Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help!! did i waste money? GTX580

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 15, 2011 10:10:25 PM

So i just bought a galaxy gtx 580 accelero to replace my gtx560ti looking for more performance without sli. it was cheaper for me to do that because i would not have to upgrade memory and motherboard and power supply. But i installed the card and ran the same benchmarks and there doesn't seem to be any improvements sometimes worsw. furmark im averaging 72 fps where my gtx560 got 75. is that normal? in starcraft 2 im only seeing 45-55 fps. overclocking the card im getting worse performance.
650 score on stock
645 overclocked to 920 core and 2400 memory. but it ran stable no artifacts or lock ups
the gpu runs cool at 51c max load so i dont think its throttling.
any advice? did i waste money on the gtx 580 and should have just spent 650 on sli the gtx560ti?
my specs are
biostar ta790gxe
amd phenom 2 x4 970 oc to 3.8
kingston hyper x 1066
corsair cx600 600watt

More about : waste money gtx580

November 15, 2011 10:12:24 PM

Download MSI Afterburner to see if the GPU usage maxes out in Futuremark.
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 10:17:35 PM

Furmark/OCCT are not a good app for benchmarking any of the 500 series cards as they all have power-limiters when it detects those apps running. You may be able to disable this power limiter but it may void your warranty. A better benchmark to compare would be 3dmark11, Unigine Heaven 2.5, etc.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 15, 2011 10:39:13 PM

Also, your CPU will bottleneck you in games. That shouldn't affect benchmarks, though.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 15, 2011 10:42:30 PM

What is your resolution? If high res, you might not be bottlenecked, while low res would likely show a CPU bottleneck.
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 10:46:36 PM

kajabla said:
Also, your CPU will bottleneck you in games. That shouldn't affect benchmarks, though.

Her shouldn't get a bottleneck. Unless he is playing a more CPU intensive game, but now days almost all games are more GPU intensive.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 15, 2011 10:51:39 PM

HostileDonut said:
Her shouldn't get a bottleneck. Unless he is playing a more CPU intensive game, but now days almost all games are more GPU intensive.


There are still plenty of CPU intensive games. Starcraft 2 is one that loves a fast CPU. Skyrim is another that needs a lot of CPU. If he's playing at a low resolution, you'll find he won't need that much GPU and the CPU will prevent it from going full speed.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
November 15, 2011 10:58:49 PM

whats your ram ( amount ) and opsys ? did you uninstall and reinstall drivers ?
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 11:04:01 PM

bystander said:
There are still plenty of CPU intensive games. Starcraft 2 is one that loves a fast CPU. Skyrim is another that needs a lot of CPU. If he's playing at a low resolution, you'll find he won't need that much GPU and the CPU will prevent it from going full speed.


Bingo we need to know benchmarks, resolution, full system specs to make determination
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 11:15:01 PM

i ran heaven and 3dmark 11. Gpu usage in after burner is 98 -100 % most of the time what is weird is when i overclock the card performance drops in bench marks. in furmark my gpu usage is allways 100% but i get really inconsistent results in furmark. in starcraft i only see gpu usage at 50% never higher.
are these driver issues? any fixes that wont void waranty? doesnt make sense to buy a card and not be able to use it. really annoying.

on the cpu bottleneck issue: lots of people are saying my cpu is fine some even saying my cpu should be able to feed 2 gtx580 in sli and some are saying i need an 17 2600k overclocked just for 1 gtx580 so i dont know about that. my cpu useage never get fully maxed 80-90% on all cores(unlike my computer at work which maxes at 100% for a solid minute when i open a web browser).
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 11:23:51 PM

bystander said:
There are still plenty of CPU intensive games. Starcraft 2 is one that loves a fast CPU. Skyrim is another that needs a lot of CPU. If he's playing at a low resolution, you'll find he won't need that much GPU and the CPU will prevent it from going full speed.



i dont think starcraft 2 is cpu intensive at all. try battlefeild 3 4 cores at 90% the whole time and im getting 50-60fps. starcraft minimum requirements are a single core and recommends a dual core. battlefield 3 minimum is a dual core and recommends a 4 core.

i dont think im bottlenecked by cpu on starcraft. its only useing 50% cpu on 2 cores and 20 on the other 2
m
0
l
November 15, 2011 11:26:20 PM

swifty_morgan said:
whats your ram ( amount ) and opsys ? did you uninstall and reinstall drivers ?


