rex4235

Honorable
Jun 9, 2012
874
0
11,060
I apologize if this is not in the correct sub forum, but my question spans a few of them.

My current setup is as follows...

AMD ASUS MB with 2 PCI-E slots
1 Nvidia 570

My current setup has dual monitors. Both attached to the 570. I do not use is for dual gaming (the second is just an auxiliary for desktop applications)

Now, my MB has 2 PCI-E slots and with my current configuration, I have to use a dummy card in the top slot inorder to direct full, 16x to the 570.

Here's my question... I have an old 8600 in the closet and was thinking about throwing it in to support the second monitor.
What (if any) would be the potential pros/ cons in doing this?

My logic, and correct me if Im wrong, would be adding a 2nd card to take all the stress of 2 monitors off my primary 570.
My concern is, that if I put in another GPU, my 570 will now be running @ 8x versus 16x

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance
 
Solution
I think that depends on your motherboard, so I can't really say. What I CAN say, is that you won't see any difference in performance between 16x and 8x with a GTX 570 if it's at least PCI-E 2.0 . Or, if you see a decrease in framerates, it's most likely because you're way over 60 anyways. The way it works is that it takes more bandwidth to send more FPS to the screen, and less bandwidth to send less FPS to the screen.

So if you're running a game at 60 FPS, you'll be fine. If you run it at 150 FPS though, you might see that number going down a bit. The benchmarks are clear : when you compare PCI-E 1.0 with PCI-E 3.0, you see a much bigger performance decrease at the lowest resolutions than at 1080p, since at lower resolutions your card...

firedice

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2012
140
0
18,690
I think that depends on your motherboard, so I can't really say. What I CAN say, is that you won't see any difference in performance between 16x and 8x with a GTX 570 if it's at least PCI-E 2.0 . Or, if you see a decrease in framerates, it's most likely because you're way over 60 anyways. The way it works is that it takes more bandwidth to send more FPS to the screen, and less bandwidth to send less FPS to the screen.

So if you're running a game at 60 FPS, you'll be fine. If you run it at 150 FPS though, you might see that number going down a bit. The benchmarks are clear : when you compare PCI-E 1.0 with PCI-E 3.0, you see a much bigger performance decrease at the lowest resolutions than at 1080p, since at lower resolutions your card produces more FPS. Even a PCI-E 1.0 slot at 16x can handle a GTX 680 without any noticeable difference at 1080p.
 
Solution

mightymaxio

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2009
1,193
0
19,360
Yes it would work like that the 8600 will take the stress off the 570 as long as your not playing games on those monitors. Don't worry about the GPU running at lower speeds since a single 570 will not utilize the full x16 lane speed. Not even the 590 does.
 

rex4235

Honorable
Jun 9, 2012
874
0
11,060
Thanks for the help. Ill toss it in and see what I get. Whats the worst that could happen?

While Im thinking about it, is there a preferred slot (top/ bottom) that your performance card should go in? (Like RAM slots)
 

rex4235

Honorable
Jun 9, 2012
874
0
11,060
Thats what my original plan for the 8600 was (back when I had a 470) But I was told that the benefit of a deticated 8600 for PhysX wasnt worth it, that the 470 (now I have a 570) had more than enough power to handle its own PhysX