Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

570 sli or wait?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 11, 2011 12:28:54 PM

I am stuck, I am unsure what to do. I have a pretty decent pc that I paid alot of money for, almost $1,800, but Sadly alot of the money wasn't spent on my video card, I am only running a single gtx 570. I purchased one gtx 570 at the time, because i wanted to see if a single gtx 570 would suffice and if not go ahead and buy a second one for crossfire, I am now at the stage where I want more performance for some upcoming games *bf3,skyrim,ect* but since amd will be releaseing new video cards in the coming months I don't know if I should sit tight or not.

I can buy the second gtx 570 sli it until the new cards are release then sell them, doing this will probably cost around $100 since selling it wont get all the money back used, if this was the case I would probably sell both gtx 570's when the time came and maybe buy the top of the line card when released. any one know when the card's are gonna be released aprox?

My gut is telling me to just wait, grab the new card when it's out and then sell my gtx 570, but everywhere I read tell me sli gtx 570's are the way to go.

I kinda wish I didn't get the ssd even thou I love it to death, and downgraded my cpu to the 2500k even thou I LOVE THE 2600k!! cuz I would of been able to squeeze in the second gtx 570 at that time if I did, but then Id have a slightly weaker cpu and window's on a hard drive with 120 steam games lol.

Thanks.

2600k I7 @ 4.5 GHz stock voltage.
Asrock extreme4
ripjaw x 4gb F3-12800CL6D-4GBXH
gtx 570 evga
haf 912
hyper 212+
850w TX psu
windows 7 64bit home
128gb SSD
1 tb hard drive
4x scythe fans 120mm
fatal1y gaming head set

More about : 570 sli wait

a c 104 U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 1:02:33 PM

Always listen to your gut feeling, you're pretty fine for now so why hurry and not wait to see what magic the new series can do ? You went the right way with the SSD and 2600 i think.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 2:14:14 PM

A lot of people don't like waiting, I myself Find it hard at times, but in the end the longer you wait the better it will be when you get your hands on that thing you have been waiting for. Right now I can pretty much play every game I own at max settings 1080p, even metro run's great at near max just turn off aa and maybe one dx11 feature and I am well above 30 fps. 60 fps is what I like, I can tell the difference even if people say you can't, 60 fps is my ideal speed for gaming.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 2:40:47 PM

Kev, you failed to mention the most important factor...........your resolution.

I really don't see the point of overclocking the cpu with 1 video card either. If your at 1920x1080 or less, I really don't see the point of another gTX570 either, especially for bf3, your well above specs already.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 3:21:47 PM

Your comment GeekApproved inspired me to run a quick benchmark. I used metro2033benchmark tool with all options set to max 1920 x 1080. my gtx 570 is oc to 850mhz. I ran it 5 times and then got the average score and also took not of my cpu temps.

With stock Cpu settings I got 25.08 fps with a cpu temp of 40 after the 5 tests.
With OC Cpu at 4.5 I got 25.22 fps with a cpu temp of only 48 after 5 tests

So for this particular benchmark, I got a 0.05% performance increase at the cost of 8 degree's hotter cpu. I guess you were right :) 

I should try my 5.0ghz overclock and see what that harvests.
m
0
l
a c 253 U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 3:32:10 PM

If you went with another GTX 570 and put the two in SLI then you would not have to buy the next release for Nvidia , you could bypass it and get the next one or the one after that. The thing is that the video game programers donn't put out games as fast as card makers put out cards. So that gives us a break where you don't have to buy every release because the cards are powerfull enough to last a few years. The good thing about this is that since the next release is expected in a couple months the prices of the current cards will continue to fall and by getting another GTX 570 at a good price you will save a lot of money vs going with the latest and greatest. I have GTX 580's and I'm not even going to think about the next card or the one after that and I will be playing MW3.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 3:46:33 PM

That's true, I wonder how far the gtx 570 prices' will fall, any estimates?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 4:11:10 PM

So see your just raising your electrity bill, creating more heat, which in turns shortens the life of all the components in your case.

