Add Another GTX580 or Crossfire 7950s?

[3Ball]

Hello all,

I am in an interesting predicament here. I am unsure if I will go in either direction, but here is what I have in mind. Let me know your thoughts and/or ideas.

My current setup is:

Gigabyte P55-UD3 Motherboard (8x8 Crossfire Only, no SLI)
Intel C-i7 860 @ 3.80ghz w/ (21x181mhz, 1.325v, Zalman CNPS10x Quiet & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
8gb OCZ DDR3 12800 @ 1448mhz w/ (8-8-8-22: 1T, 1.64v)
PNY GTX580 1.5gb OC'd 17%

I am toying with the idea of an upgrade. I could either purchase 2x7950's and keep all else the same (would be pushing my PSU to the Max, but lets leave that aside for now) or get a new CPU, Mobo, PSU, CPU Cooler, and another GTX580 1.5gb. The pricing is relative.

2x7950: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150590 = $928 (after shipping)

or

CPU (2500k): http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589 $180

Mobo (z68): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157271 = $130

PSU (PCP&C 950w): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703028 = $150

CPU Cooler (CM Hyper 212): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065 = $27

PNY GTX580 1.5gb: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133360 = $475

Total = $993 (after shipping and local tax on CPU)

I run a dual monitor setup but only play on one of them, at the resolution of 1920x1080. BF3 does not quite run to my liking. I want to run the game at full res, 4xMSAA and 80 FoV with a MINIMUM of 60FPS. I cannot accomplish this even with the lowest settings on every other category including setting high performance settings in my drivers. So here I am. Thoughts? Thanks in advance!

Best,

3Ball

 

[Energy96]

I can't speak for the 7950's but the 2 580's will definitely max you out. I run 2 580's @2560x1440 on full ultra (see below for rest of system) and I never see it go below 60fps, it usually runs around 80-120 fps in BF3.

Generally I see less issues overall with SLI than crossfire as well.

You will need to get new RAM for the 2500k as well, it uses 1.5v RAM but that's not a big deal, RAM is dirt cheap.

I do not suggest running 2 thirsty cards in demanding games like BF3 on a PSU that is maxed out. Something is going to give out and it will probably be the PSU and take half the rest of your system with it when it fails. I'd suggest a better brand PSU as well, something from Corsair, Enermax, or other reputable brand. They have quality offerings at similar prices. Don't skimp on the PSU, it matters a lot more when you are sucking that kind of power. 900w+ should be fine though. My system pulls around 750-800 max with BF3 running. That PSU looks like it might be well made but I am not familiar with them.

Hope that helps.

 

[wolfram23]

I think BF3 has an issue with 4xMSAA.

But anyway,

IMO it would be a huge waste to get CF 7950s, and it would also be a huge waste to buy basically a new system. Just get a 580, and if necessary a PSU. That is all.

EDIT: Ah nevermind I see the problem, no SLI on mobo. Well, that is teh sux...

I'd have to recommend the 7870 though. Seriously.

And they overclock like a mofo:

 

[tinnitus]

wait for the GTX 670 Ti or the GTX 680, nvidia runs smoother than amd.

 

[wolfram23]

wait for the GTX 670 Ti or the GTX 680, nvidia runs smoother than amd.

Bring facts if you're going to make a claim like that. I have sources to prove you false, but not much point when all you have is your opinion.

 

[3Ball]

I think BF3 has an issue with 4xMSAA.

But anyway,

IMO it would be a huge waste to get CF 7950s, and it would also be a huge waste to buy basically a new system. Just get a 580, and if necessary a PSU. That is all.

EDIT: Ah nevermind I see the problem, no SLI on mobo. Well, that is teh sux...

I'd have to recommend the 7870 though. Seriously.

http://cdn5.tweaktown.com/content/4...70_2gb_reference_video_cards_in_crossfire.png

And they overclock like a mofo:

http://techreport.com/r.x/pitcairn/bf3-fps-oc.png

Yeah, I have considered the 7970, and you are absolutely right about there being an issue with 4xMSAA in BF3. The issue is that BF3 (like starcraft 2), and many other games these days, uses a deferred lighting engine, which causes HUGE problems with traditional AA methods. The reason why BF3 stops at 4x, is because 4x is the highest that you can go on these engines before it starts actually affecting objects on the screen in other odd ways. It is something that I absolutely cannot stand as both frostbyte 1 and 2 engines suffer horribly with Aliasing. Atleast frostbyte 1 had the ability to scale higher AA settings.

Full res followed by 8xAA is how I prioritize all of my games settings when I am optimizing them, so this is very disappointing for me in BF3 as I am not a fan at all of the blurring AA methods (FXAA and MLAA). Oh well, I guess this is just the road we are headed down. Going to have to adjust to it I suppose. What I may end up doing is just building an Ivy Bridge system with 2x680s sometime later this year. That would probably be the wisest decision, though, Im not in the business of making the "wise" decision when it comes to my gaming needs

Thanks all!

Best,

3Ball

 

[tinnitus]

Bring facts if you're going to make a claim like that. I have sources to prove you false, but not much point when all you have is your opinion.

it's not my opinion, it's just like that, from 2008 i've been testing various cards: 4670, 5670, 5750, GTX 460, GTX 560 Ti, now i'm with a 6850 cf, nvidia runs smoother than amd, but they are too high on price.

 

[ilysaml]

HD 7970/50 or HD 7870 are useless in your situation, i would consider upgrading your CPU and MOBO then add a GTX 580.

 

[omega21xx]

HD 7970/50 or HD 7870 are useless in your situation, i would consider upgrading your CPU and MOBO then add a GTX 580.

Yeah, I agree. A new motherboard that supports SLI and another 580 will be the cheapest route. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they make SLI boards for that cpu? A full jump to SB would just be a waste.

@tinnitus
You are either trying to start a flame war, trolling, or have fanboy based dillusion that they are somehow smoother in games.

 

[Soda-88]

i'd definitely go for 2nd 580

i7 860 has alot of life left in it

edit: facepalm.. i managed to miss the fact that your board doesn't support sli

guess 2500k route it is then

 

[tinnitus]

Yeah, I agree. A new motherboard that supports SLI and another 580 will be the cheapest route. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they make SLI boards for that cpu? A full jump to SB would just be a waste.

@tinnitus
You are either trying to start a flame war, trolling, or have fanboy based dillusion that they are somehow smoother in games.

i'm not trying to start nothing, if you try both brands you'll see that nvidia is smoother than amd, nvidia shows more like console speeds, amd looks more like frame-by-frame. you can see it on youtube videos (recorded from cameras). currently i'm using amd cause it's cheap.

 

[omega21xx]

i'm not trying to start nothing, if you try both brands you'll see that nvidia is smoother than amd, nvidia shows more like console speeds, amd looks more like frame-by-frame. you can see it on youtube videos (recorded from cameras). currently i'm using amd cause it's cheap.

"console speeds"
Really?! You realize ps3 and 360 games barely hit there 60fps goal at lower settings than pc gfx cards do right?
Regardless, I HAVE NVIDIA cards, grew up with them actually. Until I got an HD 2400 (low end yes)
There is NO, seriously NO difference between them as far as perceived smoothness. As long as both cards you use from either brand run a minimum of 30-60fps in the game or benchmark neither one is better than the other.

I'm sure everyone would love to see some sort of proof to your claim but you have to be pretty uniformed or inexperienced to think that way about them. If you are in some way have issues with two comparable cards then obviously its a user error on your part and not a brand superiority or inferiority.

 

[tinnitus]

"console speeds"
Really?! You realize ps3 and 360 games barely hit there 60fps goal at lower settings than pc gfx cards do right?
Regardless, I HAVE NVIDIA cards, grew up with them actually. Until I got an HD 2400 (low end yes)
There is NO, seriously NO difference between them as far as perceived smoothness. As long as both cards you use from either brand run a minimum of 30-60fps in the game or benchmark neither one is better than the other.

I'm sure everyone would love to see some sort of proof to your claim but you have to be pretty uniformed or inexperienced to think that way about them. If you are in some way have issues with two comparable cards then obviously its a user error on your part and not a brand superiority or inferiority.

i didn't mean fps, i mean looks like.

if you see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApFdUQGyq0g

right is more smoother.

but if you don't believe it, i don't gonna waste my time. my first 3d card experience was from a diamond monster 3d on 97. believe what you want.

 

[omega21xx]

i didn't mean fps, i mean looks like.

if you see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApFdUQGyq0g

right is more smoother.

but if you don't believe it, i don't gonna waste my time. my first 3d card experience was from a diamond monster 3d on 97. believe what you want.

The 560ti competes with the 6950 not the 6870. So that comparison is already foiled.

 

[3Ball]

lol, this sure took an interesting turn. Nontheless, I found a solution to get the most out of BF3 that my system can handle.

I turned off HT, and bumbed my CPU up to 4.2ghz, which is the max I can get. My GPU is also already at the max I can get it, so I maxed out BF3 and measured my frames on the expansion maps (as they are more taxing) and found I ranged between about 38FPS and 85FPS.

The fluctuations made the game quite annoying, so I put an FPS limiter on the game at 40FPS, in which case it game runs extremely smooth as it runs at 40FPS about 90% of the time if it does drop, I dont see or feel it like I did with the massive flucuations between 38 and 85 and there is zero choppiness.

As for the nVidia vs ATI thing. I used to absolutely love ATI, and throughout my life had maybe 2 nVidia cards while having roughly 10 ATI cards. I used to scoff at anyone who said that ATI had any driver issues until I got my 5870. Once I got my 5870, I convinced all of my friends to do the same, and some of them got crossfire setup.

Ever since then every single person has gone over to the nVidia camp for the same reason. Horrid driver issues. I mean, issues that were unheard of. As in, I couldnt launch 10 or 15 of my games. Often times had games that had graphical errors, or sporadic drops in FPS. After nVidia released the driver update for the GTX4xx series that improved them by nearly 50% (seeing first hand on my friends 480), I was sold.

I literally gave up my 5870 for a GTX470, thats right a "slower" card by benchmark standards. While my maximum frames were undoubtedly lower, my minimum frames had to have been atleast 20% higher. I have zero issues with any games running, and never have since. I then of course went to the 580 from the 470. So thats my story.

I would love to go back to the ATI camp, but it takes alot. I am always open to getting new hardware from a different company if it benefits me the most, but one thing I NEVER worry about. Is power and heat. The GTX4xx series (fermi), gets a bad rap for this, but for me even though it had those "issues" it provided a much better experience for myself and 4 friends, including one guy who you would have called an (AMD/ATI) fanboy, but after he lost the ability to play his favorite game (couldnt even install it actually, the game was Far Cry) because of the ATI drivers, he is now running my old 470 and looking to get a 680 when they come out.

I really hope to go over to the ATI camp again someday, but I literally am a bit afraid of it. lol, my next setup will probably be a Ivy Bridge + 670 or 680 SLI setup.

Best,

3Ball

 

[wolfram23]

it's not my opinion, it's just like that,

:lol:

Yeah... no.

As for Nvidia being "smoother" how do you qualify that? Because techreport has a nice method. They look at how long it takes to render a frame, the longer it takes the "less smooth" it might seem. I say might, because below a certain threshold you wouldn't even notice a difference. Let's look at some examples of how much smoother Nvidia is...

And there's more. But basically, at worst they are even. As you can probably see, most of the "smoothness" comes down to how fast the card is and what sort of FPS it can maintain. Saying one brand or the other is smoother is basically nonsense.

Please note I'm talking about single card configs, we could get into CF vs SLI if you want though.

console speeds are slow as in capped @ 30fps except mw2 that runs at a full speed 60fps you real hve no idea and in most new games consoles are a bit choppy and the only saving grace is that they re bound to a ridiculously slow game pad to match the ridiculously slow frame rates. Nvidia and AMD are both as smooth as there frame rates you biased fanboy.

