Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

2GB x 2 560 SLI vs 670??? Help please!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 9, 2012 1:42:28 PM

Hey Guys

Currently using one 27inch monitor (1920x1080)
2gb Palit gtx560 SLI.

Running SLI on a ph867-m Mobo (when i first got the setup this board was recommended, for whatever reason, i dont know why) which runs pci3 slots. 16x4

To best of my knowledge, in sli in these slots, they would run 4x4 right?
Which would mean my cards are seriously under performing?

Also looking to get a mobo which will run 16x16 or 8x8.

Would i be better of sticking with these cards, or going sli 670's or just use one 670? (2gb)

With my Nvidia Settings - i currently have Multi Display/Mixed GPU - acceleration set = to Multiple display performance mode. Should i be changing that to single performance mode??

Regards.

More about : 2gb 560 sli 670

a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 9, 2012 1:58:17 PM

basickefatude said:
Hey Guys

Currently using one 27inch monitor (1920x1080)
2gb Palit gtx560 SLI.

Running SLI on a ph867-m Mobo (when i first got the setup this board was recommended, for whatever reason, i dont know why) which runs pci3 slots. 16x4

To best of my knowledge, in sli in these slots, they would run 4x4 right?
Which would mean my cards are seriously under performing?

Also looking to get a mobo which will run 16x16 or 8x8.

Would i be better of sticking with these cards, or going sli 670's or just use one 670? (2gb)

With my Nvidia Settings - i currently have Multi Display/Mixed GPU - acceleration set = to Multiple display performance mode. Should i be changing that to single performance mode??

Regards.


On Core i-series of CPUs, the PCI-E controller is built directly on the CPU, not the chipset on the motherboard anymore. So the total number of lanes is limited by the CPU, not the motherboard. NO motherboard running a LGA1155 CPU can offer you TWO 16x lanes. Depending on the board, the best you can do is 8x and 8x. In this configuration, you get the best SLI performance.

EDIT: On the Ivy Bridge CPUs, the PCI-E revision is 3.0, the bandwidth per lane has been increased, by quite a lot. So the best SLI performance is achieved with an Ivy Bridge processor and a PCI-E Gen3 compatible motherboard. Although the absolute difference is small, especially with non-top-of-the-range cards.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2012 2:07:25 PM

Hi, your board the Asus PH867 does not support SLI. It only supports Crossfire and at 16x4 it would not support Crossfire optimally. You would be better served getting a GTX 670 2gb rather than buying a new motherboard to SLI the GTX560 unless you go into it with the intentions eventually SLI'ing in the future.
And if you are only using one monitor there is really no need to have mulit-monitor display mode enabled.
Score
0
Related resources
August 9, 2012 2:09:17 PM

atm just running i7-2600 (non K) version with that mobo?

Was thinking of getting a z77 mobo, however i know with a PLX PEX chip on Asrock extremem 9 Z77 and Sniper g3 gb boards, it can be expanded to x16x16, but they are like, $350.00 upwards and have quad sli (will run dual sli MAX)

What about my settings? are they ok?

Currently running a PSU at 850w aswell. I believe its a Corsair TX850w PSU - so if i upgrade to 2 OC 670 SLI then, will that be an issue?

Would it be making a difference?
Score
0
August 9, 2012 2:32:59 PM

so who recommended you that MB?
Score
0
August 9, 2012 2:37:38 PM

sorry i didnt meant to send the last one just yet. I also recommend just one 670 for now, eventually upgrading ur MB and then maybe adding another 670. ur psu should handle that just fine. I doubt ull need it though the 670's are like,really fast
Score
0
August 9, 2012 2:38:46 PM

MLN, some comp store, they said would work fine (hoping it does with the above info provided from maxx P)

i cant even find a review on it? So im assuming its the epitomy of shite?
Score
0
August 9, 2012 2:54:01 PM

actually pretty adamant on the sli ichill setup i reckon. Best bang for buck and out performs the 680.
Score
0
August 9, 2012 3:26:09 PM

but it also rakes in shitloads of power and makes air cooling a nightmare
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2012 3:56:12 PM

funny thing is that I went ahead and listed my N560GTX-Ti HAWKS (SLi) on eBay for $190 each and sold one of them already..
that's enough for me (if I don't sell both) to get me another GTX 580 off eBay if I add a few dollars outta pocket.
so I'm looking at EVGA GTX 580 SuperClocked in SLi @ x16/x16 for my triple screen gamer unit (3840 x 1024)
and the single now N560GTX-TI HAWK will be my daily usage unit (1080p)..
Score
0
August 9, 2012 4:16:12 PM

thats mind boggling verb O.o cant u just disable sli during the day?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2012 4:18:36 PM

if I wanted to I guess but since I have 2 x 2500K's I just leave it and jump from unit to unit.. :sol: 
Score
0
a c 225 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 9, 2012 4:29:11 PM

Maxx_Power said:
On Core i-series of CPUs, the PCI-E controller is built directly on the CPU, not the chipset on the motherboard anymore. So the total number of lanes is limited by the CPU, not the motherboard. NO motherboard running a LGA1155 CPU can offer you TWO 16x lanes. Depending on the board, the best you can do is 8x and 8x. In this configuration, you get the best SLI performance..


