Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Good replacement for fried GTX 570

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gtx
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 7, 2012 12:31:14 PM

Hello everyone,

Recently my GTX 570’s water block started leaking and fried my card. Now I'm looking for a replacement card that performs roughly on the same level or better in the games I have listed below.

APPROXIMATE PURCHASE DATE: The sooner, the better.

USAGE FROM MOST TO LEAST IMPORTANT: Rift, Diablo 3, Skyrim, maybe Tera at some point.

CURRENT GPU AND POWER SUPPLY: Corsair TX750 v2

PREFERRED WEBSITE(S) FOR PARTS: Newegg or Amazon

PARTS PREFERENCES: Doesn’t matter. Whichever provides the best performance for the price.

MONITOR RESOLUTION: 1920x1080

Any advice and help will be greatly appreciated :) 

More about : good replacement fried gtx 570

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 12:39:30 PM

Budget?
A good replacement would be a GTX 680 or a HD 7970.
But I don't think you'll find a GTX 680.
Also, I think those cards are an 'overkill' according to the games that you play.

Get a HD 7950.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Or if you're a bit short on money,
the HD 7870.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Share
May 7, 2012 1:01:17 PM

Thanks for the fast reply, and sorry about that... My budget is $250-$500. Those two cards look very interesting... Would the 7950 be worth the added cost from the HD 7870? I would like this card to last a while, so I don't mind paying a little more now.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 1:16:49 PM

The HD 7850 is very close to GTX 570 and costs around $260. You can OC it to close the gap between it and the GTX 570. Also, HD 7870 is almost as powerful as GTX 580 and costs around $360.


HD 7950 costs $400 and when overclocked to a certain level it surpasses HD 7970 it's the best Overclocker in the HD 7xxx series, but make sure you get one with great cooling.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7950-overclock-...
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 1:36:32 PM

You had a 570 on water and now you're asking for advice concerning a replacement. I assume you clearly know your way around video cards, so what kind of advice do you need exactly. But in case you don't really follow whats going on, nV is releasing the new 670 on the 10th which I've heard is making some waves.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 1:37:36 PM

kyraiki said:
Thanks for the fast reply, and sorry about that... My budget is $250-$500. Those two cards look very interesting... Would the 7950 be worth the added cost from the HD 7870? I would like this card to last a while, so I don't mind paying a little more now.

Well technically, the HD 7950 is faster than the HD 7870. It does cost an extra, yes, but I'm sure it's worth it.
If you don't mind paying more, I'd get a HD 7950.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 2:13:13 PM

rdzona said:
You had a 570 on water and now you're asking for advice concerning a replacement. I assume you clearly know your way around video cards, so what kind of advice do you need exactly. But in case you don't really follow whats going on, nV is releasing the new 670 on the 10th which I've heard is making some waves.


Well I was asking for advice on a replacement for my dead GTX 570. Sorry if I didn't make that clear or it was too confusing. All of the reviews for video cards didn't include benchmarks or results for some of the games I listed, which is why I was asking the knowledgeable people here for advice.

Also, I have found that it helps to ask others for advice and opinions no matter how much you know or think you know on a subject. That is how you learn more.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 2:35:07 PM

Thanks for the help guys. The HD 7950 looks promising, especially since its a good overclocker. Should I wait for the GTX 670 (if its out in 3 days) or get the 7950 now and Overclock it?
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 2:40:20 PM

I would wait a little while for some benchs from the 670 and then decide..........
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 2:42:31 PM

OK, to be honest the GTX 670 looks to be more sexy and might have the same performance of HD 7970, but I doubt if you'll get one for the rated price ($400) and I doubt if you'll ever find one in stock.

Couple days ago, one member of the overclocking forums got his hands on a brand new GTX 670, he said he bought it for $525.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 2:47:01 PM

Fair point, kyraiki, though rdzona was implying that being able to research, decide upon and install gfx water cooling does imply some skills beyond those required for initial gfx card selection.

Ok, if you budget is stretching to $500 and you want some future-proofing, for a single monitor use @ 1080p:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

or, for >1080p / multiple monitor use:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

Then, if you need further proof, cross-check your selection with the numerous benchmark review sites. Happy hunting :) 
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 2:53:00 PM

ilysaml said:
OK, to be honest the GTX 670 looks to be more sexy and might have the same performance of HD 7970, but I doubt if you'll get one for the rated price ($400) and I doubt if you'll ever find one in stock.