There's approximately 171 console games that run at 60 fps http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-consoles/92-3223/games/

However, they almost never run at 1080p, and in fact many run below 720p: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

 

[3Ball]

Thats really interesting Wolf. Ive never seen that sort of analysis, but dont you think that backing up an argument with proof is kinda "old school"?

 

[wolfram23]

Thats really interesting Wolf. Ive never seen that sort of analysis, but dont you think that backing up an argument with proof is kinda "old school"?

Sadly, yes. Too many people bring anecdotes to the table like it's the be-all-end-all of debate. Might as well bring in the "my dad says blah blah blah" like when we were in elementary.

 

[17seconds]

This was an overlooked point made by HardOCP in their review of the 7950:

"There is always an aspect of gameplay performance that is hard to relate to gamers through a graph, or even words. We are talking about physically "feeling" a game as you play it. What people perceive as playable performance is not always attached to framerate. This seems to be a fact of CrossFireX that we've encountered in our gameplay testing. At times, the framerate being displayed on the screen doesn't match what we are "feeling" as we play the game.

For example, if 40 or 50 FPS is indicated, even though that should be playable since its above 30 FPS it won't necessarily feel playable. We have to shoot for higher FPS. We experience some kind of lag or choppiness in gameplay with CrossFireX even though the framerate indicates it should be playable. This means you cannot always rely on framerate alone to determine playable performance.

This is a difference that separates CrossFireX from SLI. With SLI we do not experience this phenomenon as much. With SLI, framerates seem smoother at lower framerates, than these do with CrossFireX. For example, we often find we need to aim for higher framerates in order for CrossFireX to feel like it’s playable. Whereas, with SLI we often find we can settle with lower framerates, because it feels playable at those framerates. Trust us, we do not go by framerates when evaluating how these cards actually game. The framerates a lie.

Some of this can be seen in the graphs, when we talk about consistency. We've shown it in this evaluation, look back at the Deus Ex or Skyrim graphs and you will see SLI producing a more consistent framerate. These are just facts between CrossFireX and SLI, but it makes it so that SLI feels smoother and better to us, than CrossFireX does often. This was the case a lot of the time testing Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX versus GeForce GTX 580 SLI. We just felt GeForce GTX 580 SLI offered a smoother experience, in pretty much every game, even the ones where Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX allowed higher in-game settings."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/30/amd_radeon_hd_7950_video_card_review/15

 

[wolfram23]

Yeah, CF and SLI are quite a bit different than single card. Generally it seems like CF has a little more of a stutter issue, but it's not non-existant in SLI. More graphs!

 

[3Ball]

This was an overlooked point made by HardOCP in their review of the 7950:

"There is always an aspect of gameplay performance that is hard to relate to gamers through a graph, or even words. We are talking about physically "feeling" a game as you play it. What people perceive as playable performance is not always attached to framerate. This seems to be a fact of CrossFireX that we've encountered in our gameplay testing. At times, the framerate being displayed on the screen doesn't match what we are "feeling" as we play the game.

For example, if 40 or 50 FPS is indicated, even though that should be playable since its above 30 FPS it won't necessarily feel playable. We have to shoot for higher FPS. We experience some kind of lag or choppiness in gameplay with CrossFireX even though the framerate indicates it should be playable. This means you cannot always rely on framerate alone to determine playable performance.

This is a difference that separates CrossFireX from SLI. With SLI we do not experience this phenomenon as much. With SLI, framerates seem smoother at lower framerates, than these do with CrossFireX. For example, we often find we need to aim for higher framerates in order for CrossFireX to feel like it’s playable. Whereas, with SLI we often find we can settle with lower framerates, because it feels playable at those framerates. Trust us, we do not go by framerates when evaluating how these cards actually game. The framerates a lie.

Some of this can be seen in the graphs, when we talk about consistency. We've shown it in this evaluation, look back at the Deus Ex or Skyrim graphs and you will see SLI producing a more consistent framerate. These are just facts between CrossFireX and SLI, but it makes it so that SLI feels smoother and better to us, than CrossFireX does often. This was the case a lot of the time testing Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX versus GeForce GTX 580 SLI. We just felt GeForce GTX 580 SLI offered a smoother experience, in pretty much every game, even the ones where Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX allowed higher in-game settings."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/30/amd_radeon_hd_7950_video_card_review/15

Very nice find.

