Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by qubit, Nov 18, 2010.
Before posting, please read the rest of the article, to get the full picture.
we still say about the games which use more than 1G on 1920x1080 it's bad programing games such as metro 2033 and GTA V, but i see games now going with this shit and i afraid if 1G cards will be not enough anymore with new games that will be a disaster.
so 5970 with 2 GPU should be better and it's really better with all games use less than 1G.
it's not the GPU, it's these programming jerks
if metro 2033 can run soo smooth on outdated consoles, why do they f*ck our HD5850/GTX460 range cards
The GTX 580 gets fucked by a card that has equal power consumption and is lower in price.
Oh my god, that's the funniest thing I've read all week.
Now, we just have to see how it compares to the 69xx series.
yes true is faster, for now...
Unless you live in the UK where a 580 can be had for upto 15% less
So basically providing you don't game at 25XX (which few do), then there is no memory related issues with the 5970, it's almost as if they are trying to find weaknesses for the comparision though and what they come up with apart from finding it difficult in the odd game to play at 25XX at ABOVE 8xMSAA is the usual multi GPU issues.
You mean the 5970 is fucked? The article shows the 580 as having smoother gameplay.
Yes, I thought that too. Obviously he didn't read the article properly.
Was having framedrops in GTX295 with AA blasted way back.. I can now see its maybe a memory issue and not a dual gpu related issue i guess..
Thats because in the console, they strip down rendering effects that laymen wont recognize. Subtle rendering effects that is not really noticable until its focused upon on (DX11 stuff to be specific, or total number of light sources, etc).. those things can consume an amount of rendering cycle.
That and games console work at almost 100% efficiency towards the end of their lives. Were lucky if we get 50%.
You know, color me a fanboy but this article doesn't make sense to me. If you want to game at 2560x1600 with 8xaa and you're only pushing 40 frames with these monster cards in a dx11 title,wouldn't your first reaction be to drop the aa a level to grab another 10 to 20 frames to truly get a "smooth" experience? Hell the main argument of the article is the word smooth. You can add as much motion blur you want but without a framerate that matches your refresh rate you are going to get frame skips. Even if I owned a 580 I would be at 4xaa to hopefully hit 60 frames and with vsync with triple buffering. But then wouldn't I be happier with a 5970 that can hit higher frames both min and Max in these new titles?
Also, to actively suggest people to buy a 580, or even a 5970 for that matter, is just plain deceptive. With a new line of high end gpus landing in what? Less than 30 days? Telling people they'd be happy with their purchase when prices on these gpus is likely to fall makes me lose faith in this so called "tech site." End rant. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
People read the article, its basic 3d acceleration optimization flaws, which makes the GTX 580 stand out as overall a smoother card.
In many of todays games, and architectures when it comes to video cards there is 1 slight flaw. When you have a dual GPU you have 2 cards on 1 pci-e express slot, but every gpu needs there dedicated memory. So a HD 5970 having 2x HD 5870 on board and 2gb of total memory, is nice for video games, but the gpu can only use 1gb of memory dedicated to its self.
Basically in words, a HD 5970 is like two people, these two guys don't like sharing, they will only use 1gb of vram for them selfs.
The optimazation in many games isnt great at all when it comes to dual gpu setup's of any kind. You have issue's of micro stuttering, and memory caps. Most 3d applications are going to use a HD 5970 to the best of the ability. But if the application slams down and the first gpu with 1gb of vram gets swallowed up, it falls down, starts to stutter, and really starts slowing down. The second gpu will try to keep up, but its a domino affect.
With a GTX 580, you have no optimization tricks. So a 3d application will run perfectly on it. Only 1 Core of 512 shaders, 1.5gb dedicated ONLY to the 512 cuda core, and decent clocks to back it up.
