GTX 580 v HD 5970 2GB performance face-off

[cadaveca]

Uh? I'll explain. Gamers don't play at 30 fps, irrespective of their hardware. The review should have compared at 4x AA.

I would agree, except the point wasn't showing which settings each card can do "X" minimum
FPS. [H] has other reviews for that exact comparison.

I do agree that there is a place for such reviews...in fact, I'd like it that way, but that wasn't the point of the article, IMHO.

BTW - I am no spring chicken either

Sure, and that's why I said exactly what I did. It wasn't exactly adressed to you specifically, but serves a point. Yes, I demand alot, but after so many years of gaming, it does take something exceptional to keep me interested, and poor framerates turn me off of a title very quickly. I won't play F1 2010 until I can play @ 5760x1080, and 4xAA. And to do so requires some hardware that isn't on the market yet. And before you go there, 4x any gpu isn't viable, in my books. And that's not a matter of cost..it's a matter of how stupid such configs are.


And with that in mind, the workload placed by 2560x1600 and 8xAA serves as a compare of what I need.

 

[nesco1801]

I clearly remember tons of "I get only 300 FPS" (literally) in CS and COD forums,
so although at 1st seeming infinitely stupid, when paired with fast enough monitor, high fps does give you theoretically better chances in competitive gaming.

Even for "home" use 30 is a bit on a low side, but it depends on fluidness.
Though I remember Crysis back then wasnt so bad on 18-22

 

[qubit]

They are already avaialble for sale, although @ like $1200.

The thing that is missed here, is that it takes a certain performance level before 1.5GB+ of vram actually shows it's strength, and those apps were chosen specifically to highlight that. This review doesn't cater to anyone, except high-end users, and as ECH mentions, merely highlights where 2GB of vram is needed. We are very close to the point that yes, a gpu needs 2GB.

I'll wait for 6970 before making final judgements, though.

Incredible that we do need 2GB RAM at all. Until recently 1GB was always regarded as overkill. Mind you, lots of AA takes up a lot of video memory and if you couple that to very resolution screens, then you start to run out of RAM... assuming the GPU's got the performance to run those settings better than a slideshow anyway!

All settings maxed out, except resolution set at 1280x720 (a bit better than on console) my setup has no issues at all running Metro 2033. Also take into consideration 30 fps is all that is required for a console.

Judder judder judder. That would drive me mad. :shadedshu Not to mention that the split-second timing required for a fast FPS would be ruined.

What sort of FPS do you get playing Metro 2033 then?

 

[cadaveca]

Incredible that we do need 2GB RAM at all. Until recently 1GB was always regarded as overkill. Mind you, lots of AA takes up a lot of video memory and if you couple that to very resolution screens, then you start to run out of RAM... assuming the GPU's got the performance to run those settings better than a slideshow anyway!

Well, the GTX580 kinda shows that 2GB might be a bit overkill. However, it's important to show that as rendering quality and resolution increases, vram needs to increase as well. What the exact amount taht is needed for what I personally want, I dunno...time will tell. I have a feeling that even if I do buy a 6-series card, I still won't get the performance I'm looking for.


I mean, yes, I'm ignoreing the fact that software is playing catch-up even ahrder now that before. but that's unimportant to me. I can't personally choose how these games are written, but I can choose how the platform I paly them on is configured.


And let me tell you...wit the windchill, today it feels like -25c outside. You bet I'm gonna be spending a whole lot of time indoors over the next serveral months, and I'm gonna need entertainment. GOOD entertainment.

 

[yogurt_21]

Well, the GTX580 kinda shows that 2GB might be a bit overkill. However, it's important to show that as rendering quality and resolution increases, vram needs to increase as well. What the exact amount taht is needed for what I personally want, I dunno...time will tell. I have a feeling that even if I do buy a 6-series card, I still won't get the performance I'm looking for.


I mean, yes, I'm ignoreing the fact that software is playing catch-up even ahrder now that before. but that's unimportant to me. I can't personally choose how these games are written, but I can choose how the platform I paly them on is configured.


And let me tell you...wit the windchill, today it feels like -25c outside. You bet I'm gonna be spending a whole lot of time indoors over the next serveral months, and I'm gonna need entertainment. GOOD entertainment.

try porn, it's cheaper lol

but no I agree if these are the 2 top cards we need to see what they can do at the max resolution with max settings. and smooth gameplay matters more to true gamers than high max fps. Max fps matters only to benchers.

My gtx 295 ftw edition was faster than my gtx470 in every possible way except minimum frames. so to me who spends more time gaming than benching the 200$ extra plus the better minimum frames was worth it.

if I had a monitor setup that did 2560x1600 you'd be damned sure I'd want a gpu that could handle it. Nobody buys a 30" screen to have to lower it's resolution and nobody buys the fasted gpu out there to have to lower detail levels in games.

to me 40fps at max settings says I need 2 in sli, or it looks like 2 2gb 5870's in crossfire would do the same thing as well.

this article is about the best so using "average gamer" logic doesn't make sense. You need to use "extreme enthusiest" logic as those are the ones who buy dual 30" monitors and the most expensive gpu solutions out there. The rest of us will get our 6870/gtx470's and below and be happy.

 

[DrPepper]

All settings maxed out, except resolution set at 1280x720 (a bit better than on console) my setup has no issues at all running Metro 2033. Also take into consideration 30 fps is all that is required for a console.

Metro 2033 runs fine in DX9 mode (going to make benchmarks soon). The pc performs worse when its on DX10 or 11 I'm guessing. Either way there is no console game that looks as good as it's pc counterpart due to the crappy resolution and lower settings.

 

[cadaveca]

Metro 2033 runs fine in DX9 mode (going to make benchmarks soon). The pc performs worse when its on DX10 or 11 I'm guessing. Either way there is no console game that looks as good as it's pc counterpart due to the crappy resolution and lower settings.

No, it doesn't run fine in DX9 mode. It still has points where it drops below 60FPS, when the rest of the time it's over 90FPS, on my rig. If you like I can run the bench and show you exactly what I'm talking about.

Metro2033 is just a bad game. The minimal effects that DX10 and DX11 offer to the title literally bring NOTHING other than poor performance.

Like, I cannot play this game. The stutter, even @ 1024x768, and DX9, is horrible.