Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GTX 590 or 680

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 27, 2012 12:09:11 PM

Hi guys looking to save for a few months and purchase a new GPU I currently have a ASUS GTX 570 DirectCUII but really want more power in BF3 as atm having to play most settings medium, textures on low and mesh high. I am looking towards the 590 just because it does better in benchmarks and I am aware that if i go towards a 680 I need a new CPU and MOBO that supports PCI-E 3.0 and really don't have that much money.

My Specs are

CPU-AMD 955 @3.4GHZ
GPU-GTX 570
PSU-XFX 850W CORE EDITON
4GB RAM @1066(UPGRADING TODAY TO 8GB @1600)
CASE-HAF 922
MOBO-M4A78LT-M
STANDARD DVD/CD DRIVE AND HDD.

Many thanks guy always appreciate your facts and opinions

More about : gtx 590 680

April 27, 2012 12:33:00 PM

You definitely do not need to upgrade to use the 680. It is backward compatible with 2.0 and will not be bottlenecked.

If it were me, I would get another 570 or if you want to spring, a 680. In no case would I get a 590.
April 27, 2012 12:38:23 PM

590 underpoerforms and it is loud and heat hungry
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 12:38:56 PM

Not even a question of doubt, get a 680 GTX, it performs better than the 590 in some instances and uses a LOT less power. The 680 GTX is a much smarter investment.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 12:42:52 PM

suddenstop has the right idea... Best if you go with another 570 in SLI for best performance since they are cheaper anyway... BTW, Nyvidia's Video Card tend to do better at BF3 than AMD's ATI... Best if you go with 570 SLI which should bring you close to the performance of a GTx 680 or probably a few FPS higher than GTx 680... If you tihnking a GTx 590 is good than best if you wait for a few days for the GTx 690 to be released and BTW, a GTx 670 is going to be released same time as GTx 690...
April 27, 2012 12:44:14 PM

Also to add my 2 cents - You will see a nice performance gain also by overclocking (or upgrading) that 3.4Ghz CPU.

The 570 should easily be able to play BF3 on higher settings than medium, come on guys! Also, BF3 is a very CPU-intensive game!
April 27, 2012 12:45:24 PM

Your gameplay in BF3 is being limited by your CPU, not graphics card.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 12:46:19 PM

graemevermeulen said:
Also to add my 2 cents - You will see a nice performance gain also by overclocking (or upgrading) that 3.4Ghz CPU.

The 570 should easily be able to play BF3 on higher settings than medium, come on guys! Also, BF3 is a very CPU-intensive game!

BF3 does better on AMD 8150 than Intel 2500k lol... BUT by a little like 5 FPS or so...
a c 291 U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 12:57:32 PM

What resolution are you playing at?
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 1:08:42 PM

legendkiller said:
BF3 does better on AMD 8150 than Intel 2500k lol... BUT by a little like 5 FPS or so...


proof?
April 27, 2012 1:14:03 PM

legendkiller said:
BF3 does better on AMD 8150 than Intel 2500k lol... BUT by a little like 5 FPS or so...


I never mentioned AMD or Intel here :whistle: 

April 27, 2012 1:24:16 PM

Sunius said:
What resolution are you playing at?

1920 x 1080
a c 291 U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 1:32:22 PM

Something is wrong then. You should be able to have high settings with GTX 570, I play at the same resolution and it works on 55-60 fps average in multiplayer. I own GTX 560 Ti. I think you're facing a CPU bottleneck, so you should oc your CPU first.
April 27, 2012 1:45:22 PM

First thank you all for fast reply's
Bigmack70 & suddenstop who is correct Bigmack70 you say I'll be bottlenecked and Suddenstop you say I won't just want to clarify if I would be ok as I am now with my setup.
Was going to get a H50 cooler next week and OC my CPU hopefully to 4GHZ. For some reason I get bad FPS drops on high settings with multiplayer but single player absolutely fine.
I don't really want to go SLI but money wise does seem the better option. Could sell the my GTX 570 as use my spare GTX 280 and possibly get a 680 in a few weeks.
April 27, 2012 1:51:51 PM

Sunius said:
Something is wrong then. You should be able to have high settings with GTX 570, I play at the same resolution and it works on 55-60 fps average in multiplayer. I own GTX 560 Ti. I think you're facing a CPU bottleneck, so you should oc your CPU first.

