2 gtx 570 or gtx 580

[dannywaugh1]

Hello guys just a quick question i'm still making final changes to my potential spec of my new computer before i buy everything. But having had talks with friends they have been telling me to go for 2 gtx 570 in sli rather then a single gtx 580.

I must admit as I said in my other thread i have been out on the computer scene for a little while so im not up to day i have googled the matter but still no further.

Hope you can shed some light on this one.

 

[rolypolyman]

What resolution are you gaming at, cpu spec etc, these things have a bearing on the advice given. Do the graphics have to be Nvidia?

 

[dannywaugh1]

What resolution are you gaming at, cpu spec etc, these things have a bearing on the advice given. Do the graphics have to be Nvidia?

1920 1080p

i52500k
asus p8z68 gen 3
8gb 1866mhz ram corsair

would prefer nvidia iv always used them but i dont just buy something because of brand

 

[Mojo]

I must admit I always wondered why People recommend the GTX570 over the 6970. They're both roughly the same speed & roughly the same price, but the 6970 has 2gb of Vram as opposed to the 1280mb of the 570. I'd suggest getting two 6970s mate, they're going a bit cheaper than the 570 at the moment. The OCuk model is going for £230 at the moment, although there's only one left.

If you want lower performance but no dual card issues, a 7950 is roughly the same price as a GTX580, at stock a couple of percentage points faster (3-5%), but overclocks rather well.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I must admit I always wondered why People recommend the GTX570 over the 6970. They're both roughly the same speed & roughly the same price, but the 6970 has 2gb of Vram as opposed to the 1280mb of the 570. I'd suggest getting two 6970s mate, they're going a bit cheaper than the 570 at the moment. The OCuk model is going for £230 at the moment, although there's only one left.

Actually the thing was that GTX570 was generally faster despite having less vram, and more important it has been cheaper than 6970 for most of the time.

Another thing to consider is the games that people play. AMD cards' MSAA performance has generally always been worse on the Frostbite/Frostbite2 engine (BFBC2/BF3) and loses more fps than the Nvidia's equivalent card, which its extra VRAM simply doesn't help with the issue. Only at above 1920 res will you really see the 6970 being a better performance overall.

 

[arc@css]

Actually the thing was that GTX570 was generally faster despite having less vram, and more important it has been cheaper than 6970 for most of the time.

Another thing to consider is the games that people play. AMD cards' MSAA performance has generally always been worse on the Frostbite/Frostbite2 engine (BFBC2/BF3) and loses more fps than the Nvidia's equivalent card, which its extra VRAM simply doesn't help with the issue. Only at above 1920 res will you really see the 6970 being a better performance overall.

+1

 

[dave_beast]

I must admit I always wondered why People recommend the GTX570 over the 6970. They're both roughly the same speed & roughly the same price, but the 6970 has 2gb of Vram as opposed to the 1280mb of the 570. I'd suggest getting two 6970s mate, they're going a bit cheaper than the 570 at the moment. The OCuk model is going for £230 at the moment, although there's only one left.

If you want lower performance but no dual card issues, a 7950 is roughly the same price as a GTX580, at stock a couple of percentage points faster (3-5%), but overclocks rather well.

+2 The 7950 will overclock to 7970 performance and will be almost as powerful as 2 x 570's in sli but without the compatability problems sli is sometimes plagued with, also less power requirement on the newer 28nm gpu's.

 

[xsistor]

If I'm buying brand new I'd get a 7950 instead of a 580 or two 570s. But to be honest, I'd just get an 8800 GT/GTX or something second-hand and wait for kepler.

 

[shadow_boxer]

Yeah another vote for a single 3GB 7950.

And totally agree with above, the 570 up until recently has been a bit cheaper than the 6970 and performs just a well if not a bit quicker despite the lower VRAM. The 6970 at the moment is well priced though.

 

[chaotic_uk]

Actually the thing was that GTX570 was generally faster despite having less vram, and more important it has been cheaper than 6970 for most of the time.

Another thing to consider is the games that people play. AMD cards' MSAA performance has generally always been worse on the Frostbite/Frostbite2 engine (BFBC2/BF3) and loses more fps than the Nvidia's equivalent card, which its extra VRAM simply doesn't help with the issue. Only at above 1920 res will you really see the 6970 being a better performance overall.

i have tried both and the gtx570 is slower compaired to the 6970 in all of my games except crysis2 , but go for what ever the best card you can afford

 

[Marine-RX179]

i have tried both and the gtx570 is slower compaired to the 6970 in all of my games except crysis2 , but go for what ever the best card you can afford

Thought we been through this before...someone posted (a scan of) an article from PC Format with test results which shown that Nvidia card performance is slower on AMD platform than Intel's...

 

[chaotic_uk]

Thought we been through this before...someone posted (a scan of) an article from PC Format with test results which shown that Nvidia card performance is slower on AMD platform than Intel's...

pc mag = useless tbh , any ways i also tried it on my dads intel based system with the same results (both cards at stock speeds)

 

[arc@css]

^^ Is that with AA applied?

 

[Marine-RX179]

pc mag = useless tbh , any ways i also tried it on my dads intel based system with the same results (both cards at stock speeds)

You do realise PC Format is basically techradar right? I'm pretty sure they have carefully tested the two platform before publishing that article, or their site would had been flooded with people spamming comments and arguing that is not the case. Anyhow, since both card's are pretty much on the same level, even if one card was faster than the other, you probably just fail to notice it...because the margin is so small. It's not like we were comparing the 6970 to the GTX580 here.

Either way, if you had played games on the Frostbite/Frostbite2 engine with 4xMSAA at 1920 res, you would realise how the GTX570 is faster than the 6970 by quite a big margin. Personally I got nothing against AMD cards (I'm using one myself)...but the huge amount fps lost on AA application in some games comparing to the Nvidia's equivalent is unbelievable. Just look at tom's bench on BF3 at 1920 res, and look at the amount of fps lost on before and after MSAA application:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7950-overclock-crossfire-benchmark,3123-6.html
AMD's card is faster mostly only when without AA application, but nowadays who'd spend £250-£300 on a graphic and don't use AA when they game these days?
I was hoping AMD new arcitecture on the 7000 series would sort this out, but the problem remains. I was thinking about getting a 7950, but because of that problem is still there (as well as the outrageously high price), I'd wait a bit to see what Nvidia has to offer before deciding.

 

[xsistor]

That's a good point

 

[phil-k]

my 580 runs everything I throw at it smoothly with all graphical settings set to max, e.g. BF3, Crysis 2 with graphic upgrades etc,
it is fairly quiet as well, even under stress
I have heard that AMD cards are quite noisy and get hotter