GTX480 3way VS. GTX580 2way which one is better ??

B

billtaco

n00b
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
46
which way to upgrade ????????????
GTX480 3way VS. GTX580 2way which one is better ??
It is an interesting question ??
what is the level of GTX480 3way SLI??
compared with 2way of GTX 580, 570, 560 which one is better ??

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/9
==> my current cards are 480 2way ==> that seems not so bad and 580 2way is not much better than 480x2 ?? (at least FPS)

MY CPU is not so powerful : Xeon(R) W3520 only OC up to 3.6Gmay I add an additional question
thanks for samuelmorris :
GTX480 x3: Performance 260%, Power 750-880W [1200W PSU required], current price $1032
GTX560 x2: Performance 175%, Power 360-420W [700W PSU required], current price $500
GTX570 x2: Performance 190%, Power 420-530W [850W PSU required], current price $590
GTX580 x2: Performance 225%, Power 490-580W [900W PSU required], current price $950
My current cards are 480 2way : what is the the performace level ?? smiliar to GTX560 x2: Performance 175% ??
 
Last edited:
Rough figures of power/performance (relative to one 480)

GTX480 x3: Performance 260%, Power 750-880W [1200W PSU required], current price $1032
GTX560 x2: Performance 175%, Power 360-420W [700W PSU required], current price $500
GTX570 x2: Performance 190%, Power 420-530W [850W PSU required], current price $590
GTX580 x2: Performance 225%, Power 490-580W [900W PSU required], current price $950
 
I think the GTX 580 SLI would be a lot better than the GTX 480 3-way SLI. Typically you see diminishing returns regarding 3-way SLI, and I think the "260%" performance figure samuelmorris posted is the absolute best case scenario, and something like 240% would be more the average. GTX 580 SLI, while still having some quirks, is a surer bet I think. Also, the GTX 580 SLI is much quieter and uses less power, which alone would win me over.
 
260% comes from a couple of benches, one of which is Crysis, which will presumably scale better than other titles. However, scaling in really demanding cases (e.g. 4800x2560) has proven almost linearly immaculate on the 580s (360%+ across the board) for quad SLI, so I think it's reasonable, where not CPU limited, to see 260% on three 480s in large numbers of titles.
The noise and heat of three 480s is extreme. Two 580s will be practically silent by comparison.
 
samuelmorris said:
260% comes from a couple of benches, one of which is Crysis, which will presumably scale better than other titles. However, scaling in really demanding cases (e.g. 4800x2560) has proven almost linearly immaculate on the 580s (360%+ across the board) for quad SLI, so I think it's reasonable, where not CPU limited, to see 260% on three 480s in large numbers of titles.
The noise and heat of three 480s is extreme. Two 580s will be practically silent by comparison.
Click to expand...
Benchmarks =/= gameplay.
 
What kind of screen setup will you be using? If surround, I'd look into the 3GB 580s.
 
At higher levels of load on the video cards,meaning monster res\grafix\AA\etc more cards seem to do better then less.

And iv seen benchmarks my self of 4 sli cards running slower then a single video card many times over.
More often that not though this isn't the case and really it all comes down to how you optimize your game\software\hardware\driver\OS and as well if your preference is
pure speed {fps}
or eye candy {low fps}

Or pure number crunching power VS pure reaction times.

At lower grafix settings\workload, less cards seems to do better because of the effects of hardware parallelism and their effect on sub system load and the cost in reaction times to synchronize everything that's going on.

my self id go with the two of the fastest cards you can score for the budget your willing to spend because.
"A" less heat then 3
"B" less sub system load
"C" less watts drainage
"D" faster reaction times

parallelism and its effects on hardware can be seen as well in more then just video cards.

Raid for hdd would be a good example as well.

