going 480 over 570...

As I said, I will never consider buying a card which cannot even afford running current games at max settings. Shogun 2 is an exmaple.

I'm not saying the reviews from techpowerup are bad, but 99% reviews from every site only use simple fps numbers (without analyzing how many >33ms gaps are there between consecutive frams). I'm sure when you play old games like Metro 2033 max (which techpowerup and most review sites deny to test at max settings most of the time) you have to suffer from lag spikes without being able to see from the review numbers.

When the fps numbers can already tell a difference, it's not going to be playable for single GPU setup.

But remember, the actual gaming experience (the smoothness) cannot be simply measured by average fps numbers (or so-called "min fps" by taking average over each 1-second time interval).

drifting · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:08

Let me quote a recent review of 580 3GB vs 1.5GB from hardocp:

Metro 2033 @ 1920x1200 Very High 4X MSAA + Depth of Field
When we lowered the resolution to 1920x1200 something wonderful happened. We were able to play at Very High, with 4X MSAA and we were also able to finally turn on Advanced Depth of Field with it!

The only video card that was playable at these settings was the MSI N580GTX Lightning XE video card. It was the only one that felt smooth enough, with enough performance, to play at 1920x1200 Very High 4X MSAA with Depth of Field. There were some upper 20's framerates toward the end, when we had wide vast outdoor areas. However, a lot of this game is underground, and the experiences were not bad at all. The GeForce GTX 580 was almost playable, but it felt a little too laggy for our likes. The AMD Radeon HD 6970 was most certainly not playable at this setting. The clear winner for the best gameplay experience, is the MSI N580GTX Lightning XE.

In all of our gameplay testing we haven't hit the VRAM wall with the GeForce GTX 580 with 1.5GB of RAM. In Metro 2033 we had the opportunity to show you what this looks like. We found that at 2560x1600 with Very High quality and 4X MSAA enabled and Depth of Field enabled, the VRAM requirements are at least a 2GB video card. This graph above proves that.

If you look at the GeForce GTX 580 line, it has a framerate between 6-9 FPS, varying only by 3 FPS the entire run-through. This is a clear cut VRAM bottleneck imposed by the insufficient 1.5GB of RAM on the video card for these settings. When you look at the performance of the AMD Radeon HD 6970, with 2GB of RAM, the performance is better and there is a wider range of framerate over time. The same goes for the 3GB MSI N580GTX Lightning XE which is faster still, with varying framerate.

Though the performance of the 2GB Radeon HD 6970 and 3GB MSI N580GTX Lightning XE is more than unplayable, this is a performance bottleneck, not a VRAM bottleneck on those two video cards.

We will talk more about this particular graph in the conclusion, as it has given us several points to talk about.

pv123 · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:10

570GTX is overall a better card, not sure if it's worth the extra cash, for me it would due to noise, temps and newer tech.

I wouldn't listen to the VRAM talk, it won't apply to you seeing the card that you are coming from, unless you are going to be using multiple screens at ridiculous resolutions and ridiculous AA levels and even then the difference has not been proven in all situation just pure speculation and fan boyism.

Also the 480 with the Temperature and the average experience won't last you longer than a 570GTX due to VRAM, when the 570GTX VRAM is not enough we will have passed loads of card generations....

pv123 · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:14

drifting said:
Let me quote a recent review of 580 3GB vs 1.5GB from hardocp:

So how does your comparison apply to the OP's thread, useless to be honest just pure spam he is comparing a 480 and a 570 not a 1.5GB vs 2GB vs 3GB card the difference is not that big between the 480 and 570 VRAM.

TROLL.

drifting · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:15

pv123 said:
570GTX is overall a better card, not sure if it's worth the extra cash, for me it would due to noise, temps and newer tech.

I wouldn't listen to the VRAM talk, it won't apply to you seeing the card that you are coming from, unless you are going to be using multiple screens at ridiculous resolutions and ridiculous AA levels and even then the difference has not been proven in all situation just pure speculation and fan boyism.

Also the 480 with the Temperature and the average experience won't last you longer than a 570GTX due to VRAM, when the 570GTX VRAM is not enough we will have passed loads of card generations....

Since you just ignore the fact that 570 already has insufficient vram for Shogun 2, people should also ignore what you say?

drifting · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:17

pv123 said:
So how does your comparison apply to the OP's thread, useless to be honest just pure spam he is comparing a 480 and a 570 not a 1.5GB vs 2GB vs 3GB card the difference is not that big between the 480 and 570 VRAM.

TROLL.

I'm saying that 1.2GB vram is small, because even 1.5GB can lose advantage to 3GB. The review has already said that the 3GB version gives better playing experience (less lag spikes) than the 1.5GB version, while the average fps numbers and min fps numbers do not clearly show it.

arnoldma · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:36

LOL! you have no concept of comparison at all, how can you compared a 1.5gb to 3gb jump to 1.2gb to 1.5gb jump?

OF COURSE extra 1.5gb (100% increase) is going to give you a better performance - it's doubled ffs, but show me where it says extra 300mb (25% increase) will?

Delete your post, please don't confuse OP with that irrelevant comparison.

Time to go back to school 'drifting'?

edit: just noticed maybe he is spamming to get to 250 posts for free shipping

pv123 · 8 Jun 2011 at 14:41

arnoldma said:
LOL! you have no concept of comparison at all, how can you compared a 1.5gb to 3gb jump to 1.2gb to 1.5gb jump?

OF COURSE extra 1.5gb (100% increase) is going to give you a better performance - it's doubled ffs, but show me where it says extra 300mb (25% increase) will?

Back to school drifting?

edit: just noticed maybe he is spamming to get to 250 posts for free shipping

So his suggestion is get a 580GTX with 3GB, ofcourse if you can get a 590GTX with 1,000GB it will last you a life time and you will be able to give it to your next generation since VRAM is the only thing that matters, I don't even know why GPU cards are not called VRAM sticks! :rolleyes: