GTX 580, 6970, or CF 6950's

S

Sedriss

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
393
I'm building a new rig and cant decide on what gpu's I should get. I want something obviously powerful but was hoping that I could get something that will have enough "hmph" to carry me on for at least another 2 years (my 260 has been doing 3+ years). I am a regular gamer playing at 1920x1200.

Would you guys be able to give me thoughts on the 3 choices? Also, what power supply would you suggest? I originally picked out Corsair TX850 V2 850W, but some friends told me that psu wouldn't be enough and to get the Corsair HX1050 1050W. Would the 850 be enough for?


Rig:

MSI P67A-GD65
Intel Core i5-2500K
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB
 
6970 hands down, then get another in a few months to CF when prices drop.

Get the bigger PSU if you plan on crossfire.
 
Buying gpus now is kind of late in the run of this generation. So I would buy either the cheapest 6970 or 6950 2gb card you can and either get one of the next gen cards or another to crossfire when they come out. Reason being is that any of those gpus are fine for 1920x1200 except that you can't turn everything up to absolute max. Close enough though.
 
@ that resolution any of those are a good choice. up to you bud.But i would prolly go either towards 6970 unless the 580 is the 3072mb video card then the 580 would be a best bet IMO @ that resolution.
 
6950 unlocked instead of a 6970, unless you can get a 6970 for $299.99 or so. There have been some good deals. Also the GTX 570 is a good choice but you didn't list is as an option perhaps because the minimum you are seeking for vram is 1.5GB, is that the case?
 
spaceman said:
Buying gpus now is kind of late in the run of this generation. So I would buy either the cheapest 6970 or 6950 2gb card you can and either get one of the next gen cards or another to crossfire when they come out. Reason being is that any of those gpus are fine for 1920x1200 except that you can't turn everything up to absolute max. Close enough though.
Click to expand...

And what games can't your turn up to the absolute max that are out right now? Just wondering, because I haven't had any problems with any game with the 6970 and I game at 1920x1080. Unless by absolute max you mean 8 or 16xAA.. but in game settings, no game really holds back any of those 3 options and we haven't seen a retail copy of BF3 yet.
 
spaceman said:
Buying gpus now is kind of late in the run of this generation. So I would buy either the cheapest 6970 or 6950 2gb card you can and either get one of the next gen cards or another to crossfire when they come out. Reason being is that any of those gpus are fine for 1920x1200 except that you can't turn everything up to absolute max. Close enough though.
Click to expand...

Sadly for me, I want to play BF3 and my 260 isn't cutting the mustard.
 
Lord_Exodia said:
6950 unlocked instead of a 6970, unless you can get a 6970 for $299.99 or so. There have been some good deals. Also the GTX 570 is a good choice but you didn't list is as an option perhaps because the minimum you are seeking for vram is 1.5GB, is that the case?
Click to expand...

That would be correct good sir. I would like the vram to be on the higher side.
 
850W is plenty for up to two GTX580s inclusive. HD6970 crossfire sounds like a plan (or 2GB HD6950 crossfire, performs quite similarly for a bit less cost)
 
I know its late in the game but I def would like to upgrade lol. Just cant decide on what to get.
 
Question, would the 850 be able to power 2 580's? Or would the safe bet be the 1050.
 
IMHO it's not too late in the cycle to upgrade. 28nm continues to be a problem for everyone. Supplies will be crazy limited even if they technically launch this year ... I'll donate a kidney if you can get a next gen/28nm GPU before Jan/Feb. Is it worth not having something up-to-date during that ever-so-awesome Xmas-to-New-Year's gaming time? :D

@ 19x12, a 6970 is enough to turn basically everything up to max in every game right now, even crazy stuff like Metro 2033. AFAIK (source would be good here, doh!) that includes BF3. Again IMO, you should be able to wait out the upcoming upgrade cycle with at least a 6970 or unlocked 6950 2GB. If not, sell the card and get the best of both worlds - say you'll lose $100 on the sale, over six months that's only ~$16/mo, not too shabby.
 