As would cluster servers.
explanation:
massive amounts of individual computers interconnected via network connections but working as one computer coordinated by a single master computer}
Like the borg from Star Trek all the computers in question become a hive mind~hive computer system working as a team as one computer.

memory as well works this way, single channel can react faster then dual.
Dual can react faster then triple.
Triple can react faster then quad channel
{found on some apple computers and servers}

Edit massive typo\content fix my bad.Think i need ms word or something for when i want to do this kind of post.
Symmetric multiprocessing coded software sadly works this way as well.
If your software is setup for Symmetric multiprocessing only and your hardware isn't setup for Symmetric multiprocessing then its going to run dog slow on the fps topic if were talking video games, the software is only setup with the ability to process piles of special effects all at the same time at low fps on a Symmetric multiprocessing computer {cpu\video card\ram}
{And no im not talking about BC2, that thing just sucks bad on so many levels its not funny}

Non-Uniform Memory Architecture computers or code for them are even slower then Symmetric multiprocessing code\computers. in this case you can pile it on even more on the hardware topic seeing as your computer hardware can crunch even more numbers but sadly it suffers the same problems as hardware or software parallelism all ways douse.

example
115199.jpg

In many ways Non-Uniform Memory Architecture computers are mini versions of cluster server computer setups.

-------------------------------------------
advantage of more = better on the cpu\raid\video card\more then one memory channel setups\ddr 1 vs ddr2 vs ddr3 vs ddr4...........

bigger stronger and more of it.
can handle monster work loads and over all more number crunching power.
---------------------------------------------

disadvantage

the more you go down this road the slower things get on the reaction time topic if asked to only do one specific dedicated task.

----------------------------------------------
As well on the video card topic i wonder how much more work load each video card added to a system has in respect to cpu use and main system memory use. *confused*

Disclaimer:
Please keep in mind that im generalizing the topic so as to keep things simple,and as well theirs all ways catch 22 scenarios were the reverse is some times possible.:)
 
Last edited:
3 gtx480's would be much faster if your not cpu bound.

proof.

Gtx480 tri sli review (and remember drivers have improved these numbers since this review!!!!)
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-480-3way-sli-review/7

gtx580 in sli.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/6

You need more than a i7 @ 3.7 for tri sli gtx480's
Quote from review..
"Get this, our Core i7 965X processor is overclocked at default at 3750 MHz, and man .. it's just not enough to satisfy three GTX 480 cards most of the time. And that makes sense as it's just such a truckload of raw GPU horsepower."

At 2500x1600 the tri sli setup starts to pull away.

power consumtion
sli gtx 480's 702 watts
sli gtx580's 719 watts
tri sli gtx480 1009 watts

Noise
gtx580's in sli 46db
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/15
gtx480's in sli 57db
3 gtx480's 59 db
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-480-3way-sli-review/26

temps
gtx 580's in sli 90c
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/16
tri gtx480's 99c
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-480-3way-sli-review/27

personally ,I'd go with the gtx580's in sli but the 480 in tri sli are a good bit faster, especially with more recent drivers.
 
Last edited:
Higher FPS and benchmarks does not always equal smoother gameplay!! I find some games having more stutter with multiple gpu's. Unless you're on surround gaming, I would stick with one. I have 2 GTX480's and game on 2560X1600 and only a couple newer games play a little smoother with multiple gpu's. Basically it's not worth the heat and energy costs when single gpu is powerful enough already.
 
War Zone said:
At higher levels of load on the video cards,meaning monster res\grafix\AA\etc more cards seem to do better then less.

And iv seen benchmarks my self of 4 sli cards running slower then a single video card many times over.
More often that not though this isn't the case and really it all comes down to how you optimize your game\software\hardware\driver\OS and as well if your preference is
pure speed {fps}
or eye candy {low fps}

Or pure number crunching power VS pure reaction times.

At lower grafix settings\workload, less cards seems to do better because of the effects of hardware parallelism and their effect on sub system load and the cost in reaction times to synchronize everything that's going on.

my self id go with the two of the fastest cards you can score for the budget your willing to spend because.
"A" less heat then 3
"B" less sub system load
"C" less watts drainage
"D" faster reaction times

parallelism and its effects on hardware can be seen as well in more then just video cards.

Raid for hdd would be a good example as well.

