• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

6970 or 570

O

Orinis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
156
hi guys im playing on 1600 by 900 i know it isnt that big but i don't really like big monitors so i run a 20"

anyways the games im going to be playing is dead island, bf3 ect. ect.

which do you guys recomend the 6970 or the 570

and which card in specific

i was looking at the directcu from asus for the 6970

and evga classified for 570
 
probably the GTX570, at such a small resolution the HD6970's architecture isn't put to very good use.
 
FWIW I have never heard anyone that has ever owned a 27-30" monitor say that they wish they still had their 20".

Both cards are about identical in BC2. Wait until BF3 is released before picking the right card.
 
I use both, happy mediums and all that. I was lucky to get one of the decent 20" monitors that did 1680x1050 before they stopped making them at that res.
 
okay thanks guys and i dont like to have giant screens although its nice i do have a kid and he likes to smack the shit out of my screens
 
BurntToast said:
FWIW I have never heard anyone that has ever owned a 27-30" monitor say that they wish they still had their 20".

Both cards are about identical in BC2. Wait until BF3 is released before picking the right card.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, reaction times can be better with a smaller screen since there is less head/eye movement
 
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=306


i would choose the gtx 570 according to that link.

from that link the biggest difference between the two cards is in BC2 at 2560x1600 resolution with 4xaa and DX11, 570 is about 50% faster than 6970.

lmao at all the people who are saying get the 570 because its better at lower resolutions.

you are more likely to run out of gpu power before running out of vram across 3 monitors, so whats the point of gaming with a single 6970.
 
Last edited:
DualOwn said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=306


i would choose the gtx 570 according to that link.

from that link the biggest difference between the two cards is in BC2 at 2560x1600 resolution with 4xaa and DX11, 570 is about 50% faster than 6970.

lmao at all the people who are saying get the 570 because its better at lower resolutions.

you are more likely to run out of gpu power before running out of vram across 3 monitors, so whats the point of gaming with a single 6970.
Click to expand...

By 50% you mean 6.2% right ...? Math Fail for sure :p
 
SaViOr- said:
By 50% you mean 6.2% right ...? Math Fail for sure :p
Click to expand...

you are looking at the wrong chart bonzo.

english fail for sure:rolleyes:

going with accuracy since you tried to make it a big deal but failed like a duck trying to fly with a 100lb sandbag attached to it, it sure looks to be 40-45% faster.
 
Last edited:
as usual nobody has bothered to ask what the rest of his specs are. OP please list ALL your specs when asking about upgrades if you are not going to use a sig.
 
first of all, he doesnt need a 570 nor 6970 to begin with, lol.

get your self a reg 560 and oc it to 1000mhz, plenty of them hit that high. At that resolution, games thrive with higher core clock.
 
Last edited:
DualOwn said:
first of all, he doesnt need a 570 nor 6970 to begin with, lol
Click to expand...
if the rest of his system is very good then there is nothing wrong with a card like that at just 1600x900. even at that res he cannot max every setting in a game like Metro 2033. a gtx570 would also be a good card to max BF 3 with at that res since the retail game will likely be more demanding since all graphics options are not fully implemented in beta.
 
cannondale06 said:
if the rest of his system is very good then there is nothing wrong with a card like that at just 1600x900. even at that res he cannot max every setting in a game like Metro 2033. a gtx570 would also be a good card to max BF 3 with at that res since the retail game will likely be more demanding since all graphics options are not fully implemented in beta.
Click to expand...

Why would you buy a $300+ graphics card to game at such a low resolution? You can get a 1920x1080 display for $100 these days.
 
cannondale06 said:
if the rest of his system is very good then there is nothing wrong with a card like that at just 1600x900. even at that res he cannot max every setting in a game like Metro 2033. a gtx570 would also be a good card to max BF 3 with at that res since the retail game will likely be more demanding since all graphics options are not fully implemented in beta.
Click to expand...

Can't max out settings with a 6970 or 570 at 1600x900? Maybe I'm off, but I'm pretty sure a top end single card solution would handle that res with ease. As to bf3, I think that's just a wait and see - both driver support and game optimization seems off the mark at the moment.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Why would you buy a $300+ graphics card to game at such a low resolution? You can get a 1920x1080 display for $100 these days.
Click to expand...
I agree he should get a larger monitor but if he wants to stay with what he has then that is his choice. i was just saying a gtx570 is not wasted in some games at that res if the rest of the system is not a bottleneck.
 
DualOwn said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=306


i would choose the gtx 570 according to that link.

from that link the biggest difference between the two cards is in BC2 at 2560x1600 resolution with 4xaa and DX11, 570 is about 50% faster than 6970.

lmao at all the people who are saying get the 570 because its better at lower resolutions.

you are more likely to run out of gpu power before running out of vram across 3 monitors, so whats the point of gaming with a single 6970.
Click to expand...

