Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gtx470 upgrade

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 14, 2012 6:40:12 AM

I currently run a pair of gtx 470's in sli powering 3 aoc 24" monitors @ 5760x1080. in bf3 at one point flawless with all on ultra then one night fps dropped into teens, and even after fresh windows,game,and driver install still have difficulty playing like before even on lower settings. In wow on high settings it is beautiful and playable 40-50fps with vsync on (used to be constant 60 fps on ultra). I am now trying to find an affordable single card or dual card setup to upgrade. my board is sli/crossfire capable my budget 1k or a little over. thank you guys

More about : gtx470 upgrade

May 14, 2012 6:54:14 AM

For your budget, I'd grab two GTX 670 4GB or two GTX 680 4GB cards and do SLI. 2GB models would need reduced AA in some games at 5760x1080.
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 7:01:57 AM

Ya thats what kind of scares me i just ordered a 2nd gtx 480 to run 3 monitors.Not sure if the vram will be good enough.Guess will wait and see i couldnt really get crossfire 7970/50 to work at all so i should still get better perfromance.They will be overclocked fairly heavily so should be faster then 2 gtx 580's in sli
m
0
l
Related resources
May 14, 2012 7:09:55 AM

you guys think it is the vram on the cards i have? i think only 1gig each
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 7:13:43 AM

dont spend that much money just get two of gtx 670 in sli and you will get about nearly gtx 680 sli performance.:) 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...

for brand choose gigabyte gtx 670 windforce x3 its an good card with nice cooling and good overclocking.:) 

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/ite...

its already factory overclocked you can oc it more.:) 

look at this review it gives performance very close to the gtx 680 at a decent price about $100 dollars less.:) 

http://vr-zone.com/articles/gigabyte-gtx-670-oc-windfor...
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 7:16:27 AM

^ +1 or if you can actually find an Asus GTX 670 DCU II TOP, get that in SLI.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 7:36:55 AM

Anonymous said:
Ya thats what kind of scares me i just ordered a 2nd gtx 480 to run 3 monitors.Not sure if the vram will be good enough.Guess will wait and see i couldnt really get crossfire 7970/50 to work at all so i should still get better perfromance.They will be overclocked fairly heavily so should be faster then 2 gtx 580's in sli


CF 7950/7970 in Eyefinity needs to use the 7970/7950 beta drivers. The newer ones do not support Eyefinity and CF at the same time. AMD does not think that they will fix this until Catalyst 12.5 or 12.6. You can run the 7900 cards in CF in Eyefinity, you just need to use their original drivers (I think that 12.1 or 12.0 is the proper version, I'd have to look it up to be sure). The 7970s or 7950s would also be fast enough, but they would not be as fast (for some games) as the 670 or 680 and would use a lot more electrical power. Two 670s are the most energy efficient high end cards available, except for a 690, but I don't think there are any 4GB per GPU 690s out (let alone one with a decent price), so it's not really a practical option.

Granted, it's your computer, your choice, and I don't know what games you are playing, so I can't say for sure whether the 7970s in CF (even with older drivers) or the 670s in SLI would be better chocies, but I can say that both would be better than GTX 480 SLI or GTX 580 SLI and GTX 480 SLI with an overclock to beat stock 580 SLI.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 7:39:41 AM

7ccccc7 said:
Don't be stupid and don't pay for something you won't use like 4GB vram. Here is why 4GB is useless:
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/g...

Buy standard GTX 670


Some games need the AA turned down on the standard 670s and 680s at 5760x1080 and especially 5760x1200, so basic logic tells us that any new games that are even just somewhat more memory intensive (each new generation of high end games is more memory intensive) would need 4GB models, or else AA will need to be reduced or even turned off. Most people hate doing that, especially when it's just because of a memory bottle-neck. 4GB is not useless at all and you don't know what you're talking about.
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 8:34:39 AM

blazorthon said:
CF 7950/7970 in Eyefinity needs to use the 7970/7950 beta drivers. The newer ones do not support Eyefinity and CF at the same time. AMD does not think that they will fix this until Catalyst 12.5 or 12.6. You can run the 7900 cards in CF in Eyefinity, you just need to use their original drivers (I think that 12.1 or 12.0 is the proper version, I'd have to look it up to be sure). The 7970s or 7950s would also be fast enough, but they would not be as fast (for some games) as the 670 or 680 and would use a lot more electrical power. Two 670s are the most energy efficient high end cards available, except for a 690, but I don't think there are any 4GB per GPU 690s out (let alone one with a decent price), so it's not really a practical option.

Granted, it's your computer, your choice, and I don't know what games you are playing, so I can't say for sure whether the 7970s in CF (even with older drivers) or the 670s in SLI would be better chocies, but I can say that both would be better than GTX 480 SLI or GTX 580 SLI and GTX 480 SLI with an overclock to beat stock 580 SLI.