As would cluster servers.
explanation:
massive amounts of individual computers interconnected via network connections but working as one computer coordinated by a single master computer}
Like the borg from Star Trek all the computers in question become a hive mind~hive computer system working as a team as one computer.

memory as well works this way, single channel can react faster then dual.
Dual can react faster then triple.
Triple can react faster then quad channel
{found on some apple computers and servers}

Symmetric multiprocessing coded software sadly works this way as well.
If you only setup and program for Symmetric multiprocessing and your software isn't setup for none Symmetric multiprocessing then its going to run dog slow on the fps topic if were talking video games but with the ability to proses piles of special effects all at the same time.
{And no im not talking about BC2, that thing just sucks bad on so many levels its not funny}

Non-Uniform Memory Architecture computers or code for them are even slower then Symmetric multiprocessing code\computers. in this case you can pile it on even more on the hardware topic seeing as your computer hardware can crunch even more numbers but sadly it suffers the same problems as hardware or software parallelism all ways douse.

example
http://www.pcrush.com/images/hi-res/115199.jpg
In many ways Non-Uniform Memory Architecture computers are mini versions of cluster server computer setups.

-------------------------------------------
advantage of more = better on the cpu\raid\video card\more then one memory channel setups\ddr 1 vs ddr2 vs ddr3 vs ddr4...........

bigger stronger and more of it.
can handle monster work loads and over all more number crunching power.
---------------------------------------------

disadvantage

the more you go down this road the slower things get on the reaction time topic if asked to only do one specific dedicated task.

----------------------------------------------
As well on the video card topic i wonder how much more work load each video card added to a system has in respect to cpu use and main system memory use. *confused*

Disclaimer:
Please keep in mind that im generalizing the topic so as to keep things simple,and as well theirs all ways catch 22 scenarios were the reverse is some times possible.:)
Click to expand...

This was about as generalized as a 4 hour lecture on string theory.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Benchmarks =/= gameplay.
Click to expand...

You can't dispute the frame rates (as minimums were also included). The only question is stuttering which honestly, I really haven't found to be an issue with many multi-GPU setups.
 
My self im not happy till i see a sold 60 fps min.
better is 85 fps if and when i can pull it off and if you think im going to go get $1000 worth of video cards just to go play a buggy bc2 get real :D

Just one GTX580 with 2 gigs ram on it + triple core i3 with HT & 6 megs level 2~3 cash ram on the cpu and im a happy camper. :O)

Just like 3dfx solgen of old, speed is all that maters .Not eye candy or 32bit colors or texture size
 
I too like 60fps minimum at all times. I get that in Bad Company 2 at 2560x1600 with two 6970s, as long as I only use 4xAA not 8. Looks basically the same, and two 6970s are only $680 (unlocked 6950s and that's only $500 and performs the same_.
 
War Zone said:
My self im not happy till i see a sold 60 fps min.
better is 85 fps if and when i can pull it off and if you think im going to go get $1000 worth of video cards just to go play a buggy bc2 get real :D

Just one GTX580 with 2 gigs ram on it + triple core i3 with HT & 6 megs level 2~3 cash ram on the cpu and im a happy camper. :O)

Just like 3dfx solgen of old, speed is all that maters .Not eye candy or 32bit colors or texture size
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
samuelmorris said:
Rough figures of power/performance (relative to one 480)

GTX480 x3: Performance 260%, Power 750-880W [1200W PSU required], current price $1032
GTX560 x2: Performance 175%, Power 360-420W [700W PSU required], current price $500
GTX570 x2: Performance 190%, Power 420-530W [850W PSU required], current price $590
GTX580 x2: Performance 225%, Power 490-580W [900W PSU required], current price $950
Click to expand...

oh my god
this is really clear cut
nice analysis
 
Performance is obviously going to vary either side of those values quite considerably depending on the game, but those are the typical averages I seem to encounter most often. Power consumption figures are on the higher side of caution (first figure is highest I usually see in game, second figure is highest I've ever seen), but when it comes to power you always want to take the highest possible value to be sure.
 
Loving my 480 tri sli now that it is watercooled. Don't waste your time with air cooled 480 tri-sli. It will be very hot and very loud. Any game that scales well and doesn't limit fps will take your 480's to 105c, well at least with a 75mhz oc they will. Some will push it up even higher if you don't pay attention. These cards are just too hot to stack them that way on air.

