BF3: GTX 580 SLI or 6970 Tri-Fire

Arkanian

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
1,898
First things first, will a Corsair HX850 PSU be able to power a 6970 Tri-Fire? If it will, would you pick that over a GTX 580 SLI system for BF3? If not would you pick a 6970 SLI over a GTX 580 SLI?

I have heard of AA issues with ATI cards in BF3 that isn't present in the 580 which is why I am considering it. Money isn't a factor, I just want to turn everything up with high FPS.
 
I see a 1080p monitor in your sig so I'd go single 6990 for simplicity sake and call it good; but even that is OverKill
 
6970s for the increased framebuffer and scaling. Don't see why you'd need more than two.

3GB GTX 580s if you can swing them, which would be even better.
 
6970s for the increased framebuffer and scaling. Don't see why you'd need more than two.

3GB GTX 580s if you can swing them, which would be even better.

Completely useless at 1080p. People are recommending cards with so much Vram when it isn't even needed these days.

HD 6990 would be the most simple, 2 HD 6970s would probably be a better choice(3 is overkill and would probably need more power) but I would personally go with 2 1.5gb GTX 580s just because I prefer Nvidia.
 
I'm assuming you want absolute max performance at around a $1000 budget and are considering either or as a setup.

I would easily recommend AMD trifire as it looks like it'll crush 580GTX SLi in BF3. The only scenario I can see making them a close match at 1080p is if you add 4xMSAA (deferred) along with post process AA high at the same time (Not that you need both) and even then I think the tri fire would get the nod.
 
That's a 28" 1080P monitor? Don't the pixels look like eyes looking at you at that dot pitch? Anyway, I agree that Tri-Fire is way overkill - either CrossFire 6970s (or really, even 6950s at that resolution) or SLI 580s. I doubt that 850 is enough for Tri-Fire 6970s.
 
I run about that res. (2) HD 6950s for Ultra Settings is about perfect. There is one map, don't know the name, where the frames slip to under 50 fps. It's not Seine Crossing or whatever it is. That map lags because servers can't handle it. It's one of the open out-door maps... I don't care what the names are. I just play the game ;)
 
I use 2 6850's on ultra with 5 sync on and I get constant 60 fps. It goes to 50 when a tank blows something up near me though.

I'm at 1080p and use the hardocp settings for ultra.

I was considering getting an apple cinema and 6970 x 2. If I was going to upgrade.
 
Completely useless at 1080p. People are recommending cards with so much Vram when it isn't even needed these days.

1.5GB is great for a solo card but 1.5GB is a waste for SLI. With high levels of AA you'd run out of VRAM before you run out of GPU horsepower.

Games like BF3 are already pushing the 1.2GB territory, so 1.5GB SLI wouldn't really cut it soon enough. Hence why I'm of the opinion that 6970 XFire is preferable to 1.5GB SLI, but not to 3GB SLI. The VRAM gives you plenty of headroom for the GPUs to shine with ludicrous levels of AA for a while.

Also, 850W will not cut it for Tri-Fire.

I would probably go with 2GB 6950s for cost-effectiveness. My single 580 at 920/1840/2100MHz pushes 50-70 FPS all the time at 1080P, Ultra, 4xAA/16xAF, PPAA off, MB off, HBAO on, 90 FOV. I've had mins in the upper 40s at stock clocks but haven't seen anything below 50 since the OC. SLI 580s seem overkill anyway.
 
Last edited:
Completely useless at 1080p. People are recommending cards with so much Vram when it isn't even needed these days.

HD 6990 would be the most simple, 2 HD 6970s would probably be a better choice(3 is overkill and would probably need more power) but I would personally go with 2 1.5gb GTX 580s just because I prefer Nvidia.

While I agree with most of whats said, I really don't agree with the recommendations for a single 6990. Its more expensive, hotter, and actually less performance than 2 6970's. Not to mention it still has the same cross-fire issues that separate card xfire does. On the whole, its just not a lot easier than 2 cards, and brings with it other issues. Now, if you're talking about using one in a tri or quad-fire setup, thats an entirely different issue.

That's a 28" 1080P monitor? Don't the pixels look like eyes looking at you at that dot pitch? Anyway, I agree that Tri-Fire is way overkill - either CrossFire 6970s (or really, even 6950s at that resolution) or SLI 580s. I doubt that 850 is enough for Tri-Fire 6970s.

Best description I've seen in awhile, gave me a good laugh!
 
Laugh all you want but this is a good monitor. I do plan however getting a 30" 2560x1600 monitor very soon. I probably will just go with the SLI 580 3GB. I really want to turn on MSAAx4 and currently you can't do that with ATI :(. I bet they may fix the problem one day but I want to buy the for sure thing.
 
For the price yes. Out of the box this isn't a good monitor but after professionaly calibrating it, it turned out to be a very decent monitor. I think I paid $400 for it and that was 2.5 years ago. Obviously it isn't going to compare with the big boys but I have been very impressed with the color representation of it. As I said I am replacing the monitor soon but I have no regrets about buying it.
 
I've seen BF3 use over 1400MB on ultra settings. This is on a 1080p monitor. If you are planning for the future i'd definitely go for more than 1.5 GB cards... I'm just sayin.
 
580s, I've had good experience with mine and also AMD isn't optimized for a lot of games, for example Portal 2 and GTA IV.
 
Probably MSI:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127589
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/06/28/msi_n580gtx_lightning_xe_3gb_sli_video_card_review/1

Of course after reading that I realized that I am basically paying $500 more than CFX 6970. Decisions Decisions. I really wished MSAAx4 worked in BF3 for ATI.

I went with those too. I should be getting mine tomorrow. If the EVGA classifieds where in stock I would have strongly considered those.
 
Due to crossfire issues past 2 GPU's, I'd recommend GTX 580 sli, you can't go wrong with those cards, if you have the money laying around.
 
I've seen BF3 use over 1400MB on ultra settings. This is on a 1080p monitor. If you are planning for the future i'd definitely go for more than 1.5 GB cards... I'm just sayin.

I have the EVGA GTX 580 SC 1.5 and I run the game in Ultra with no lag and about 70-90 FPS.
How are you checking the card's memory usage? I'm just askin...
 
I have the EVGA GTX 580 SC 1.5 and I run the game in Ultra with no lag and about 70-90 FPS.
How are you checking the card's memory usage? I'm just askin...

If you use msi afterburner or evga precision it will show you all sorts of statistics on screen (must enable "show on screen" option) for each resource you want to see. This ranges from gpu 1 temp, gpu 2 temp, core shader clock speed, memory frequency, memory usage, fan tachometer, etc. The list goes on.
 
I have the EVGA GTX 580 SC 1.5 and I run the game in Ultra with no lag and about 70-90 FPS.
How are you checking the card's memory usage? I'm just askin...

1080P? I call BS unless you're quoting maxes or toning down some of the settings like MSAA and HBAO.

Since I have the same card heavily overclocked and it gets to the 50s quite often in 64-player multiplayer.
 
Maxed out at 1920x1080 on my rig I've seen a minimum of 59 fps and a maximum of 153, a little over a 100 average. This while moving around and in busy, complex areas mind you, not stationary or staring at the sky.
 
Maxed out at 1920x1080 on my rig I've seen a minimum of 59 fps and a maximum of 153, a little over a 100 average. This while moving around and in busy, complex areas mind you, not stationary or staring at the sky.

Any micro-stuttering in bf3? I know there are still a ton of updates & patches which will address some of the issues for that game.
 
gtx580 sli run from 85-150FPS in multiplayer. no micro stuttering at 1920x1200
 
If you use msi afterburner or evga precision it will show you all sorts of statistics on screen (must enable "show on screen" option) for each resource you want to see. This ranges from gpu 1 temp, gpu 2 temp, core shader clock speed, memory frequency, memory usage, fan tachometer, etc. The list goes on.

I do use that program and I thank you for the info.
 
1080P? I call BS unless you're quoting maxes or toning down some of the settings like MSAA and HBAO.

Since I have the same card heavily overclocked and it gets to the 50s quite often in 64-player multiplayer.

All settings are in Ultra. (1920 x 1080p)
My i7-2600k is OC'd to 5.0 Ghz
My RAM listed in my sig is also OC'd
My Vid card is OC'd to the following specs:
Volts: 1150
Core Clock: 990 MHz
Shader Clock: 1980 MHz
Memory Clock: 2450 MHz
Fan Speed: 100% (bios unlock tweak)
Temps: 81 C (Under Load)
I have run this card to higher frequencies, but the temp became too high for me and i did not want to brick my card.

How can i prove it except to let you see on TeamViewer if you like and you can view my settings and FPS while in game? I have no reason to lie. That is what I am getting in FPS.
 
All settings are in Ultra. (1920 x 1080p)
My i7-2600k is OC'd to 5.0 Ghz
My RAM listed in my sig is also OC'd
My Vid card is OC'd to the following specs:
Volts: 1150
Core Clock: 990 MHz
Shader Clock: 1980 MHz
Memory Clock: 2450 MHz
Fan Speed: 100% (bios unlock tweak)
Temps: 81 C (Under Load)
I have run this card to higher frequencies, but the temp became too high for me and i did not want to brick my card.

How can i prove it except to let you see on TeamViewer if you like and you can view my settings and FPS while in game? I have no reason to lie. That is what I am getting in FPS.

Still don't believe those are your averages, but like you said it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe you.

I haven't even read about a single 1GHz Lightning Extreme pulling frames like those. 70-90 FPS (does this suggest an average of 80?) is just bollocks for a single GPU card at Ultra.
 
Still don't believe those are your averages, but like you said it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe you.

I haven't even read about a single 1GHz Lightning Extreme pulling frames like those. 70-90 FPS (does this suggest an average of 80?) is just bollocks for a single GPU card at Ultra.

I am 47 years old married with 2 kids.I just wanted to post my FPS. I am using Fraps. I actually hold some honor in the fact that I do not lie and have no reason to. I built this machine just for this game. I will be adding a second card soon so i will be in SLI. I hear that i will average about 150FPS (I hope) when that time comes. I'll let you all know soon.
 
1.5GB is great for a solo card but 1.5GB is a waste for SLI. With high levels of AA you'd run out of VRAM before you run out of GPU horsepower.

Games like BF3 are already pushing the 1.2GB territory, so 1.5GB SLI wouldn't really cut it soon enough. Hence why I'm of the opinion that 6970 XFire is preferable to 1.5GB SLI, but not to 3GB SLI. The VRAM gives you plenty of headroom for the GPUs to shine with ludicrous levels of AA for a while.

Also, 850W will not cut it for Tri-Fire.

I would probably go with 2GB 6950s for cost-effectiveness. My single 580 at 920/1840/2100MHz pushes 50-70 FPS all the time at 1080P, Ultra, 4xAA/16xAF, PPAA off, MB off, HBAO on, 90 FOV. I've had mins in the upper 40s at stock clocks but haven't seen anything below 50 since the OC. SLI 580s seem overkill anyway.


850 wont cut it for Tri-Fire? Absolutely POSITIVELY incorrect.

I've been running 6970s in Tri-Fire with an OC'd 2500k @ 4.7ghz and the 6970s OC'd to 1ghz and I've been running strong for a LONG time...

850 is what you NEED for Tri-Fire, but it is plenty for 3 6970s as long as you have a decent PSU that is rated well. I'm probably right around the limit on the PSU, but these are designed to run close to their max, or else they wouldn't be RATED 850W, would they? ;)

Either way, dont let anyone tell you 850W isn't enough.

Just pick a good brand, make sure it's certified and rated well, and you'll be fine.

Of course if you're just now picking up a PSU for Tri-Fire, I'd recommend getting a 1Kw PSU or more just to be future proof, in case you go Quad-fire..
 
850 wont cut it for Tri-Fire? Absolutely POSITIVELY incorrect.