It only makes sense to overclock when there's a reason for overclocking. You don't have any reason for overclocking.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 4:30:55 PM

Kev,

Geekapproved and inzone are correct in their statements. Your overclock is a waste. Gamers used to overclock to reduce or eliminate any bottlenecks their system would have. With your processor and 1 570, even 2 570s, your fine at stock speeds.

You have to remember that at higher resolutions, your videocards are doing more work than your cpu. Your cpu would only bottleneck at stock at 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

I run an older i7-950 with 2x EVGA 570sc's in sli, and i ran 3dmark and benched a few games. Then i took them out and put them into a new machine i'm building with a 2600k at stock and got the same scores and fps. Which means that even at 3.06ghz stock on my i7-950 i'm not bottenecked at all let alone on sandybridge anything.

If your not happy with 1 570, then forget what anyone else says, go with your gut and buy another. Only you know what you need.

As far as your overclock goes, like geekapproved already said, it's a waste.

Just a sidenote: Some games are very sensitive or overclocks and even if your system has been OCed for months, and runs like a champ, you might come across a game or two that are sensitive to it and crash all the time making you feel like your system is unstable.

Believe me, I'm all for OCing, but only when it's needed.

*Footnote: After running many many tests on my 950 with dual 570sc's, I got better fps with an OC of 3.7ghz on some games. But anything beyond 3.7ghz didn't help fps any. I only run at 4.0ghz myself because i'm OCD and hate odd numbers. (don't ask)
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 8:37:20 PM

Wow, it's true, on average every week a game crash's on me like 4 or 5 times. I think I will just stick with the single gtx 570, then sell it when the new card's are released. Thanks for the tips' guys and I was using that overclock for around 2 months hope i didn't hurt the cpu too much, everything run's as if it was new so if there was any damage it's probably minimum.

I am gonna try a more cpu demanding game, Rome- total war Alexander with like 2000 units per side or more if it run's smooth ill try and get it where im at around 30 frames with the stock settings then try my 4.5ghz oc and see. be back in soon.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 9:18:57 PM

Ok, That was interesting, let me fill you in on what I did for this benchmark, first I put all settings low and off, but I kept it at max resolution 1980x1080 I thought this would give a better look at the cpu performance since the video card would have the least stress on it. Next it was 3 vs 3, with 10,000 archers per side, which is 20,000 unit's total on the map. I would take note of my frame's after all my unit's engaged and were being attacked by the enemy so that in a sence, the most "stuff" was going on, also when all unit's were engaged, I would zoom in on the far left, and angle my camera so I was overlooking all my units.

Ok, so here's the results...

with stock cpu settings..
There was a noticable skippyness right away when I was moving the camera into posistion, it seemed to run smoothly when not moving the camera however as my units began to march. As my units began to line up in a tight thick formation I noticed the frame's starting to drop, 40......35.....30, after all my unit's were in view and firing and being fired at the frames were very jumpy, mostly it stayed around the 20 fps mark, but it wasn't a constant, they were jumping from 13 - 25 almost constant and couldn't really find any flow to it.

I desided to use my most extreme overclock of 5.0ghz a overclock i created in the first week's when I got my computer and desided not to use it, thou I did save it in the bios for future purposes...

The camera skipping that I experienced with the stock settings was gone, and as I set up my camera and my units began to move, it was constant 50's which I belive the game max's out at. As my unit's started to line up, the decrease in frames was far less and stable at 35 fps, yes stable, as all my units were firing and being fired apon, the frames seemed to hold strong at 35 and was very smooth. I was very inpressed with this, but I guess that's to be expected with a benchmark such as this. So in this particular instance I would say the overclock doubled the performance for this game and this particular map that I set up.

Note: I am not sure but I could almost swear that the loading time for the map was far faster with the overclock, I didn't really time it or anything, but just a guess id say it was at least 50% quicker, it might of just been me, would an overclock make it load faster? I didn't think it would make a difference.

Let me know what ya's think, I have to restart my computer and get off this 5.0 overclock :o 
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 10:47:32 PM

Regular computer speed and yes, even game loading will be faster with a faster cpu/clock speed.

For the game your testing. any and ALL RTS games use massive cpu horsepower. I was mostly referring to FPS and RPGs earlier.

