• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Want a EVGA 580, but which one

Solemn

Solemn

Solemn

Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2010
Posts
430
Location
Milton Keynes
I was thinking on either these two

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-148-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1812

or


http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-149-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1812


Can anyone tell me which is better and why?

or


Is there any point in getting the 3GB version? I heard its better for high res, but then I looked at some Benchmarks and it looks like it makes very little difference.

And then there is always the standard version I could go for as well but that only looks to be 30 to 20 cheaper.


Thanks guys!!!!
 
More VRAM is useful for higher resolutions across multiple monitors I believe.

Edit: Both your links point to same product :)
 
Same price, I'd go with the reference version since it puts heat out of the case. The dual fan version will just spread the heat everywhere inside, don't like those personally.

@Sash, the links are different.

Also 3GB is not worth it unless you are using 2500+ res imo. I use 1920 and even with max AA etc in BF3, it peaked at 1380mb.

rjko's desktop composition vram trick works wonders!
 
MooMoo444 said:
1 FPS variations is nothing to worry about. You should really go for 3gb at that res however
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Yes, a high res like that really should be accompanied by a higher level of video memory, unless you're content to compromise quite a bit in some situations.
 
arc@css said:
Agreed.

Yes, a high res like that really should be accompanied by a higher level of video memory, unless you're content to compromise quite a bit in some situations.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but the results dont seem to match what you woudl expect.


on resolutions of 2560x1440 there is only a difference between 1 or 2 FPS between the 1.5GB and 3GB cards... so is that what I will be seeing... 2 extra FPS for the 3GB card over the 1.5GB card?

Or am I missing something?
 
I don't think they've looked at your link yet Solemn, however the benchmarks shown do clearly indicate that 3GB currently offers nothing more than 1.5GB.

Perhaps future games will use more VRAM, who knows.

Here's a snippet from your link for those that missed it:

Conclusion

While moving up from 1 to 2 GB can be more easily justified in certain very high-end situations, it has to be said that 1.5 GB of video memory is sufficient and that there isn’t really any point in doubling this quantity of memory with higher density modules, even in SLI and surround.

Either games don’t require this level of memory, or the processing power required of the GPU in addition to memory demands is too high, even for the GeForce GTX 580s, as is the case in Metro 2033. While a Quad SLI system could however get you close to a level of performance in gaming conditions that require 3 GB per GPU, such a platform is both very extreme and for a very reduced number of users and certainly doesn’t justify the proliferation of 3 GB versions of the GeForce GTX 580
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pretty much the same answer as always .... 3GB at your resolution and buy the cheapest. Unless you take a fancy to one of the ones with a bespoke cooler (like I did). Really as simple as that :)
 
I had looked at the link, and I'd still recommend the 3GB one.

If you look at the most challenging game on there, Metro 2033, look at the results for that game.

If you wish to play the best looking games at high res, you need performance. Something with mickey mouse graphics like F1 2010 obviously doesn't need 3GB.

As they say in the article, even with 3GB, Metro 2033 is not fully playable. Games are only going to start using more so why not just put the extra to it. It's just a few pints.
 
Gaming at 2560x1440 here.

I have just gone from a GTX470 1.2GB to a GTX580 3GB
Before with the old card I could not play some games maxed out without having low FPS & card runing at 100% memory usage.

These are not new games Stalker,Anno,Ruse,iRacing to name a few.

So I would say 1.5GB is far to close to the 1.2GB that I was using.

If your going to buy a new card & spend out on the cash do it right & get the 3GB as it not even like buying a second 1.5GB card in a years time is going to help you as your still be stuck with 1.5GB.
 
No offense, but a single GTX580 is not gonna be fast enough for the more demanding game on 2560 res, regardless of it being the 1.5GB or the 3GB version (but of course, the 1.5GB version will suffer more when AA is applied).

Either get a pair of GTX560TI 2GB or 6950 2GB...or wait for next gen card.

Don't get me wrong...GTX580 is a great card, but if you are expecting it to handle 2560 res, that's being over optimistic...
 
MooMoo444 said:
I had looked at the link, and I'd still recommend the 3GB one.

If you look at the most challenging game on there, Metro 2033, look at the results for that game.