SaViOr- said:
By 50% you mean 6.2% right ...? Math Fail for sure :p
Click to expand...

hes talking about the waterfall bench, which is useless since nieither card is producing playable frame rates, funny thing is @ 2560x1600 in the other bench, the 6970 wins :p
 
Tiporaro said:
Can't max out settings with a 6970 or 570 at 1600x900? Maybe I'm off, but I'm pretty sure a top end single card solution would handle that res with ease. As to bf3, I think that's just a wait and see - both driver support and game optimization seems off the mark at the moment.
Click to expand...
a 570 is not the top end card. if you crank all settings in some demanding games at 1920x1080 you can slow it way down. I have a gtx570 so I know. even right now, on max available settings the gtx570 struggles a little bit in BF3 on Caspian. and again not all graphics can actually be maxed in beta.
 
cannondale06 said:
a 570 is not the top end card. if you crank all settings in some demanding games at 1920x1080 you can slow it way down. I have a gtx570 so I know. even right now, on max available settings the gtx570 struggles a little bit in BF3 on Caspian. and again not all graphics can actually be maxed in beta.
Click to expand...

The thing to remember is that the demand 1600x900 puts up is actually (just) under 70% of 1080p pixel-wise alone, which translates to quite a drop down in requirements. And once again, using bf3 beta as a measure of, well, anything at the moment, seems to be misguided at best.
 
Tiporaro said:
The thing to remember is that the demand 1600x900 puts up is actually (just) under 70% of 1080p pixel-wise alone, which translates to quite a drop down in requirements. And once again, using bf3 beta as a measure of, well, anything at the moment, seems to be misguided at best.
Click to expand...

Dude the game is a month away. The retail version isn't going to change drastically in such a short time.
 
Tiporaro said:
The thing to remember is that the demand 1600x900 puts up is actually (just) under 70% of 1080p pixel-wise alone, which translates to quite a drop down in requirements. And once again, using bf3 beta as a measure of, well, anything at the moment, seems to be misguided at best.
Click to expand...
some people want to crank all settings and use as much AA as possible. some people want to stay above 60 fps as much as possible. if the OP wants to do both and has a very good system then nothing is wrong with getting a gtx570 for 1600x900. I can make my gtx570 struggle even at just 1280x960 in Metro 2033 with all settings cranked.

in general though a gtx560 ti is a very good match for 1600x900 buts its the OP that needs to make that decision. he still has not even listed the specs of his pc.

and AGAIN, BF 3 retail version will be likely be MORE demanding because not all graphical features are being applied.
 
well shit guys thanks for your help and no i actually really like my monitor and dont think i should get a bigger one i cant see the difference between 900 to 1080 which im sure is huge but i can tell the difference in fps. im running a 460 in beta atm and it is overclocked but it still lags in bf3 which is why im upgrading. anywho my system specs arnt to bad

phenom II x4 3.8ghz
gigabyte ud3 board 990fx
12gb ripjaw 1600 9-9-9-24 and it was free which is why i have 12 lol
460 700mb veersion im sure at my resolution 700 does not make a difference
hx1050w corsair psu - this was free as well brand new so lol.

i was just asking which is the better card for bf3 everything maxed out -heat-performance-power-consumption

i know there is a ton of benchmarks out there but just wanted some personal opinions
 
I do not like the 20 inch 16:9 monitors because they are so tiny. and you have to them right in front of your face almost.

here is a 22 inch (21.5 inch viewable) 16:9 monitor beside a 17inch (16 inch viewable) crt. you can see even the 22 inch is pretty small because that crt is already really quite small too. I cant even imagine gaming on just a 20 inch 16:9 monitor.


hosting images





anyway yes the gtx570 would probably be your best bet coming from a gtx460. it will certainly allow you to crank more settings. also even at 1600x900, your 768mb of vram is probably a limitation for BF3. I know that game eats all of my 1.25 gb of vram at 1920 and still can use more.


EDIT: and I just checked my vram usage and it went to 1147 mb on max setting at JUST 1280x960. :eek:
 
Last edited:
well to be honest i compare my buddies 23 inch to my 20 inch and its not to much of a difference just trying to save my money up for a 3d monitor in the future
 
Orinis said:
well shit guys thanks for your help and no i actually really like my monitor and dont think i should get a bigger one i cant see the difference between 900 to 1080 which im sure is huge but i can tell the difference in fps. im running a 460 in beta atm and it is overclocked but it still lags in bf3 which is why im upgrading. anywho my system specs arnt to bad

phenom II x4 3.8ghz
gigabyte ud3 board 990fx
12gb ripjaw 1600 9-9-9-24 and it was free which is why i have 12 lol
460 700mb veersion im sure at my resolution 700 does not make a difference
hx1050w corsair psu - this was free as well brand new so lol.

i was just asking which is the better card for bf3 everything maxed out -heat-performance-power-consumption

i know there is a ton of benchmarks out there but just wanted some personal opinions
Click to expand...

with a all amd system i would get the 6970. one set of drivers! It will run that game no problem at that res.
 
HisSvt76 said:
with a all amd system i would get the 6970. one set of drivers! It will run that game no problem at that res.
Click to expand...
lol okay. I guess people are crazy for running Nvidia gpus with an AMD cpu? maybe Sandy Bridge owners should just use the onboard graphics so they will only have 1 brand of drivers...
 
this is why i just use 2 20'' monitors.. i like being able to buy a video card and be able to use it for several years.. just upgraded from a 4850 which was playing deus ex on med-high.. 6950 should be all i need for another 3 years.. I have tried playing on 24'' + displays before and the distance i usually sit from my monitor a 20'' is really as big as i need to avoid physical movement to see the entire screen... just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top