Ya ill make my decision after i see it run on 3 monitors as to whether i want to go back to 1080p 42" flatscreen or not.I think im getting back to the price/performance like usual.I liked both the 7970/50 but for some reason i got nervous having $1000 worth of gpu's in my system.GTX 480 is easy and cheap to replace and offers great performance.at 1080p even a single 480 can max out every game pretty much and having 2 is still imo overkill at that res.so either way ill be running well especially if i go back to one screen.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 8:43:32 AM

I am not opposed to using ati graphics cards if performancewise the are better for high resolution on triple monitors im spoiled now and dont think i can go back to single. I just think the 2 470's bottleneck my computer's performance
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 8:47:49 AM

juggalofreak911 said:
I am not opposed to using ati graphics cards if performancewise the are better for high resolution on triple monitors im spoiled now and dont think i can go back to single. I just think the 2 470's bottleneck my computer's performance


I would stick with nvidia the sli just seems to work alot more for me then crossfire does.I had 2 gtx 460 sli and 2 gtx 480 sli and it was much easier for me to get sli to work then the 7900's crossfire.I even read an article a few weeks ago that claim crossfire has actually gotten worse as time goes on.AMD doesnt een support it with there official drivers which make no damn sense.I hear the gtx 660ti is coming out soon i would expect that to be under $300 a pop and should offer great performance.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 9:04:28 AM

Anonymous said:
I would stick with nvidia the sli just seems to work alot more for me then crossfire does.I had 2 gtx 460 sli and 2 gtx 480 sli and it was much easier for me to get sli to work then the 7900's crossfire.I even read an article a few weeks ago that claim crossfire has actually gotten worse as time goes on.AMD doesnt een support it with there official drivers which make no damn sense.I hear the gtx 660ti is coming out soon i would expect that to be under $300 a pop and should offer great performance.


What you've heard about Crossfire is completely wrong. It is only having problems with Radeon 7000 cards when in an Eyefinity setup and even then, it's officially supported by the original drivers (just not the latest drivers). Without Eyefinity, it's officially supported with all of AMD's recent drivers up to and including Catalyst 12.4. I heard that the 660 TI won't be out for at least another two to four months myself, so we'll have to wait and see about it. $300 is probably a little too low, $330 to $350 is far more likely, unless it is way slower than the 670.
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 9:21:24 AM

It maybe supported but sli is better period and supports darn near every game ive played.Im not talking specifially he 7900 series.Crossfire in general is just not as good as sli and really never has been.Ive got a buddy i co-op with in cal and has had crossfire for years and has always had problems.If you go dual card setup i would not go crossfire over sli.Noway does the 660 ti comeout at $350 thats way to close to the 670 pricing.I would imagine $329 absolute max.The 670 is darn near as fast as the 680 and thats $100 less so im sticking to the $300 price range.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 9:47:19 AM

Anonymous said:
It maybe supported but sli is better period and supports darn near every game ive played.Im not talking specifially he 7900 series.Crossfire in general is just not as good as sli and really never has been.Ive got a buddy i co-op with in cal and has had crossfire for years and has always had problems.If you go dual card setup i would not go crossfire over sli.Noway does the 660 ti comeout at $350 thats way to close to the 670 pricing.I would imagine $329 absolute max.The 670 is darn near as fast as the 680 and thats $100 less so im sticking to the $300 price range.


Crossfire only has problems if people don't keep their drivers updated. As of right now, it has no more problems than SLI does, except for Radeon 7000 Crossfire with Eyefinity active and that should be fixed with the next or second to next Catalyst update. Even then, it still works, it's just using an older driver. It's a little worse than the current ones, but no big deal.

Also, it doesn't matter how close $350 is to the 670's price range. There are always cards that are priced even up to the price range of a higher model, especially if they have extra VRAM. For example, a 4GB GTX 670 can cost around as much as a 2GB GTX 680 (it's obviously still a far better deal, but the price is still there).

Most problems with stuff such as CF or SLI are caused by having it set up improperly. I've had problems with drivers from both companies. To say that Nvidia doesn't also have driver problems would be completely wrong. I've had Nvidia drivers cause artifacts and other problems just like some Ati or AMD drivers had and I've had just as many problems with SLI as I've had with CF (not many, I set stuff up correctly). Nvidia still holds the record for the worst driver ever because they released a driver that actually killed cards because it accidentally disabled the fan, destroying the GPU. I think that it was Nvidia's 196.75 or something like that that did this.
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 14, 2012 10:13:09 AM

If you really believe that thats fine.Nothing i ever post you agree with and that is fine i go mostley by personal experience and yes ive used the beta drivers for a few weeks before touching the 12 series drivers and even then it had many issues.Scaling wize overall sli is better and it also has a higher percentage of outright working in games.heres a little something i copied and pasted from a site that says sli is better in scaling overall.Im not knocking ati cards i loved both the 7970 and 7950 as SINGLE card configs.I also literally know 50+ people over on hardforums that sent there 7900 series crossfire cards back due to beta driver related issues and wound up going to the gtx 580's sli.Checkout hardforums sometime anyways heres the important part of the article.

So SLI and CrossFire are really starting to make a name for themselves then. Ease of installation and the burgeoning returns you get for adding in the extra card now makes it a viable proposition.

As we can see though, it's Nvidia that has made the most gains in its multi-GPU technology in the performance sector. Both of its latest cards are hitting an average percentage frame rate increase of 80 per cent at the eye-bleeding resolution of 2,560 x 1,600.

