Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,147
The last review i can find says avivo is faster but badaboom is easier to review so i don't know how that stands these days,
-
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.
GTX 580 Review
- Thread starter Broken Hope
- Start date
The last review i can find says avivo is faster but badaboom is easier to review so i don't know how that stands these days,
This is what the GTX480 should have been imo, great job from nvidia lowering noise and power consumpton as well as increasing performance.
However note all ATI cards other than 6800 cards are using 10.7 in this review, recycled results from around three months ago.
However note all ATI cards other than 6800 cards are using 10.7 in this review, recycled results from around three months ago.
Well pre Quad Core and 470 upgrade, i had the exact same rig but with a Dual Core and GTX280
My Dual and Quad were both clocked at 3.8 and my GTX's were both OC to 700 core
Pre Upgrade on BC2 i got FPS varying from 60 to around 20 in very heavy action scenes, depending what was happening, now this may have been the Card or CPU holding things back (I hear BC2 likes Quads) or maybe a bit of both
All the prev games i was playing before i picked up BC2 ran at pretty much 60FPS or there abouts right the way through for the most part and my perception of the smoothness of BC2 was affected by this, the game was pefectly playable but the fact the FPS were never stable constantly shifting around meant that although generally smooth it did not have the fluidity i had got used to, post upgrade it now runs a pretty constant 60FPS, which is how i like it
As to if you notice the differance between a rock steady 60FPS or a FPS fluctationg between 60 - 30 FPS depends, i guess some will notice more than others, for me personally V sync + a stable 60FPS is what i look for a new card to deliver on games for at least 18 - 24 months at my 1680 x 1050 res, which my old 280 managed, and i'm hoping my new fairly recent 470 will do the same honours, at the time of my 470 purchase only the 480 was available and it was quite a bit more for not a lot more performance, kinda like the differance between a 260/280 but a 280 was not over a £100 more than a 260, so i got the 470.
This new card looks good but will probably be expensive, it could make 480's a good buy though depending on how much they drop in price
Last edited:
Caporegime
Soldato
Well pre Quad Core and 470 upgrade, i had the exact same rig but with a Dual Core and GTX280
My Dual and Quad were both clocked at 3.8 and my GTX's were both OC to 700 core
Pre Upgrade on BC2 i got FPS varying from 60 to around 20 in very heavy action scenes, depending what was happening, now this may have been the Card or CPU holding things back (I hear BC2 likes Quads) or maybe a bit of both
All the prev games i was playing before i picked up BC2 ran at pretty much 60FPS or there abouts right the way through for the most part and my perception of the smoothness of BC2 was affected by this, the game was pefectly playable but the fact the FPS were never stable constantly shifting around meant that although generally smooth it did not have the fluidity i had got used to, post upgrade it now runs a pretty constant 60FPS, which is how i like it
As to if you notice the differance between a rock steady 60FPS or a FPS fluctationg between 60 - 30 FPS depends, i guess some will notice more than others, for me personally V sync + a stable 60FPS is what i look for a new card to deliver on new titles for at least 18 - 24 months, which my old 280 managed, and i'm hoping my new fairly recent 470 will do the same honours
You have the right idea.
I reckon in terms of gaming performance a gpu has about two years of life in it at the upper tiers whilst a cpu has about 4 years in it.
I know, seriously guys, there's not much point at all of stating that the 580 will be better than the 6970, especially the 6990 as it is a dual GPU and the 5970 still beats the 580 in terms of performance by a small bit overall IMO, so I seriously doubt that the 580 will beat the 6990 in terms of raw performance.
The more interesting battle is the 6970 VS 580, personally I think (only a very rough opinion obviously) the 6970 will only be a tiny bit faster 5-15%, less power draw, lower temperatures and quieter and also priced around £310-340 if the nvidia 580 is £370.
And the 6950 price around £250-280, with about 10-15% reduced performance compared to the 6970.
The more interesting battle is the 6970 VS 580, personally I think (only a very rough opinion obviously) the 6970 will only be a tiny bit faster 5-15%, less power draw, lower temperatures and quieter and also priced around £310-340 if the nvidia 580 is £370.
And the 6950 price around £250-280, with about 10-15% reduced performance compared to the 6970.
Caporegime
GTX460 at £120
GTX460 1gb at £145
GTX470 at £175
GTX480 at £329
Nvidia got this all sown-up, great cards at great prices.
GTX460 1gb at £145
GTX470 at £175
GTX480 at £329
Nvidia got this all sown-up, great cards at great prices.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,147
I am not going to comment on power draw but i would defo say where noise and temporature are concerned amd will struggle to beat gtx580 as nv put in a lot of effort as thats where fermi hurt them along with power.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 592
Well I'm just looking forward to my 5870 getting here.
