Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 580 3GB or GTX 590??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 26, 2011 2:25:15 PM

Hi. So i am having some doubts on which one to buy. I have a single monitor, with 1920x1080 resolution. I am not going to buy any other card, just one of those two. I won't overlock. If i buy the GTX 590, the processor will be the i5 2500k. If i buy the GTX 580 3GB, the processor will be the i7 2600k. Always 8GB 1600MHz RAM.

With which of these two will i get better performance? Will i max out games like Crysis 2 and Metro 2033? I saw in GTA IV that we can only use the 1.5GB of the GTX 590. Would the GTX 580 be better due to the 3GB VRAM?

More about : gtx 580 3gb gtx 590

a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 2:32:36 PM

gtx 590 and the 2500k, it will be way overkill for most games at 1080p but from the two options that you listed above thats what id do... what are your full system specs?
Related resources
August 26, 2011 2:36:15 PM

Full Specs:
with GTX 590:
Intel Core i5 2500k
ASRock P67 EXTREME4 motherboard
Corsair Vengeance 8GB 1600MHz
GTX 590 EVGA Classified
Cooler Master HAF 932 Full Tower case
CORSAIR Professional Series Gold AX850 80 Plus Gold Certified 850w power supply
CPU Cooling: Antec KUHLER H2O 920 Liquid Cooling System
a c 260 U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 2:39:25 PM

1) For gaming, the 2500K is just as good as the 2600K. It will OC to the same levels, and the added hyperthreads on the 2600K are not going to be used by most, if any games. Save the $100 difference and spend it elsewhere.

2) The amount of Vram on a graphics card is largely irrelevant, particularly for a single 1080P monitor. It will be appropriate to the card, and more than the reference amount will be mostly for marketing purposes. Only if you are looking at triple monitor gaming or a 2560 x 1600 monitor might more be appropriate. Perhaps not even then. I use a GTX580 with two 2560 x 1600 monitors, and have no issues with the reference amount of Vram.

3) From a graphics power point of view, the GTX590 will be superior in average fps. .... If you can find one.
But for your single monitor, I would go with the single good GTX580. Some games do not play well with dual gpu's, and a single card will eliminate microstutter which can be much more annoying than slightly lower FPS.

My suggestion is to go with a 2500K, and a factory overclocked GTX580.
Use the budget you saved for a 80-120gb SSD for the OS and some apps.
August 26, 2011 2:42:56 PM

Hard drives, optical drives, ssd's, OS, games, programs are all covered. Would there be any drop in fps if i go with gtx 580 3GB and i7 2600k or not?
Also one more question. So only 1.5GB of the gtx 590 is used. Then the other half is useless?

Hey and what if i buy a not overlocked 580? Would there again be a difference?
a c 260 U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 3:10:53 PM

paliovouna said:
Hard drives, optical drives, ssd's, OS, games, programs are all covered. Would there be any drop in fps if i go with gtx 580 3GB and i7 2600k or not?
Also one more question. So only 1.5GB of the gtx 590 is used. Then the other half is useless?

Hey and what if i buy a not overlocked 580? Would there again be a difference?


FPS is mostly determined by the video card/s, and not the difference between a 2500K and 2600K.
A stock GTX580 will have a reference clock of 772. Many overclocked cards will be in the 800 range, perhaps a 5% difference. The most highly overclocked cards might be near 8oo, a 10% difference. On the horizon is the EVGA GTX580 classified, which will, no doubt, be the fastest GTX580 made. http://www.techpowerup.com/148568/EVGA-Ready-with-GeFor...

As to vram usage, a card will use what it needs. It makes no difference if you have 3gb or 1.5gb if you only need 1gb. Is that a waste?
A GTX590 is two GTX570's sli'ed under the covers. In sli, the vram of the cards is not additive, that is why you see only 1.5 used. To my mind, not anything to base decisions on if there is much of a price premium.
August 26, 2011 3:13:00 PM

So what do you suggest? The i5 2500k with the gtx 590 or the i7 2600k with the gtx 580 3GB?
a c 260 U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 3:22:58 PM

paliovouna said:
So what do you suggest? The i5 2500k with the gtx 590 or the i7 2600k with the gtx 580 3GB?

Save your money. I suggest an overclocked 1.5gb GTX580 and a 2500K.

a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 3:24:25 PM

paliovouna said:
Hard drives, optical drives, ssd's, OS, games, programs are all covered. Would there be any drop in fps if i go with gtx 580 3GB and i7 2600k or not?
Also one more question. So only 1.5GB of the gtx 590 is used. Then the other half is useless?