 

[Energy96]

This was an overlooked point made by HardOCP in their review of the 7950:

"There is always an aspect of gameplay performance that is hard to relate to gamers through a graph, or even words. We are talking about physically "feeling" a game as you play it. What people perceive as playable performance is not always attached to framerate. This seems to be a fact of CrossFireX that we've encountered in our gameplay testing. At times, the framerate being displayed on the screen doesn't match what we are "feeling" as we play the game.

For example, if 40 or 50 FPS is indicated, even though that should be playable since its above 30 FPS it won't necessarily feel playable. We have to shoot for higher FPS. We experience some kind of lag or choppiness in gameplay with CrossFireX even though the framerate indicates it should be playable. This means you cannot always rely on framerate alone to determine playable performance.

This is a difference that separates CrossFireX from SLI. With SLI we do not experience this phenomenon as much. With SLI, framerates seem smoother at lower framerates, than these do with CrossFireX. For example, we often find we need to aim for higher framerates in order for CrossFireX to feel like it’s playable. Whereas, with SLI we often find we can settle with lower framerates, because it feels playable at those framerates. Trust us, we do not go by framerates when evaluating how these cards actually game. The framerates a lie.

Some of this can be seen in the graphs, when we talk about consistency. We've shown it in this evaluation, look back at the Deus Ex or Skyrim graphs and you will see SLI producing a more consistent framerate. These are just facts between CrossFireX and SLI, but it makes it so that SLI feels smoother and better to us, than CrossFireX does often. This was the case a lot of the time testing Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX versus GeForce GTX 580 SLI. We just felt GeForce GTX 580 SLI offered a smoother experience, in pretty much every game, even the ones where Radeon HD 7950 CrossFireX allowed higher in-game settings."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/30/amd_radeon_hd_7950_video_card_review/15

A good friend of mine has the 7950's in xfire (he has always preferred ATI) and he noticed this issue as well, although he didn't notice it until he was over my house and played BF3 on my system with SLI 580's. The rest of our systems are mostly the same. He noticed it nearly right away and said it just felt smoother on my rig than on his. He figured it was running at higher frames than his so we tested it and found that the frames were pretty much the same on both our systems but it just felt smoother in general on mine than his. He also noticed that mine didn't get that very slight "stutter" when buildings and other things blew up around him like he got on his.

He still loves ATI and isn't going to trade his in even though he can afford it but he is somewhat mad that they aren't performing as well in the real world as they do on paper. It's not a "game breaker" and a lot of people will never even notice it, he's pretty sensitive to frame rate and even he didn't realize it until he compared it to something else. All things being equal sometimes its the little things like that to me that matter though.

 

[wolfram23]

Enable Vsync and stop being a fan boy.

Vsync makes any sort of stutter worse.

 

[wolfram23]

You tell me which will be smoother:

 

[3Ball]

Vsync offers best image quality and optimal performance for the monitors max possible capability. I don't like frame rates jumping and spiking up and down all over the place therefor like many gamers I prefer 60fps Vsync with no drops or increases in framerate. I would personally turn down settings in order to consistently maintain a 60fps min framrate with Vsynch enabled however with 7850 CF I will not have to turn down settings.

I personally hate vsync, and do not use it in about 99% of my games. It takes a very special care for vsync to be useful to me. The input lag imposed by vsync (no triple buffering does not do away with it completely), is just not worth dealing with for me. I much prefer framerate limiters. Very similar to you. I would rather have a constant framerate than a variable one in most cases. For example, BF3, which I am using a limiter for now, as I cannot get to 60FPS minimum, so I set the FPS limiter to my minimum of 40 and have a very steady framerate. Framerate limiters impose this restriction with zero affect on input lag as they do not stop frames from being buffered, they only restrict the visual representation. This is the best of both world imo. Unfortunately there isnt always a viable solution in this regard for every game.

Best,

3Ball