Since having OC to 3.4GHZ on air with no voltage increase I reach 66c and have seen improvement. Ordered this just now
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B-1600M...
from a mix match 2X2GB @ 1066 I think that might be the bottleneck
April 27, 2012 1:58:58 PM

Sunius said:
Something is wrong then. You should be able to have high settings with GTX 570, I play at the same resolution and it works on 55-60 fps average in multiplayer. I own GTX 560 Ti. I think you're facing a CPU bottleneck, so you should oc your CPU first.

Whats the spec of your rig?
April 27, 2012 2:03:13 PM

Odd. I have a similiar setup to you (see sig) and I never notice any FPS issues in BF3 multiplayer. I normally play the 64 player maps too. Even in 64 player Metro I don't notice any performance issues. Always runs smooth, no hiccups.

All my settings are set to High @ 1920x1080. Defaults to this too.

I'm at work right now, so I don't know the specific settings off-hand, I can report them later if you like.

I can even report my min/avg FPS in BF3 64-player Metro later this evening if you like.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 2:13:32 PM

the 570 should be playing on ultra settings, thats what my 6950 plays at
April 27, 2012 2:17:15 PM

The general consensus is that the system is being held back by the CPU.

It doesn't mean that an AMD CPU can't perform at the same level as its equivalent Intel CPU, but it does require a lot of overclocking as clock for clock, Intel is faster.
April 27, 2012 2:44:19 PM

I went from an AMD 945 to an i5 2500k, no overclocking, and gained 20% higher FPS in BF3 on my XFire 6870s! I'd drop the AMD and go with an Intel CPU/MoBo for now, GPU upgrade later.
April 27, 2012 2:49:54 PM

brett1042002 said:
Odd. I have a similiar setup to you (see sig) and I never notice any FPS issues in BF3 multiplayer. I normally play the 64 player maps too. Even in 64 player Metro I don't notice any performance issues. Always runs smooth, no hiccups.

All my settings are set to High @ 1920x1080. Defaults to this too.

I'm at work right now, so I don't know the specific settings off-hand, I can report them later if you like.

I can even report my min/avg FPS in BF3 64-player Metro later this evening if you like.

Yes please I would be grateful I notice you have 8GB ram compared to my 4GB though I just ordered 8GB http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B-1600M... and paid the extra to have it at my door tomorrow :) . Also to note I have medium settings because even though most maps are fine looking at certain points ie when leaving US base frames drop and most noticeable is B2K Gulf of Oman badly dips from hotel overlooking city. I think I need a SSD anyways which has faster loading times but would guess that it would improve the Gulf of Oman problem.
April 27, 2012 2:52:51 PM

SinisterSalad said:
I went from an AMD 945 to an i5 2500k, no overclocking, and gained 20% higher FPS in BF3 on my XFire 6870s! I'd drop the AMD and go with an Intel CPU/MoBo for now, GPU upgrade later.

See I asked the community that a few months ago and was told I would not see that much improvement but I have always thought that a i5 2500k would be a'lot better than a 955 and you are the proof. Thanks dude
April 27, 2012 2:55:21 PM

BigMack70 said:
suddenstop just meant you won't be bottlenecked by PCI-e bandwidth - at least that's what the context of his post makes it sound like

Does that motherboard have heatsinks on the VRMs? If not, I wouldn't recommend a big overclock, because you'll blow up a VRM on the board probably.

SLI 570s would be even more bottlenecked by your CPU than would a 680. Bottom line is that you need a better CPU probably more than you need a better graphics card.