Hey and what if i buy a not overlocked 580? Would there again be a difference?


Yes the max VRAM in real world use will be 1.5gb but it is used in SLI so the frames will be able to be produced twice as fast b/c the GPUs take turns producing frames.

i7 will have no benefit in gaming over the i5. Games don't use hyperthreading.

Only benefit you will see in 3gb 580 is in 3 monitor surround vision setups, but only one 3gb 580 on ur monitor will have same framerate as 1.5bg 580

Go with the i5/ 590 you will have much better framerates. Here are the benchmarks.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-sli-revie...
August 26, 2011 3:41:24 PM

paliovouna said:
So what do you suggest? The i5 2500k with the gtx 590 or the i7 2600k with the gtx 580 3GB?


What are you going to be playing? The i5 2500k and GTX 590 is a no brainer if you can afford it. As previously mentioned, the benefits of the i7 2600 are irrelevant in most tasks, especially gaming. The 590 is a beast and noticeably better than the 580.

For what it's worth, my friend just installed a 590 into his machine with an i5 2500k (not even overclocked) and he is running Starcraft 2 at 2560 resolution and pulling in 140 FPS.... like I said, beast mode.

Good luck
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 3:52:11 PM

get a gtx 580 1.5 GB and a 2500k end of story I see zero benefit in spending way more money on extra frame buffer that you will basically not use for a while if ever in regards to the lifespan of the gpu
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 4:07:29 PM

^ yes totally agreed, imo it is impossible not to notice my 6870 crossfire setup suffered from this and it made the overall experience horrible, much happier with a single gpu atm
August 26, 2011 4:23:53 PM

jjb8675309 said:
get a gtx 580 1.5 GB and a 2500k end of story I see zero benefit in spending way more money on extra frame buffer that you will basically not use for a while if ever in regards to the lifespan of the gpu


Pfft... Battlefield 3 will take full advantage of the 590 and it is definitely not a waste if you want to be able to enjoy BF3 or games like it on max settings and still pull playable and enjoyable frame rates.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 4:27:12 PM

geofelt said:
You might want to read this tom's article on microstuttering with multiple gpu's. The conclusion at the end is that they prefer one gpu where it can do the job:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...


Yes where it can do the job. But the OP stated he wanted to play Metro 2033. The 580 with the that game settings maxed with 1920x1080 display you are getting framerates average in the low 30s and sometimes in high 20s during action scenes. Even if you overclock the 580 the most u can get is an extra 10-15% FPS which equals an extra 3-4 FPS. The 590 will perform much better.

August 26, 2011 4:44:23 PM

You can wait for EVGA's new OC version of 580 which will be real fast, or even the 3GB version of that OC version, still might be cheaper than stock 590 and performance will be very very close. I think its called EVGA GTX 580 Classified
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 4:58:39 PM

gogetta said:
Pfft... Battlefield 3 will take full advantage of the 590 and it is definitely not a waste if you want to be able to enjoy BF3 or games like it on max settings and still pull playable and enjoyable frame rates.



nonsense the game is not even out how can you speculate performance like that?
August 26, 2011 5:06:42 PM

jjb8675309 said:
nonsense the game is not even out how can you speculate performance like that?


Going off of BC2 benchmarks..

GTX 580 will run around 80 frames maxed out at 1920

GTX 590 runs around 110 fps at the same resolution

It is understood that BF3 is epically more advanced graphically than BC2, dropping those averages down considerably. I would think maxing out BF3 on a 590 at 1920 res would put you at around 60-70 fps. It's all speculation, but to say the 590 isn't necessary and won't be for awhile is just wrong.
August 26, 2011 5:10:53 PM

jjb8675309 said:
nonsense the game is not even out how can you speculate performance like that?



BF3 is being tested with a 580 gtx all maxed out. I think a 590 would bring you a smoother expereience. I have a 460 gtx SLI and a I can say I´m totally satified with it. Microsttutering is not a real issue, it's less noticeable in nvidia cards. Go for the 590 if you have the money.
August 26, 2011 5:52:15 PM

Thank you all people for the advice. I was away sorry for not answering. I currently have a 5750 1GB and it runs lots of new games on high settings, with AA off and get me a 30+fps in most. The games i have purchased and gonna be playing are Crysis 2, Bad Company 2, FEAR 3, Fallout New Vegas, Just Cause 2, and many others.

