Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GPU Advice, GTX590

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 5, 2011 7:55:30 PM

Hey all. :) 

I'm in the process of a new build and am tossed on what to do for graphics despite reading every article ever written on GPU's authored in the last 6 months. I've officially gone nuts trying to make a decision, which has not been helped by things like "Inside the Second" and the comparable Tom's Hardware article on micro-stuttering.

So I'm turning my noob self over to the better advice of others!

What I really want is a rig that can run every current game at absolutely max'd out settings, single 1080p screen only. I'm talking Metro, BF3, Crysis + High res/DX11, and the upcoming Arkham City totally max'd without a single thing lowered one iota. And I want flawless silky smooth gameplay. I'd like to accomplish this with the least power consumption, heat, and noise possible. At the cheapest price would be nice too.

Because I enjoy graphics more than gameplay (I'm a terrible person, I know), I've basically ruled out AMD as I want PhysX. I'm actually willing to pay more money to see glass shatter and cloth ripples in all of three game titles. I have massive OCD attention to detail.

I know that general wisdom is that with a single 1080p screen dual gpu's is wasted, but benchmark evidence suggests otherwise. It seems rather that memory is wasted, e.g. non-reference 3gb 580 SLI at 1080p would be overkill. From all that I've read it seems that a single GPU solution can't deliver on what I described above. Even a superclocked 580 in Metro is getting FPS in the 30-something range, which isn't too hot. There's a small chance I might go 3D in the next year if the price of those screens come down, in which case the performance hit would, I think, destroy any chance of a single gpu option working.

It seems to me that a GTX 590 is the best solution. It can do all of the above, with less heat/power/noise than two 570's or 580's. Granted 570/580's can be OC'd, but I don't care about FPS bragging rights. To me, either a system can deliver acceptable performance (max'd out, smooth), or it can't. Having 80fps instead of 70fps doesn't interest me.

I am however worried that I'm weighing FPS to heavily. Perhaps 35 fps in Metro on a 580 feels smoother than 55fps on a 590 given the issues of microstuttering, but from reading "Inside the Second", looking at every chart, and reading accounts of people who own the card, there doesn't seem to be enough jitter to cause any noticeable stuttering. Future more taxing games that bring it's fps down into the 30-40 range might change that, but by that time it might be reasonable to upgrade to Kepler or Haswell.

Whatever card I get I plan on coupling with a 2500k on an Asus gen 3 board, probably upgrading to ivy bridge and/or kepler in 1-2 years.



So am I being a wasteful idiot here leaning 590 over 580? And on a sidenote, does anyone know how much a 590 can be OC'd (if at all) now that overvolting has been disabled? Have I over thought all of this massively? :p 


Thanks. :) 

More about : gpu advice gtx590

a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 8:42:51 PM

I'm in a similar predicament friend. I want to do the same, max out all the games DX11, anti whatever cranked up. I was debating getting 2 6970's or the 590 but not anymore. The next generation of cards is supposed to at least a 70-80% boost in performance. My suggestion is doing what Im gonna do. Just buy something like a 6970 or maybe a 570 or 580 to tide you over. You can sell once the new cards come put and end up having about $600 to spend on the next top of the line card. (assuming you were going to spend about $750 on a 590) I know waiting sucks, BELIEVE ME, Im itching to play games with everything maxed but I think in the long run, it'll be worth it to go all out in about 6 months. :bounce: 
a c 212 U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 8:45:53 PM

The 590 is a dead end.

One 590 isn't bad .... but for $750 the 590 (881 fps) gives the same fps as twin 560 Ti's do (862 fps) for $410 .... and the 560 can be OC'd another 10-12% .... ya won't get that outta the 590.