Granted they were comparing scaling with a gtx 480 and an ati 5870 but nothing has changed since then and once i find that article even the so called proffesional reviewers are saying crossfire has taken a step back from the 5870 days.Im not saying sli doesnt have issues because it does but crossfire has more bottom line and whether you want to believe that or not i dont really care.Even recon who is a frequent poster on here would say the same.hes had many configs on both sides and will tell you sli is just flatout easier to work with.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 10:53:41 AM

Anonymous said:
If you really believe that thats fine.Nothing i ever post you agree with and that is fine i go mostley by personal experience and yes ive used the beta drivers for a few weeks before touching the 12 series drivers and even then it had many issues.Scaling wize overall sli is better and it also has a higher percentage of outright working in games.heres a little something i copied and pasted from a site that says sli is better in scaling overall.Im not knocking ati cards i loved both the 7970 and 7950 as SINGLE card configs.I also literally know 50+ people over on hardforums that sent there 7900 series crossfire cards back due to beta driver related issues and wound up going to the gtx 580's sli.Checkout hardforums sometime anyways heres the important part of the article.

So SLI and CrossFire are really starting to make a name for themselves then. Ease of installation and the burgeoning returns you get for adding in the extra card now makes it a viable proposition.

As we can see though, it's Nvidia that has made the most gains in its multi-GPU technology in the performance sector. Both of its latest cards are hitting an average percentage frame rate increase of 80 per cent at the eye-bleeding resolution of 2,560 x 1,600.

Granted they were comparing scaling with a gtx 480 and an ati 5870 but nothing has changed since then and once i find that article even the so called proffesional reviewers are saying crossfire has taken a step back from the 5870 days.Im not saying sli doesnt have issues because it does but crossfire has more bottom line and whether you want to believe that or not i dont really care.Even recon who is a frequent poster on here would say the same.hes had many configs on both sides and will tell you sli is just flatout easier to work with.


Nothing below the Kepler and GCN cards scales as well as Radeon 6930s, 6950s, and 6970s for multi-GPU configurations in most games. VLIW4 GPUs scale better than Fermi, VLIW5, and all others before them.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-3-way...

Quote:
AMD’s Radeon HD 6950 is anything but low-end, and yet its second card provides a huge 92% lead over a single board.


Quote:
CrossFire came out with a huge overall scaling lead over SLI, and removing the one title that didn’t reflect that average would have made the lead even bigger. Superior scaling allowed two mid-priced Radeon HD 6950s to approximate the performance of two higher-cost GeForce GTX 570s, while three HD 6950s took the performance win over three GTX 570s.


If you don't trust Tom's, then whom do you trust?
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
May 14, 2012 12:07:19 PM

juggalofreak911 said:
I currently run a pair of gtx 470's in sli powering 3 aoc 24" monitors @ 5760x1080. in bf3 at one point flawless with all on ultra then one night fps dropped into teens, and even after fresh windows,game,and driver install still have difficulty playing like before even on lower settings. In wow on high settings it is beautiful and playable 40-50fps with vsync on (used to be constant 60 fps on ultra). I am now trying to find an affordable single card or dual card setup to upgrade. my board is sli/crossfire capable my budget 1k or a little over. thank you guys

The framerate drops have been a common issue in multi-player since the April BF3 update.
m
0
l
May 14, 2012 7:38:44 PM

went into single player and it was the same thing fps in the teens with everything on ultra and 4x aa. turned aa and ambient occlusion off and fps in 30's @ 50760x1080
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
May 15, 2012 12:33:14 AM

ouch. you might do well with a couple 570s, 580s, 670s, or 680s then. They'd only help, but don't expect miracles with BF3 multi-player with the way it runs these days.
m
0
l
May 15, 2012 1:30:50 AM

Why is BF3 running so much harder? Did it get a quality update that improves quality at the expense of performance?
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
May 15, 2012 10:51:29 AM

blazorthon said:
Why is BF3 running so much harder? Did it get a quality update that improves quality at the expense of performance?

I didn't notice any quality gain whatsoever. They nerfed some weapons, buffed others and gave us a performance loss (fps) on matches with more than 32 players on larger maps. It used to run so smoothly no matter the size of the map or the number of players. I would think it has to be something server-side that they jacked up maybe to commonize things with the console versions somewhat? Just speculation, but something went with the large maps/64 players and framerates after the update. I had the same experience on X58 with 2 580s, X58 and 2 680s as well as X79 and 2 680s. It was all good before the April update.

My ping time on these servers is in the 20s. My hardware is listed in my signature. Other than direct connect to the darn server, I'm not sure how you can avoid these framerate dropouts.
m
0
l
May 15, 2012 3:30:20 PM

one of my monitors died so im down to 2 is sli overkill for single or dual monitors?
m
0
l
May 15, 2012 3:35:13 PM

There are tricks that you can do to lower ping with your computer and your home network. I'm not well versed with them because I don't think it would help me much and I technically don't own the network that I use, but maybe you could look into them.