For a 3d application, this is gold. A GTX 580 wont have micro stuttering problems, Lack of memory Issue's nor will it cause conflicts in many applications. Meaning way smoother game-play and more compatibility and possibility
You will get solid performance in every single game, and you wont be let down because of game optimization or future vram hogging titles coming 2011-2012.
Many people ditch sli-crossfirex solutions because of this. Sometimes, Even for the enthusiast, you just want to start a game and get smooth performance.
In summary you can either have a HD 5970, but go threw driver issue's, optimization issue's and some times just sit in your chair, because the game you want to play is getting terrable performance, and AMD has to hotfix/patch the driver in a couple of days.
Or you can get a GTX 580, a little more expensive, overall more smoother game-play, Every game should start up and run great on release without a hotfix/patch driver.
The cons of a GTX 580:
More expensive then HD 5970's.
Slightly Slower then a HD 5970's.
Runs Slightly Warmer then HD 5970's.
Doesn't Support Triple Monitors.
The Con's of a HD 5970:
Slight Memory Bottlenecks.
HD 5970 is the longest card in earth. (bad for PCI-e slots sometimes)
It just depends on what video card you want to get, Even the final decision, it could come down to the exact length of these video cards. a HD 5970 is to large and just slightly dangerous.
a GTX 580 is a bit shorter at a regular length.
Many enthusiast might go for the GTX 580, because there Green team, and its fast fast fast(overclockable)
Many enthusiast might go for a HD 5970 because in benchmarks, the HD 5970 is technically faster in frame-rate then a GTX 580. (Better for Benching in vantage and getting e-peen scores)
We can go back and forth in discussion of which one is better, a Essay of 20 pages infact. Eventually there will be a answer for every one.
My final thoughts? Go for both cards, Dream for both cards, and respect both the GTX 580 and HD 5970, because there both really in there own performance range, and just extremely fast in all applications in all resolutions on common monitors.
Thsi is simply a lead-up review into the 6970 2GB. Carefully crafted to show memory limitations, that very shortly, will be overcome.
While many may think the reasoning for the settings used is not good, as a user with 2560x1600 panels, I understand why the focus is there.
If you are not a high-end user, of course it makes no sense. High-end features aren't important to you. I don't understand why people think running high-end rigs is useless...just be honest and say you cannot afford such a beast of a machine. It's no big deal, but for me personally, I demand the best, and am willing to pay for it. Cost effectiveness isn't any of my concern.
This is a review of the current top-end products, and it's purpose is to expose a failing in AMD's cards, so that the inclusion of 2GB on the new cards "makes sense".
I do game at 2560x1600 Saving to get two more screens and a couple of HD6970s or a HD6990
The HD5970 still offers high framerates than that of the GTX580. Other than F1 2010 at 8XMSAA, the HD5970 kicks ass.
Oh i did. Seem likes you didn't though. You just read the conclusion without actually taking a look at the figures.
I agree with Cadaveca. And i had Bjorn's problem with my GTX 295, it had 1792Mb memory i think but that was 896 per gpu. I've seen a similare comparison using a 5870 2GB and it held it's own at 2560 res.
I think it's okay for NV to have gone with 1.5Gb Ram. And i also like to have as much eye candy dazzling on my screen as possible.
But i'll not be impressed until i can see blood spatters slapping into dust particles or swishing through fogs of gunsmoke.
Roll on the GTX 999 and the HD 9999
Lower the graphics settings down to a console's graphics settings (720p as well) and it should do much better. It's simple really.
I even think it's 640p.
Both of you are wrong. This was a review showing the limitations of 1Gig of vram at 2560x1600 using 8xAA, etc. Nothing more. Remember, the 5970 shares that 2gigs of vram making it effectively 1Gig of vram. While the 580 using 1.5 Gigs of vram. But have a look at this (regarding a 2 Gig vram 5870):
As you can see it's very obvious with F1 2010 as the 580 shows absolutely no improvement over the 5870 with 2 Gigs of vram. As for BC2 only a 6 FPS improvement. So that's 2 out of the 5 games they provided benchmarks that shows the 580 in a very bad light here. The other 2 games: Metro and MOH, don't use 8xAA. And for civilization, there is so much hard drive thrashing going on I simply omitted the results as the graphs shows extreme dips down to 1-0 FPS on all cards. So that's the gist of the review (concerning vram) which doesn't make the 580 a appealing card.
