570 vs 580

[Deleted]

hey guys, is there much of a difference between these cards. Theres a £50-60 differce, but is there much of an increase from 570 - 580 as im lookign to buy either. Or is there a card thats maybe better i could opt for aroud the same price range.

[Midean]

If Tom's is to be believed --

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...2660.html?prod[4835]=on&prod[4834]=on

Yes, there's a difference. Doesn't look to be too huge, however.
Your performance, would, however, depend on the number of monitors and resolutions you plan on running at.

[BicycleMafioso]

Running crossfirex on two HD6950 gives you better performance than a single GTX580 at a cheaper price. Multi-GPUsetups are not without its issues though.

If I were you, I'd be looking to compare a HD6970 with a GTX570, though.

[Deleted]

1900 x 1200 with a single 22"

[kailtas]

AnandTech 570 vs 580

You be the judge

[Wries]

570 should be more bang for buck but the 580 is the king of performance (when it comes to single gpu card) and will have a price (premium) thereafter.

[haxs101]

Overclock the 570 to 900mhz boom, you got yourself a gtx 580. If 900mhz is to much, go to 850.

[Nab]

Get the GTX580 it's far better than the 570.

[llDemonll]

1900 x 1200 with a single 22"

single monitor = 570 will be fine

[Djinni]

If Tom's is to be believed --

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...2660.html?prod[4835]=on&prod[4834]=on

Yes, there's a difference. Doesn't look to be too huge, however.
Your performance, would, however, depend on the number of monitors and resolutions you plan on running at.

I'm not a big fan of Tom's.... They don't keep the hardware consistant during comparison tests, especially during Intel vs AMD comparisons. (Sure there are parts you can't keep the same, but Tom's doesn't even seem to try.)

[BicycleMafioso]

single monitor = 570 will be fine

Because of the VRAM? :P Because I'm going to buy three Dell UltraSharp U2311H and a Radeon HD6950 2GiB, as soon as I can find a silent enough cooler on the card (I don't like the thought of replacing them), that would work reasonably in CFX (although that will be in hindsight, as I might decide not to CFX them at all) for a possible addition of another 6950.

[Korgoth]

I'd get a 560ti or 6950 and a 24 inch monitor and run a dual screen setup, over a 580 and 1 22inch monitor. Very few games you can't run on max settings at 1920x1200 with a 560ti or 6950. The 570 and 580 are overkill for sub 2560x1600 res with the current games on the market.

[Adappy]

I was originally thinking of getting a GTX 570 when I decided to step up one of my GTX 460s... then I read this thread and went for the 580 instead since I like to overclock my stuff . If I was gonna get something in the $350 range, I'd get a 6970 (I dunno how well Crossfire works if you were to get 2 6950s, but I found SLI 460's to be more trouble than it was worth).

And yes, more pixels = more VRAM required. Highest I've ever seen used with my setup (1080p) was something around 1075MB of RAM used with uber-high settings on WoW, for the majority of games 1GB is plenty for a single 1080p monitor.

[BicycleMafioso]

And yes, more pixels = more VRAM required. Highest I've ever seen used with my setup (1080p) was something around 1075MB of RAM used with uber-high settings on WoW, for the majority of games 1GB is plenty for a single 1080p monitor.

That, I know!
I was just curious if that was his reasoning.
My GTX460 (1GiB) doesn't go above 578~MiB used, I think, and I play full-ultra at 1080p.
But I was considering 5760x1080 (or 6038x1080 with compensating for the frames) or 3240*1920, so I figure I need more regardless :P

[Midean]

I'm not a big fan of Tom's.... They don't keep the hardware consistant during comparison tests, especially during Intel vs AMD comparisons.

I used Tom's because I couldn't remember the name of the other major benchmarking site (Which I now remember is AnandTech).
Regardless, the Anandtech link is showing much the same.

[Djinni]

I used Tom's because I couldn't remember the name of the other major benchmarking site (Which I now remember is AnandTech).
Regardless, the Anandtech link is showing much the same.

(I wasn't critising you, I was just pointing it out :P)

[Midean]

I realize. I was just saying why I chose Tom's -- not because I feel their benchmarking is the best.

[kailtas]

As stated several times, and shown in the benchmark link.

A 570 will be sufficient to run very high graphics on a 1920x1200 monitor. When you max out on 2560x1600, even the 580 will run into serious problems.

But with a 570, i dont see you dropping below 35FPS on games like Skyrim and BF3. Obviously, i cant say this for sure. But you will be able to run on nice settings.

[Xuvial]

Best bang for the buck, 570.
Best performance + overclocking potential, 580.

Let me just put it out there that OC'ing a 570 is nowhere near as easy as OC'ing a 580. 580's actually come slightly underclocked at stock so the gap between 570 and 580 is larger than you may think. The common misconception is that a 570 is just a watered-down 580, which is not the case. 580 comes with a 384-bit bus width compared to the 570's 320-bit, bus width plays a crucial role in performance. Then there's also the 1.5gb vRam compared to 1.2gb of 570, important for higher resolutions. It's not a matter of simply disabling/lowering cores/frequencies and cutting down the price (as it has been in the past), they are essentially different cards.

1900x1200 is a pretty high resolution, calculate that into your decision....especially in anticipation of BF3 and further upcoming games in 2011/2012.
Flagship card is flagship by a noticeable margin

[Deleted]

Get urself 560 Ti SOC version from Gigabyte or HAWK version from MSI and roll.