Hmmm interesting.... Im just so overwhelmed right now as to what to get... 6970 was my first choice. Then the 580. But then 2 6950's out perform both the others. But I can CF and SLI those later on as well.
 
I would get a 580. With an Arkham City coupon it's a great deal. Also you have way more possibilities to improve image quality than with a Radeon. This might be cool for not so power-hungry games where you have some reserves.
 
FWIW ... I have yet to be disappointed in my non-unlocked 6950 2GB and I game @ 19x12. You can find them for ~$250 AR if you look hard, and the saved $$ can carry over to a new card. The 6970 only adds 10-20% more performance for substantially more $$, with the max gain obviously @ 25x16/Eyefinity etc., can make the diff b/w max and near-max settings, but less of a concern @ 19x12. 580 adds another 10-20%, possibly more depending on the game, again for a disproportionate price bump, say 2/3 more $$ for 1/3 more perf than the 6950. (I'm ignoring CF/SLI here but I'm a single card man myself. Also, 6950 1GB is an option if you're really gunning for a next gen replacement, won't hurt in the short run.)

The longer you intend to hold onto the card, the more the extra performance helps, so that's how I'd go about deciding. If you want to flip it early next year, look for something on the cheaper end. Buying and holding? Might be worth spending up.
 
I was gonna wait for next gen stuff but since it got so delayed, I went ahead and bought an EVGA GTX 580 3gb yesterday. I want to play the upcoming games now; not in six months. I was going to do 6950's in crossfire since I game @ 2560x1600 but I'm extremely paranoid about microstuttering so I'll see how the 580 works out.
 
Drheadbang said:
You can get a GTX overclocked 580 for 400 bucks at microcenter. Even if you order online and lose batman, it's still an awesome deal. Just bought one, waiting on it to come.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354622
Click to expand...

You are in no way deserving of this, but I have to say that as a dude who's been tirelessly shopping around for good deals on an upcoming build, Mail In Rebates are akin to someone taking a dump in my punch bowl.

That card is not $400; It is $430. You might get $30 back in 6 months. Oh, and while I'm in ragemode, that card is actually $470 for me since I'm in buttf*** California.

I can only offer my opinion as a dude that's been facing this dilemma for a few weeks now. The benchmarks are all in favor of the sli/crossfire option, and the price for crossfired 6950's unlocked to 6970's is just fantastic, but I'm probably going to buy a 580. Why? If I bought a crossfired system, microstuttering would persuade me to cap my frames at their lowest average amount to maintain steady game play (competitive gaming and all that). So I'm not really comparing the average frame rates of the different setups. I'm comparing the minimum stable frame rate of the crossfired setup to the avg frame rate of the single card setup. This brings the two worlds very close together.

Now factor in that, if you go single card, you (or at least *I*) can save on mobo, psu, and energy costs. You also don't have to worry about crossfire if you go single card, setting it up and what not (maybe that's just desirable to a newbie like me). So yeah, the choice is clear for me; Buy a used 580 for $400.

Then again, and this might cause a divergence in our perspectives, I game on a 1680x1050 120hz monitor, so memory is less of a premium for me, and I'll turn down the detail to whatever will get me to that 120fps mark. Hopefully the 580 can do the job on low or medium (for bf3).

Make sure to update your post when you decide what you're going to get. Since we're in similar situations, I'd appreciate any perspective you might gain on the matter in the upcoming week. Good luck bodes :3
 
Last edited:
You're joking right? here are some screens I've taken with the 580 in the open beta, so no tessellation, (not fully maxed) 2XAA @ 1920X1200.