4 gb of ddr2 1066 and windows 7.i know its not allot but i doubt im running out of memory
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
November 15, 2011 11:32:56 PM

it's obviously going to render more that the 560. besides a cpu bottleneck" try turning off physx, see what happens.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 12:21:34 AM

Umm well I used to run Starcraft II on an AMD X2 black edition @ 3.0GHz perfectly fine, and my X4 Phenom II can handle Skyrim even as low as 3.0GHz so...don't think that any of those games are more CPU intensive than Skyrim, which does fine with Phenom II 3.0 and over. With his being at 3.8, CPU is definitely N O T a bottleneck here
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 16, 2011 1:53:27 AM

Shazamo1213 said:
i dont think starcraft 2 is cpu intensive at all. try battlefeild 3 4 cores at 90% the whole time and im getting 50-60fps. starcraft minimum requirements are a single core and recommends a dual core. battlefield 3 minimum is a dual core and recommends a 4 core.

i dont think im bottlenecked by cpu on starcraft. its only useing 50% cpu on 2 cores and 20 on the other 2


You still have not mentioned a resolution. Without knowing the resolution, we won't know what you should be getting and if there is a bottleneck or not.

Example of CPU intensive game: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 2:22:16 AM

Did you go to www.nvidia.com and d/l the latest drivers or use the disc that came with the card? D/L the latest drivers.
WHAT games have you tried? Benchmarks don't mean squat if they don't translate to gaming. You should be able to get 45FPS on Ultra in BF3 with a 580.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 3:41:47 AM

bystander said:
You still have not mentioned a resolution. Without knowing the resolution, we won't know what you should be getting and if there is a bottleneck or not.

Example of CPU intensive game: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...


1680x1050 res on a 22 inch monitor
im getting anywhere from 45fps to 85 fps averaging about 60 un max settings everything set to max and turned on
im actually looking for improvements in benchmarkes because im trying to overclock. but when i do overclock my benchmarkes drop which i dont understand. My gpu maxes out at 52c overclocked at constant 100% load.
performance in battlefield 3 is fine. im just trying to get better scores and understand how it works.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 3:43:39 AM

DelroyMonjo said:
Did you go to www.nvidia.com and d/l the latest drivers or use the disc that came with the card? D/L the latest drivers.
WHAT games have you tried? Benchmarks don't mean squat if they don't translate to gaming. You should be able to get 45FPS on Ultra in BF3 with a 580.

have the latest drivers tried both beta and official drivers and properly wiped old drivers out each time. i get better performance in games with betas (less crashing) but benchmark the same
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 3:58:59 AM

Dude you wasted your money........PM me and ill buy the card off you for 100 bucks to help you recuperate your loss. :p 
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 4:22:47 AM

Whats your native resolution?
A I7 920 at stock bottleneck that 580.
Hell a 920 at stock bottlenecks a 5870 even. Overclock that cpu to 4GHZ and check it again
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 4:41:44 AM

gnomio said:
Whats your native resolution?
A I7 920 at stock bottleneck that 580.
Hell a 920 at stock bottlenecks a 5870 even. Overclock that cpu to 4GHZ and check it again



Can an I7-920 even get to 4ghz? id have a hard time believing it got past 3.4ghz :p 
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 4:58:21 AM

Yes they can. Depends on the quality of your cooling and your ambient
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 9:15:34 AM

dormantreign said:
Dude you wasted your money........PM me and ill buy the card off you for 100 bucks to help you recuperate your loss. :p 


:lol: 
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 9:55:58 AM

Shazamo1213 said:
So i just bought a galaxy gtx 580 accelero to replace my gtx560ti looking for more performance without sli. it was cheaper for me to do that because i would not have to upgrade memory and motherboard and power supply. But i installed the card and ran the same benchmarks and there doesn't seem to be any improvements sometimes worsw. furmark im averaging 72 fps where my gtx560 got 75. is that normal? in starcraft 2 im only seeing 45-55 fps. overclocking the card im getting worse performance.
650 score on stock
645 overclocked to 920 core and 2400 memory. but it ran stable no artifacts or lock ups
the gpu runs cool at 51c max load so i dont think its throttling.
any advice? did i waste money on the gtx 580 and should have just spent 650 on sli the gtx560ti?
my specs are
biostar ta790gxe
amd phenom 2 x4 970 oc to 3.8
kingston hyper x 1066
corsair cx600 600watt


Sir, you do have a problem there.
I have a SLI VGA that's sometimes similar to your VGA (2x GTX 460 sometimes = GTX 580)

I can play Starcraft II, in ultra settings, 1680x1050, in full 60fps 3D or 120 fps in 2D.
The main difference are our CPUs, I'm with an i7-2600k.
(I know that Starcraft II is a CPU demanding game)

Two possible problems:

1- Ur cpu is holding back ur VGA.
2- Ur VGA is, somehow, slower than regular. (tried to check if it's sticking with 2D/idle clocks at playing??)

Since our VGAs have a similar power, when I went home I can do some test if you want.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 10:13:09 AM

Another test to do:
Full set of benchmarks: heaven, 3dmark 11 (segmented scores, not only the full one), starcraft II, any other you do have
-Run the full set of benchmarks with ur cpu @3.8Ghz
-Run the full set of benchmarks with cpu within @3Ghz range.