Couple days ago, one member of the overclocking forums got his hands on a brand new GTX 670, he said he bought it for $525.


Same problem as the GTX 680 then... hadn't thought of that ><
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 2:54:16 PM

the cheapest vanilla evga 680 is 499.00 on their website,so the 670 has to be a few bucks cheaper when it comes out
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 3:11:53 PM

The cheapest GTX 680 right now is $570 and a reference design cooler.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 3:11:54 PM

kyraiki said:
Thanks for the help guys. The HD 7950 looks promising, especially since its a good overclocker. Should I wait for the GTX 670 (if its out in 3 days) or get the 7950 now and Overclock it?

Get a GTX 670!, May 10th is when more official info on this card will be given. It should be priced at 350-399 for reference models
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 3:42:23 PM

If the rumour mills are anything go by, the 670 should more than enough competition for the 7950. I'd say wait for it to come out.

If nothing we might see yet another price cut from amd or pricing of the 670 may mean better price performance numbers compared to the 7950.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 3:51:08 PM

psirohi said:
If the rumour mills are anything go by, the 670 should more than enough competition for the 7950. I'd say wait for it to come out.

If nothing we might see yet another price cut from amd or pricing of the 670 may mean better price performance numbers compared to the 7950.


Good point.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 3:53:08 PM

Thanks for all of the help! I think I am going to wait and see how the 670 stacks up (only 3 days away). Maybe it will lower the prices of the 7970 and/or the 7950 at the very least.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 3:54:29 PM

psirohi said:
If the rumour mills are anything go by, the 670 should more than enough competition for the 7950. I'd say wait for it to come out.

If nothing we might see yet another price cut from amd or pricing of the 670 may mean better price performance numbers compared to the 7950.

You seem you don't get it. It's not about the performance and it's certainly very competitive to HD 7970. But the main problem is availability and price, it's bought for $525 couple days ago. all the 28nm GTX 6000 series have production problem.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 4:06:02 PM

Since you have a budget up to $500. I'd go 7970. I used to be an NVidia fan but I got the 7970 and I'm very impressed. Amazon is pretty cheap for the Saphire 7970 OC which is what I have.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:11:17 PM

HD 7970 or a GTX 680 is really an overkill for the games that the OP's looking forward to play.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:14:25 PM

The real problem is the resolution not the games. Some games will bring the top high end cards to their knees at this resolution.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 4:15:11 PM

Even though it's "overkill" there's nothing wrong with turning up the settings and enjoying the graphics card. Also, if you purchase a high end graphics card it'll last longer since it'll be able to run newer games at higher settings.

Btw, here are the benchmarks on the 670.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4710/nvidia_geforce_g...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:15:37 PM

ilysaml said:
The real problem is the resolution not the games. Some games will bring the top high end cards to their knees at this resolution.

1080p?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:16:37 PM

Zephids said:
Even though it's "overkill" there's nothing wrong with turning up the settings and enjoying the graphics card. Also, if you purchase a high end graphics card it'll last longer since it'll be able to run newer games at higher settings.

Btw, here are the benchmarks on the 670.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4710/nvidia_geforce_g...

There is a point to that, I agree. But most people do have an upgrade "itch" that leads them to upgrade to the latest hardware no matter what. However, those kinds are rare.

At 1080p I'm pretty sure that any of those cards listed can max all of those said games.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:21:23 PM

Gman450 said:
1080p?

Yup, if he wants to play Metro 2033 or Crysis 2 at that resolution with the highest details, he's gonna need one of those cards.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:23:55 PM

ilysaml said:
Yup, if he wants to play Metro 2033 or Crysis 2 at that resolution with the highest details, he's gonna need one of those cards.