Your running a 2500k? I would have stuck with the 2600k for HT mostly. Most new 2009-2011 RTS games are threaded and able to use more than 4 cores, thus HT might have solved your issue with that specific game. (just a thought). However yes, with regards to cpu performance and RTS's. Clockspeed will matter, but again only if there's a bottleneck.

If you found a game that's bottle-necked by your 2500k, then get a 2600k and OC it.
Or run less within the game. See your running 10's of thousands of people in an army. Thats going to damn-near tank anyones cpu. Anyone can make a custom map on a modern RTS and tank their cpu.

All games are written differently. And different code + different resolutions can greatly alter how good you feel your system is. Some people say that machine is crap on 1080p, yet fail to mention that they run 3x 1080p screens.

You have a powerful system. You should be able to run anything on that system. If you do run across a game that might taxi you system a bit harder, like the one your using with a custom map, then yea, spend a bit more.

As you said yourself, your system is stable yet your games are crashing. My case and point earlier about your OC. Unless i'm reading your system specs wrong, it shows you only having 4 gigs of ram.

Do this. get 8 gigs of ram. Run the same tests your doing now. See if it makes a difference. (it should)

Next, if your games are still running er....slow....then OC your CPU to 3.6 then 3.8 then 4.0. Don't OC too far if it's not needed. And stop when you see little to no benefit framerate-wise. (this should mostly and only apply to RTS games like CIV 5) etc etc.

And lastly if you really want more horsepower, then yes, a second 570 will do you justice for a very long time.

My build should be in my sig, if not let me know and i'll post it. But I only say this because I run 2x 570sc's because I'm waiting for skyrim to come out, and in my experiences with Bethesda games, their game engine is so poor, i need to run enough horsepower to compensate. That and I expect to world to be so vast, I just need all the horsepower I can get.

Do me a favor. Run a few OC tests vs stock on non-RTS games. and tell me the results. Additionally, Run some of the crash-happy games at stock and tell me if they still crash.

If you see no difference in your FPS or RPG games, and your other games run great at stock, then your OC profile is not stable. Nor is it needed. (unless your running a custom map)
m
0
l
a c 253 U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 10:54:47 PM

Well the one thing about an overclock especially one as high as what you just had will shorten your cpu's life span. I don't particually like to over clock but I do believe in a small over clock. I would rether let the video cards do the work and do a small over clock on those as well. That is why I like the SLI set up two is better than one and when two cards are working together to render the frames in a game there is less stress on the cpu and gpu's and all the parts live long happy lives.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 11:01:23 PM

I agree with you inzone. For me I actually found a bit of a gpu bottleneck with my i7-950 at stock. However, a 570SC is only 5% slower than a 580, and I run 2 so. 3.06ghz was a bit slow for that setup. But I currently run it at 3.7ghz it keeps my ram happy at 1640mhz and it's a very reasonable oc. I only have 1.12V on it! Been like this for 9 months now.

I had it at 4ghz before, but it made no difference in my games and my ram only ran at 1400ish mhz. I actually took a fps loss on 3dmark cuz of it. heh, go figure.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 11:04:16 PM

Nope I have a 2600k, I mentioned 2500k earlier as a downgrade option when I was building my computer that would of allowed me to purchase a 2nd gtx 570, I have a 2600k. Thanks for the post alot of good info in there.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 11:09:08 PM

Well good! then grab another 570 + 8 gigs of ram there should be nothing to stop ya!

Keep me informed about those tests!
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 11:09:50 PM

I don't think I will use an overclock until I do notice bottlenecking, I was stupid to overclock my system in the first place for what was it? 0.05% performance increase in metro2033... You guy's showed me the light! :ange: 
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 11:21:32 PM

Well for 2 months? nah, your fine. There should be no permanent damage. So don't worry.

Note as you add more gpu horsepower, you cpu can become a bottleneck in the sense that it will send information to the gpus to load, and the gpus will load the information and wait for the cpu to give them more. This is where a cpu CAN be a bottleneck.

If you ever want further understanding about OCing, system balancing, tweaking etc etc. I have a teamspeak and vent server if you prefer that option.
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
September 11, 2011 11:23:28 PM

My points:

1) Don't SLI.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...