I've been running 6970s in Tri-Fire with an OC'd 2500k @ 4.7ghz and the 6970s OC'd to 1ghz and I've been running strong for a LONG time...

850 is what you NEED for Tri-Fire, but it is plenty for 3 6970s as long as you have a decent PSU that is rated well. I'm probably right around the limit on the PSU, but these are designed to run close to their max, or else they wouldn't be RATED 850W, would they? ;)

Either way, dont let anyone tell you 850W isn't enough.

Just pick a good brand, make sure it's certified and rated well, and you'll be fine.

Of course if you're just now picking up a PSU for Tri-Fire, I'd recommend getting a 1Kw PSU or more just to be future proof, in case you go Quad-fire..

You're talking to a guy who ran an OC'd 5850 and Q9550 on a 300W for two years.

If anyone could've guessed it could have been done, it should've been me.

But I'm not sure PSUs are designed to run close to their max. I contest that argument.
 
You're talking to a guy who ran an OC'd 5850 and Q9550 on a 300W for two years.

If anyone could've guessed it could have been done, it should've been me.

But I'm not sure PSUs are designed to run close to their max. I contest that argument.

Seasonic manuals list power output as continuous in their manuals. Yes, good power supplies can run at the max output 24/7. Lesser brands who knows...
 
I think the headline with AMD vs Nvidia in BF3 so far is: Nvidia for MSAA and AMD otherwise. If you want MSAA definitely go Nvidia. If you can live without MSAA you can achieve some very nice value with AMD. Maybe a driver update could improve AMD performance, but I'm guessing not and certainly wouldn't make a purchase decision on that.
 
For 1080p Tri fire is overkill, but at 1600p it is perfect for BF3. I run a 6990 + unlocked 6950 and maintain a usual framerate of 60fps at Ultra, and turning off AA is no big deal due to the low dot pitch. 3x 6970's would be even faster. Definitely go for it if you're getting a 30".
 
Laugh all you want but this is a good monitor. I do plan however getting a 30" 2560x1600 monitor very soon. I probably will just go with the SLI 580 3GB. I really want to turn on MSAAx4 and currently you can't do that with ATI :(. I bet they may fix the problem one day but I want to buy the for sure thing.

Show me a benchmark that shows 6970 tri fire using msaa and post aa against 580 SLi using the exact same settings and getting less performance. If the op's 2 choices are 580 SLi or 6970 tri fire the tri fire should perform better even with msaa. Now 6970 crossfire vs 580 SLi is a different story. And yes I think the AMD solution is more than capable of getting good performance from msaa and this is a bug. My thing is the tri fire will make up for that delta by having the 3rd gpu increase raw gpu performance and fps to make that impact less.

Edit to add: MSAA doesn't even look that much better in the game over post process on high. In fact I'd say they are equal, and each have their own unique pluses and minuses. Both together the image quality improvement over either or at max is there but not really worth noting and 100% definitely worth the performance impact on either side of the fence. This MSAA issue seems like an excuse for Nvidia fans to justify their geforce purchases. Buy what you want, you don't need to justify anything and by you I'm not speaking about you specifically. Just don't blow smoke up anyone's ass.;)
 
Last edited:
My 6970s (two of them) blow way the 580s in any tests I have seen. Also they are much cheaper too. I am happy with my setup and I know you would be.
 
My 6970s (two of them) blow way the 580s in any tests I have seen. Also they are much cheaper too. I am happy with my setup and I know you would be.

lol

The only place XFire 6970s beat SLI 580s in are bang-for-the-buck and perhaps scaling over one card. Oh, and also where the extra 0.5GB of frame buffer comes into play.
 
I'm running a pair of unlocked 6950's in Crossfire for a 30" 2560x1600 monitor. BF3 runs great (60+ avg, 40+ minimum) with Post AA set to Medium, no regular AA, and everything on Ultra + HBAO.

Considering these cards cost me about $500, I'd say it makes AMD makes a lot more sense. GTX580 3GB cards are just too damn expensive and consume a lot more power.
 
Back
Top