SLi'ing two 590's is a joke ...adds a whopping 101 fps

So here's ya choices:

-Twin 900 MHz 560 Ti's ($410-450)..... 862 fps outta the box, 49 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 10-12% more performance available thru OC'ing

-Twin 570's ($700ish)..... 873 fps outta the box, 54 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-6% more performance available thru OC'ing

-One 580 ($480-500)..... 616 fps outta the box, 33 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-9% more performance available thru OC'ing

-Twin 580's ($960 - 1000)..... 953 fps outta the box, 85 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-8% more performance available thru OC'ing

-3-way 580's ($1440 - 1500)..... 1030 fps outta the box, 91 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-8% more performance available thru OC'ing

-One 590 ($750)..... 881 fps outta the box, 53 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 3-4% more performance available thru OC'ing

-Two 590 ($1500)..... 982 fps outta the box, 84 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 3-4% more performance available thru OC'ing

For roughly the same price, three 580s take the crown over the twin 590's

With a $750 expenditure for one 590, the twin 570's give you roughly the same scores for $50 less. The twin 560's give you 99% of the overall fps but only 93% in Metro 2033.....however, that doesn't include the available 10% OC that we know is there....and it's $340 less.

My son is using twin 560's OC'd to 100Mhz....BF3, Metro etc all play fine.....the new Alice has been troublesome but hoping the new driver fixed it (haven't tried yet). Haven't tried the new Batman yet.
Related resources
November 5, 2011 8:58:02 PM

spagalicious said:
I'm in a similar predicament friend. I want to do the same, max out all the games DX11, anti whatever cranked up. I was debating getting 2 6970's or the 590 but not anymore. The next generation of cards is supposed to at least a 70-80% boost in performance. My suggestion is doing what Im gonna do. Just buy something like a 6970 or maybe a 570 or 580 to tide you over. You can sell once the new cards come put and end up having about $600 to spend on the next top of the line card. (assuming you were going to spend about $750 on a 590) I know waiting sucks, BELIEVE ME, Im itching to play games with everything maxed but I think in the long run, it'll be worth it to go all out in about 6 months. :bounce: 


We're totally in the same boat, I share those same thoughts. But I was thinking I could always sell the 580/590 just like a cheaper card, so why go cheap? I'll certainly be out a couple hundred bucks either way. The other way of thinking about it however is that a 590 should be adequate to max everything out in 2012, I mean game makers are just barely starting to tap DX11 now. Get the 590 today, sell it at the end of 2012 when Kepler prices have dropped, and have a 28nm card going into 2013.

JackNaylorPE said:
The 590 is a dead end.

One 590 isn't bad .... but for $750 the 590 (881 fps) gives the same fps as twin 560 Ti's do (862 fps) for $410 .... and the 560 can be OC'd another 10-12% .... ya won't get that outta the 590.

SLi'ing two 590's is a joke ...adds a whopping 101 fps


Isn't a 590 the equivalent of two 570's, not 560ti's? Plus it can still be OC'd a bit.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/03/asus_geforce_...

My bigger worry with 560's is that they have 1gb of memory. You can definitely waste that at 1080p. The 590 has 1.5gb, which just barely is enough to max out even the most memory hungry games out today at that resolution. I would think the 560's would inevitably get memory throttled in a handful of titles.

JackNaylorPE said:
So here's ya choices:

-Twin 900 MHz 560 Ti's ($410-450)..... 862 fps outta the box, 49 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 10-12% more performance available thru OC'ing

-Twin 570's ($700ish)..... 873 fps outta the box, 54 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-6% more performance available thru OC'ing

-One 580 ($48-500)..... 616 fps outta the box, 33 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-9% more performance available thru OC'ing

-Twin 580's ($960 - 1000)..... 953 fps outta the box, 65 fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-8% more performance available thru OC'ing

-3-way 580's ($1440 - 1500)..... 1030 fps outta the box, ?? fps in Metro 2033 ..... 4-8% more performance available thru OC'ing

My son is using twin 560's OC'd to 100Mhz....BF3, Metro etc all play fine.....the new Alice has been troublesome but hoping the new driver fixed it (haven't tried yet). Havent tried the new Batman yet.


Breaking it down:

560's are short on memory.
570's are the dead equivalent of a 590, except 250mb less memory which isn't as big of a deal as the 500 less with 560's. They do have more noise and more heat though.
Twin or triple 580's would be massive overkill for a 1080p monitor, and a lot more money/power/noise.

So with all that in mind, my feeling is a 590 is better than all of those solutions. The exception perhaps being a single, overclocked 580. The question really then is a 580, everything max'd out in a game like Metro, is only pulling 30-something fps--how smooth does that actually feel? A 590 is going to pull 20 fps more, but again it is dual gpu and that's a fairly legitimate concern.
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 9:09:55 PM

Quote:
We're totally in the same boat, I share those same thoughts. But I was thinking I could always sell the 580/590 just like a cheaper card, so why go cheap? I'll certainly be out a couple hundred bucks either way. The other way of thinking about it however is that a 590 should be adequate to max everything out in 2012, I mean game makers are just barely starting to tap DX11 now. Get the 590 today, sell it at the end of 2012 when Kepler prices have dropped, and have a 28nm card going into 2013.