2) RAM amount:
Never use more than 8GB unless you have very specific needs and KNOW you'll benefit from this. There is very little benefit to having 8GB vs 4GB and almost no benefit if you have a fast SSD.

Video games won't run better with more than 4GB except for a small difference in loading or unloading the initial game as it loads or unloads files from RAM.

3) SKYRIM:
Keep in mind that they just finished Fallout New Vegas. I wouldn't expect the demands of this game to be significantly different. They aren't using DX11 features so there's no Tessellation.

(in fact, I'm hoping they finally sort out the stuttering issues which many people like myself have with Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout NV..)

In other words, if you can handle Fallout NV on maximum settings with a GTX570, which I know you can then I wouldn't bother with a 2nd card, especially considering it may play WORSE due to micro-stuttering.

Summary:
Wait for the NVidia GTX 600 series at least.
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 11:37:03 PM

Just tried fallout NV, getting constant 60's, drop's to like 58 sometimes lol.
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
September 12, 2011 12:11:58 AM

If you have "VSYNC" enabled then frame rates stay at 60FPS as long as the computer can calculate above 60FPS.

This is desired because it:
a) prevents screen tearing, and
b) prevents the computer from working harder than it needs to (monitor can only show 60FPS usually)

However, if you turn VSYNC OFF then you can see how much "better" your system is than the game requirements. For example, if you got 90FPS and expected SKYRIM to be only SLIGHTLY more demanding than Fallout NV you have nothing to worry about.

Even Metro 2033 which is really demanding on full DX11 doesn't look enough better maxed out on DX9 that I'd buy a better card than a GTX570.

*Whenever possible, make sure a game is running at 60FPS with VSYNC enabled, and if the game doesn't support it find a tool that can FORCE it on.

(I use RadeonPro for my AMD card, not sure of the NVidia tool. I discovered also that I had to use a separate tool, ATItraytools in order to get VSYNC to work for "Witcher #1", so there's likely a tool that will force VSYNC on for your NVidia card if you have Witcher.)
m
0
l
September 12, 2011 3:01:47 AM

I got witcher :)  awesome game, waiting for the witcher 2 to go on sale lol, I only buy games when they are on sale :p 
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
September 12, 2011 3:57:07 AM

Witcher 1:

So you know that there is no VSYNC supported for it. Without VSYNC you get that screen tearing when moving around.

Apparently Rivatuner works for AMD and NVidia, although I've never tried it:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/RivaTuner-v2.24c-download-1...

WORKS!

I added the "witcher.exe" (E:\Steam\steamapps\common\the witcher enhanced edition\System ) to the D3Doverrider installed with Rivatuner (plus sign, lower left) and I started the game normally from within Steam.

NVidia control panel?
I've heard mixed results, but I can't test this. I know D3Doverrider will start with Windows automatically.

AA and VSync:
I have several games in which I had to FORCE VSync and AA; in my case RadeonPro. The only ones I've ever had FAIL where "The Force Unleashed" adn TFU#2.

Some of the games I've force VSYNC or AA:
- Elven Legacy (2xAA and disable ingame AA settings); VSYNC *repeat for EXPANSION PACKS
- Deus Ex #1 (8xAA; VSYNC)
- Mass Effect #1 and #2 (4xAA Supersampling)
- Sims 3 (Double VSYNC; locks me to 30FPS which works very well!)
m
0
l
September 12, 2011 11:06:16 AM

I used Nvidia control panel for Fallout New Vegas, and was getting around 80 fps, but it didn't look as smooth , I think there was some screen tearing not much but just enough to be noticeable if you look closely
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
September 12, 2011 11:30:21 PM

VSYNC at 80FPS?

VSYNC is designed to match your monitor frequency exactly. Flat screens are usually 60Hz (60FPS).

The older CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitors are usually at least 70Hz to avoid CRT flickering.

Unless you have a CRT set to 80Hz VSYNC is NOT working for Fallout NV.

Fallout NV settings:
There is a VSYNC setting within the game. There is no need to use NVidia Control Panel for this.

*Double check that VSYNC is enabled in the game, and use FRAPS to confirm that it is giving you a solid 60FPS.
m
0
l
!