The HD 7870 or the HD 7950 should still be enough to give good FPS for those games too. Maybe not at steady 50-60, but at 30-40, which is generally playable. :) 
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 4:24:44 PM

The 670 should be able to handle everything you need. Unfortunately we don't know what price point it will be but we can assume it'll be BETTER than anything out there minus the GTX680/7970. It's your best bang for buck. Gotta give it to Nvidia, shows up late the party touting how they're "the best". I call bullshit.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:27:02 PM

Gman450 said:
The HD 7870 or the HD 7950 should still be enough to give good FPS for those games too. Maybe not at steady 50-60, but at 30-40, which is generally playable. :) 

Right, but he won't just buy the card for those games only, Metro Last Light, Crysis 3 are coming along the road :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:27:29 PM

My guess for the price point...around $400? Sounds reasonable?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:31:08 PM

ilysaml said:
Right, but he won't just buy the card for those games only, Metro Last Light, Crysis 3 are coming along the road :p 

I doubt Crysis 3 would be more 'demanding' than it's predecessor, but I'll give you on the Last Light . :) 
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:32:58 PM

Yes you're right, it uses the same CryEngine 3 but last light will be definitely.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 4:35:39 PM

ilysaml said:
You seem you don't get it. It's not about the performance and it's certainly very competitive to HD 7970. But the main problem is availability and price, it's bought for $525 couple days ago. all the 28nm GTX 6000 series have production problem.


Agree on the availability issue and that 680s are harder to find but, is it really just your solution to spend 50 -70 dollars more when u can get an equally competitive card for lesser if you wait a bit?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 4:37:50 PM

Yeah, NVIDIA is losing a whole lot of sales to AMD there..
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 4:39:45 PM

Sad but true, that's why they have priced the entire 7xxx series so high.

Though if you can wait.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 5:13:23 PM

With that budget I'm sure you can easily buy a gtx 580 lightning somewhere around ebay. It is sad about your gtx 570, I tought once on going water cooled for my pc but I think it doesn't worth the risk at all, besides it doesn't matter if you are not a hard overclocker. Regards
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 5:46:18 PM

ilysaml said:
You seem you don't get it. It's not about the performance and it's certainly very competitive to HD 7970. But the main problem is availability and price, it's bought for $525 couple days ago. all the 28nm GTX 6000 series have production problem.


I'm curious as to where this 670 was purchased? I didn't think they were released for retail yet. Pics or it didn't happen. Just because you read it off another forum? And if he got it for use in a review, nVidia has nda's with those kinds of things, I don't think people break those, well unless your tweaktown from what I've heard.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 6:46:42 PM

davemaster84 said:
With that budget I'm sure you can easily buy a gtx 580 lightning somewhere around ebay. It is sad about your gtx 570, I tought once on going water cooled for my pc but I think it doesn't worth the risk at all, besides it doesn't matter if you are not a hard overclocker. Regards


That's what I'm wondering. considering the OP went water on his video card, perhaps he did do some hardcore overclocking? in which case he would want a 580 minimum just to match his super OCed 570's performance if he's staying away from another water block...
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 6:47:31 PM

rdzona said:
I'm curious as to where this 670 was purchased? I didn't think they were released for retail yet. Pics or it didn't happen. Just because you read it off another forum? And if he got it for use in a review, nVidia has nda's with those kinds of things, I don't think people break those, well unless your tweaktown from what I've heard.



http://www.overclock.net/t/1253432/gigabyte-gtx-670-oc-...
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 8:12:48 PM



Yeah I don't know about that one. I don't know how much you read from that thread but his supposedly brand new 670 obtained prior to release is somehow outscoring other peoples 680 in 3dmark11. Using the exact same drivers and using reference clocks. How is that possible? By 400 points none the less. Seems fishy to me.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 8:24:35 PM

vmem said:
That's what I'm wondering. considering the OP went water on his video card, perhaps he did do some hardcore overclocking? in which case he would want a 580 minimum just to match his super OCed 570's performance if he's staying away from another water block...


I don't think he'd want another water cooled gpu and since he's limited on budget I think it's the best option, afterall previous generation cards always are friendly with your pockets. Besides the lightning gtx 580 is capable of a very good OC.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 8:24:45 PM

rdzona said:
Yeah I don't know about that one. I don't know how much you read from that thread but his supposedly brand new 670 obtained prior to release is somehow outscoring other peoples 680 in 3dmark11. Using the exact same drivers and using reference clocks. How is that possible? By 400 points none the less. Seems fishy to me.