I see your point just the possibility of losing so much money if you're just going to upgrade in a year doesn't fit my situation. If you go cheap, you have the extra $400 in your pocket that won't degrade while spending $750 on the 590 may only be worth $450 used in a year. So spend $300, make $125-150 back for $550 or spend all $750 and only make $450. Of course, Im only 18 and I think this way with money haha. Just my thought process. I already saw a couple of 6990's on ebay for $550 and they're going for $720 on newegg. Just a thought.

Whatever you choose. It'll last for at least 2 years but waiting six months may make it last for 3-4. :wahoo: 
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 9:25:34 PM

antimatter27 said:
We're totally in the same boat, I share those same thoughts. But I was thinking I could always sell the 580/590 just like a cheaper card, so why go cheap? I'll certainly be out a couple hundred bucks either way. The other way of thinking about it however is that a 590 should be adequate to max everything out in 2012, I mean game makers are just barely starting to tap DX11 now. Get the 590 today, sell it at the end of 2012 when Kepler prices have dropped, and have a 28nm card going into 2013.



Isn't a 590 the equivalent of two 570's, not 560ti's? Plus it can still be OC'd a bit.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/03/asus_geforce_...

My bigger worry with 560's is that they have 1gb of memory. You can definitely waste that at 1080p. The 590 has 1.5gb, which just barely is enough to max out even the most memory hungry games out today at that resolution. I would think the 560's would inevitably get memory throttled in a handful of titles.



Breaking it down:

560's are short on memory.
570's are the dead equivalent of a 590, except 250mb less memory which isn't as big of a deal as the 500 less with 560's. They do have more noise and more heat though.
Twin or triple 580's would be massive overkill for a 1080p monitor, and a lot more money/power/noise.

So with all that in mind, my feeling is a 590 is better than all of those solutions. The exception perhaps being a single, overclocked 580. The question really then is a 580, everything max'd out in a game like Metro, is only pulling 30-something fps--how smooth does that actually feel? A 590 is going to pull 20 fps more, but again it is dual gpu and that's a fairly legitimate concern.


If the memory is your concern, I do believe you can get 2gb versions of 560ti's.

Examples: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Best solution

a c 212 U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 9:39:40 PM
Share

antimatter27 said:
Isn't a 590 the equivalent of two 570's, not 560ti's?


Exactly. But the Factory overclocked 900 Mhz 560 Ti .... which is the same price as the reference card ..... has show itself to be the functional equivalent of a 570. Looking at the numbers:

Twin 900 Mhz 560 Ti's - 862 fps in Guru3D's game test suite
Twin 570's - 873 fps in Guru3D's game test suite

Depending on the game mix in the test suite, when both are OC'd to their max stable frequency, I have seen the 560's OC'ing anywhere from 92% and99% of the 570. And as the above post shows, twin 560 900 Mhz Ti's get 98% of the 590's score for just 57% of the price. Here's how current gen cards are doing in the market. Obviously market share can not be an indicator of performance but what I find interesting is how fast the 560 has changed it's position in the last 4 months:

Card ----- June Market Share ----- October Market Share ----- % Change

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 ----- 3.46% ----- 6.55% ----- +89.31%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 ----- 2.54% ----- 3.50% ----- +37.80%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 ----- 2.77% ----- 3.65% ----- +31.77%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 ----- 2.47% ----- 3.19% ----- +29.15%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 ----- 1.26% ----- 1.58% ----- +25.40%

The only thing I see as significant in the above is that for four of the cards, they are all selling at a similar % above (25 - 37) what they were doing 4 months ago. But that the 560 is increasing sales at about three times the average of those 4 cards I think is indicative of the price / performance it offers....at least in people's minds.
November 5, 2011 11:28:07 PM

That's a fantastic point, I hadn't even considered the 560 because of how mid-range I perceived it to be. My only worry is memory limitations, I'll have to look up some benchmarks.

