GTX 480 SLI vs 5970 CF

ATI 5970 is around 25-30% faster than GTX 480. But Nvidia cards scale better compared to ATI ones, and scaling from 1 to 2 GPUs is better than 2 to 4 GPUs anyway. So what would be the performance difference between the two setups? Are there any reviews online comparing these two?
12 answers Last reply
More about 5970
  1. I haven't seen reviews with 2x 5970, but I would imagine it will still be faster than 2x GTX480. The GTX480 is beaten pretty handily by a single 5970, so even if they don't scale well, they should still be faster.
  2. The performance difference would be <20%, likely more like 10%, in the dual 5970's favor, all for $200-$400 more.
  3. I found this after some searching.

    http://www.maingearforums.com/entry.php?24-So-You-Want-To-Buy-A-GeForce-Part-2

    5970 CF can't even run some games at 2560x1600 at high AA settings.

    It beats 480 sli in Far Cry 2 at 0xAA and 4xAA but is beaten at 8xAA.

    I think GTX 480 SLI is a better choice. With driver updates, performance WILL get only better.
  4. I would imagine that performance for the 5970 Xfire has a lot more room for improvement with driver updates especially since it has trouble running some games at high res with high AA- that is most likely due to driver optimization and making it run properly across 4 GPUs.
  5. Its the memory buffer at that high res ~high AA, The 5970 has tons of gpu horsepower but only 1 gig memory buffer (4 gpu crossfire).
  6. getting 4 gpus properly is still far away. I think anything more than 2 GPUs is generally a marketing gimmic. Whether it being tri sli/fire or quad.

    Look at CPU core usage, we still dont use 4 properly yet we have 6 and 8 out. Even 2 cores is still like what less 50% of the market for full use. (the number is out of my ass, and I'm talking about gaming)

    I'd say 2 480 GTXs. Both Setups have more head room of improvment, but the CF Quads have less chances just because quads tend to eventually get neglected.

    Thats my 2 cents.

    My max from now on is GPU.

    I had quad 9800 GX2s, which were better optimized at the time than even the 4870 X2s and it was still depressing to see the min frame rate (CSS @ 1280x1024 was 25....). THen I went to tri 285s, agian, 3 285s had a smaller min frame rate than 1 5870...so yea....I'd say either 1 5970, 2 5870s, 2 480 GTXs etc.
  7. might not be a bad call L1qu1d. I'm using my first crossfire setup now and haven't tried anything more than that:-) Maybe as more DX11 games and as they get more demanding, they will get the multi-GPU setups a bit more optimized.
  8. I really hope so. Because it would be nice to actually have the choice to add a 4th video card, to save money. But part of me thinks they are doing this whole driver issues on purpose to push us to get the new cards.

    I know for sure thats the case with the dual GPU cards lol. Any1 still remember the 9800 GX2? better yet the 7900 GX2 or 7950 GX2....SEEEE I DONT REMEMBER! lol
  9. lol- quite possible :-p
  10. itisravi said:
    ATI 5970 is around 25-30% faster than GTX 480. But Nvidia cards scale better compared to ATI ones, and scaling from 1 to 2 GPUs is better than 2 to 4 GPUs anyway. So what would be the performance difference between the two setups? Are there any reviews online comparing these two?


    Try this one :

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_5970_CrossFire/7.html
  11. OvrClkr said:


    That was interesting. In a lot of cases, especially the low res situations, the CPU was the obvious bottleneck, and going crossfire had little advantage, but when it went to higher res's, sometimes the crossfired 5970's worked really well, and other times not so much. I assume this is also due to CPU bottlenecks.
  12. Most likely the CPU has some impact, as well as the framebuffer and possibly the communication between the GPU's
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Gtx GPUs ATI Graphics