6950 Vs 570

[MartynB85]

Even with everything on low and all of the frills disabled BF3 still did not work properly on my pair of 295s.

Now some of that was down to drivers, some of it was just that the game is quite poorly coded IMO. But the fact remains that it was, even with everything switched off, unplayable.

That is strange, i'd have thought those would give decent frame rates with some of the textures turned down.

I stuck my old 9800gt in my machine lastnight, it seemed to cope ok at first (all settings on low) but then soon became unplayable within a few minutes. Didn't have time to checkout why though....

On another note my laptop has 2gb vram, GT435m. Because it is so underpowered, to get decent fram rates everything must be set to low, and then it uses about 400mb vram, not much point having the other 1600mb....

 

[rolypolyman]

@ 1440p?

Don't think so. I saw vram usage over 1.4gb @ 1080p.

OK, I'm getting confused now is this benchmark rubbish or does the 570 beat the 6950 2Gb on BF3 @ 2560 X 1600 Ultra Quality + FXAA-High, 38.6fps to 33.4fps and on just about every other game at that res.

 

[ALXAndy]

OK, I'm getting confused now is this benchmark rubbish or does the 570 beat the 6950 2Gb on BF3 @ 2560 X 1600 Ultra Quality + FXAA-High, 38.6fps to 33.4fps and on just about every other game at that res.

Read this carefully.

I'd go for an 6950 and hope you can unlock it.

I've just sent back a 6870 purely because when playing BF3 it ran out of vram. And my current res is only 1280x1024 atm. I found that playing at that resolution it had the power to run some settings at high and some at ultra, however, it used all the vram and then became stuttery at certain points in the map, fps didn't drop though. A 570 with 2gb would be just the ticket

The 6950 will also use less power than the 570.

That was exactly what happened to me with my GTX 470 using 1080p, Ultra full settings and 4XFSAA.

Whilst the FPS tell one story they do not mean that the game is smooth and completely playable.

I just wish I could have added more vram to my card as other than that it was functionally perfect and a very fast card. But alas, it was no good so I got rid of it and upgraded. Initially to a 6970, then had a change of heart and decided to buy some future time so went with a 7970.

But I can tell you now that benchmarks are not sitting down and playing with a game. Just like if you disable vsync your FPS count will rise when you let off the 60/120hz equals FPS barrier, but your gaming experience will not be as smooth and will be prone to tearing. None of that shows up on a FPS counter though, so does not translate into a benchmark.

See also - Crossfire and SLI. On paper and on static screens they are amazing. In the real world however micro stutter can completely ruin the actual gaming experience.

 

[silverf0x]

OK, I'm getting confused now is this benchmark rubbish or does the 570 beat the 6950 2Gb on BF3 @ 2560 X 1600 Ultra Quality + FXAA-High, 38.6fps to 33.4fps and on just about every other game at that res.

I've been looking at reviews and benchmarks all day and all I can see is the 570 beating the 6950 2GB in every test.

 

[rolypolyman]

At ALXAndy, thanks for that I get what you mean now.

 

[TheRealDeal]

OK, I'm getting confused now is this benchmark rubbish or does the 570 beat the 6950 2Gb on BF3 @ 2560 X 1600 Ultra Quality + FXAA-High, 38.6fps to 33.4fps and on just about every other game at that res.

Yep and this is why i say the gtx570. I dont think many people would play at those frames and its obvious the gtx570 is not out of memory. On a game like bf3 there is no way to play ultra with msaa at 1440/1600 on a single card. Maybe a 7970oc could just about manage it. The gpu power of the gtx570 is more important when using single cards.

 

[ALXAndy]

I've been looking at reviews and benchmarks all day and all I can see is the 570 beating the 6950 2GB in every test.

Back when Custom PC (bit-tech) reviewed the 570 it had quite a clear lead over the 6970. Drivers on initial release for the 6950 and 6970 were quite poor, things have improved since then.

However.

In an all out FPS "brawl" the 570 is still technically faster than a 6970.

But, as I am trying to point out here, all out brawn and muscle is sometimes not enough for a smooth gaming experience.

In Battlefield 3 my GTX 470 was right up the back side of a 6970 on paper.

Go to play the game though? well, the vram would run out and it would then start caching textures from the hard drive. Which of course when you look at a number on a static website for the FPS you can't see.

Let's say that Bit-tech came down hard on the 6950 and 6970 at launch. Not for their pricing, but for the fact that they didn't take on the cards they were supposed to (570 and 580).

The 560ti 1gb is technically faster than a 6950. The GTX 560 non ti is technically faster than the 6850.

Look at Custom PC now, though?

One Radeon 6970. So where is the 570 and 580?

In a small article written recently they admitted that the 570 and 580 were now problematic due to low vram issues in BF3. This means that even though the Radeons are not as technically fast they offer better performance for a gaming experience. They also support 3 screens and have the vram to cope with the larger textures.

Rewind back six months however? it could be seen as a whoooooole different story. Where they were basically slating both the 6950 AND 6970 in favour of their Nvidia counterparts.

The conclusion of the 6970 review just six months ago pre BF3.

 

[stulid]

I vote for the GTX570 also, just has that bit more umpphhh than a 6950.