I have already pre-order Dead Island, Battlefield 3 (which is the main reason im getting a new computer), Skyrim, RAGE and others..

All i ask for is to max out those games and get around 60 fps which im totally happy with. I don't need something like 100 or 200 or whatever frames per second.

So im going with i5 and 590. Are there going to be serious microsttutering problems with it or not?
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 7:03:35 PM

lol why preorder? its not like you wont be able to get a game either digitally or in store like back in the day!
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 7:05:18 PM

gogetta said:
Going off of BC2 benchmarks..

GTX 580 will run around 80 frames maxed out at 1920

GTX 590 runs around 110 fps at the same resolution

It is understood that BF3 is epically more advanced graphically than BC2, dropping those averages down considerably. I would think maxing out BF3 on a 590 at 1920 res would put you at around 60-70 fps. It's all speculation, but to say the 590 isn't necessary and won't be for awhile is just wrong.

exactly and anything over 60fps on a 60hz 1080p monitor is worthless imo, yeah it will bring minimums up but with a single 580 they should be decent enough either way the 590 is probably a better value since 580s are basically priced beyond their performance to a certain extent
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 7:06:03 PM

gunslinger36 said:
BF3 is being tested with a 580 gtx all maxed out. I think a 590 would bring you a smoother expereience. I have a 460 gtx SLI and a I can say I´m totally satified with it. Microsttutering is not a real issue, it's less noticeable in nvidia cards. Go for the 590 if you have the money.



yes its def less noticeable on nvidia cards, but on 6870s it was unbearable trust me
August 26, 2011 7:06:57 PM

After reading Tom's article which refers to the problems of microsttutering it seems that they are more noticeable in crossfire. As I told you before, I have a 460gtx SLI and microsttutering is not a great issue. Many people say that Microsttutering is not more noticeable in SLI than with a single card.
August 26, 2011 7:10:52 PM

Do you mean micro stuttering in single gpu card? How do you have micro stuttering in a single gpu card? I thought it was because frames are rendered in different cards that caused micro stuttering?
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 7:12:00 PM

no no no just speaking of crossfire if you are talking to me
August 26, 2011 7:13:48 PM

No, I don't really know much about ATI card. Was referring to comment about mine.
August 26, 2011 8:28:35 PM

STOPOT said:
Do you mean micro stuttering in single gpu card? How do you have micro stuttering in a single gpu card? I thought it was because frames are rendered in different cards that caused micro stuttering?


Yes, you are right it´s not microsttutering, with one card it something like lag . What I´m trying to say is that I don´t notice a real problem. When I had one 460gtx I couldn´t max out a few games (like crysis or metro 2033) and sometimes I noticed this lag in parts with low fps (which is normal). Now I can max out all games and in some parts of some games, I notice this lag which is similar to microsttutering for the human eye, and it´s only when there are a lots of objects in movement or effects. I mean, it´s the same for me.
August 26, 2011 8:32:05 PM

jjb8675309 said:
yes its def less noticeable on nvidia cards, but on 6870s it was unbearable trust me



I believe you, a lot of people say the same :( 
August 26, 2011 8:55:56 PM

@jjb lol, why pre-order? That's where your problem is, lmao? I pre-order because i simply love the games, and because i don't wanna miss a day when they come out.

So now we go back. Is microsttutering with gtx 590 gonna be a pain in the as* with many games?
August 26, 2011 9:03:41 PM

Why don't you go to a computer store where they have some kind of this setup to show off or ask a friend if they have 590's and play on theirs. If you think its ok, then buy it since its all about your preference in games anyways. You might find it unnoticable while other people might go insane from it.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 10:11:47 PM

paliovouna said:
@jjb lol, why pre-order? That's where your problem is, lmao? I pre-order because i simply love the games, and because i don't wanna miss a day when they come out.

So now we go back. Is microsttutering with gtx 590 gonna be a pain in the as* with many games?



just saying that back in the day people pre-ordered when games would sell out for a month after its release which is just not the case with how many digital copies of games people buy today. Why not just buy the game the day it comes out instead of having them hold your money for 3 months or more ahead of time, makes no sense unless the price was significantly lower then when its released, which its not, its called opportunity cost; every hear of it? basic economics? no? I can be a smartass too but in the end there is nothing wrong with pre-ordering a game that you really like although to me it makes no sense from a business/consumer perspective
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 10:18:43 PM

gogetta said:
What are you going to be playing? The i5 2500k and GTX 590 is a no brainer if you can afford it. As previously mentioned, the benefits of the i7 2600 are irrelevant in most tasks, especially gaming. The 590 is a beast and noticeably better than the 580.

