Raw rendering power would go up quite a bit if scaling plays nice but you would still be limited by vram. The problem only gets worse as you add cards because you expect a noticeable difference but you still get the same stuttering.
Where I have a problem is using the wording obsolete and one can enjoy AA with a GTX 570 Sli in your examples and would even have more performance with Tri-Sli there.
How would Tri-Sli compare in that article with three GTX 570's?
Where I have a problem is using the wording obsolete and one can enjoy AA with a GTX 570 Sli in your examples and would even have more performance with Tri-Sli there.
How would Tri-Sli compare in that article with three GTX 570's?
Raw rendering power would go up quite a bit if scaling plays nice but you would still be limited by vram. The problem only gets worse as you add cards because you expect a noticeable difference but you still get the same stuttering.
Also, that review uses old drivers. 267.31 and older. 270s boast improved SLI performance.
But do they boost performance hehe. Had to.
But to this - where on nVidia's website (and to that ATI's) do I even find beta drivers. Everytime I use their drop down menus I get the last "official" release driver. For example, couldn't find the Cata 11.4 Early Preview drivers on their website, had to use a link post here.
Limited by Vram in the worse case extreme examples!
I would choose none of the above though 3x6950 2GB cards for $750 is the most amazing multi-gpu deal out there for extreme performance. Faster than 580 SLI for 75% of the price, faster than 6970CF for about the same price.
[H] should of reviewed that or at least made note of the price point and incredible performance to be had there, nothing touches it. And related to the subject of this thread, these cards also have the big 2GB VRAM needed for 3 monitor gaming.
Dollars are a fine comparison but one can garner three GTX 570's though, too.
How would the three GTX 570's compare?
To the HD 6990+6970?
To the GTX 580 SLi?
Personally would like to see how the platform, even with extreme testing would compare to other platforms considering it is around the same dollar value. I think it's a fair point -- that's all. It's not a knock on AMD's fine choices.
When running a multi-GPU configuration, memory capacity does matter at Eyefinity resolutions, and these video cards can be had cheaper than the competition. If you flat out want the highest raw performance, we have to say that is the GeForce GTX 580 SLI, depending on the game, but its memory capacity may hold you back if you are running NV Surround. For the best value, it is clearly the Radeon HD 6950 and Radeon HD 6970 CrossFireX setups. That is quite a change from the song we sang a few short months ago when the 5870 CrossFireX was destroyed by GTX 480 SLI.
I understand that, but some people here are playing down the fact that between those 2 setups. AMD is superior. [H] already mentioned that they thought the 570 didn't have enough ram for 3 screen gaming. They couldn't have also used 4 6950s. They would fit into the budget I guess.
Sure 4 6950s would even further AMD's lead at the $1000 price point but it introduces additional costs that would offset that I think.
Boards that support 4-way CF or SLI are usually $400-$500, plus the power supply you need in terms of adequate power and connectors will be pricey.
These benches show accurate comparisons of how the setups you are all discussing would compare when VRAM limitations come into play in surround setups.
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/03/07/amd_radeon_hd_6990_antilles_video_card_review/1
'The GeForce GTX 570 SLI setup gave us the worse experience in the game. We had to lower down to 2X AA at 5760x1200 in order to achieve playable performance. Even at this lower AA setting performance was well behind everything else. So in this game, the Radeon HD 6990 does offer a better experience compared to the GeForce GTX 570 SLI.'
'The GeForce GTX 570 SLI setup was the worst performing in this game. We had to lower to "Gamer" shaders at 5760x1200 and we were not able to have AA enabled at all. Therefore, AMD Radeon HD 6990 and HD 6970 CrossFireX deliver a better experience than the GeForce GTX 570 SLI.'
'In Crysis: Warhead we are pushing the video cards by testing with 4X AA enabled at 5040x1050 with all "Enthusiast" game settings and shader quality.
When we did this, we see an interesting result, the AMD Radeon HD 6990 pushes ahead of the GeForce GTX 580 SLI! GeForce GTX 570 SLI falls way behind at these settings. The AMD Radeon HD 6990 video card is 6% faster than GTX 580 SLI at these settings.'
570 Tri-Sli is a lot of GPU horsepower and all that power is appropriate to very high resolutions but is rendered obsolete by a lack of sufficient VRAM. There is even an example above where you see 580SLI outpaced by a single 6990 due to lack of VRAM.
In games where the 570 does not run out of VRAM it is a draw with a 6990.
'The GeForce GTX 570 SLI configuration also seems to be about on par with the two AMD setups. We were able to play at 5760x1200 with 4X AA plus Transparency Multisampling. All three cards here are even and the GTX 580 SLI is the one that steps out beyond the rest offering a better experience. '
Which lends itself to showing that 6990+6970 would come up with draws against 570 TriSLI at times. But there are clearly times where 570 TriSLI will choke up due to lack of vram, so why would you choose a setup that only keeps up sometimes but is too slow in certain scenarios ?
As far as 2560x1600, I could see 570 Tri being enough almost all the time, but not every time. I have pegged VRAM usage in excess of 1.3GB in Crysis, Stalker and Metro at that resolution.
Subject of this thread is '[H] 6990+6970 CF vs GTX580 SLI triple monitor' If you want to make comparisons of AMD vs NV at triple monitor solutions, isn't it logical to compare cards that are equipped with enough VRAM to handle any game at those resolutions, not just some of them ?
What sort of buyer seeing these benches would get the 570s knowing at times they would be playing a slideshow because of texture swapping from the hard drive. I know what this is like firsthand from having my 5870CF setup run out of VRAM. Your gaming literally freezes on and off momentarily and chugs until you move through the game to an area where you have enough VRAM to render the scene.
Not what I would call the way you'd want to game :thumbsdown:
If you're talking NV vs AMD and triple monitor, you need to be comparing 6950s, 6970s, 6990s and 580s, 590s. Not cards that lack the VRAM to handle these resolutions like 6850s or 570s or 460s etc.
Moving on, its interesting to note that while we had a tie at 2560 with Enthusiast settings for the average framerate, the same cannot be said of the minimums. At 2560, no matter the quality, AMD has a distinct edge in the minimum framerate. This is particularly pronounced at 2560E, where moving from two to three GPUs causes a drop in the framerate on the GTX 580. This is probably a result of the differences in the cards memory capacity additional GPUs require additional memory, and it seems the GTX 580 and its 1.5GB has reached its limit. We never seriously imagined wed find a notable difference between 1.5GB and 2GB at this point in time, but here we are.
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but Hardocp.com revisited this comparison.
Hmmm, now the tri sli system is 21.7% faster?
At least they admit there mistakes.:thumbsup:
Mistake? This does not invalidate the original review. It's in addition to the information in the first one.
If you have a system like the first review (1366) go with the 6990/6970 setup and get better performance for a lot less cash. If you have the 2nd system (P67 possibly only with an NF200 chip. That hasn't been tested yet.) go with the 3x 590's. That's if you have an extra ~$500 bucks.
what if I have 1366 with 980X? Should I go 3x6990s?
Quad gpu sli/crossfire is the maximum drivers allow. There is no getting around that.
Quad gpu sli/crossfire is the maximum drivers allow. There is no getting around that.