Soldato
Does everyone here play at higher resolutions than in that review?
even at 1680 x 1050 i still get slowdowns, not much but definitely goes below 60fps.
Can't be just me who prefers speed over a stupidly high res and sluggish play.
even at 1680 x 1050 i still get slowdowns, not much but definitely goes below 60fps.
Can't be just me who prefers speed over a stupidly high res and sluggish play.
Well pre Quad Core and 470 upgrade, i had the exact same rig but with a Dual Core and GTX280
My Dual and Quad were both clocked at 3.8 and my GTX's were both OC to 700 core
Pre Upgrade on BC2 i got FPS varying from 60 to around 20 in very heavy action scenes, depending what was happening, now this may have been the Card or CPU holding things back (I hear BC2 likes Quads) or maybe a bit of both
All the prev games i was playing before i picked up BC2 ran at pretty much 60FPS or there abouts right the way through for the most part and my perception of the smoothness of BC2 was affected by this, the game was pefectly playable but the fact the FPS were never stable constantly shifting around meant that although generally smooth it did not have the fluidity i had got used to, post upgrade it now runs a pretty constant 60FPS, which is how i like it
As to if you notice the differance between a rock steady 60FPS or a FPS fluctationg between 60 - 30 FPS depends, i guess some will notice more than others, for me personally V sync + a stable 60FPS is what i look for a new card to deliver on games for at least 18 - 24 months at my 1680 x 1050 res, which my old 280 managed, and i'm hoping my new fairly recent 470 will do the same honours, at the time of my 470 purchase only the 480 was available and it was quite a bit more for not a lot more performance, kinda like the differance between a 260/280 but a 280 was not over a £100 more than a 260, so i got the 470.
This new card looks good but will probably be expensive, it could make 480's a good buy though depending on how much they drop in price
Yeah for BFBC2, it likes the quads a lot more than the top end cards, as people who upgraded from dual to quad, notice a much better increase in performance and also that was the requirement for the game, quad core.
Yup agree with you on that, the reason why you probably noticed it quite badly on BFBC 2 is cause it was dropping from 60 to 20FPS, which personally I find/found far too low/laggy for any FPS game (when I was previously on dual core and 2GB RAM systm by lenovo
, I experienced the same as you, not for BFBC 2 but other games), for me anything really, above 30 FPS is pretty smooth depending on what's going on (as in not too many explosions, smoke etc.), but to be on the safe side I like to keep the minimum FPS above 40 for every game.So I reckon if it dropped from the likes of 60-40 or 30 FPS, you might not have noticed it as bad (but only you would be able to tell and no one else).
So yeah I can understand that pretty well in terms of the fluidity, but it's just when people have the likes of a 5870 or 480 1GB or more RAM etc. and there able to play pretty much every game on max at 1920x1080 at good FPS above 40 or 50 FPS, I just find it pretty pointless upgrading for an extra few FPS and then doing the same again next year for probably another few FPS IMO (but who knows maybe next year we might see a massive increase in performance and we might be able to play crysis constantly at 60FPS
)Yup, spot on.
My 4850 is coming up 2 years old this christmas and it has played all games on max settings at decent/smooth FPS so far for me apart from metro 2033 and I have a funny feeling that for the next few game releases like crysis 2, batman: AA 2 etc. it might struggle a wee bit, so probably have to have no AA and AAA in order to have max textures etc. and I have only had my i5 750 for nearly a year coming up to christmas as well.
So hopefully a new 1920x1080 monitor soon and either 580/6950/6970 as well and that should be me for another 2-3 years till my next GPU upgrade.
Considering how the 6870 is around 30-40% more efficient than a 5870 in terms of shaders and die size, I'm really not sure how you've came to the conclusion than Cayman can catch it up. Cayman should be at least as fast as a GTX485.
It's not that simple really, the way they've calculated it takes in to account a broad range of games where things like Crossfire not working, and nVidia optimisations, makes a large dent in the overall performance percentage.
So shouldn't the 6970 be called a 5890 then? or are AMD allowed to use disproportionately high numbers?
Don't forget VAT and the inevitable price gouging, it'll probably end up at £400 at least.
So shouldn't the 6970 be called 5890 then? or are AMD allowed to use disproportionately high numbers?
6970 isn't out yet, don't know if you'd noticed? If the 6970 has enough of a performance lead on the 6870, then it clears up the naming scheme. I don't get how anyone can really think the GTX580 should be calling anything but a GTX485.
Using those benchmarks and resolutions completely messes up the overall performance percentages as well.
Yeah, I will stick with ATI for those features/areas as they have always been better than nvidia when it comes down to power, heat/cooling and noise.
But they certainly do have a lot more competition this year for those areas with the 580.