The other thing is that whatever card I get this month I'll probably be selling in a year and going Kepler. Not that I care that much as I've already accepted that I'm going to be taking a big loss buying now and upgrading to Kepler later, but there is the resale value of twin 260's to consider vs. one 590 (or any other options).

I really appreciate the responses, I'm just a noob trying to mine for information and avoid buyers remorse. Much thanks all. :) 
a c 236 U Graphics card
November 5, 2011 11:59:28 PM

I suggest you start with a single good GTX580. Who knows, at 1080P you might be pleased.
Perhaps spend extra on a EVGA GTX580 classified:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Build with sli in mind with a strong psu to handle two such cards.
If you find one card lacking, or you want triple monitor gaming, buy another GTX580.

GTX590 is a good solution if you don't have the slots for sli.
But, they are hard to find, and they are GTX570 parts downclocked to meet power requirements.

One advantage of using GTX580's in lieu of lesser cards is the minimization of whatever microstuttering you might get.

a c 216 U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 12:10:33 AM

antimatter27 said:
That's a fantastic point, I hadn't even considered the 560 because of how mid-range I perceived it to be. My only worry is memory limitations, I'll have to look up some benchmarks.

The other thing is that whatever card I get this month I'll probably be selling in a year and going Kepler. Not that I care that much as I've already accepted that I'm going to be taking a big loss buying now and upgrading to Kepler later, but there is the resale value of twin 260's to consider vs. one 590 (or any other options).

I really appreciate the responses, I'm just a noob trying to mine for information and avoid buyers remorse. Much thanks all. :) 


The memory limitation isn't likely going to be an issue today, but with the next gen cards promising to come with 2GB standard, it might be in the future.

But as I mentioned previously, you can get 2GB versions of 560ti's. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
November 6, 2011 12:12:53 AM

Interesting note on the 560 ti's, EVGA put out a dual gpu 560ti yesterday:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5048/evgas-geforce-gtx-56...

And aren't they coming out with a new 560ti based off the same core as the 580 like really soon? I don't know what kind of price/performance that will be, but it does sound intriguing.

Dual 580's is one solution I won't consider; if I get one 580 I won't be adding a second. So it's more a question if one can handle the load, which is fairly precarious. Dual 560 ti's looking like an *extremely* attractive option that now I'm now considering seriously, but I am leery about the memory bottleneck it has...even still, it wrecks one 580 at the same price. On the other hand, you still have the issues of sli and the memory bottleneck.

Btw, the 590 is 580 cores downclocked to 570's. You can safely OC it to decent clocks though, and what you get is something between 570's and 580's, that's a lot cheaper than two 580's, less power consumption, less noise and heat.



I'm probably going to hold off buying till Black Friday, so maybe the new 560 ti's will be out by then or I'll impulse buy whichever option Newegg gives me a deal on. :p 




edit:
The memory of 560's is already an issue today, there are ahttp://www.anandtech.com/show/5048/evgas-geforce-gtx-56... number of games that push beyond one gig of memory. The 2gb version is a solid choice, but at $270 a pop rather than 200-215, the price vs. performance of this option is definitely lowered. I'm not too worried $100 bucks give or take, but those two cards with shipping come out to $556, and for that price you start weighing them vs. a high-end 580, or for $144 more you get a 590.
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 12:38:33 AM

antimatter27 said:

edit:
The memory of 560's is already an issue today, there are ahttp://www.anandtech.com/show/5048/evgas-geforce-gtx-56... number of games that push beyond one gig of memory. The 2gb version is a solid choice, but at $270 a pop rather than 200-215, the price vs. performance of this option is definitely lowered. I'm not too worried $100 bucks give or take, but those two cards with shipping come out to $556, and for that price you start weighing them vs. a high-end 580, or for $144 more you get a 590.


What I saw was mostly the same with 1GB and 2GB when at 1080p or 1200p. The times it showed to hold things back was at the 2560x1600 resolution, which I thought you said you were playing at 1080p (and I have seen it make a difference twice, but it's rare at 1080p).