Every time that the Killer networking adapters are talked about on Tom's, the Tom's moderators bring up stuff about freeware being able to accomplish the same bandwidth and ping improvements as the Killer Ethernet adapters, except that this freeware can do it for free (obviously) and with regular networks and networking adapters. Sorry that I can't be of much more help in this, but maybe you would be interested in looking into it and checking if it helps.
m
0
l
May 15, 2012 3:36:43 PM

juggalofreak911 said:
one of my monitors died so im down to 2 is sli overkill for single or dual monitors?


SLI 670s/680s could be overkill for two 1080p monitors, but I don't think that anything significantly below them (such as two 470s or two 480s) is overkill, especially if you were having problems with three 1080p monitors. However, I'm pretty sure that gaming is best done with an odd number of monitors, not an even number, because the bezel between two monitors could get in the way when you don't have a central monitor to focus on.
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 12:37:52 PM

well one of my gpu's is a palit non reference card and fans went out on the cooler I have a danger den 470 full coverage block but it will not fit it and the universal block i have is cracked and leaking so now im down to one working card. are any of the 5xx series cards affordable upgrade? im really wanting sli as i am in love with so much fsaa
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 2:58:36 PM

I'd wait for mid-range Kepler cards if possible, but GTX 560 TIs are decent. How much are you looking to spend?
m
0
l
May 21, 2012 3:34:08 PM

Sorry to be redundant, but definitely get sli gtx 670's best performance to price period. i'm also currently running gtx 560 2gbs sli and everything runs like a dream
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 22, 2012 4:51:30 AM

blazorthon said:
Nothing below the Kepler and GCN cards scales as well as Radeon 6930s, 6950s, and 6970s for multi-GPU configurations in most games. VLIW4 GPUs scale better than Fermi, VLIW5, and all others before them.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-3-way...

Quote:
AMD’s Radeon HD 6950 is anything but low-end, and yet its second card provides a huge 92% lead over a single board.


Quote:
CrossFire came out with a huge overall scaling lead over SLI, and removing the one title that didn’t reflect that average would have made the lead even bigger. Superior scaling allowed two mid-priced Radeon HD 6950s to approximate the performance of two higher-cost GeForce GTX 570s, while three HD 6950s took the performance win over three GTX 570s.


If you don't trust Tom's, then whom do you trust?


Problem is you cant form your own opinion having owned many of the cards mentioned i can go by my personal experience.Problem is nothing is set in stone as far as pc configs what might run great for one could run like garbage for someone else.I have owned several crossfire rigs and sli and without a doubt for me anyways sli wins hands down and for the most part there launch drivers seem to work well with sli unlick ati you have to wait several months just to get crossfire to work at all.Like i said many people i know on hardforums sent there dual 7950/70's back after a month of crap driver support.I would bet if you took a poll on people who have owned both sides as far as dual card gpu's go most would take sli any day of the week.I would have more respect for you if you didnt say they were even even if you said crossfire was better for you.they obviously are not even one has to be better then the other.sorry i dont believe the 6950 corssfire beats 2 gtx 570's atleast at 1900x1200 and under maybe in multiple monitor setups or 2500x1600 since the 6950 has more vram.Problem is you failed to mention that ram is the reason the 6950 scales better at higher res then a gtx 570.1.25 GB VS 2 GB i would expect as much.give the gtx 570 2 gb of ram and see what happens.they do have a 2.5 gb gtx 570 evga card maybe we can find comparisons.
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 5:13:52 AM

Anonymous said:
Problem is you cant form your own opinion having owned many of the cards mentioned i can go by my personal experience.Problem is nothing is set in stone as far as pc configs what might run great for one could run like garbage for someone else.I have owned several crossfire rigs and sli and without a doubt for me anyways sli wins hands down and for the most part there launch drivers seem to work well with sli unlick ati you have to wait several months just to get crossfire to work at all.Like i said many people i know on hardforums sent there dual 7950/70's back after a month of crap driver support.I would bet if you took a poll on people who have owned both sides as far as dual card gpu's go most would take sli any day of the week.I would have more respect for you if you didnt say they were even even if you said crossfire was better for you.they obviously are not even one has to be better then the other.sorry i dont believe the 6950 corssfire beats 2 gtx 570's atleast at 1900x1200 and under maybe in multiple monitor setups or 2500x1600 since the 6950 has more vram.Problem is you failed to mention that ram is the reason the 6950 scales better at higher res then a gtx 570.1.25 GB VS 2 GB i would expect as much.give the gtx 570 2 gb of ram and see what happens.they do have a 2.5 gb gtx 570 evga card maybe we can find comparisons.


Actually, the 6950s have better multi GPU scaling than the 570s because of their GPU's superiority, not their greater VRAM capacity and this can be proven by comparing 6950 CF to GTX 560 TI SLI just as well as by comparing GTX 570 2.5GB SLI to Radeon 6950 2GB CF. VRAM capacity bottlenecks aren't like VRAM bandwidth or GPU performance bottle-necks in that a VRAM capacity bottle-neck drops performance like a rock of a cliff instead of gradually dropping. Furthermore, the 6950s have no driver problems right now whatsoever, so complaining about their drivers is just complaining about the past. The same is true for even the Radeon 7000 cards and the older generations as well. Like I said before, AMD has improved the driver situation. The 7970/7950 was capable of CF from day one, people just didn't know how to do it properly because it needed a little more work (I'm not condoning that, but these people were all either over-reacting on just plain wrong). Furthermore, Nvidia is actually the one who is having driver problems right now. Your past experience was with past cards and has little relevance to the newer cards as to expecting how they will work.

