GTX 680 vs GTX 570 SLI

[opalarrow]

Should I wait for a 680 or go with a 570 SLI. I perfer nvidia, but I am open to other solutions


APPROXIMATE PURCHASE DATE: Within a 2 weeks. (Flexible. I can wait for a 680)

USAGE FROM MOST TO LEAST IMPORTANT: Gaming (Modern games @ Ultra), movies, photoshop CS5.1,

CURRENT GPU AND POWER SUPPLY: Neither currently purchased.

OTHER RELEVANT SYSTEM SPECS: CPU 3570K (OC @4.5Ghz)

PREFERRED WEBSITE(S) FOR PARTS: (newegg.ca, amazon.com or website that accepts a Canadian billing adress (not newegg.com)

OVERCLOCKING: Yes

SLI: Maybe

MONITOR RESOLUTION: 2160x3840 (two 1080p monitors)

Thanks in advance

 

[blazorthon]

Ok way to try and take my FPS example and try to make it sound irrelavent. I'll use your numbers, although you didn't provide them with the same scaling so I'll fix that. 35fps out of 40fps is 12.5% loss and 55fps out of 60fps is a 8.3% loss. I agree when you say its not just about the whole number but rather percentage of say maximum, which I never claimed in the first place. Anyway, were talking about a difference of ~4%. I hardly doubt you could perceive this. Yes this gap will widen if we go with lower and lower FPS numbers. But this post was about GTX 680 or 570 sli. I hardly doubt were talking about framerates in the teens with these setups. Put the emotion aside and stop trying to create arguments.

I said that I can see the difference between 35FPS and 40FPS. Any difference much lower than that, not so much. I'm not being emotional, just making sure that every thing is known. I've clearly stated that if the 680 has TXAA or a is 4GB model, then it has my recommendation too if it's not going to be used for more than a few years. The problem is that there are no 4GB models yet and TXAA is nowhere to be seen. The 680 can still be a good choice and it's VRAM isn't so low that it will bottleneck a 4MP resolution like dual 1080p, but it will be a problem if new games come out that use more memory than current games.

 

[opalarrow]

Yes 680 certainly, most benchmarks shows that it outperforms a 570 sli, (not by much) and also, with it you will have all the new features like TXAA, GPU boost, i think that worths the wait (I am also waiting).

And like @inzone spoke, in future you can even go with 680 sli, a much better option.

about your resolution:
2160x3840 (two 1080p monitors)

how is that resolution possible? with 2x 1080p?

i can see 3840x1080 and even 2160x1920 but 2160x3840 How?;

Sorry about that... I had a brain fart... I meant 1080x3840

 

[opalarrow]

Best answer selected by opalarrow.

 

[monsta]

See vram means nothing with these cards , have a look at the 680 2Gb to the 4GB

http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb-jetstream-review/

 

[inzone]

The benefit you get from more v-ram comes when you are using a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 , the more then 1gb the better at that resolution.

 

[blazorthon]

See vram means nothing with these cards , have a look at the 680 2Gb to the 4GB

http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-680-4gb-jetstream-review/

Guru3D is known to be Nvidia biased and the resolutions in those tests don't go beyond 4MP. I've already said that 2GB of VRAM is not a big problem right now until you go over 4MP and that the serious problems at 4MP won't be until new games come out. Oh, but if you want to disprove me with things that I've already said, go ahead and try. It doesn't work.

It's also ineresting to see that this review lacks the HD 4000 i7s in the encoding benchmark. They just happen to be about twice as fast as HD 3000, putting them at about 33% faster than the 680 in encoding. It's not just against AMD that Guru3D biases against to make Nvidia look better.

 

[blazorthon]

The benefit you get from more v-ram comes when you are using a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 , the more then 1gb the better at that resolution.

No. Current games need you to go above 4MP (2560x1600 is a 4MP resolution) before 2GB of VRAM capacity becomes a problem. Also, once you have enough VRAM for a workload, having more will make next to zero difference. The 680 2GB slightly beats the 7970 (has 3GB) in most games at or below 4MP because of this. It isn't until you go to 5MP or 6MP (triple 1080p) where the 680's VRAM capacity becomes a problem.