He was able to purchase it from a brick & mortar store that accidently sold their stock prior to release date, it happens, same thing happened for the Asus TF201 at US Gamestop.

And the score was pretty much validated and confirmed by the mods/editor of overclock.net, generally, it's about only weaker by about 5~6% to the "best" 680 SLI and single card.
And he also just got lucky and got a card that can Boost up to 1300 mhz, when he borrowed his friends GTX 670, it's boost speed is about 100mhz slower then his current one.
m
0
l
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 8:27:55 PM

Now you know. Clocks are different they are not the same. Read the specs of the GTX 680 well.
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 10:10:04 PM

This is what I was referring too. I'm not that dull to realize that yes, a 670 running at higher clocks than a 680 could yield better scores. But explain to me this.

Quote from OCN

"I'm also only looking at the GPU score, which should be independent of CPU. I don't understand how a GTX 670, which has 1 shader unit disabled AND lower clock speeds ( even on this Gigabyte OC version), can outscore a GTX 680 by 400+ points in 3DMark11's GPU score.

This Gigabyte 670 OC=1344 CUDA cores, 980 MHz stock clock, 1059 MHz boost clock
Reference GTX 680=1536 CUDA cores, 1006 MHz stock clock, 1059 MHz boost clock.

And yet this 670 is outscoring a 680 by quite a few hundred points in 3DMark11..."

At REFERENCE CLOCKS

Am I reading the "specs of the GTX 680 well"?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2012 10:32:40 PM

Guys if your gonna talk about kepler, please move this to the Kepler discussion thread. Otherwise my Email is gonna continue to get spammed by the same conversations
m
0
l
May 7, 2012 11:22:01 PM

rdzona said:
This is what I was referring too. I'm not that dull to realize that yes, a 670 running at higher clocks than a 680 could yield better scores. But explain to me this.

Quote from OCN

"I'm also only looking at the GPU score, which should be independent of CPU. I don't understand how a GTX 670, which has 1 shader unit disabled AND lower clock speeds ( even on this Gigabyte OC version), can outscore a GTX 680 by 400+ points in 3DMark11's GPU score.

This Gigabyte 670 OC=1344 CUDA cores, 980 MHz stock clock, 1059 MHz boost clock
Reference GTX 680=1536 CUDA cores, 1006 MHz stock clock, 1059 MHz boost clock.

And yet this 670 is outscoring a 680 by quite a few hundred points in 3DMark11..."

At REFERENCE CLOCKS

Am I reading the "specs of the GTX 680 well"?


It's simple enough. Drivers, the only way a "lesser" similar hardware would outperform a better one is due to driver - test software configuration, don't forget there's only 1 whql real driver around (I'm not counting the one that comes with the 680) since it's release.
m
0
l
May 8, 2012 12:47:26 AM

davemaster84 said:
It's simple enough. Drivers, the only way a "lesser" similar hardware would outperform a better one is due to driver - test software configuration, don't forget there's only 1 whql real driver around (I'm not counting the one that comes with the 680) since it's release.


Sorry to the OP for hijacking your thread.

Davemaster, it wasn't the drivers. They were the same.

Quote

"I just installed the 301.25 drivers (same ones OP is using) and my score didn't change.

My GPU score is still about 400 points lower than what OP was able to achieve with his lower-clocked GTX 670, which also has a unit disabled compared to the 680. Unless NVidia changed the GTX 670's architecture somehow and made it 10% faster clock for clock compared to the 680, I don't see how that's possible.

It seems that a few other GTX 680 owners are in the same position, where our 680s are performing worse in 3DMark11 compared to this 670, even when using the exact same drivers."

Here's the thread, read for yourself.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1253432/gigabyte-gtx-670-oc-...

m
0
l
May 8, 2012 2:11:50 AM

Thank you and I'm sorry kiraiky for spaming here. After reading a lot there's quite a community sense about something fishy with that benchmark. Think about it, someone gets a 670 before it's supposed to be released and the benches beat a hardware that is up in clocks , shaders and cuda cores. People (yeah me too) it's starting to think he overclocked the card up to 1200 and posted (or the software didn't read it well) different clocks, could be just some software issue or even a market panic maker, who knows.
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!