If you want to get into an argument about GPU performance scaling with me, you're not going to win. This is one of my fortes in technological knowledge and in fact, I've recently started doing work in this field. I recently discovered a new way to improve performance scaling and hope to patent it soon :) 
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 22, 2012 5:28:05 AM

Do me a favor instead of trying to show your techinical superiority over me show me numbers and benchmarks where they compare the 6950 crossfire and the gtx 570 sli and im talking 1080p.from all the benches ive seen the 570 sli beats it
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 6:23:06 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/5048?cPage=3&all=Fa...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4254/triplegpu-performanc...

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/grap...

I could look for more, but this is enough. These show the Cayman based graphics cards consistently beating the GF114 and GF110 in performance scaling. I have yet to see any reviews that tell me otherwise. This makes four reviews pro Cayman CF scaling, and so far zero reviews against CF scaling for the Cayman cards. Yes, 570 SLI wins in somegames, but overall, it and 6950 CF are on par and 6970 CF fights it out with 580 SLI. Cayman is excellent at scaling and was a true victory for AMD.

EDIT: Also, I apologize if I seemed condescending in my other post, but I do not like it when my technical knowledge is said to be false when I can easily prove it to be true, especially for technological fields that I'm now working in.
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 22, 2012 7:27:53 AM

Ill look through your last 2 links tommorow but im not sure what your looking at the gtx 570 is a clear winner on the first benches you posted looks like it wins 90% of the time you better recheck that lol.Maybe your talking just scaling?Im talking performance overall not scaling.
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 7:49:08 AM

Anonymous said:
Ill look through your last 2 links tommorow but im not sure what your looking at the gtx 570 is a clear winner on the first benches you posted looks like it wins 90% of the time you better recheck that lol.Maybe your talking just scaling?Im talking performance overall not scaling.


Actually, it only substantially won 10 out of 23 times in that review. In another 12 of those 23 benchmarks, the 6950 CF and 570 SLI were indistinguishably close and several of the 570's wins are hardly notable. The 6950 CF won far less often, only one substantial victory, but it didn't need to win, it just needed to match or come close to matching and that it did. Most of the 570's wins were when the frame rates were significantly over 60FPS, meaning they were not perceptible on a 60Hz display. When the quality was all high enough to justify the cards and keep frame rates within reasonable limits, the 6950s were almost always right next to the 570s, sometimes winning by a few percent and sometimes losing by a few percent. The whole point of this was that Cayman Crossfire scales better than Fermi SLI. The 6950s are effectively on-par with the 570s, even if imperceptibly slower (hence effectively on-par with).
m
0
l
Anonymous
May 22, 2012 7:55:29 AM

Ok ill agree with you on that
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
May 22, 2012 9:38:46 AM

Anonymous said:
Problem is you cant form your own opinion having owned many of the cards mentioned i can go by my personal experience.Problem is nothing is set in stone as far as pc configs what might run great for one could run like garbage for someone else.I have owned several crossfire rigs and sli and without a doubt for me anyways sli wins hands down and for the most part there launch drivers seem to work well with sli unlick ati you have to wait several months just to get crossfire to work at all.Like i said many people i know on hardforums sent there dual 7950/70's back after a month of crap driver support.I would bet if you took a poll on people who have owned both sides as far as dual card gpu's go most would take sli any day of the week.I would have more respect for you if you didnt say they were even even if you said crossfire was better for you.they obviously are not even one has to be better then the other.sorry i dont believe the 6950 corssfire beats 2 gtx 570's atleast at 1900x1200 and under maybe in multiple monitor setups or 2500x1600 since the 6950 has more vram.Problem is you failed to mention that ram is the reason the 6950 scales better at higher res then a gtx 570.1.25 GB VS 2 GB i would expect as much.give the gtx 570 2 gb of ram and see what happens.they do have a 2.5 gb gtx 570 evga card maybe we can find comparisons.

+1. My experience with crap AMD video drivers created an Nvidia fanboy here.

Also, look at most 5760x1080 reviews that are out there or 2560x1600 reviews out there and you'll find the Nvidia cards with less VRAM always outperform the competing AMD cards at the higher resolutions. The VRAM argument is always more theoretical than anything. I'm sure the demand for VRAM is going to increase when we move to 4K monitors and above, but somehow, the current expense and AMD implementation of additional VRAM doesn't seem to be worth it.
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 2:07:01 PM

ubercake said:
+1. My experience with crap AMD video drivers created an Nvidia fanboy here.

Also, look at most 5760x1080 reviews that are out there or 2560x1600 reviews out there and you'll find the Nvidia cards with less VRAM always outperform the competing AMD cards at the higher resolutions. The VRAM argument is always more theoretical than anything. I'm sure the demand for VRAM is going to increase when we move to 4K monitors and above, but somehow, the current expense and AMD implementation of additional VRAM doesn't seem to be worth it.