60fps avg, I mean retail maxed can't look much different imo unless you really need this:

dx11.gif


EDIT; Ignore me, you want 120fps, didn't realise. you have a very expensive FPS to maintain there bro, if I were you i'd deal with 60 and enjoy the beautiful graphics, just my opinion.

bf32011100802290080.jpg


bf32011100802293594.jpg


bf32011100801375006.jpg


bf32011100802285318.jpg


bf32011100714471335.jpg


bf32011100714445334.jpg


bf32011100804084522.jpg
 
matt9669 said:
IMHO it's not too late in the cycle to upgrade. 28nm continues to be a problem for everyone. Supplies will be crazy limited even if they technically launch this year ... I'll donate a kidney if you can get a next gen/28nm GPU before Jan/Feb. Is it worth not having something up-to-date during that ever-so-awesome Xmas-to-New-Year's gaming time? :D

@ 19x12, a 6970 is enough to turn basically everything up to max in every game right now, even crazy stuff like Metro 2033. AFAIK (source would be good here, doh!) that includes BF3. Again IMO, you should be able to wait out the upcoming upgrade cycle with at least a 6970 or unlocked 6950 2GB. If not, sell the card and get the best of both worlds - say you'll lose $100 on the sale, over six months that's only ~$16/mo, not too shabby.
Click to expand...

Depends, if by 'turning everything up to max' you mean leaving anti-aliasing and depth of field off and getting only 25-30fps, then yes I suppose that's adequate. The HD6970 is not particularly strong with new titles at 1920x1200, and the GTX580 is little better.

To answer the other question, yes an 850W unit (provided it's a good one) can handle two GTX580s just fine, as long as they're not being overclocked like mad.

The rebate argument is sound, people should not just assume that the after-MIR cost is what the card actually costs, because they may not arrive, some manufacturers refuse to honour them, and there is no legal ruling that says they have to.

As for microstutter, it's personal - some people consider multi-GPU to be no better than single GPUs because they decide to cap their frame rates. As for me, I realise that beyond 60fps microstutter is basically a non-issue, so I just keep my frame rate above 60 - I'm still getting twice the performance, as I can use twice the detail I would otherwise need to keep 60fps.
 
I'd say either 6950 or if that isn't enough a 580. Actually if I needed a gpu right now I'd probably pick something like 6950/560Ti/570 and wait until 7900 series is released, and maybe Kepler too if it doesn't seem too far off. I'd steer clear of multi gpu, unless going for uber setups with 3 or 4 GPUs.
 
It'd surprise me if the big version of Kepler is out the door in less than 9 months from now. Hardware companies are most definitely not hitting the christmas sales rush this year, so for all the new titles, people will need to use current hardware, so most people will be sticking with relatively powerful HD6/GTX5 series cards.
 
Just buy 2X 6950 in Crossfire. It's alot more faster/powerful then any 580 out there. :)
 
samuelmorris said:
Depends, if by 'turning everything up to max' you mean leaving anti-aliasing and depth of field off and getting only 25-30fps, then yes I suppose that's adequate. The HD6970 is not particularly strong with new titles at 1920x1200, and the GTX580 is little better.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting those numbers. Everyone's standards are different, but with a mild overclock/unlock, even the 6950 will hit ~35min/50-60avg @ 19x12, all game options max. Obviously there are edge cases, might have to back down to 2xAA here and there, but if that makes you lose sleep, bumping up to a 6970/580 will solve it. Since that level of performance is sufficient/more for most gamers' needs and are reasonable/better cost-wise, hard not to recommend. From the [H]:

BF3 (preview) F1 2011 Hard Reset Deus Ex:HR F3AR Dirt 3 Dragon Age 2 (my numbers assume an o/c or a 6970/better, so keep that in mind)

Now if you demand 60fps minimum that's another ball of wax, and if so your standards are higher than most.

samuelmorris said:
As for microstutter, it's personal - some people consider multi-GPU to be no better than single GPUs because they decide to cap their frame rates. As for me, I realise that beyond 60fps microstutter is basically a non-issue, so I just keep my frame rate above 60 - I'm still getting twice the performance, as I can use twice the detail I would otherwise need to keep 60fps.
Click to expand...