Post the results. We could analyze the data, separate cpu/vga weightened softwares, and really check if ur cpu is bottlenecking the VGA or not.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 16, 2011 2:09:59 PM

Shazamo1213 said:
1680x1050 res on a 22 inch monitor
im getting anywhere from 45fps to 85 fps averaging about 60 un max settings everything set to max and turned on
im actually looking for improvements in benchmarkes because im trying to overclock. but when i do overclock my benchmarkes drop which i dont understand. My gpu maxes out at 52c overclocked at constant 100% load.
performance in battlefield 3 is fine. im just trying to get better scores and understand how it works.


Looking at this benchmark, comparing CPU's with a 570 at different speeds, your performance is perfectly normal. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...

If you are talking about Skyrim: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 4:21:14 PM

bystander said:
Looking at this benchmark, comparing CPU's with a 570 at different speeds, your performance is perfectly normal. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/starcraft-ii-radeon...

If you are talking about Skyrim: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...


so whats an AMD fan boy supposed to do??? just overclock to 4.5 at 1.6v and then wait for it to blow up and get an i7 2600k?
is it just not possible for an amd guy to game? and since bulldozer totally sucks there is no upgrade option for amd.
any advice? i just got my x4 970 2 months ago.... i guess i was misinformed.

http://www.overclock.net/t/973385/will-a-phenom-iix4-95...

stupid overclockes.net
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 4:48:11 PM

Actually bulldozer's great in use... I have a 120hz screen, FX-8150, and 2x HD6950s, and it runs SCII, BF3, Skyrim amazingly. Even on my old PII 955, OCed at 3.6 ran most of them at the Vsync. So really, AMD does have upgrade options, IF you already have parts of the chipset of something that runs a Bulldozer, and if you have multi-threaded apps only.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 5:10:49 PM

FtsArTek said:
Actually bulldozer's great in use... I have a 120hz screen, FX-8150, and 2x HD6950s, and it runs SCII, BF3, Skyrim amazingly. Even on my old PII 955, OCed at 3.6 ran most of them at the Vsync. So really, AMD does have upgrade options, IF you already have parts of the chipset of something that runs a Bulldozer, and if you have multi-threaded apps only.


don't get me wrong here, im not saying my x4 970 at 3.8 isn't running my games well. im getting 55+ fps in battlefield 3 which is pretty cpu intensive maxed out. all my games are more than playable. but in starcraft 2 during massive battles im bogging down to even 10fps (im talking 500 plus units fighting at the same time though :bounce:  )
its just that im kinda obsessive and trying to get the most out of my overclocked gtx580, it seems that my x4 970 is holding me back now and it will be especially since i will be sli in future. im just woundering if amd has a card that can feed 1 or 2 overclocked 580 gtx because acording to the benchmarkes it doesnt seem like it.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 16, 2011 5:47:59 PM

Shazamo1213 said:
so whats an AMD fan boy supposed to do??? just overclock to 4.5 at 1.6v and then wait for it to blow up and get an i7 2600k?
is it just not possible for an amd guy to game? and since bulldozer totally sucks there is no upgrade option for amd.
any advice? i just got my x4 970 2 months ago.... i guess i was misinformed.

http://www.overclock.net/t/973385/will-a-phenom-iix4-95...

stupid overclockes.net


There is nothing really wrong with your FPS. They might not be great, but you can certainly enjoy gaming with the FPS you've mentioned.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 5:52:48 PM

bystander said:
There is nothing really wrong with your FPS. They might not be great, but you can certainly enjoy gaming with the FPS you've mentioned.


but what should i pair my 580 with so that there is no bottleneck cause my fps is dropping below 20fps at times which is not that playable to me. or will all processors do that no matter the speed because they haven't caught up with starcraft 2 yet? other than getting an i7 extreme edition which is out of the question.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
November 16, 2011 6:21:50 PM

Benchmarks can be CPU limited because the trial versions run at lower resolution. The 580 will only really start to show off at high res and max settings.

Also I didn't see you say if you did it, so make sure to do a full driver uninstallation and sweep before installing the latest drivers again.

I doubt you really should worry about the CPU OC, if anything it has to do with your HT or something not feeding the GPU info fast enough. As I understand it, it's important when OCing an AMD CPU to boost the HT and NB speeds a lot. I don't have personal experience in that, though - only worked on Intel.
m
0
l
a c 80 Î Nvidia
November 16, 2011 6:34:53 PM

Shazamo1213 said:
but what should i pair my 580 with so that there is no bottleneck cause my fps is dropping below 20fps at times which is not that playable to me. or will all processors do that no matter the speed because they haven't caught up with starcraft 2 yet? other than getting an i7 extreme edition which is out of the question.


You didn't mention drops into the 20's before. Although starcraft 2 on multiplayer maps with a lot of action is known for dropping below 20 FPS. This may be where an i5 or i7 would help.
m
0
l
November 16, 2011 6:54:15 PM

bystander said:
You didn't mention drops into the 20's before. Although starcraft 2 on multiplayer maps with a lot of action is known for dropping below 20 FPS. This may be where an i5 or i7 would help.


so i guess the consensus here is to forego the amd route and just go intel? there goes my mother board and procesor :??: 
m
0
l
!