Actually, Hard OCP did a review at 1920x1200 and several games needed the AA turned down to FXAA because unlike the three 7970s, the three 680s's ran out of VRAM. Beyond that, at these high resolutions, you see the 7970s win most of the time in every review that I've seen and I've seen several. At 2560x1600, the GTX 670 and the Radeon 7970 are on-par and the GTX 680 is just slightly above them and at higher resolutions, the 7970 wins far more often. As resolution increases, Nvidia cards slow down relative to the AMD cards. Nvidia only truly beats the 7970 even with the 670 at 1080p and other such low resolutions where they have the advantage. Crank up that pixel count and AMD shows their strength.

The high VRAM count's on AMD's cards is more for ridiculously high end systems and for future-proofing. All it would take is a game that needs about 50% to 60% more VRAM at 2560x1600 than the current most memory intensive games and Nvidia's 2GB cards would fail at 2560x1600. Of course, they could then do 1080p with some SSAA to make up for that a little, but it would be a loss nonetheless. Since we have several situations where the 7970's and 7950's VRAM capacity are shown to be important right now, it does not bode well for Nvidia's future-proofing on their 2GB 670s and 680s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nvidia has just as many driver problems as AMD. For example, right now, Nvidia is having a severe problem with stuttering on their cards. A lot of people seem to have a problem with V-Sync on these cards and Nvidia has officially recognized the problem and tells us that they are working on it. Need I also quote Nvidia's driver that killed graphics cards that it was installed on and the fact that AMD never did such a thing? Nvidia has problems, just not always the same problems. Just because your personal experience seems to have been unlucky with AMD/Ati and lucky with Nvidia does not mean that this is what it is like for most people. I will say that Ati/AMD did have poorer drivers in the past, but not anymore. They both have their problems.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
May 22, 2012 2:55:18 PM

blazorthon said:
Actually, Hard OCP did a review at 1920x1200 and several games needed the AA turned down to FXAA because unlike the three 7970s, the three 680s's ran out of VRAM. Beyond that, at these high resolutions, you see the 7970s win most of the time in every review that I've seen and I've seen several. At 2560x1600, the GTX 670 and the Radeon 7970 are on-par and the GTX 680 is just slightly above them and at higher resolutions, the 7970 wins far more often. As resolution increases, Nvidia cards slow down relative to the AMD cards. Nvidia only truly beats the 7970 even with the 670 at 1080p and other such low resolutions where they have the advantage. Crank up that pixel count and AMD shows their strength.

The high VRAM count's on AMD's cards is more for ridiculously high end systems and for future-proofing. All it would take is a game that needs about 50% to 60% more VRAM at 2560x1600 than the current most memory intensive games and Nvidia's 2GB cards would fail at 2560x1600. Of course, they could then do 1080p with some SSAA to make up for that a little, but it would be a loss nonetheless. Since we have several situations where the 7970's and 7950's VRAM capacity are shown to be important right now, it does not bode well for Nvidia's future-proofing on their 2GB 670s and 680s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nvidia has just as many driver problems as AMD. For example, right now, Nvidia is having a severe problem with stuttering on their cards. A lot of people seem to have a problem with V-Sync on these cards and Nvidia has officially recognized the problem and tells us that they are working on it. Need I also quote Nvidia's driver that killed graphics cards that it was installed on and the fact that AMD never did such a thing? Nvidia has problems, just not always the same problems. Just because your personal experience seems to have been unlucky with AMD/Ati and lucky with Nvidia does not mean that this is what it is like for most people. I will say that Ati/AMD did have poorer drivers in the past, but not anymore. They both have their problems.

Guess I should have specified I'm coming from an SLI v Crossfire perspective as well:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx680/1...
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1904/4/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680...

Not really seeing an advantage of an extra GB of VRAM. Even with a single card configuration at higher resolutions 2560x1600. I'm not finding consensus with the HardOCP information you cite either.

I'm sure the day will come when this becomes necessary, but today and for the next few years, the software is not pushing for increased VRAM so why commit the production cost to it and then pass that on to the customer? I could see a 7970 at $350 to $400 with 2GB of RAM making more sense.

I can also attest to the fact - and not just through testimony of others, but from my own personal experience - from a multi-card experience, AMD doesn't care about its crossfire customer whereas I've had no issues with my SLI setups.

I guess under certain conditions, people can experience problems. Both companies might have their problems with drivers, but one has far more and it's not Nvidia.
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 3:52:11 PM

ubercake said:
Guess I should have specified I'm coming from an SLI v Crossfire perspective as well:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx680/1...
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1904/4/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680...

Not really seeing an advantage of an extra GB of VRAM. Even with a single card configuration at higher resolutions 2560x1600. I'm not finding consensus with the HardOCP information you cite either.

I'm sure the day will come when this becomes necessary, but today and for the next few years, the software is not pushing for increased VRAM so why commit the production cost to it and then pass that on to the customer? I could see a 7970 at $350 to $400 with 2GB of RAM making more sense.

I can also attest to the fact - and not just through testimony of others, but from my own personal experience - from a multi-card experience, AMD doesn't care about its crossfire customer whereas I've had no issues with my SLI setups.