New, more VRAM consuming games will change that. New games always come out and the more intensive ones use more memory than the last intensive games. It's that simple. If 5MP and 6MP are limiting for the 680 right now (they are), then how much more intensive do games need to be to choke the 680 even at 4MP resolutions such as 2560x1600 and dual 1080p? Less than 50% more intensive. That's not even a huge jump for games. Even the GTX 580 3GB could beat the 680 2GB in some games if TXAA doesn't ease the memory load on the 680 2GB.

 

[ricardois]

Well on that review you can see already that:
"The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference."

That is the main point of why they released the 2GB version... also they were thinking in the future, if this non-geometric anti-aliasing solutions fit in, not even in high resolution the gpu will need so much memory. of course it would lost to a system with a 580 with 3gb right now if the resolution is the bottleneck, but by thinking on the future they saw that the price extra for adding 3~4gb for the huge price added since with good coded games and fastest solutions like decreasing antialiasing you really don't need that.

Increasing the hardware size isn't always the solutions, decreasing the software demands is always the cheapest and smartest solution. That is normally the difference between a good coded game that run with good graphics even with mid-end gpus, and another game that can't run very well even at a 13k computer.

 

[blazorthon]

Well, if you have a 680 and don't mind turning the AA down just so the 2GB of VRAM doesn't get overloaded, that's your choice. Most people don't like turning down settings, especially if the GPU can handle it and it's just because the memory can't. I suppose it is smart to decrease picture quality if you don't want to pay for it.

 

[monsta]

You dont need to turn it down, it handles it just fine.

 

[ricardois]

Like i have said it is not a question of TURNING AA down, but it is a question of removing AA and using FXAA or TXAA. you will probably notice games each time more including fxaa integrated, and lowering MSAA possibilities. since they can do a good enough job, for a much cheaper price on the memory...

 

[monsta]

Exactly, the new FXAA and TXAA have eleviated the overhead that AA taxes on the memory, so you arent lowering it you are using a different method.

 

[blazorthon]

FXAA is far inferior to MSAA in picture quality and TXAA is both an MIA feature and untested, last I checked.

 

[ricardois]

... I'm not saying it is visually a better solution, but MSAA is calculated on object geometry, you need much memory to do that and the effect of course is better, and FXAA is on the image itself that is why it is is much faster but can't work on the same precision, what i am saying is that, the memory usage is getting too high nowdays and that is not efficient, they should check for faster technologies just like FXAA that isn't better than MSAA but it is much faster, and uses much less memory, for realtime rendering (gaming) this is an awesome solution and like i have said will probably be improved a little and will take place over MSAA that will be left behind... just some games will need more than 2gb nowdays on high resolutions and what if those games were a little more improved on the memory management, that problem would not happen.

Maybe in the future games will start to use even less memory, and having 4gb will probably not be used, of course that is what i think, maybe it get even worst on implementations and will require even more dedicated memory on the future, but what they are trying with FXAA is that, improving games performance and lowering hardware requirements without lowering quality.

 

[monsta]

Far inferior is kinda dramatic.LOL

 

[blazorthon]

FXAA and such will only slow down the trend to more memory. Like all other parts, more is going to be more important as time goes on. Far inferior is not kinda dramatic. It is very noticeable.

 

[ricardois]

FXAA and such will only slow down the trend to more memory. Like all other parts, more is going to be more important as time goes on. Far inferior is not kinda dramatic. It is very noticeable.

Only the future will tell us ^^, but what is better use a car with a strong engine with hexagonal wheels or a normal engine with round wheels?

Method implementations tend to be improved to decrease the system requirements, i don't discard the more memory in future, but for now at least, flash memory is just too expensive and solutions like FXAA will start to be used much more frequently.

 

[blazorthon]

Only the future will tell us ^^, but what is better use a car with a strong engine with hexagonal wheels or a normal engine with round wheels?

Method implementations tend to be improved to decrease the system requirements, i don't discard the more memory in future, but for now at least, flash memory is just too expensive and solutions like FXAA will start to be used much more frequently.

What does this discussion have to do with Flash memory?

 

[ricardois]

What does this discussion have to do with Flash memory?

Sorry, i mean VRAM...

 

[rdzona]

Only the future will tell us ^^, but what is better use a car with a strong engine with hexagonal wheels or a normal engine with round wheels?

Well it could depend on what kind of surface you are driving on. 😀

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rolling-Square.gif

 

[ricardois]

Well it could depend on what kind of surface you are driving on. 😀

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rolling-Square.gif

agreed.

awesome.