Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4xGeForce GTX 580s SLI vs. 2xGeForce GTX 590s SLI

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 3, 2012 11:15:23 PM

Which configuration is the best for FUTURE gaming?
a c 212 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 3, 2012 11:20:21 PM

This was just answered in another thread ....

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:

$750 One 590 - 881 fps
$1500 Two 590 - 982 fps ..... a whopping 11 % improvement

$500 One 580 - 616 fps
$1000 Two 580 - 953 fps ..... a fairly respectable 55 % improvement
$1500 Three 580 - 1030 fps ..... a disappointing 10 % improvement
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 3, 2012 11:25:18 PM

the best option for future gaming is to buy 2 gtx580's, then when better cards come out, sell the 580's and get 2 better cards.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 3, 2012 11:28:05 PM

Or to wait a couple of weeks and get the 7970. I wouldn't normally recommend sitting around and waiting for the next big thing, but we're now quite close to launch, supposedly within a month of it. If you're on a budget this big, I think it'll be worth waiting for the new 580-killer.
a b U Graphics card
January 3, 2012 11:34:01 PM

Or just wait a tad longer and get the new Nvidia offering that will be even better.
a b U Graphics card
January 3, 2012 11:43:11 PM

I would just get two GTX 580s, as tri and quad SLi do not scale very well making the two extra cards a waste of money. Just upgrade later when needed.

Iam2thecrow, I like your motto! ;) 
January 4, 2012 12:25:18 AM

What resolution? For 1080p you def don't need more than two GTX 580's.

Btw, of course quad sli doesn't scale well at 1920x1200, why would you get a setup like that in the first place? IMO you should buy a bigger screen instead.
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 12:30:46 AM

Veirtimid said:
Thank you, guys, for the answers.
Right now, I think I would with either two of these http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX32431

or these

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX35125

The MSI ones have twice more memory (6GB) than EVGA (3GB) and a bit better shader clock frequency.



The Evga Hydro Copper 2 are really nice cards and if you are looking for 3gb per card then you can also get the Evga Hydro Copper 2 3gb version and they are only about $30 more per card. I have 3 of the 3gb version and I am happy with them and expect to be using tham for quite some time.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 12:33:58 AM

What is your resolution? It seems like that'll be the biggest factor in your decision.
January 4, 2012 1:26:56 AM

the vapor cooled evga is still better than a reference design
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2012 1:52:48 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
This was just answered in another thread ....

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:

$750 One 590 - 881 fps
$1500 Two 590 - 982 fps ..... a whopping 11 % improvement

$500 One 580 - 616 fps
$1000 Two 580 - 953 fps ..... a fairly respectable 55 % improvement
$1500 Three 580 - 1030 fps ..... a disappointing 10 % improvement


he said future gaming so when cpus get better in the future the improvements will be better.

Energy96 said:
Or just wait a tad longer and get the new Nvidia offering that will be even better.


no need for biased speculation. unless there is something out there to substantiate your claims.
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 2:36:00 AM

demar3214 said:
the vapor cooled evga is still better than a reference design



What is a vapor cooled evga?
January 4, 2012 2:55:59 AM

kajabla said:
What is your resolution? It seems like that'll be the biggest factor in your decision.

1920x1200
January 4, 2012 3:02:34 AM

Wouldn't GTX 590 be better at cooling than any of 580s?
590s don't require more than their base coolers and radiators to handle the heat.
January 4, 2012 3:14:12 AM

cbrunnem said:
he said future gaming so when cpus get better in the future the improvements will be better.

That's exactly why I am still debating which GPU/GPUs should I get right now. 580s could be better to handle the current games, because most of them don't use more than 2 and especially 4 gpus simultaneously. But let's say BF4 or TESVI will be using all of the 4 gpu cores, then 590s could be a better option for videocard to have, since it's great in cooling itself and perhaps will have a great overclocking functions in future, when NVIDIA develops better drivers for it.
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 3:39:54 AM

If you go with the Hydro Copper cards they will have no problem keeping cool , my cards do not go over 45c in any game no matter what.
The standard fan coold cards were redesigned by Nvidia with a better , quieter cooling solution. Since the 590 has two gpu's one the one card it would be harder to keep it cool vs the one gpu on the card.
Like I said before I have three of the Hydro Copper 2 3gb cards in 3 way SLI and I can't imagine needing 4 gpu's for any game. These three cards crank out over 150 fps in BF 3 on average. You really won't notice any difference in the visual or the game play at any fps over 150.
You can make any arguement you want for the 590 in the end if that is what you want then that is what you are going to get and I am not going to try and talk you out of it because I have what I wanted and you should as well. When I bought my three cards I did have the option of going with the 590's and it would have been better to have two cards then three, but I didn't like the fact that the gpu's on the 590 were clocked so low and in the end that is why I went with the 580's.
January 4, 2012 3:41:51 AM

Your expecting too much from the future of a card that is already a year old. If the scaling on the 590's isnt streamlined already its not going to be. Intel has no reason to worry about this card with there new ones already in pre- production. And your assuming that games are going to use 4 gpu's in the future. They wont, not anytime soon. Sli/crossfire have been around for a few years now and is finally starting to see a wide range of support in games, but game makers arent interested in catering to the uber class of gamers- there focused on the mainstream where there profit revenue is.
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2012 4:07:40 AM

blacksci said:
Your expecting too much from the future of a card that is already a year old. If the scaling on the 590's isnt streamlined already its not going to be. Intel has no reason to worry about this card with there new ones already in pre- production. And your assuming that games are going to use 4 gpu's in the future. They wont, not anytime soon. Sli/crossfire have been around for a few years now and is finally starting to see a wide range of support in games, but game makers arent interested in catering to the uber class of gamers- there focused on the mainstream where there profit revenue is.

sli/cf doesnt scale well with these cards because of the cpus not being strong enough not because a game cant utilize them. the game has nothing to do with it.

take two 590's and run them with a c2q 6600 and then a i5 2500k and i bet the 590's scale much better with the i5 hence being more future proof when better faster cpus can push the cards to their max.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 10:14:32 AM

My advice for future proof is get a $1000 PC every year (or $500 upgrade every 6 months alternating between CPU & GPU) rather than a $3000 one every 3 years, it will on averge throughout the 3 years give a better gaming experience. If you want the best dual card setup soon wait a week for the 7970s to exist as theres no point spending more money on something with less performance for the sake of a week.
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2012 11:46:35 AM

To answer the original question look here.

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

I say 4 cards are better than 2. The gtx 590 is basically scaled down sli gtx 580's due to the power limitations of the PCI-e slot. I have no idea what kind of power is required to run the 590 at 580 clock speeds but if is anything like my 6990, I need to be able to supply 450W to the card in order to run it at stock crossfire 6970 speed. Also, you can start with sli gtx 580 and add a third if you want and then add a 4th later down the road if the need arises.. For future gaming, I don't think either setup will make a difference. In regards to not needing more than 3 gpu's for gaming at 1920x1080, I agree. I am getting average 117FPS on ultra with AA on in bf3 at 1920x1080 with crossfire 6990 and 6970. On the other hand, I just bought a 3rd monitor and playing bf3 on ultra with AA on at 5760 x 1080 I am only getting 50 FPS with AA on and an average of 75 with AA off. I think 50FPS is getting a bit low so I am picking up another 6970 today. I supect if you are contemplating sli gtx 590's vs 4way sli gtx 580's you won't be playing at 1920x1200 resolution for long so keep this in mind.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 6:07:37 PM

Veirtimid said:
Wouldn't GTX 590 be better at cooling than any of 580s?
590s don't require more than their base coolers and radiators to handle the heat.

Neither do 580s. You're just talking about such a huge budget that you can afford liquid cards, which you can OC for better performance.
Honestly, the 7970's going to be available in something like a week. Hang on.
January 4, 2012 6:28:20 PM

kajabla said:
Neither do 580s. You're just talking about such a huge budget that you can afford liquid cards, which you can OC for better performance.
Honestly, the 7970's going to be available in something like a week. Hang on.

7970 probably won't beat 590 GTX, maybe 7990 will...
a b U Graphics card
January 4, 2012 7:02:32 PM

Veirtimid said:
7970 probably won't beat 590 GTX, maybe 7990 will...

Obviously, it isn't meant to beat the GTX 590... It is meant to beat the GTX 580. And the hd6990 and GTX 590 are basically tied, so the hd7990 will beat the GTX 590 unless they screw up really really badly and there is no performance gain.
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 8:21:15 PM

It's pretty sad that AMD would build the 7970 card to beat the 580 card , what are they going to do when the 680 comes out. Looks like AMD just keeps falling behind thier competitors , they already threw in the towel with Intel , I guess Nvidia is next.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 8:56:12 PM

They get beaten by Nvidia because they release a card that beats them then Nvidia release there's later. Hoe can you beat a card that has 3 months more development and knows exactly what it has to beat?
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 9:01:41 PM

I guess that's the price AMD has to pay for wanting to release thier cards first and giving the competition the opportunity to put out a card that beats it.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 9:21:11 PM

That's how the tech world works. You've hit it on the head. You could, of course, apply the same argument to any release.
"It's pretty sad that Nvidia would build the 680 card to beat the 7970 card, what are they going to do when the 7990 comes out. Looks like Nvidia just keeps falling behind their competitors."
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 10:00:54 PM

kajabla said:
That's how the tech world works. You've hit it on the head. You could, of course, apply the same argument to any release.
"It's pretty sad that Nvidia would build the 680 card to beat the 7970 card, what are they going to do when the 7990 comes out. Looks like Nvidia just keeps falling behind their competitors."



Since the 7990 will be a dual gpu card and not competeing with the 680 , I imagine Nvidia will come out with the 690 card to beat the 7990. To be fair if you want to compare the 7990 with the 680 then you will have to put two 680's in SLI so you have two gpu's going against two gpu's.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 4, 2012 10:21:33 PM

7980, whatever. We'll see how it goes, but I don't think it's fair to draw conclusions now.
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2012 12:40:11 AM

^+1

AMD and Nvidia are pretty evenly matched. Not matter what anyone says. They are just fan boys. They each come out with great cards, and different prices per card. So, say what you like, but they are each great.
January 5, 2012 1:11:27 AM

kajabla said:
That's how the tech world works. You've hit it on the head. You could, of course, apply the same argument to any release.
"It's pretty sad that Nvidia would build the 680 card to beat the 7970 card, what are they going to do when the 7990 comes out. Looks like Nvidia just keeps falling behind their competitors."

Not if nVidia already taped out their 28nm designs.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=23158
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 5, 2012 1:48:17 AM

When you have two cards on the same level (570 vs 6970) you cannot tell the difference when looking at them which is better at gaming or video without equipment , then it just comes down to personal preference.
January 5, 2012 12:07:05 PM

inzone said:
When you have two cards on the same level (570 vs 6970) you cannot tell the difference when looking at them which is better at gaming or video without equipment , then it just comes down to personal preference.

I'm having problems with stencil shadows in a lot of games with my AMD cards, this time I'm pretty sure that I'm going with nVidia. I know it's a game developer support issue, but in the end I just want the games to look good.
January 5, 2012 3:18:11 PM

Well if you do that just means you wont be stuck waiting for driver support to play your favorite new game.
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 5, 2012 6:04:46 PM

Nvidia has recently had better drivers, but I wouldn't take it as a rule for the future.
January 5, 2012 7:19:12 PM

blacksci said:
Well if you do that just means you wont be stuck waiting for driver support to play your favorite new game.

It's not about driver support, the games where I have problems with stencil shadows were never fixed since the game developers never bothered making it work with AMD cards.
a c 251 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2012 12:15:35 AM

That makes it a driver support issue because the card makers depend on the game developers to provide them with the means to put out the drivers to make the game better and if Nvidia is favored over AMD then you are getting better driver support based on the game developers supporting one card maker over the other.
January 6, 2012 12:55:40 AM

inzone said:
That makes it a driver support issue because the card makers depend on the game developers to provide them with the means to put out the drivers to make the game better and if Nvidia is favored over AMD then you are getting better driver support based on the game developers supporting one card maker over the other.

I guess you can say it that way.
!