I guess under certain conditions, people can experience problems. Both companies might have their problems with drivers, but one has far more and it's not Nvidia.


Like I just said, as of the most memory intensive games, it take at least 6MP for 2GB to become a bottle-neck. Now, let's analyze the benchmarks. First, the outdated Tom's benchmarks.

Totaling the 2560x1600 FPS (both runs for each benchmark) for both cards we get 556.71FPS and 620.42FPS, Crysis 2 and DiRt 3 were not included because Crysis 2 didn't work (I said that both companies have problems, not that AMD has none and besides, that was with old drivers and has been fixed anyway, hence why this review is outdated) and DiRt 3 is already known to specifically favor Nvidia cards every time and by ridiculous amounts. So, the 7970 CF loses at 2560x1600 to the GTX 680, which is in-line with what I have said so far. The 680 is a slightly faster card and this review was done with outdated drivers, so it should have won and I'd be surprised if it hadn't. Then, we move on to the 4760x1080 benchmarks and we get 418.9FPS total and 421.34FPS total (same exclusions as above for the same reasons). What does this tell us? First off, it tells us that also like I said, the 7970 picks up as resolution increases relative to the Nvidia cards and so the 7970s win (or at least tie) the 680s more often than they did at 2560x1600. Then, like I said, the old drivers keep the 7970 down a little. Furthermore, unlike Fermi, Kepler has excellent multi GPU scaling. Regardless of this information, it's an outdated review and doesn't even matter anymore because it uses older drivers for both cards.

Now, we'll move on to the next review in your list, the overclocker's club review. This review is completely useless because it only benchmarked at 1080p, so I won't even bother explaining it away.

Next up is the Legitreviews review. This review didn't even include Crossfire benchmarks and I thought that they were the whole point of what we're arguing about right now. In fact, this review shows the 680 and MSI's factory overclocked 7970 as on-par with the 680 and winning several times at 5760x1080 and even at 2560x1600. In fact, this review showed the 7970 OC as either on-par with or beating the 680 in pretty much every situation! Like the above review, this one is not at all relevant to our current argument about CF versus SLI and it's also not relevant because it does not use a 7970 at reference clock frequencies.

Last is the outdated Techpowerup review. Not only is this one outdated, but like the others (excluding Tom's), it doesn't even include 7970 CF, so it's completely useless for your argument. Yet again, it shows the single 7970 and the 680 to be more or less on-par with the 680 winning slightly. So, every one of your benchmarks helps to prove me correct in at least one thing that I've said.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
May 22, 2012 4:35:04 PM

blazorthon said:
Like I just said, as of the most memory intensive games, it take at least 6MP for 2GB to become a bottle-neck. Now, let's analyze the benchmarks. First, the outdated Tom's benchmarks.

Totaling the 2560x1600 FPS (both runs for each benchmark) for both cards we get 556.71FPS and 620.42FPS, Crysis 2 and DiRt 3 were not included because Crysis 2 didn't work (I said that both companies have problems, not that AMD has none and besides, that was with old drivers and has been fixed anyway, hence why this review is outdated) and DiRt 3 is already known to specifically favor Nvidia cards every time and by ridiculous amounts. So, the 7970 CF loses at 2560x1600 to the GTX 680, which is in-line with what I have said so far. The 680 is a slightly faster card and this review was done with outdated drivers, so it should have won and I'd be surprised if it hadn't. Then, we move on to the 4760x1080 benchmarks and we get 418.9FPS total and 421.34FPS total (same exclusions as above for the same reasons). What does this tell us? First off, it tells us that also like I said, the 7970 picks up as resolution increases relative to the Nvidia cards and so the 7970s win (or at least tie) the 680s more often than they did at 2560x1600. Then, like I said, the old drivers keep the 7970 down a little. Furthermore, unlike Fermi, Kepler has excellent multi GPU scaling. Regardless of this information, it's an outdated review and doesn't even matter anymore because it uses older drivers for both cards.

Now, we'll move on to the next review in your list, the overclocker's club review. This review is completely useless because it only benchmarked at 1080p, so I won't even bother explaining it away.

Next up is the Legitreviews review. This review didn't even include Crossfire benchmarks and I thought that they were the whole point of what we're arguing about right now. In fact, this review shows the 680 and MSI's factory overclocked 7970 as on-par with the 680 and winning several times at 5760x1080 and even at 2560x1600. In fact, this review showed the 7970 OC as either on-par with or beating the 680 in pretty much every situation! Like the above review, this one is not at all relevant to our current argument about CF versus SLI.

Last is the outdated Techpowerup review. Not only is this one outdated, but like the others (excluding Tom's), it doesn't even include 7970 CF, so it's completely useless for your argument. Yet again, it shows the single 7970 and the 680 to be more or less on-par with the 680 winning slightly. So, every one of your benchmarks helps to prove me correct in at least one thing that I've said. If you have any relevant benchmarks, then by all means, bring them forward. I swear that I don't mean to be rude, but every point that everyone has tried to make against me so far has been wrong for one or more reasons. If you want to prove me wrong about something, you'll have to actually do some serious research into it and even then, I would have to be wrong to be proved wrong anyway. Surely you can realize how annoying it is for people to constantly tell me I'm wrong or flat-out ignore my advice despite me knowing for a fact that I am not wrong and it's even worse when someone tries to use benchmarks that don't even apply for one or more reasons anymore, yet still prove me right even if it's not in the same argument.