For what it's worth, my friend just installed a 590 into his machine with an i5 2500k (not even overclocked) and he is running Starcraft 2 at 2560 resolution and pulling in 140 FPS.... like I said, beast mode.

Good luck



I would hope 900 dollars worth of cpu/gpu would be able to run starcraft 2 well... but im sorry but im gonna have to call bs on pulling 140 fps, the benchmark on x-bit labs says that the gtx 590 gets about 25% of the performance that you claim, look at the middle chart:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gefor...

mind you here is the testbed for the results above:

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition processor (3.33 GHz, 6.4 GT/s QPI);
Scythe SCKTN-3000 Katana 3 CPU cooler;
Gigabyte GA-EX58-Extreme mainboard (Intel X58 Express chipset);
Corsair XMS3-12800C9 (3 x 2 GB, 1333 MHz, 9-9-9-24, 2T);
Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD (1 TB, 32 MB buffer, SATA II);
Ultra X4 850 W Modular power supply;
Dell 3007WFP monitor (30", 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz max display resolution);
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.


Before you try to say the 2500k is far superior think again it is likely a bit better but not by much...


There is just no way that you friends 2500k at stock is much better then the cpu in the test bed... I know sc2 is very cpu bound but gaining less the 10% in cpu performance relative to gaining is not going to make up for the 100 or so fps deficit from what you claim to what the test results show, were you just tooting your own horn or what?

ok at second glance it says sli mode does not work so even take the number they get at 25X16 and you are still nowhere near 140 fps
August 26, 2011 11:04:10 PM

jjb8675309 said:
just saying that back in the day people pre-ordered when games would sell out for a month after its release which is just not the case with how many digital copies of games people buy today. Why not just buy the game the day it comes out instead of having them hold your money for 3 months or more ahead of time, makes no sense unless the price was significantly lower then when its released, which its not, its called opportunity cost; every hear of it? basic economics? no? I can be a smartass too but in the end there is nothing wrong with pre-ordering a game that you really like although to me it makes no sense from a business/consumer perspective



That's not the point of this, that is not important, let's no argue about how i should buy the games. In my country no one has more than 24Mbps internet. I have 8. I bother downloading a 15GB game each time i format my pc/ or uninstall a game due to technical issues. Did you know that Battlefield's 3 digital version is 15GB? No thanks, i prefer disks. That's one of the many reasons i pre-order.

See, my friends are not that high-tech guys. No one has a computer capable of maxing out the latest games, how much a gtx 590... Most have xbox 360, ps3 or crappy computers. I might be the first person in my town to have the GTX 590 :D 
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 11:54:16 PM

^ cool didn't realize you were not in the US good luck and have fun
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 4:19:31 AM

jjb8675309 said:
lol why preorder? its not like you wont be able to get a game either digitally or in store like back in the day!


Lol, why pre-order. U must be out the loop my friend.

1. Because it is the biggest Game of the Year

2. Pre-loading. That is Origin will let you download game before release date then on midnight of release date you gain instant access to BF3 and you start blasting!

3. Pre-order gives you early beta access

4. U get free extra DLC maps in future

5. Gain access to extra exclusive weapons

6. AND MOST IMPORTANT: MY PREORDER GOT ME BATTLEFIELD3+ DEAD SPACE 2 + ALL I NOTED ABOVE= IN A PACKAGE ALL FOR $45 :o  :hello: 
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 4:22:41 AM

paliovouna said:
That's not the point of this, that is not important, let's no argue about how i should buy the games. In my country no one has more than 24Mbps internet. I have 8. I bother downloading a 15GB game each time i format my pc/ or uninstall a game due to technical issues. Did you know that Battlefield's 3 digital version is 15GB? No thanks, i prefer disks. That's one of the many reasons i pre-order.