I have all 3 of mine at 825/2000 for the long term, can't get over [email protected] as one card is rather weak. When they get older I'll probably try my hand at flashing the bios for additional volts and bumping them up to 900mhz until they die. 2100mhz was stable on my ram, but oc'ing ram scares me because ram seems to die a lot of the time from what I have read. Not sure if the 580's used better ram modules or not, I think the ones of reference 480's were 2000mhz. Meanwhile 580's will hit probably 900mhz or so easy, and have better coolers to boot.

As has been mentioned, if you don't push your graphics settings to the highest possible with smooth gameplay, you won't get great scaling. At 5760x1200 basically every game I have scales damned well, except company of heroes which would probably be better on a single card.

Unless you are watercooling I would get 580's. And I wouldn't watercool if I were you unless you can pick up 3 used 480's for $250 each.
 
Naieve said:
Loving my 480 tri sli now that it is watercooled. Don't waste your time with air cooled 480 tri-sli. It will be very hot and very loud. Any game that scales well and doesn't limit fps will take your 480's to 105c, well at least with a 75mhz oc they will. Some will push it up even higher if you don't pay attention. These cards are just too hot to stack them that way on air.

I have all 3 of mine at 825/2000 for the long term, can't get over [email protected] as one card is rather weak. When they get older I'll probably try my hand at flashing the bios for additional volts and bumping them up to 900mhz until they die. 2100mhz was stable on my ram, but oc'ing ram scares me because ram seems to die a lot of the time from what I have read. Not sure if the 580's used better ram modules or not, I think the ones of reference 480's were 2000mhz. Meanwhile 580's will hit probably 900mhz or so easy, and have better coolers to boot.

As has been mentioned, if you don't push your graphics settings to the highest possible with smooth gameplay, you won't get great scaling. At 5760x1200 basically every game I have scales damned well, except company of heroes which would probably be better on a single card.

Unless you are watercooling I would get 580's. And I wouldn't watercool if I were you unless you can pick up 3 used 480's for $250 each.
Click to expand...

ya
but it really expansive in watercooling
 
samuelmorris said:
Performance is obviously going to vary either side of those values quite considerably depending on the game, but those are the typical averages I seem to encounter most often. Power consumption figures are on the higher side of caution (first figure is highest I usually see in game, second figure is highest I've ever seen), but when it comes to power you always want to take the highest possible value to be sure.
Click to expand...
ya
thank you too much Sir.
 
Mr. K6 said:
I think the GTX 580 SLI would be a lot better than the GTX 480 3-way SLI. Typically you see diminishing returns regarding 3-way SLI, and I think the "260%" performance figure samuelmorris posted is the absolute best case scenario, and something like 240% would be more the average. GTX 580 SLI, while still having some quirks, is a surer bet I think. Also, the GTX 580 SLI is much quieter and uses less power, which alone would win me over.
Click to expand...

Yes
thanks for your guide
but the problem is
my current cards is 480 2way
and 580 is the new products with high price, while 480 price is down to ...
yes the power consuming and hot ....
so It is really hard to make the choice
 
samuelmorris said:
260% comes from a couple of benches, one of which is Crysis, which will presumably scale better than other titles. However, scaling in really demanding cases (e.g. 4800x2560) has proven almost linearly immaculate on the 580s (360%+ across the board) for quad SLI, so I think it's reasonable, where not CPU limited, to see 260% on three 480s in large numbers of titles.
The noise and heat of three 480s is extreme. Two 580s will be practically silent by comparison.
Click to expand...

thank you so much
 
War Zone said:
At higher levels of load on the video cards,meaning monster res\grafix\AA\etc more cards seem to do better then less.

And iv seen benchmarks my self of 4 sli cards running slower then a single video card many times over.
More often that not though this isn't the case and really it all comes down to how you optimize your game\software\hardware\driver\OS and as well if your preference is
pure speed {fps}
or eye candy {low fps}

Or pure number crunching power VS pure reaction times.

At lower grafix settings\workload, less cards seems to do better because of the effects of hardware parallelism and their effect on sub system load and the cost in reaction times to synchronize everything that's going on.

my self id go with the two of the fastest cards you can score for the budget your willing to spend because.
"A" less heat then 3
"B" less sub system load
"C" less watts drainage
"D" faster reaction times

parallelism and its effects on hardware can be seen as well in more then just video cards.