Thank you for that fine post!
That's the point: the answer is yes and no; a classic grey area. The 5970 dips much lower, due to running out of memory, which causes annoying hitches in the game, therefore the 580 gives smoother gameplay, which is where it counts. Remember, the most important parameter is the lowest FPS, not the highest.
I saw an example of exactly this effect with my hardware. I had a 4870 512MB and was quite pleased with it. It worked nicely and was quite powerful and is a good card. One saw glitches with PC games, like one does, though.
Then I got a used 8800 GTX (these have 768MB RAM if you remember) for about £60, to play with. And yes, you guessed it, despite it benching lower FPS in tests, it offered noticeably smoother gameplay than the 4870, with less of those annoying hitches. In fact, some games actually had a higher FPS when I unlocked vsync, which really surprised me.
It wasn't long until that 4870 found itself on eBay and I was the proud owner of a Zotac GTX 285, which I have to this day. As you can imagine, gameplay is very smooth with this card and I don't see so many issues with my games.
Of course, it would have been nice to do a three way comparison between the 8800 GTX and 512MB & 1GB versions of the 4870, to see if the extra memory would have made a difference to the ATI card. However, I tend to doubt it, as I was only running at something like 1024x960 resolution on my aging CRT monitor at the time and that wouldn't max out 512MB anyway.
And before you brand me an "ATI fanboi", I had bought ATI for years before that. However, my loyalty was not rewarded by ATI with better products, so I switched to nvidia. So far, I can see now reason to switch back. I'll be looking to get the GTX 580 when the Cayman cards come out and the 580 has dropped in price a bit.
Your kind of missing my point, in most things even at that res it's shown that the 5970 is faster than the 580, in the linky the Op provided it pointed out that at those resolutions in a couple of DX11 games more than 1GB of memory may well be needed therefore the 5970 struggles in comparision to the 580, I am not disputing that fact and I am not sure anyone else is, my point with the review is simply that it, are choosing to focus on inferior performance in a handful of games rather than acknowledgeing the 5970's superior performance in the majority of games which most reviews do show.
I qualified my non fanboi comment by stating that in the UK however the 580 appears to be a better value for money prospect as it is up to 15% cheaper for just a 5% average loss in pereformance across games against the 5970. The argument to a certain degree is mute, if you wanted more performance than either of the 2 cards you could simply buy two HD6870's, yes you would still have the memory issues with those odd games but generally you would spank both to death whilst discharging warm substances in awe of the performance.
Lol i'm not gonna brand you as a fanboi or anything and i hear what you say. The GTX 580 does give smoother game play but only F1 2010 and at 8XMSAA and in one benchmark of Bad Company 2, but by a very little gap. All other games the HD5970 is on top. Now in my case where i have a HD5970 with 2GB VRAM per gpu.. The GTX 580 will be walked on.
OH ok. I get your point and i do agree with what you say. Though IMO i still think the HD5970 is a better value for money if it's cheaper like $469 as [H]OCP says.
The problem (and disconnect here) is that this isn't a performance review and that should have been made clear IMO. This is a vram review nothing more. So the gist is very simple, when you don't have enough vram you don't get smooth game play at 2560 res using higher levels of AA, IQ, etc. Although we can only guess, if the results were at 1920 I'm guessing that the results would be consistent with the 5970 winning most if not all the time. While the 580 handily beating the 5870 2Gig. But that's just a guess on my part looking at other reviews.
At max DX11 settings, 4xMSAA, Very High textures are cra***er then High textures.
How's that for a simple
Separate names with a comma.