See, my friends are not that high-tech guys. No one has a computer capable of maxing out the latest games, how much a gtx 590... Most have xbox 360, ps3 or crappy computers. I might be the first person in my town to have the GTX 590 :D 



Dude Read above. Origin has pre-loading!
a c 227 U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 4:44:18 AM

Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:


For $750 the 590 gets you 881 fps
For $600 the 580 gets you 616 fps
For $440 twin 560 TIs (900Mhz) gets you 862 fps
August 27, 2011 4:58:15 AM

jjb8675309 said:
I would hope 900 dollars worth of cpu/gpu would be able to run starcraft 2 well... but im sorry but im gonna have to call bs on pulling 140 fps, the benchmark on x-bit labs says that the gtx 590 gets about 25% of the performance that you claim, look at the middle chart:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/gefor...

mind you here is the testbed for the results above:

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition processor (3.33 GHz, 6.4 GT/s QPI);
Scythe SCKTN-3000 Katana 3 CPU cooler;
Gigabyte GA-EX58-Extreme mainboard (Intel X58 Express chipset);
Corsair XMS3-12800C9 (3 x 2 GB, 1333 MHz, 9-9-9-24, 2T);
Samsung Spinpoint F3 HDD (1 TB, 32 MB buffer, SATA II);
Ultra X4 850 W Modular power supply;
Dell 3007WFP monitor (30", 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz max display resolution);
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.


Before you try to say the 2500k is far superior think again it is likely a bit better but not by much...


There is just no way that you friends 2500k at stock is much better then the cpu in the test bed... I know sc2 is very cpu bound but gaining less the 10% in cpu performance relative to gaining is not going to make up for the 100 or so fps deficit from what you claim to what the test results show, were you just tooting your own horn or what?

ok at second glance it says sli mode does not work so even take the number they get at 25X16 and you are still nowhere near 140 fps


My friend got on vent, said "omg this card is sweet, I'm seeing nearly 140 fps in 2560"... If he was lying, then I guess I'm wrong.

His machine is a bit better than the test machine you listed.. He has a super fast Revo drive and 16 GBs of RAM, which might make a difference.. I dunno.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 5:05:07 AM

This thread amused me :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 5:34:09 AM

gogetta said:
My friend got on vent, said "omg this card is sweet, I'm seeing nearly 140 fps in 2560"... If he was lying, then I guess I'm wrong.

His machine is a bit better than the test machine you listed.. He has a super fast Revo drive and 16 GBs of RAM, which might make a difference.. I dunno.



hes bsing obviously his menial additional cpu performance over a i7 975 is not going to make a difference and a fast driver and excessive ram will not net you any more fps , no way
August 27, 2011 7:57:35 AM

Did you friend OC his CPU much?
August 27, 2011 9:46:17 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:


For $750 the 590 gets you 881 fps
For $600 the 580 gets you 616 fps
For $440 twin 560 TIs (900Mhz) gets you 862 fps



That's my point man, thanks. Not that i need 800 fps, but in max settings, i want 60+ :D 


Now i saw some benchmarks somewhere some time ago. They were using a 5870 i think, and they tested some games with i5 2500k and i7 990x extreme. The difference was about 30 fps. My point is that i'd never spend 1000 bucks for 30 more fps.
August 27, 2011 9:58:03 AM

30 seems like a lot though, add that to another 30 and you get 60 :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 1:38:21 PM

STOPOT said:
Did you friend OC his CPU much?


no stock, yet he has a k sku, makes no sense
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 1:40:02 PM

paliovouna said:
That's my point man, thanks. Not that i need 800 fps, but in max settings, i want 60+ :D 


Now i saw some benchmarks somewhere some time ago. They were using a 5870 i think, and they tested some games with i5 2500k and i7 990x extreme. The difference was about 30 fps. My point is that i'd never spend 1000 bucks for 30 more fps.



your saying there was a 30 fps difference between a 990x and 2500k, absolutely no way in hell that is total nonsense, dude you need to get a grip on reality
August 27, 2011 2:42:11 PM

STOPOT said:
30 seems like a lot though, add that to another 30 and you get 60 :) 



Because im not buying the 990x, im buying the gtx 590 which will itself give me those 60.


@jjb What?? An i5 2500k of 3.3GHz and a overlocked 990x to 4.5GHz, have big difference, 30- fps. Look for benchmarks. You could also go to cyberpower pc, select a graphics card like 6970, and put the 990x and then the i5 2500k. The fps estimator will have a big difference.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2011 2:55:04 PM

well you didnt specify the clock freq I thought you were saying the 2500k was that much faster at stock then the 990x, nevermind...
October 13, 2011 9:06:46 PM

Microstutter is irrelevant on a single gfx(this includes x2 cards). You might experience it when using xfire or sli solutions.
!