Not exactly true..... the inclusion of a NF200 chip on the MoBo gives you x16 x16

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-gaming-3-way-sl...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2012 4:32:38 PM

Maxx_Power said:
On Core i-series of CPUs, the PCI-E controller is built directly on the CPU, not the chipset on the motherboard anymore. So the total number of lanes is limited by the CPU, not the motherboard. NO motherboard running a LGA1155 CPU can offer you TWO 16x lanes. Depending on the board, the best you can do is 8x and 8x. In this configuration, you get the best SLI performance.

EDIT: On the Ivy Bridge CPUs, the PCI-E revision is 3.0, the bandwidth per lane has been increased, by quite a lot. So the best SLI performance is achieved with an Ivy Bridge processor and a PCI-E Gen3 compatible motherboard. Although the absolute difference is small, especially with non-top-of-the-range cards.


JackNaylorPE said:
Not exactly true..... the inclusion of a NF200 chip on the MoBo gives you x16 x16

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-gaming-3-way-sl...

and I have such a motherboard.....
even reference it in my signature.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 9, 2012 5:29:03 PM

verbalizer said:
and I have such a motherboard.....
even reference it in my signature.


JackNaylorPE said:
Not exactly true..... the inclusion of a NF200 chip on the MoBo gives you x16 x16

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-gaming-3-way-sl...


The x16, x16 are physical electrical connections via the NF200 chip. The chip doesn't actually gives you x16, x16 bandwidth, it is a bridge, or switch (or hub when it sends identical data). The total bandwidth the NF200 has it its disposal is still the equivalent of x16 lanes PCI-E 2.0.

See this quote:

"The nVidia NF200 is what they call a PCI Express multiplier chip that will basically split PCI Express 2.0 lanes into their 1.0 counterpart. (eg 16x @ 2.0 = 32x @ 1.0) and ironically enough the NF200 has 32x lanes available. Those lanes can then control up to four expansion slots with 8x of bandwidth each. There are several positives to using a NF200 chip in a multi-gpu configuration; the most common is to help divide bandwidth across an odd number of expansion slots, which is what EVGA is doing with the P55 Classified 200."
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2012 5:31:26 PM

Maxx_Power said:
The x16, x16 are physical electrical connections via the NF200 chip. The chip doesn't actually gives you x16, x16 bandwidth, it is a bridge, or switch (or hub when it sends identical data). The total bandwidth the NF200 has it its disposal is still the equivalent of x16 lanes PCI-E 2.0.

See this quote:

"The nVidia NF200 is what they call a PCI Express multiplier chip that will basically split PCI Express 2.0 lanes into their 1.0 counterpart. (eg 16x @ 2.0 = 32x @ 1.0) and ironically enough the NF200 has 32x lanes available. Those lanes can then control up to four expansion slots with 8x of bandwidth each. There are several positives to using a NF200 chip in a multi-gpu configuration; the most common is to help divide bandwidth across an odd number of expansion slots, which is what EVGA is doing with the P55 Classified 200."

and my GPU-Z and CPU-Z report x16/x16.... ;) 

see this quote:
Quote:
There's some really interesting results here and if we begin to dissect it a bit we can understand what's going on a bit better. Sometimes we see the x16 / x16 via the NF200 chip run faster, while other times we see the x8 / x8 setup via the native Intel chip run faster.



There seems to be a constancy, though, when we're under high VGA load. Not hitting a CPU brick wall or anything like that, the x8 / x8 via the native P67 chip is a faster setup. When we see lower resolutions and the CPU play a larger picture, the x16 / x16 via the NF200 is faster.



So what's faster? You know, there's probably not a clear winner when it comes to overall speed. The better question would be; so what's better? Well, the x8 / x8 setup that ASUS choose to implement seems to be. Yes, it's not always faster, but when we're all about the video card power, it is the faster setup. The times we see the NF200 setup come out ahead is when we're looking at benchmarks with really high FPS.



We can see under intensive situations like Aliens vs. Predator and Unigine Heaven, the x8 / x8 via the native P67 chip is the better option. When it all comes down to it, there's little difference between the two setups. The decision for ASUS to go down the x8 / x8 path via the Intel chip instead of the better looking x16 / x16 NF200 path seems to be the right decision.