And the 560ti 2GB in SLI will be faster than the 590 or 580 with more ram than either.
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 1:16:16 AM

Quote:
I suggest you start with a single good GTX580. Who knows, at 1080P you might be pleased.


this
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 1:33:45 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
Exactly. But the Factory overclocked 900 Mhz 560 Ti .... which is the same price as the reference card ..... has show itself to be the functional equivalent of a 570. Looking at the numbers:

Twin 900 Mhz 560 Ti's - 862 fps in Guru3D's game test suite
Twin 570's - 873 fps in Guru3D's game test suite

Depending on the game mix in the test suite, when both are OC'd to their max stable frequency, I have seen the 560's OC'ing anywhere from 92% and99% of the 570. And as the above post shows, twin 560 900 Mhz Ti's get 98% of the 590's score for just 57% of the price. Here's how current gen cards are doing in the market. Obviously market share can not be an indicator of performance but what I find interesting is how fast the 560 has changed it's position in the last 4 months:

Card ----- June Market Share ----- October Market Share ----- % Change

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 ----- 3.46% ----- 6.55% ----- +89.31%
ATI Radeon HD 6950 ----- 2.54% ----- 3.50% ----- +37.80%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 ----- 2.77% ----- 3.65% ----- +31.77%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 ----- 2.47% ----- 3.19% ----- +29.15%
ATI Radeon HD 6970 ----- 1.26% ----- 1.58% ----- +25.40%

The only thing I see as significant in the above is that for four of the cards, they are all selling at a similar % above (25 - 37) what they were doing 4 months ago. But that the 560 is increasing sales at about three times the average of those 4 cards I think is indicative of the price / performance it offers....at least in people's minds.

nvidia Gpus run 1ns samsung Gddr5 ram which runs at 1GHZ stock (4GHZ). Not much factory overclocked there. Its still running under its actual speed.

On 5760x1280/1080p two 6970s will the best option.
1080p and above with some lowered detail in some games the Gtx 580 and the Gtx 570. But looking at the price vs performance difference the Gtx 570 is your best bet. Unless you want the 6990/590 spaceheaters which will be a waste. The 570 you can always add another for excellent performance close to the 580
November 6, 2011 1:41:54 AM

bystander said:
What I saw was mostly the same with 1GB and 2GB when at 1080p or 1200p. The times it showed to hold things back was at the 2560x1600 resolution, which I thought you said you were playing at 1080p (and I have seen it make a difference twice, but it's rare at 1080p).

And the 560ti 2GB in SLI will be faster than the 590 or 580 with more ram than either.


I've read that many games can break 1gb of memory at 1080p, pretty much all the top tier titles once you apply AA and all that good stuff.

From the benchmarks I've seen a 590 will get 10-15 fps higher in Metro than two 560 ti's, but I can only find SLI benchmarks for the 1gb model. It's possible that's just memory throttling. I'd really love to see two 2gb 560 ti's against a 590. Real world benchmarks are everything to me. In any event, two 560 ti's, while somewhat significantly slower than a 590 from the data I've seen, do seem to be able to handle everything max'd out which is my criteria.

And I'd be saving ~$150 which I could put in my Kepler savings account. :D 

Thanks again for all the advice guys! :) 
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 1:42:59 AM

antimatter27 said:
I've read that many games can break 1gb of memory at 1080p, pretty much all the top tier titles once you apply AA and all that good stuff.

From the benchmarks I've seen a 590 will get 10-15 fps higher in Metro than two 560 ti's, but I can only find SLI benchmarks for the 1gb model. It's possible that's just memory throttling. I'd really love to see two 2gb 560 ti's against a 590. Real world benchmarks are everything to me. In any event, two 560 ti's, while somewhat significantly slower than a 590 from the data I've seen, do seem to be able to handle everything max'd out which is my criteria.

And I'd be saving ~$150 which I could put in my Kepler savings account. :D 

Thanks again for all the advice guys! :) 

the only way a 560ti will slow down at 1080p is you got it running on a gpu demanding game with all dx features enabled. When the card performance slows up it doesn't mean its out of ram. I just means its processor aren't good enough to draw that demand in that short space of time. Do not think Vram is a bulk storage space. The gpu got 30 cores where the Vram acts like sort of a buffer. The gpu will clean out a big chunk of it with one go plus lots of the data gets reused again with other scenes.
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 1:56:37 AM

Check this review out, it may change your mind in favor of a nicely overclocked GTX 570 instead of a very nice GTX 580 (MSI Lightning Xtreme edition):

http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/msi_gtx570_1280mb_...

The reason this review changed my mind is because of the comparison to the MSI card, which is what I was considering. You can see that the GTX 580 only really performs better in Metro 2033 at super high resolutions, but at 1900x1200, the two cards are within 10% of each other but the price difference is 40%.
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 2:03:38 AM

Its because the 580 can draw half a triangle more at every cycle. Nvidias ram performance still is bad compared to Amds that's why at 5760 the 6970s in CFx do so well against the 580s
November 6, 2011 6:48:34 PM

Nvidia's reference cards just lack the memory for uber resolutions, AMD's don't. You can find benchmarks that show this very clearly, especially when 1.5gb 580's in sli are swapped out for 3gb models. 2 x580 3gb models > anything AMD has in sheer performance. But that's talking about eyefinity vs. nvidia surround stuff and I'm a single monitor 1080p person.

I guess I'd need to dig up some benchmark evidence that modern games break 1gb of vram with ease at 1080p. I've read so in multiple forums that games like Metro, Shogun, BF3, etc. can do so easily, especially once AA is thrown in.

As a sidenote on the sli front AMD's tech has no frame metering technology, whereas nvidia's does...I sort of wonder if this is why AMD's current generation scales better than nvidia's, that nvidia is purposely hurting their benchmarks to provide a smoother experience.
November 6, 2011 7:00:36 PM

Here's a question, what do y'all think would feel smoother: 35fps on a 580, or 55fps on a 590. One might have minimum fps issues, the other might drop into jitter territory.
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 7:23:33 PM

antimatter27 said:
Nvidia's reference cards just lack the memory for uber resolutions, AMD's don't. You can find benchmarks that show this very clearly, especially when 1.5gb 580's in sli are swapped out for 3gb models. 2 x580 3gb models > anything AMD has in sheer performance. But that's talking about eyefinity vs. nvidia surround stuff and I'm a single monitor 1080p person.

I guess I'd need to dig up some benchmark evidence that modern games break 1gb of vram with ease at 1080p. I've read so in multiple forums that games like Metro, Shogun, BF3, etc. can do so easily, especially once AA is thrown in.

As a sidenote on the sli front AMD's tech has no frame metering technology, whereas nvidia's does...I sort of wonder if this is why AMD's current generation scales better than nvidia's, that nvidia is purposely hurting their benchmarks to provide a smoother experience.


I completely disagree with you. Check out these benchmarks:

www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-go-vs-1...

The 3GB cards, even in SLi at extreme resolutions, performs the same and sometimes even worse except in Metro 2033. The investment in the 3GB card will only apply to very few games and may not be worth it in the future.
a c 236 U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 8:35:38 PM

From those benchmarks ^, the value of more than the reference amount of ram is even less than I had thought.
Even the mega resolutions are hardly affected.

It seems that since ram is cheap, graphics card vendors have found that more is good for marketing and profits.

a c 216 U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 9:17:06 PM

geofelt said:
From those benchmarks ^, the value of more than the reference amount of ram is even less than I had thought.
Even the mega resolutions are hardly affected.

It seems that since ram is cheap, graphics card vendors have found that more is good for marketing and profits.


There is more to it than that. If the hardware doesn't have the ram, the dev's don't develop software to use that amount of ram. Now that more and more ram is becoming available, you'd expect the dev's will start to take advantage of that.
November 6, 2011 11:19:11 PM

Those numbers definitely show that I'm dead wrong. I remember reading in so many reviews comparing nvidia's latest offerings to AMD's the reviewers saying that AMD is better at uber resolution because they have more memory, and that some of the latest titles perform better at 5760x1080 on AMD for that reason. I must have misread-misremembered-misunderstood.

/noob mistake. :) 
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 11:32:21 PM

antimatter27 said:
Those numbers definitely show that I'm dead wrong. I remember reading in so many reviews comparing nvidia's latest offerings to AMD's the reviewers saying that AMD is better at uber resolution because they have more memory, and that some of the latest titles perform better at 5760x1080 on AMD for that reason. I must have misread-misremembered-misunderstood.

/noob mistake. :) 


You were right, when referring to uber resolutions. It's just depends on the game and settings used, but at 1080p it's extremely rare that more than a 1GB is needed.
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 11:58:28 PM

If the price difference isn't a concern, then why not purchase a card with more VRAM? It's worth it for at least a little future proof potential.
a b U Graphics card
November 6, 2011 11:59:37 PM

Just gonna note here: I have two 6950s in Xfire, and a GT520 as a PhysX card, and it runs great. Not the easiest thing to get workng at first, but soon sorted.
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 12:52:48 AM

dont fool yourself.... kepler is NOT going to bring 70-80% better performance and this is what your relying on being faster so an upgrade would be a good decission but were ever you got those numbers, i want what they are smoking. everything but architecture the same there is NO way kepler will be 80% faster lets get real now.
thats like sandy bridge being 80% faster then the first gen i series which it MIGHT be 30%
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 1:02:08 AM

cbrunnem said:
dont fool yourself.... kepler is NOT going to bring 70-80% better performance and this is what your relying on being faster so an upgrade would be a good decission but were ever you got those numbers, i want what they are smoking. everything but architecture the same there is NO way kepler will be 80% faster lets get real now.
thats like sandy bridge being 80% faster then the first gen i series which it MIGHT be 30%


I thought they were working on a die shrink and more transistors. I'd expect more improvement than the last series, since they did not do a die shrink, that goes for both companies. 70%-80% may still be pushing it, but I'd expect a minimum of 30%, not a max.
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 1:43:38 AM

bystander said:
I thought they were working on a die shrink and more transistors. I'd expect more improvement than the last series, since they did not do a die shrink, that goes for both companies. 70%-80% may still be pushing it, but I'd expect a minimum of 30%, not a max.


should i bring up bulldozers expected performance gains?
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 2:18:19 AM

Yeah this may have been an overstatement but a companies cpu performance is definitely not directly related to gpu performance. Just because intel makes a good cpu definitely doesnt mean they make a good gpu... :ouch: 
November 7, 2011 4:31:16 PM

Just out of curiosity, how much exactly does throwing in AA add to vram? Or what are the factors that most increase the need for more vram. AF, DOF, SSAO, texture quality, PhysX?
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 8:19:28 PM

spagalicious said:
Yeah this may have been an overstatement but a companies cpu performance is definitely not directly related to gpu performance. Just because intel makes a good cpu definitely doesnt mean they make a good gpu... :ouch: 


my point was that the performance increase that bulldozer was expected to bring was drastically over stated and that could be the case with kepler.
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 8:34:51 PM

cbrunnem said:
my point was that the performance increase that bulldozer was expected to bring was drastically over stated and that could be the case with kepler.


Bulldozer was definitely a let down, but don't expect the same to happen with the GPU's. Last generation was a let down due to not doing a die shrink, so they couldn't really push the shader count without heat issues, but this next generation will be on a new process.

It's also a lot easier to increase GPU performance through brute force (adding more shaders). The GPU's utilize more and more shaders with ease, unlike CPU's which require new software to take advantage of more cores.

While 70-80% surely is on the optimistic side (The 5870's did achieve this kind of improvement btw), but don't expect it to be lower than a 30% boost. The new shader counts are way up from current cards.
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2011 8:38:54 PM

antimatter27 said:
Nvidia's reference cards just lack the memory for uber resolutions, AMD's don't. You can find benchmarks that show this very clearly, especially when 1.5gb 580's in sli are swapped out for 3gb models. 2 x580 3gb models > anything AMD has in sheer performance. But that's talking about eyefinity vs. nvidia surround stuff and I'm a single monitor 1080p person.

I guess I'd need to dig up some benchmark evidence that modern games break 1gb of vram with ease at 1080p. I've read so in multiple forums that games like Metro, Shogun, BF3, etc. can do so easily, especially once AA is thrown in.

As a sidenote on the sli front AMD's tech has no frame metering technology, whereas nvidia's does...I sort of wonder if this is why AMD's current generation scales better than nvidia's, that nvidia is purposely hurting their benchmarks to provide a smoother experience.

Do not thonk of the vram as storage. Think of it as a buffer. It gets filled the gpu clear it, it gets filled the gpu clears it. Remember it has 30 cores that help it do that. On metro and the dx 11 games its not the ram but the processing power that brings it down
November 13, 2011 1:14:41 PM

Best answer selected by antimatter27.
!