That's sound, basically agree. It's all AFR these days so @ 60fps you're still getting an input rate of ~30fps. Just don't think it's worth the power/heat/noise/cost/potential issues. Also, multi-card doesn't age as well, scaling seems to worsen over time & issues tend to pop up more as drivers aren't tweaked as much for older cards - not an issue if you always have latest gen, but that doesn't sound like OP or most people. That's my experience, OP now has both sides & can make his/her? ;) own decision.

samuelmorris said:
It'd surprise me if the big version of Kepler is out the door in less than 9 months from now.
Click to expand...
+1.
 
The comment was about Metro 2033. That is far in excess of any of the games you've posted there.

Performance standards: HD6970@1920x1080: c.195. GTX580@1920x1080: c. 230
Required performance standards (average/minimum frame rate of 60)
Metro 2033 (AAA not MSAA): 145/165 for low, 160/170 for medium, 215/255 for high, 310/570 for very high, 470/830 for very high with DirectX11 features.
Battlefield 3 Beta ("Ultra", both AA types, HBAO): 290/400, "Ultra", no AA or AO: 165/225
F1 2011 (DX11): 180/215
Hard Reset: 100/120 (No AA), 155/180 (MLAA), 255/340 (FSAA)
Deus Ex Human Revolution: 180/200
F3AR: 235/280
DiRT 3: 195/230
Dragon Age 2: 190/225 (High, No AA, AMD), 400/515 (Ultra, 8xAA, AMD), 285/340 (High, No AA, Nvidia), 705/850 (Ultra, 8xAA, Nvidia)

Source: GameGPU.ru, as well as general performance table derived from GameGPU, Techreport and Bit-tech data.

IIRC The Dragon Age 2 performance issue has now been fixed, so of this list, that leaves Metro in pretty much a class of its own.
Even if you only wanted an average of 30fps (minimum more like 18), Metro 2033 maxed out with AAA (not even MSAA) is asking a performance standard of 235, which is GTX580 territory, not HD6970 territory. The game's nuts.

I have never seen multi-GPU scaling worsen over time, only ever improve. The only issue is since you spent more to start with, it costs more to upgrade.
 
either 2x 6950's or 2x 560ti's, both with 2gb of vram.

i would go with nvidia cards, they tend to offer higher "lowfps" in latest games.
 
samuelmorris said:
Depends, if by 'turning everything up to max' you mean leaving anti-aliasing and depth of field off and getting only 25-30fps, then yes I suppose that's adequate. The HD6970 is not particularly strong with new titles at 1920x1200, and the GTX580 is little better.
Click to expand...

This is what I took issue with. If the FPS comment was specific to Metro 2033 fine, but you make it sound like a 6970/580 can't keep up with (virtually all other) current games @ 19x12. (Metro 2033 is crazy, and not worth worrying about ... pretty average game IMHO.) Also, my info comes from right here at the [H] - that Russian site is demanding minimum framerates of 60, which as I said, is an unusually high standard. Most get along fine with minimums @ a bit over 30 (35-40 is a good target and doable for nearly all games with current GPUs at max settings, 2-4x AA or more) or back off the settings to play competitively (which is a good idea anyway for true competition scenarios, but not needed for most of us).

I have seen multiple instances where (mostly with SLI personally) the latest games do not behave/perform well with an older multi-GPU setup, in part because the new title does not scale as well with older cards in SLI/CF. That is just my experience.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you want max detail, it can't. Even shooting for an average frame rate of just 50 there's a long list of games where you'd have to cut some detail off at just 1080p to do it. GameGPU do not demand a minimum of 60fps, that is something I have put in for analysis sake, and I never quote it by itself. Those figures listed above are for average 60fps on the left, and minimum 60fps on the right, to give an idea of what the differences are. None of The Witcher 2, Lost Planet 2, Metro 2033, Final Fantasy 14, Total War Shogun 2, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, GTA4, Rift, Shattered Horizon, STALKER Call of Pripyat, Arcania Gothic 4, Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead, Battlefield 3 or Just Cause 2 can be fully maxed out at 1080p with an HD6970, even if you just want an average of 50fps. That's a fairly long list,and it's growing. This doesn't mean an HD6970 is inadequate at 1080p at any stretch, most of these games will run smooth with a couple of settings turned down/off, but the point still stands, neither the HD6970 or GTX580 are powerful enough to allow a complete disregard of game hardware demand at 1080p.
 