If you wish to play the best looking games at high res, you need performance. Something with mickey mouse graphics like F1 2010 obviously doesn't need 3GB.

As they say in the article, even with 3GB, Metro 2033 is not fully playable. Games are only going to start using more so why not just put the extra to it. It's just a few pints.
Click to expand...


Ok... so looking at metro on those bench marks for my res (not tri monitors which i dont have)

there is still only a 2FPS difference.. now i am not disputing that SLI will knock the socks off anything else, and i fully intend to get a second 580 in the future... but for now, I just want to know if there is a reason I should get the 3GB version... atm the only benchmark I can find for it for my res only shows a 1 to 2 FPS difference to the 1.5GB

Please, if anyone knows of any benchmarks that show differently I would love to see so I can point the missus to them and convince her I need a 3Gb but right now we both remain unconvinced.


Thanks guys :D
 
Well he dont specifically mention in the OP whether hes going for one or two cards, plus he looks like a SLI man as he has "MSI Frozr II 470 SLI" in his sig :P

Same time post, ok - in response to above;

If you're going to be getting a second then that further reinforces that you should get the 3gb version. If you go for SLI 1.5gb you may end up suffering.

With regard to benchmarks;

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/06/28/msi_n580gtx_lightning_xe_3gb_sli_video_card_review/10
Click to expand...

Is a SLI review but you mention you'll get a 2nd anyway. Again, the Metro example is quite telling.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
No offense, but a single GTX580 is not gonna be fast enough for the more demanding game on 2560 res, regardless of it being the 1.5GB or the 3GB version (but of course, the 1.5GB version will suffer more when AA is applied).

Either get a pair of GTX560TI 2GB or 6950 2GB...or wait for next gen card.

Don't get me wrong...GTX580 is a great card, but if you are expecting it to handle 2560 res, that's being over optimistic...
Click to expand...

The benchmarks shown are with AA, and they show 3gb to be no better.

What they also clearly show is that for some games you need SLI for these higher resolutions (which fits what you are saying), NOT higher VRAM. It's a red herring that a lot of people seem to fall for.

Sure, Metro is one example of a game that performs better with more VRAM; but only on a tri monitor setup which the OP isn't looking to do. Also, the fact that the game is unplayable even with SLI at that res, even with two 3GB GF 580's, suggests perhaps they haven't written the game very well to start with.

MooMoo444 said:
Well he dont specifically mention in the OP whether hes going for one or two cards, plus he looks like a SLI man as he has "MSI Frozr II 470 SLI" in his sig :P

Is a SLI review but you mention you'll get a 2nd anyway. Again, the Metro example is quite telling.
Click to expand...

The metro review is only "telling" on a tri monitor display, which OP is not looking to use. The single monitor test shows a 1-2 FPS difference as does every other game, sometimes in favour of the 1.5GB card in fact.

The OP is asking for any proof of the single monitor res running better on a 3GB card as so far we have seen none.

Also the OP is not a he. Not last time I checked. I'm just sayin'. :p

Regards, OP's "missus".
 
Last edited:
The metro review is only "telling" on a tri monitor display, which OP is not looking to use. The single monitor test shwos a 1-2 FPS difference as does every other game, sometimes in favour of the 1.5GB card in fact.
Click to expand...

2560x1400 is triple monitor these days?

Must be small monitors mate.
 
I have to agree with silk... it seems Metro is not the best game to base things on as it looks like the developers royally screwed up on that one. Any one know of any BF3 benchmarks? :D

Ta!
 
MooMoo444 said:
2560x1400 is triple monitor these days?

Must be small monitors mate.
Click to expand...

Either you are confused, or I am.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/844-1/geforce-gtx-580-3gb-vs-1-5gb-test-sli-and-surround.html

These benchmarks clearly show that a single card setup, the 1.5 and 3gb cards both get 17fps on Metro 2033 @ 2560 * 1600, or a cpl FPS difference with AA on etc.

Ergo there is no benefit to the 3GB card.

The second screenshot is tri 1080 and this is the one where 1.5GB metro falls on it's face, however, even the 3GB is unplayable.
 
Well by all means, its your purchase, so its your decision. However when you say it would just be £20-30 more, I really dont see why it would hurt to go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom