Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

ATI Vs. NVIDIA Question

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 12, 2012 6:37:58 PM

Hello,

I'm new to the forums and and PC building/overclocking, so you'll please forgive me if I'm asking stupid questions here. I've been doing a lot of looking at graphics card sets and I've been wondering a few things.

GTX 570 SLI Vs. HD 6970 X-Fire performances.

I have been reading a lot of reviews in forums and on review sites and I am getting a lot of mixed signals. A lot of people will say that the 6970s perform better, but the review sites show opposite. With benchmark tests, the 570s usually come out on top. But then I get confused about the resolution sizes.

Can the 570s support tri-monitor set-ups? I'm pretty sure that the 6970s will with all the eyefinity stuff and all, but I'm still slightly in the dark about the 570s.

So I guess what I am trying to ask is? Which out of the two (570 SLI or 6970 X-Fire) will be best for cool quiet operations and give me the best multi-monitor resolution while using AA on my games. I'm not really looking to do 3D at all, so that's not so much of a factor. If you could let me know any information on this subject (without beating me up too much. LOL!) I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thank you,
Joker

More about : ati nvidia question

January 13, 2012 1:24:40 AM

the difference with the monitors are that a single 6970 can handle 3 monitor, 2 6970 will handle six, the 570 needs both cards to support only 3 displays... for the performance totally agreed with rolli59, at those resolution (3 displays) you will get a nice benefit from more vram that the 6970 offers...
Related resources
a c 536 U Graphics card
January 13, 2012 1:53:17 AM

The GTX 570's in SLI are better. I hope that clears things up.
January 13, 2012 2:05:19 AM

17seconds said:
The GTX 570's in SLI are better. I hope that clears things up.




any proof?

Read this

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_...


Quote:
The GeForce GTX 570 SLI is in an even worse position, its raw GPU performance is great, and it has good SLI scaling. However, it is severely held back by its memory capacity. We experienced many times that we could not use higher settings, or had to lower the resolution, because of that. The performance is there, but the ability to utilize that performance is not. Since a pair of GeForce GTX 570 video cards will run you $698, the same price as two Radeon HD 6970 video cards, it just isn’t worth it. For the same price as two GTX 570 cards you can get two Radeon HD 6970 video cards with a much higher memory capacity, and better performance.
a c 164 U Graphics card
January 13, 2012 2:27:11 AM

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!

Sorry, had to. To the OP I'd say you've got your answers. Read the links and make up your own mind.
January 13, 2012 2:38:58 AM

While it's true the 1.2GB of VRAM on many GTX570s can be a limiting factor for surround, EVGA and Point of View make 2.5 GB GTX 570s that should not only beat 6970s, but offer 25% more VRAM.

a c 164 U Graphics card
January 13, 2012 2:47:20 AM

But will probably cost more. And you don't really need more then 2GBs. So that 25% will probably be wasted. (for the most part) For my non pro AMD statement I'd like to point out that many games will probably run just fine on the GTX570s. It's only the newest and most depending games that will need more then 1GB of ram that will have issues. I think I read that BF3 seems to like Vram so thats probably one of them.

Best solution

a c 536 U Graphics card
January 13, 2012 3:06:21 AM
Share

rolli59 said:
They both do support 3 monitors http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-surround-technol...
On 3 monitor setups you will benefit from additional Vram and the HD6970 coming std with 2GB would be my choice.

I totally agree. In fact, the even better choice would be a pair of GTX 570's with 2.5GB of Vram each, to really help with multi-monitor, high resolution setups:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

You also get PhysX as an added bonus and much, much better driver support. The well-known drawback to AMD Crossfire setups is poor driver implementation and a lack of proper support for newly released games. Please don't think that a few FPS differences either way is all that matters when considering a very expensive setup.

This is from the HardOCP Skyrim performance review:

"While we have not finished this game yet, and cannot comment on other areas of this game, we do have some striking initial impressions. Our initial impression is that this game runs better on, and has a better gameplay experience with, the GeForce GTX 580 and GeForce GTX 580 SLI. We had no mouse lag, smooth performance, faster performance, no bugs in sight as of yet. We were also able to use SLI thanks to NVIDIA releasing a Beta driver one day before Skyrim launched with full SLI support in the game.

We have harped over this before, but this game shows once again that AMD's driver support is biting it in the butt on a new game release. With not even an ETA on a new CAP for Skyrim to support CrossFireX, and no performance driver in sight, it is rather depressing for AMD GPU owners. We keep seeing this with new game launches these past few months. Rage, Deus Ex: Missing Link, even Battlefield 3 had better and working performance and SLI drivers from NVIDIA on game day launch, while AMD support was lacking.

With CrossFireX and SLI being based on profile support AMD cannot afford to lag this far behind on new game launches. NVIDIA simply has more support out of the gate for SLI in new games it seems. Gamers don't like to wait. When a new big title like this is released and unlocked at a certain time on a certain date, gamers are lined up waiting to play it right then and there. It matters that performance and Dual-GPU acceleration is supported when the game launches, and not days after."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/11/elder_scrolls...

It's not quite the slam dunk as some of the other posters would have you believe.
January 13, 2012 3:24:40 AM

I suggest you skip both setups for a 7970. Yes both setups would beat this single card by a small bit. When I say small its very small. OC'ed the card just about match the 590 but does trail the 6990 a bit. This card does have extra things going for it like DX 11.1 support and its about $150 cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Here is a benchmark with it nearly matching what your setups would compare.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-benc...
January 13, 2012 9:47:15 AM

elbert said:
I suggest you skip both setups for a 7970. Yes both setups would beat this single card by a small bit. When I say small its very small. OC'ed the card just about match the 590 but does trail the 6990 a bit. This card does have extra things going for it like DX 11.1 support and its about $150 cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Here is a benchmark with it nearly matching what your setups would compare.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-benc...


Actually the GTX590 would be a good choice as well. The 6990 is too loud to be usable, and suffers from the usual Crossfire issue of waiting for profiles on games.

The 7970s got a lot of flak for CF at launch:

url=http://pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/XFX-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-Black-Edition-and-CrossFire-Results/Analysis-and-Concl

Quote:
Instead, we seem to have found a fault with the AMD drivers and its QA program. The problem of not seeing any scaling at 2560x1600 in Battlefield 3 (and ONLY 2560x1600) while seeing no scaling in Batman: Arkham City, crashes at 2560x1600 in Skyrim and the large dips in frame rate in Deus Ex: Human Revolution are pretty dramatic and damning for the brand new architecture.


url=http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-powercolor-hd-7970-crossfire/7/#abschnitt_frameverlaeufe
(check out BF3, and translate for more on the next page)


Quote:
Our largest complaint with the HD 7970 is that the drivers don't yet appear ready for prime time. In the course of a week AMD has sent us three drivers that each fixed various issues, or improved performance in a game.


url=http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_7970_CrossFire/26.html

Quote:
Unfortunately AMD's reviewer driver did not ship with working CrossFire profiles for Batman Arkham City and Elder Scrolls Skyrim. Battlefield 3 at 2560x1600 also fell back to single GPU performance



Quote:
Having to wait weeks or months for some games is not acceptable, let alone when it comes to games that affect a large number of players such as Crysis 2 or Batman Arkham City. If the situation is not perfect on the side of Nvidia, these problems are less common profiles and generally resolved more quickly.


As you can see from the experiences of professional reviewers with the 7970, Crossfire is difficult to recommend for anyone. ATi just does not have a good driver team, and Crossfire users are always waiting on Hotfixes when games launch, sometimes for weeks.

Personally, when a game launches that I've been waiting for I want to play it the day it launches and always do. NVIDIA's TWIMTBP program ensures games launch with profiles available 99% and you never see huge amounts of backlash like I posted above about SLi.
a b U Graphics card
January 13, 2012 9:57:08 AM

7970 is the best option. The results are weak in Crossfire because have used beta drivers.
a c 164 U Graphics card
January 13, 2012 10:49:20 AM

Quote:
As you can see from the experiences of professional reviewers with the 7970, Crossfire is difficult to recommend for anyone.


??? 7970 != Crossfire. Not sure where you were going with that.

Bad yes that 7970 wasn't working with all games. This was a paper launch however so that had time to get the drivers working. I remember reading a lot about how the reviewers felt this was a rushed launch, not sure what cause AMD to behave this way.
January 13, 2012 1:47:36 PM

Rollo said:
Actually the GTX590 would be a good choice as well. The 6990 is too loud to be usable, and suffers from the usual Crossfire issue of waiting for profiles on games.

The 7970s got a lot of flak for CF at launch:

url=http://pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/XFX-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-Black-Edition-and-CrossFire-Results/Analysis-and-Concl

Quote:
Instead, we seem to have found a fault with the AMD drivers and its QA program. The problem of not seeing any scaling at 2560x1600 in Battlefield 3 (and ONLY 2560x1600) while seeing no scaling in Batman: Arkham City, crashes at 2560x1600 in Skyrim and the large dips in frame rate in Deus Ex: Human Revolution are pretty dramatic and damning for the brand new architecture.


url=http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-powercolor-hd-7970-crossfire/7/#abschnitt_frameverlaeufe
(check out BF3, and translate for more on the next page)


Quote:
Our largest complaint with the HD 7970 is that the drivers don't yet appear ready for prime time. In the course of a week AMD has sent us three drivers that each fixed various issues, or improved performance in a game.


url=http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_7970_CrossFire/26.html

Quote:
Unfortunately AMD's reviewer driver did not ship with working CrossFire profiles for Batman Arkham City and Elder Scrolls Skyrim. Battlefield 3 at 2560x1600 also fell back to single GPU performance



Quote:
Having to wait weeks or months for some games is not acceptable, let alone when it comes to games that affect a large number of players such as Crysis 2 or Batman Arkham City. If the situation is not perfect on the side of Nvidia, these problems are less common profiles and generally resolved more quickly.


As you can see from the experiences of professional reviewers with the 7970, Crossfire is difficult to recommend for anyone. ATi just does not have a good driver team, and Crossfire users are always waiting on Hotfixes when games launch, sometimes for weeks.

Personally, when a game launches that I've been waiting for I want to play it the day it launches and always do. NVIDIA's TWIMTBP program ensures games launch with profiles available 99% and you never see huge amounts of backlash like I posted above about SLi.

Na the 590 takes far to much power as well and beyond that is down hill adding more cards. It really only takes the one currently so why worry about the CF at this point. The OP in a year may want a 7990 for tri-fire.


If you want to talk noise the XFX black is super quite. The 590 isn't a low noise card either.


AMD knows few will CF 2 7970's and those that do would more likely have 3 monitor setups. The big push for CF on single monitors will start next month when the 7850/7870's launch.

Lastly whats the point of have SLI if it doesn't even work on the games you want with your setup. I can excuse the 580 but the 590 has 3x dvi outs so driver issues. I wonder what the review you posted would have said if it tested these 2 games with 3 monitors.



Why in bulletstorm 1680X1050 with 16af does the 590 choke below a 570? Nvidia has worked on the 500 series drivers for over a year.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/te...
January 13, 2012 9:53:53 PM

Best answer selected by BSDJoker.
January 13, 2012 9:54:24 PM

Thanks all,

The information provided really helped. You cleared up a lot of things for me.
January 13, 2012 10:10:02 PM

elbert said:

Lastly whats the point of have SLI if it doesn't even work on the games you want with your setup. I can excuse the 580 but the 590 has 3x dvi outs so driver issues. I wonder what the review you posted would have said if it tested these 2 games with 3 monitors.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/0/320040/original/Metro2033%20Dx11%205760.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/N/320027/original/BF3%20ultraAA%205760.png

Why in bulletstorm 1680X1050 with 16af does the 590 choke below a 570? Nvidia has worked on the 500 series drivers for over a year.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/te...


The difference in what I posted and what you posted is this:

I posted links to four professional review sites that said they had problems with the Crossfire drivers in several popular games.

You linked to benches of two games where settings were selected that exceeded the VRAM on the 590.

GTX590s scale fine at those two games, including at surround.

As a person who has played a whole lot of Bulletstorm with 16X AF on at 19X10 and even some at 57X10, I can tell you it's a lot better than a 570.
January 14, 2012 2:49:30 AM

Rollo said:
The difference in what I posted and what you posted is this:

I posted links to four professional review sites that said they had problems with the Crossfire drivers in several popular games.

You linked to benches of two games where settings were selected that exceeded the VRAM on the 590.

GTX590s scale fine at those two games, including at surround.

As a person who has played a whole lot of Bulletstorm with 16X AF on at 19X10 and even some at 57X10, I can tell you it's a lot better than a 570.

I'm sorry but tomshardware is a professional review site. That was from tomshardware review of the 7970.

The problem with your links is a low resolution for the price of the setup. Sorry but buying 2 7970's for a single monitor is a waste. One 7970 competes fine against the 590 at $150 less on any single monitor. Now you stated problems in crossfire with games and I stated problems in SLI with games for which Nvidia has had a year more time to fix.

I'm sorry but where is any proof of any statement you just made? I see no fact of any claim you posted. I posted the links to back up mine. Now are you trying to say its not Nvidia's drivers but worst their design at fault? Given the 590 did work with a 3 monitor setup in all the other games reviewed I really have a hard time believing anything you just posted. The review stated the 590 crashed and the fact the 590 has the same 3GB's I find it questionable. I think its really the games in question are newer and the most demanding that Nvidia's 590 failed.

No bullet storm here again its 1680X1050 8xaa 16xaf with the 590 at 38fps and the 570 at 42.1fps. No SLI scaling in this benchmark.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/te...
The one above is worst with less than a 560ti performance. A problem with the 590's SLI scaling which doesn't look like Nvidia is ever going to fix.

Did the 590 in skyrim not scale or did it just get beat. I ask because it done much better on the single monitor. Looks like the 590 can do 3 monitors.


See the problem is its the 4x Antialiasing that cause the 590 to fail with 3 monitors. The only way Antializaing could affect vram is if Nvidia is using outdated accumulation buffer. Today object based anti-aliasing is used which only requires 2 passes and does not require the use of additional memory.
!