Also, I too would love to see proof that an 8150 does better than a 2500k in BF3. I *HIGHLY* doubt that, especially given data like this. That link is also good to show how bottlenecked BF3 can be on a quad core Phenom II.

Thanks Bigmack70 I was told some time ago that getting a i5 2500k bundle would not be that much different from what I have now heard I think I'll go for a i5 2500k, mobo and the ram I just brought will work fine with the board then in the future get a GPU or SLI.
do you mean the ram in the motherboard have heat sinks? if so then the new ones I have got yes they do

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B-1600M...
April 27, 2012 2:56:14 PM

user_account_ said:
See I asked the community that a few months ago and was told I would not see that much improvement but I have always thought that a i5 2500k would be a'lot better than a 955 and you are the proof. Thanks dude

I wouldn't have believed it, either. lol I did some Fraps benchmarks both before and after swapping out the CPU/MoBo. Made an Excel spreadsheet. I should probably upload it to Google Drive/SkyDrive or something so I can share it with people...
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 3:00:03 PM

the reason everyone was saying amd is just as good as intel for bf3 is that toms had an article that showed the same gpu performing exactly the same on basically any quadcore in bf3.

things change though, that was an old benchmarking on an early version of bf3. who knows where its at now
April 27, 2012 3:13:34 PM

neon neophyte said:
the reason everyone was saying amd is just as good as intel for bf3 is that toms had an article that showed the same gpu performing exactly the same on basically any quadcore in bf3.

things change though, that was an old benchmarking on an early version of bf3. who knows where its at now

The problem, as we all know now, is that they test on single player. Which doesn't stress the CPU like multiplayer does. Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read, right? ;) 
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 3:38:57 PM

ah yes yes, singleplayer. that makes a lot of sense
April 27, 2012 3:43:08 PM

Here's my spreadsheet if anyone cares.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8qK17uvZfX6ZUFFUjBldX...

Bear in mind, this is no scientific setup. Just a Fraps benchmark run for two minutes. I was on a 50+ player Firestorm conquest map. US side, hopped into a tank @ Main, and started the benchmark when I hit the paved road outside of point A. My Eyefinity 1080p run on the 945 was on LOW settings, and was, really, unplayable. I can now play on MEDIUM settings and hold at 45+ FPS. Color me impressed with the i5.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 8:36:15 PM

legendkiller said:
BF3 does better on AMD 8150 than Intel 2500k lol... BUT by a little like 5 FPS or so...


8150 is an 8 core processor and as far as I know, BF3 multi-player is one of the few games that actually is faster with more cores. So yeah, I can believe that an 8 core processor is slightly faster than an I5-2500k.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2012 8:45:12 PM

i cant... and dont.

proof or it didnt happen
a b U Graphics card
April 28, 2012 2:17:04 PM

BigMack70 said:
Just because BF3 can take advantage of 8 cores/threads does not mean that it performs better on an 8150 than a 2500k. See my post(s) above.

BF3 performs equal or better on the quad core 2500k than it does on the octa core 8150... that should tell you how awful faildozer is at gaming.

I know how awful bulldozer is... Just that very few games like BF3 can take advantage of the Octa cores of 8150 but with little different performance from 2500k...
a b U Graphics card
April 28, 2012 3:36:35 PM

BigMack70 said:
This is an incorrect claim. People who make claims like this don't understand how bad faildozer is. The video you posted does not show this claim to be true, and the link I posted indicates that it is false.

lol, if it's a false alarm, than tell me why is bulldozer getting same FPS as 2500k in the video, why not 20 like the rest of the test or games? Intel beat 8150 in all test except for BF3 which came to a close match...
a b U Graphics card
April 28, 2012 7:14:59 PM

BigMack70 said:
Well, for one thing, that video isn't comparing the 8150 with the 2500k.

For another thing, they get the same FPS. You claimed the 8150 gets more fps, and that is the part of your claim that is incorrect.


the test isnt valid it was done in singleplayer
!