Honestly, the 6950 is the best value. A LOCKED 6950 is within 5-10% performance range of a 6970 (for about $75 less) and within 25% performance range of a GTX580 (for $275 less). An unlocked 6950 is basically 6970 performance.

Plus adding another one makes it even better, since CF scaling for most 6xxx series cards are linear (double the performance in most games).
 
I was hearing that vram will really come into play if I am gaming at 2560x1600. At 1920x1200 1.5gb I hear is adequate?
 
dpk33 said:
Honestly, the 6950 is the best value. A LOCKED 6950 is within 5-10% performance range of a 6970 (for about $75 less) and within 25% performance range of a GTX580 (for $275 less). An unlocked 6950 is basically 6970 performance.

Plus adding another one makes it even better, since CF scaling for most 6xxx series cards are linear (double the performance in most games).
Click to expand...

This really is the best answer. 2 x 2Gb 6950s are the best value bag for your buck. There is no doubt about this.
 
matt9669 said:
IMHO it's not too late in the cycle to upgrade. 28nm continues to be a problem for everyone. Supplies will be crazy limited even if they technically launch this year ... I'll donate a kidney if you can get a next gen/28nm GPU before Jan/Feb. Is it worth not having something up-to-date during that ever-so-awesome Xmas-to-New-Year's gaming time? :D
Click to expand...

Matt is 100% on the money. There's no such thing as "late" in the upgrade cycle because the cycle isn't linear. And Matt is correct in that the problem isn't with AMD/Nvidia but with the process and the manufacturing - GlobalFoundries and the other co. whose name escapes me. I too would be surprised if we see anything 28nm before end of year, let alone before late Q1/12.

All that aside, BF3 is really looking like its going to be an experience and an arguably historic moment on the timeline of video games - at least PC games - that you're not going to want to miss out on waiting what may be 6 more months for a new generation card. I don't think I've ever seen so much buzz about a game, and with good reason.
 
Sedriss said:
I was hearing that vram will really come into play if I am gaming at 2560x1600. At 1920x1200 1.5gb I hear is adequate?
Click to expand...

If you've got a 30" monitor (which I too am cursed with, and I mean that in terms of expense per frame-per-second) then for BF3 you can either overclock a pair of GTX 570's to [email protected] and get very close to performance of a couple of stock 580's, or better bang for buck would be a pair of Radeon 6970's or unlocked 6950's. The Radeons would be a safe bet for 2560x1600 on account of the 2GB VRAM, but whether 1.25GB VRAM of GTX 570 is insufficient remains to be seen in final version of game. Another option (which I'm seriously considering) is selling the 30" and going with one of the newer 120Hz 27" 1920x1080 monitors.

In my case I moved from a GTX 570 to a couple of 580's but only because I got a deal on them or I would've gone dual 6970's, and while historically I've preferred Nvidia because the drivers have bitten me in the ass less than the times I've owned an ATI, quite honestly I would have no problem going with AMD Radeons for Battlefield 3 and for one reason: because both AMD and Nvidia are going to be working their ASSES off making sure their drivers are excellent for the one game that so many purchasing decisions are being based upon.

Unfortunately because of the run on GPU's for BF3 this isn't a great time to buy since prices have gone up a bit, but deals and rebates are appearing here and there. Keep your eyes in the Hotdeals forum for 6970 deals popping up, keep an eye on Newegg Open-Box deals, and if you have a Microcenter nearby they have decent prices on Zotac or Sparkle GTX 570 and GTX 580 ($299, $399 respectively) - they're reference cards so you can't go wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top