$1000 in AMD GPU's is faster than $1000 worth of Nvidia GPU's at Eyefinity resolutions. I don't know what there is to even argue about here?
I agree, the premise of the article and the resulting comparison is perfectly fine. The problem is the cheerleading derailing this thread, but hey, what else is new on this forum? Clearly a 6990 + 6970 is the way to go if you're asking for the best multi-monitor performance with a $1000 budget, no questions asked.The objections appears to be based on some subjective sense of "wrongness"
IT's a very straightforward article based on a straightforward premise: See what you can get from 2 cards at $1000. If the cost is the same, and power draw is similar, the comparison is perfectly fine.
Lets say I'm a "real enthusiast" and I have a $1100 invested in 3, 24 inch IPS monitors, a 400$ quad sli/x-fire motherboard, 16gb memory, 1500 watt psu, ect. ect. ect.
WHat gpu's do I buy? Do i worry about a couple hundred more to make my system the fastest it can be or do I suddenly start to become cost conscious and settle for second best.
That review is bogus.
What if made the same review uping the budget to $2000? Then people would complain that AMd has nothing in that price range to match Nvidia performance.
I would take 3 EVGA gtx580 3gb cards or Zotac AMp 2's overclocked at 900 core (1,800$) over any AMD setup you can buy.
It a made for AMD budget review. AMD budget gpu's and second best , just like thier cpu's ,face facts and stop cheering for the second place underdog.
I'm so tired of hearing "but they cost less" excuse.
I agree, the premise of the article and the resulting comparison is perfectly fine. The problem is the cheerleading derailing this thread, but hey, what else is new on this forum? Clearly a 6990 + 6970 is the way to go if you're asking for the best multi-monitor performance with a $1000 budget, no questions asked.
One thing I'd like to see investigated is where the bandwidth limitations of their CF bridge come into play. Would 6970 Tri-CF actually be slower than the 6990 + 6970 at these extreme resolutions due to the limitation? It seems like it could be a potentially devastating bottleneck if AMD continues to push high-resolution gaming, which is a real shame because their solutions are generally superior in this regard in the first place. Also, I'd be curious to see if using two CF bridges using any dual card setup (6990 + 69x0) gives a performance benefit.
Let's see those benchmarks.
Too bad those aren't relevant to the immediate discussion. If you read the thread you'd know this. But I'll give you the parameters:
1. 580 SLI vs 69xx Trifire head to head.
2. Multimonitor gaming resolution.
3. The games notty mentioned and more.
I agree. I think I've said here before that I'm all for 6950 Tri-Fire if you want a multi-GPU solution. If you can catch one of the deals for ~$230 for reference cards, you just got obscene performance for less than $700. Bang-for-your-buck the option is second to none. I also prefer single GPU cards to dual-GPU cards atm, simply for power and cooling issues/parameters. Until multi-GPU cards offer something besides onboard CF/SLI, there's little reason to put up with the extra heat, noise, and lack of o/c ability when triple-slot mobos are plentiful.I still like the 6970 tri-Crossfire option, because of the default clockings, over the 6990+6970; is Quad 6950's possible? Quad in single GPU AMD cards available anymore or are there AIB's that offer this? The added benefit of the ram is really helping with multi-monitor but I will agree with two slots available the 6990+6970 certainly has a powerful punch for multi-monitor -- in this context.
Would like to see how Tri-570's would perform though -- not only with this 6990+6970 example but how it would compare with Sli-GTX 580's, too.
Vega's rig has little to do with this thread. Where are the benchmarks cruiseabelincoln asked for?Sorry I forgot the link,
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1037104970#post1037104970
"Resolution 4800x2560 (3x 30" LCD Portrait). "
Vega's rig has little to do with this thread. Where are the benchmarks cruiseabelincoln asked for?
Anyway, Nvidia can be slower at some price points Happy, it's ok.
Lmao do people just assume everyone is swimming in money? yes amd cards usually have more value in them,.... "budget excuse"... lmao... how anyone can spin value as being bad is beyound me.But they cost less.
BUT THEY COST LESS.
Newsflash: That has been AMD's publicly-stated design goal since the HD4800 debut.
But man. THEY COST LESS.
What a terrible excuse. The excuse is so terrible because... it's not even an excuse at all! ROFL. Terrible.
Why are we talking about quad SLI in a $1000 GPU budget thread though? I'd love to see an all out, no budget limit comparrison between AMD and Nvidia. I think scaling will be more important than the GTX580's single GPU advantage... but that graph shows good scaling. Anyway, Nvidia can be slower at some price points Happy, it's ok.
So you want him to use more expensive speciality models that are hard to find vs a very simple & easy $1k setup. Yeah that's very fair to be compaired.
Jeez man.....dont get upset!....We all know beyond 25x16, the 2Gb of vRam comes into play and that this is a short coming of the 570\580's
Its already an unfair comparison IMO as its via price, not product quantity!
2 cards vs 2 cards.
Sure it is 3 GPUs vs 2 GPUs, but then it is 1167 mm^2 (3x389) worth of silicon vs 1040mm^2 (520x2) worth of silicon. If it was 3vs3 one could say it also wasn't fair since it would be 1167 vs 1560.
Or if you prefer it is 7920 millions (3x2640) of transistors vs 6000 millions (2x3) or 9000 millions if one was to use 3 nividia GPUs.
I think all that is irrelevant - consumers buy cards and pay for those cards.
Talking about the advantage on a card with a single GPU vs a card with dual GPUs has merits, but in this case we have multi GPU configurations anyway.
Another fair comparison would be 3x6970 vs 3xGTX570.
It is unfortunate that NVIDIA doesn't allow SLI between the GTX590 and either the GTX580 or GTX570.
Well, I disagree, i dont see this as a fair comparison of performance when you are based on price...
Its like a tug of war based on weight, you could have 12 v 6 can say its even due to weight of the participators. However weight isnt everything, as price isnt everything.....
Just because I can buy a cheap V8 motor doesnt mean its a fair comparison to a straight 4......
Wouldn't you get the faster performing setup when price is equal?
Analogies should be only used when they allow to transmit a message in a simpler way. In this case they won't.Well, I disagree, i dont see this as a fair comparison of performance when you are based on price...
Its like a tug of war based on weight, you could have 12 v 6 can say its even due to weight of the participators. However weight isnt everything, as price isnt everything.....
Just because I can buy a cheap V8 motor doesnt mean its a fair comparison to a straight 4......
Why do people buy less powerful Macs over PC's?
Analogies should be only used when they allow to transmit a message in a simpler way. In this case they won't.
What you are saying is that absolute performance shouldn't be limited by price.
But the article is about performance at a certain price point with similar number of graphic cards.
Nothing else, nothing more.
Err, not necessarily, just like I don't buy the cheaper server as apposed to the HP range.
I wouldnt buy the cheaper\more powerful east European car over western European car..
Why do people buy less powerful Macs over PC's?