Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crossfire HD 6990 vs 3-SLI GTX 580 3gb

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 30, 2011 10:36:52 PM

Hi
I'd like to know your opinions
which solution would you choose and why
Tnx
May 30, 2011 10:44:45 PM

Ofcourse the 3-Sli would kill the 6990, even 2x sli would. But i honestly dont think its worth it going tri sli with those things. If your planning on Sli Gtx580 setup, might wanna wait and see what the Asus Mars 2 video card has to offer first, its basicaly what the gtx590 should have been, true dual gtx580's. But if you really wanna sli also check out the new Asus Matrix Gtx580's, They have Direct CU II cooling and 19phases Vrm, they overclock higher than any other gtx580, they look sweet too, but the prices might not be so sweet lol.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2011 11:13:41 PM

I would choose neither because I dont have any spare nuclear reactors lying around.

what resolution/setup are you using these for?
m
0
l
Related resources
May 30, 2011 11:30:38 PM

lol its funny you say that toaster, someone said the exact same words about it in another discussion. Maybe it was you >_>
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
May 31, 2011 12:21:08 AM

I'm pretty sure he meant 2 6990's in crossfire (quadfire) vs 3 580's in SLI.

That is going to be one hot noisy system if you go with 6990's.
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 4:17:44 AM



Thats not really fair because a single gtx590 is much slower than 2x Sli GTX580's, This is because the 590 is crazy downclocked and there isnt much headroom to overclock it, just a dissapointment in my opinion.

They should put up 2x Asus MARS 2 video cards against 6990 quadfire, now that would be a fair match because Asus MARS 2 is a proper dual GTX580 card, not downclocked. And If they use 19phase Vrm with those cards, there is gonna be alot of headroom for overclocking, if thats the case then i think itl easily overpower a 6990 quadfire.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
May 31, 2011 4:28:05 AM

cyborg34572 said:
Thats not really fair because a single gtx590 is much slower than 2x Sli GTX580's, This is because the 590 is crazy downclocked and there isnt much headroom to overclock it, just a dissapointment in my opinion.

They should put up 2x Asus MARS 2 video cards against 6990 quadfire, now that would be a fair match because Asus MARS 2 is a proper dual GTX580 card, not downclocked. And If they use 19phase Vrm with those cards, there is gonna be alot of headroom for overclocking, if thats the case then i think itl easily overpower a 6990 quadfire.


If you read most of it, you'll find a theme. The 1.5GB of ram per GPU is not enough for that setup. As a result, the Nvidia solution had tons of problems with erratic FPS, and required them to turn down the settings to prevent that issue.

So, you if you really want the Nvidia setup, and plan to go 2d surround, get the 3GB 580's.
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 5:06:01 AM

bystander said:
If you read most of it, you'll find a theme. The 1.5GB of ram per GPU is not enough for that setup. As a result, the Nvidia solution had tons of problems with erratic FPS, and required them to turn down the settings to prevent that issue.

So, you if you really want the Nvidia setup, and plan to go 2d surround, get the 3GB 580's.

Does 3sli 3gb 580 setup outperform quad 6990?
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 10:59:43 AM

gr3b3n said:
Does 3sli 3gb 580 setup outperform quad 6990?



Seriosuly why would you need two 6990s? What are you running 15 monitors or something?

Its complete overkill.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 31, 2011 11:15:11 AM

Neither. There isn't a CPU in the world that will be able to keep up. It's a complete waste of money.

Single 590 or 6990, yes. Even SLI 580's, still OK. Even so, you would need an i7-980X to make it worthwhile.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
May 31, 2011 1:20:34 PM

Quad sli and Quad fire are not worth it as scaling for the fourth gpu is quite poor. Tri go no further and the performance is already more than enough for the vast majority out there with just two.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
May 31, 2011 3:07:15 PM

Herr_Koos said:
Neither. There isn't a CPU in the world that will be able to keep up. It's a complete waste of money.

Single 590 or 6990, yes. Even SLI 580's, still OK. Even so, you would need an i7-980X to make it worthwhile.


You are not considering extreme resolutions or eyefinity/2d surround setups.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
May 31, 2011 3:09:06 PM

As others have asked... what is the current set up?? What size resolution/how many monitors are you using?

I don't think Herr_Koos is entirely right to say you need a super CPU to run a crazy GPU set up like this. Running 3 2560x1600 monitors for gaming would not be CPU limited lol. And honestly, unless that's the resolution you're going for, either of these options are pretty much a dumb waste of money.

2 SLI 580 3gb should push max detail on anything short of the aformentioned resolution... crossfire 6990s isn't really that good because scaling is drastically reduced from 2 to 3 GPUs, and further reduced going up to 4. I would recommend, if you absolutely have to spend a couple thousand on GPUs, the 3 580s.
m
0
l
June 1, 2011 2:21:10 AM

wolfram23 said:
As others have asked... what is the current set up?? What size resolution/how many monitors are you using?

I don't think Herr_Koos is entirely right to say you need a super CPU to run a crazy GPU set up like this. Running 3 2560x1600 monitors for gaming would not be CPU limited lol. And honestly, unless that's the resolution you're going for, either of these options are pretty much a dumb waste of money.

2 SLI 580 3gb should push max detail on anything short of the aformentioned resolution... crossfire 6990s isn't really that good because scaling is drastically reduced from 2 to 3 GPUs, and further reduced going up to 4. I would recommend, if you absolutely have to spend a couple thousand on GPUs, the 3 580s.


tnx

cpu - i7 2600k
single 1600p monitor
Reason – I want to enjoy full AA in most gpu-hungry games with minimum fps >60
you'd say it's a waste, but I can't stand when fps drops below 60, it irritates me.
m
0
l
a c 172 U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 2:25:31 AM

if your gonna go that far like said above, 2gb or 3gb vram is a must for high resolutions.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 4:53:59 AM

Yeah for 2560x1600, SLI 570s should be enough although given the apparently large budget, why not splurge on two 580 3gb cards? Beyond that though, totally unesessary.
m
0
l
June 1, 2011 7:54:37 AM

In my opinion, Nvidia graphics cards have better drivers and less problems with games than ATI (AMD) graphics cards. Therefore, I would suggest the Nvidia solution.
m
0
l
June 1, 2011 9:29:14 AM

Herr_Koos said:
Even so, you would need an i7-980X to make it worthwhile.


Ummm......the i7 2600k is faster than both the i7-980X and i7-990X for gaming.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 1:24:03 PM

Quote:
that's not the point he's trying to make..


Thanks for the vote of confidence. Doesn't seem like anyone else got the point...
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 2:35:58 PM

The only "point" to having the i7 980x/990X is for the X58 chipset... The CPU itself isn't very important compared to an OCed 960, and it's worse than 2600. And anyway, X58 isn't even much better than some P67/Z68 boards. I understand that the idea is X58 has 32 PCIe lanes but that point is completely moot with NF200 motherboards that run 4x PCIe 16 slots at 8x/8x/8x/8x just like X58 does.

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 1, 2011 3:32:16 PM

As far as i'm concerned, both options are stupid overkill. But personally, i'd go for 3 x 580's.
m
0
l
!