Raid for hdd would be a good example as well.

As would cluster servers.
explanation:
massive amounts of individual computers interconnected via network connections but working as one computer coordinated by a single master computer}
Like the borg from Star Trek all the computers in question become a hive mind~hive computer system working as a team as one computer.

memory as well works this way, single channel can react faster then dual.
Dual can react faster then triple.
Triple can react faster then quad channel
{found on some apple computers and servers}

Edit massive typo\content fix my bad.Think i need ms word or something for when i want to do this kind of post.
Symmetric multiprocessing coded software sadly works this way as well.
If your software is setup for Symmetric multiprocessing only and your hardware isn't setup for Symmetric multiprocessing then its going to run dog slow on the fps topic if were talking video games, the software is only setup with the ability to process piles of special effects all at the same time at low fps on a Symmetric multiprocessing computer {cpu\video card\ram}
{And no im not talking about BC2, that thing just sucks bad on so many levels its not funny}

Non-Uniform Memory Architecture computers or code for them are even slower then Symmetric multiprocessing code\computers. in this case you can pile it on even more on the hardware topic seeing as your computer hardware can crunch even more numbers but sadly it suffers the same problems as hardware or software parallelism all ways douse.

example
115199.jpg

In many ways Non-Uniform Memory Architecture computers are mini versions of cluster server computer setups.

-------------------------------------------
advantage of more = better on the cpu\raid\video card\more then one memory channel setups\ddr 1 vs ddr2 vs ddr3 vs ddr4...........

bigger stronger and more of it.
can handle monster work loads and over all more number crunching power.
---------------------------------------------

disadvantage

the more you go down this road the slower things get on the reaction time topic if asked to only do one specific dedicated task.

----------------------------------------------
As well on the video card topic i wonder how much more work load each video card added to a system has in respect to cpu use and main system memory use. *confused*

Disclaimer:
Please keep in mind that im generalizing the topic so as to keep things simple,and as well theirs all ways catch 22 scenarios were the reverse is some times possible.:)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your Detail explainations
 
happymedium said:
3 gtx480's would be much faster if your not cpu bound.

proof.

Gtx480 tri sli review (and remember drivers have improved these numbers since this review!!!!)
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-480-3way-sli-review/7

gtx580 in sli.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/6

You need more than a i7 @ 3.7 for tri sli gtx480's
Quote from review..
"Get this, our Core i7 965X processor is overclocked at default at 3750 MHz, and man .. it's just not enough to satisfy three GTX 480 cards most of the time. And that makes sense as it's just such a truckload of raw GPU horsepower."

At 2500x1600 the tri sli setup starts to pull away.

power consumtion
sli gtx 480's 702 watts
sli gtx580's 719 watts
tri sli gtx480 1009 watts

Noise
gtx580's in sli 46db
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/15
gtx480's in sli 57db
3 gtx480's 59 db
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-480-3way-sli-review/26

temps
gtx 580's in sli 90c
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/16
tri gtx480's 99c
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-480-3way-sli-review/27

personally ,I'd go with the gtx580's in sli but the 480 in tri sli are a good bit faster, especially with more recent drivers.
Click to expand...

Dear happymedium
this is what i need
thanks
 
And ya agreed.
gpu temps in the 95~110c zone !!

Forget that time to water cool, the days of air cooling are coming to a close imho.
Im on water cooled setup atm and it rocks and theirs no way im ever going back to air cooling, not after seeing what water cooling can do.
 
1920x1200? To be honest, do you realise how much graphics power that is for this resolution?
 
War Zone said:
And ya agreed.
gpu temps in the 95~110c zone !!

Forget that time to water cool, the days of air cooling are coming to a close imho.
Im on water cooled setup atm and it rocks and theirs no way im ever going back to air cooling, not after seeing what water cooling can do.
Click to expand...

Water cooling != TT big water.

That piece of crap does not even cool as well as mid level air coolers.

A $30 air cooler will outperform that that thing. Air cooling is FAR from dead for under $100 you can get an air cooler that is unrivaled by anything BUT a high end water set up built from scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top