I guess you overlooked the "Even with a single card configuration at higher resolutions 2560x1600" part of my post and focused only on whatever necessary to prove some point? I'm still trying to figure out what point you're trying to make.

Also, I'm trying to figure out how you draw your conclusions. It most cases the 7970 would have to scale beyond 100% additional performance to beat a 680 SLI setup in almost every case where they don't show a direct crossfire comparison.

Theoretically, 3GB provide more potential than two. Is that what you're getting at? I think we can agree on that point.

Or is there a practical application somewhere?

No one is trying to prove you wrong, we're just listing information from the review sites. Most of the review sites seems to show data contrary to your correct beliefs. If they aren't in line with your line of thinking, show some supporting sources (more than 1?).
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 6:24:39 PM

ubercake said:
I guess you overlooked the "Even with a single card configuration at higher resolutions 2560x1600" part of my post and focused only on whatever necessary to prove some point? I'm still trying to figure out what point you're trying to make.

Also, I'm trying to figure out how you draw your conclusions. It most cases the 7970 would have to scale beyond 100% additional performance to beat a 680 SLI setup in almost every case where they don't show a direct crossfire comparison.

Theoretically, 3GB provide more potential than two. Is that what you're getting at? I think we can agree on that point.

Or is there a practical application somewhere?

No one is trying to prove you wrong, we're just listing information from the review sites. Most of the review sites seems to show data contrary to your correct beliefs. If they aren't in line with your line of thinking, show some supporting sources (more than 1?).


My bad, I thought that we were still on CF versus SLI. Alright then, single card comparisons at 2560x1600 in those benchmarks.

The outdated Tom's benchmark,again with DiRt 3 excluded (if Tom's didn't have such a small selection of games when they test, then outliers such as DiRt 3 would not need to be excluded to get accurate results. Anand is a better site for this because they include a lot more games than Tom's does, so you get a more whole picture of how well the cards stack up against each other)
7970 = 424.64
680 = 437.85

So, even with the old drivers, the 7970 is practically on-par with the 680, but just slightly behind it. Anand shows us that the two are actually slightly farther apart than this at 2560x1600, but this should be accurate enough to say that the 680 is not substantially ahead of the 7970. In fact, the difference is well under 10% (even with DiRt 3 included, it's under 10%). Bring it up to 5760x1080 and this changes dramatically.

7970 = 199.23
680 = 203.19

So, what happened here? I'll tell you. I did not exclude any game except Crysis 2 this time. Previously DiRt 3 and WoW were excluded because they are outlier games and Tom's doesn't have a large enough game selection to even out the outlier games' impact on the totals. Tom's has a small selection of games and several of them strongly favor Nvidia cards and that's been known for a while now (it's not really Tom's being biased as much as Tom's only benchmarking a few of the most popular games because they are often too time-constrained to get higher amounts of games and configurations tested like Anand does).

So, Nvidia only won here because of the old drivers and because of Tom's poor game selection. If they use so many Nvidia favoring games, why do they only use one game that likes AMD (in fact, there are no AMD favoring games, AMD's 7900 cards only do well in some games compared to the Kepler cards because of their huge VRAM bandwidth and this is obvious because Nvidia's Fermi cards, cards that have great VRAM bandwidth for their performance, do much better compared to AMD than the VRAM bandwidth bottle-necked Kepler cards do and the advantage is only seen in VRAM bandwidth heavy games)? Regardless, it's time to move on to the next review, now that this one has been thoroughly analyzed and explained away. It's hardly relevant at all due to the poor game selection and the outdated drivers and even then, it still shows the 7970 and the 680 as fairly on-par at 2560x1600 (even including Crysis 2 shows this, but it was buggy so I didn't include it) with the 680 having a small lead.

The Overclocker's Club review is still completely irrelevant because it's 1080p only.

The Lgeitreviews review is completely irrelevant because it uses a factory overclocked 7970 instead of a reference clocked 7970. Regardless of that, the 7970 is shown to be the clearly superior card in this review, most likely due to it's factory overclock.

Finally, we have the Techpowerup review to look into. I did not exclude anything from it.
7970 = 857.6FPS
680 = 906.9FPS
Older drivers didn't stop the 7970 from only being marginally slower than the 680 yet again. This and the Tom's review are the only two with any relevance at all here, although they still use older drivers and Tom's has a Nvidia favoring game selection. Despite that, we can clearly see that the 7970 is not only right behind the 680, but less than 10% behind the 680. In fact, this Techpowerup review shows it as ~5.5% behind the 680. This review is actually, despite it being outdated, very accurate on the difference between the two cards. This puts it almost exactly on-par with the 670 at 2560x1600 because that is also about how much slower the 670 is than the 680.

Keep in mind that all of this was done with outdated drivers and AMD's performance and CF scaling improve with the newer drivers.
m
0
l
!