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/msi_r6970_2gb_lightning_review,24.html

 

[Stanners]

Back when Custom PC (bit-tech) reviewed the 570 it had quite a clear lead over the 6970. Drivers on initial release for the 6950 and 6970 were quite poor, things have improved since then.

However.

In an all out FPS "brawl" the 570 is still technically faster than a 6970.

But, as I am trying to point out here, all out brawn and muscle is sometimes not enough for a smooth gaming experience.

In Battlefield 3 my GTX 470 was right up the back side of a 6970 on paper.

Go to play the game though? well, the vram would run out and it would then start caching textures from the hard drive. Which of course when you look at a number on a static website for the FPS you can't see.

Let's say that Bit-tech came down hard on the 6950 and 6970 at launch. Not for their pricing, but for the fact that they didn't take on the cards they were supposed to (570 and 580).

The 560ti 1gb is technically faster than a 6950. The GTX 560 non ti is technically faster than the 6850.

Look at Custom PC now, though?

One Radeon 6970. So where is the 570 and 580?

In a small article written recently they admitted that the 570 and 580 were now problematic due to low vram issues in BF3. This means that even though the Radeons are not as technically fast they offer better performance for a gaming experience. They also support 3 screens and have the vram to cope with the larger textures.

Rewind back six months however? it could be seen as a whoooooole different story. Where they were basically slating both the 6950 AND 6970 in favour of their Nvidia counterparts.

The conclusion of the 6970 review just six months ago pre BF3.

I went from a 6950 (flashed) to a GTX 570 and I can say at 1080p it is faster(fps wise). Would I notice between the two if a knew any different? No probably not.

Is there anywhere that details how Vram is used in BF3 i.e. is there pre caching of available Vram as I notice when I first enter a map it is around 880MB, but it will quickly fill up to 1100'ish

 

[ALXAndy]

I went from a 6950 (flashed) to a GTX 570 and I can say at 1080p it is faster(fps wise). Would I notice between the two if a knew any different? No probably not.

Is there anywhere that details how Vram is used in BF3 i.e. is there pre caching of available Vram as I notice when I first enter a map it is around 880MB, but it will quickly fill up to 1100'ish

GPUZ has a function (though it is rather basic) that will write memory usage levels to a text file. Given that it reads just the GPU itself I would imagine it is in a non caching form.

Things may not get as bad as I predict. TBH Alan Wake is a sterling example of how to do a PC game the right way. Sadly though as we know most just don't care. Wham, bam, sloppy console code seconds, maam.

Graphics on a PC now should look ten times better and require half of the power they do. They should be well optimised and well debugged to the point they are far faster and smoother. Sadly though it doesn't work like that.

But IMO Remedy have revived a long forgotten era for the PC.

IE - Alan Wake is immensely superior to the console versions AND runs like butter.

 

[arc@css]

+1 570.

 

[sehcure]

I'd grab a 6950 for the extra VRAM, and also a 8GB ram kit or another 4GB stick as RAM is so cheap at the moment.

 

[bhindi]

+1 570

 

[omle]

Even with everything on low and all of the frills disabled BF3 still did not work properly on my pair of 295s.

Now some of that was down to drivers, some of it was just that the game is quite poorly coded IMO. But the fact remains that it was, even with everything switched off, unplayable.

sorry if this bits a hijack but are your 295's simply not just fcuked. back up card i was using until recently on 2 different rigs 275gtx played bf3 on low settings fine no probs @ all fps above 40 and was perfectly playable. new card meand ive just made it look pretty but no more playable. a perfect 60 would be great but its a old girl now 295's would have no probs imo.

 

[ALXAndy]

sorry if this bits a hijack but are your 295's simply not just fcuked. back up card i was using until recently on 2 different rigs 275gtx played bf3 on low settings fine no probs @ all fps above 40 and was perfectly playable. new card meand ive just made it look pretty but no more playable. a perfect 60 would be great but its a old girl now 295's would have no probs imo.

Nope they were both perfectly fine. Infact they were only about three months old as EVGA sent them to me out of NOS.

Drivers were the issue IMO. So much for Nvidia's great perfect drivers. One of the betas stopped the fans and the cards overheated and shut down the PC

 

[omle]

sorry for further hijack as the kids want new cards to play and a 295 was on my list of bargains

have you tried since with what ever the latest version of drivers is now

sorry op

but il add 570 as much as it pains me to say that as it stands the 570 is imo the better card also i find nvidia second hand values to be higher

 

[ALXAndy]

No I sold them. I'm not a fan of multiple GPU set ups, even on one single card. That would be putting it lightly and politely.

All BF3 did was remind me of that and make my mind up that it was better to sell them and move onto something modern.

 

[se_vietboi]

570 yum.

 

[bru]

Everyone seems so hooked up on BF3, dare we even think that the opening poster hasn't mentioned this game once, maybe he doesn't play or even own it.

my 2p worth go for the 570 it is clearly the faster card.

 

[ALXAndy]

Everyone seems so hooked up on BF3, dare we even think that the opening poster hasn't mentioned this game once, maybe he doesn't play or even own it.

my 2p worth go for the 570 it is clearly the faster card.

The philosophy is that once one game comes out that uses that kind of texture memory and so on the bar is set.

Games that don't look as nice will get slagged off, because the world is full of shallow people who think that graphics are the most important part of a game.

Just a sad fact of life, basically.