It's so easy to get caught up in the numbers, but they only paint part of the picture. What I'd like to see ASUS do is highlight the x8 / x8 benefits a bit more, because at the moment there's a lot of confusion about the x8 / x8 dual GPU setup specification. With the NF200 present most people think that it's simply an error on the ASUS website. It's not, though, and is clearly intentional and for good reason.



Some interesting results here today and hopefully we've helped clear some of the confusion up around the x8 / x8 vs x16 / x16 argument on the P67 / Z68 platform.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-gaming-3-way-sl...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 9, 2012 5:33:56 PM

verbalizer said:
and my GPU-Z and CPU-Z report x16/x16.... ;) 


Of course, the same way if you use a 5 port 1 Gigabit Ethernet Switch, and a server is connected to that switch to all other computers on that switch. Each computer is reporting 1 Gigabit of bandwidth, but the total bandwidth to the server is really just 1 Gigabit, not 5x1=5 Gigabits. That's how switches and hubs really work.

EDIT: It should be said that at high resolutions you will start to see the limitations of the NF200 chip, which is what your 2nd quote pointed out. That at high resolutions, the NF200 actually yields lower scores. My guess is that the real bandwidth behind those PCI-E lanes are saturated, and so in this case, the x8/x8 yields higher performance, because the NF200 switch actually introduces latencies. The down ward conversion of PCI-E 2.0 to 1.0 I have no idea how this would affect the bandwidth total. My guess is that there is some form of overhead.

EDIT2: "There seems to be a constancy, though, when we're under high VGA load. Not hitting a CPU brick wall or anything like that, the x8 / x8 via the native P67 chip is a faster setup. When we see lower resolutions and the CPU play a larger picture, the x16 / x16 via the NF200 is faster." - From your quote of TweakTown review.

In case people want to see the review of NF200 x16,x16 vs. P67 x8,x8 from tweaktown, here it is:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4147/nvidia_nf200_x16...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2012 5:38:07 PM

it's about results @ higher resolutions..
bottom line.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 7:36:35 AM

Verbs, thats pretty sick dude!

im only using one screen though and i wanna have my cards for a fair while.
tx 850w corsair will be able to take x2 sli i chill 670's?

Also, they have the best cooling of all the 670's ive seen and its the quitest in many reviews i read. When pushed at its max or beyond, apparrently most gpus burn and a too hot to touch. This was perfectly fine and made f-all noise.

however, the internet sometimes can be fabricated, so who knows!

NOTE** are my current NVIDIA settings fine listed above? or should i be disabling mult screen dual gpu? cause i will always only ever use 1 screen (but wanan run sli)
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2012 10:39:02 AM

on a related note...
I too am having convictions, check it out:

funny thing is that I went ahead and listed my N560GTX-Ti HAWKS on eBay for $190 each and sold one of them already..
that's enough for me (if I don't sell both) to get me another GTX 580 off eBay if I add a few dollars outta pocket.
so I'm looking at EVGA GTX 580 SuperClocked in SLi @ x16/x16 for my triple screen gamer unit (3840 x 1024)
and the single now N560GTX-TI HAWK will be my daily usage unit (1080p)..

now the extra funny thing on top...
I cancelled the sale this morning and keeping the SLi Ti's for a little longer..

I GOT ISSUES.. : :pt1cable: 
Score
0
August 10, 2012 1:52:46 PM

basickefatude said:
Hey Guys

Currently using one 27inch monitor (1920x1080)
2gb Palit gtx560 SLI.

Running SLI on a ph867-m Mobo (when i first got the setup this board was recommended, for whatever reason, i dont know why) which runs pci3 slots. 16x4

To best of my knowledge, in sli in these slots, they would run 4x4 right?
Which would mean my cards are seriously under performing?

Also looking to get a mobo which will run 16x16 or 8x8.

Would i be better of sticking with these cards, or going sli 670's or just use one 670? (2gb)

With my Nvidia Settings - i currently have Multi Display/Mixed GPU - acceleration set = to Multiple display performance mode. Should i be changing that to single performance mode??

Regards.


Go for the 670 i may suggest the gigabyte gtx 670 runs very cool and it ca OC like a beast. i have myself have the 2x 560's they have great fps in all games but they generate a lot of heat and you can OC the gigabyte gtx 670 with over 200 mhz without it going over 70 degrease get the 670.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 2:31:57 PM

im going to go a sli 670 setup eventually regardless and i dont think ill OC, so thats why im going the iChill. Pretty much decided already and have jsut enough power to run em sli, on a high end z77 mobo with a 3770k.

Appreciate everyones assistance.

This can be closed :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2012 4:14:18 PM

basickefatude said:
im going to go a sli 670 setup eventually regardless and i dont think ill OC, so thats why im going the iChill. Pretty much decided already and have jsut enough power to run em sli, on a high end z77 mobo with a 3770k.

Appreciate everyones assistance.

This can be closed :) 

sounds like a plan...
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 10, 2012 4:27:03 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!