is the gtx 670 bad for old games?

[Anarchist420]

I was just wondering whether I should get a 670 or a 570. i was thinking a 570 not only has the full hardware scheduling, but also just as much theoretical performance. am i thinking correctly or incorrectly?

BTW, when i say "old games" I mean like Quake III engine games and a few DX9 games.

 

[skipsneeky2]

My gtx670 plays games like BF1942,BF2,UT2004 just fine.

For all my games i tend to make sure in the nvidia control panel to have power management enabled on maximum performance and its ready to go with no issues.

 

[BFG10K]

i was thinking a 570 not only has the full hardware scheduling, but also just as much theoretical performance. am i thinking correctly or incorrectly?

Instead of imagining things, it’s a better idea to search for the information given specs and benchmarks are publicly available.

Here's a piece I did that should be exactly what you’re looking for, given it includes a lot of older titles. I even listed the specs of the cards:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2239077

The difference between 580 -> 680 should be roughly comparable to the difference between 570 -> 670.

Apart from a few older games that are about the same performance (or a bit slower), the GTX680 is faster overall, and uses less power too.

But then we already knew Kepler is superior for games than Fermi for total performance, perf/mm2 and perf/watt metrics.

 

[Lepton87]

I was just wondering whether I should get a 670 or a 570. i was thinking a 570 not only has the full hardware scheduling, but also just as much theoretical performance. am i thinking correctly or incorrectly?

BTW, when i say "old games" I mean like Quake III engine games and a few DX9 games.

full hardware scheduling is important for compute not games. If you want something that doesn't sacrifice compute performance when compared to fermi get a radeon 7970, even for just games it's a better value anyway.

 

[RussianSensation]

If all you want to do is play older games on a single monitor, unless it's a 2560x1600 monitor or you are planning to push exotic levels of AA (Super-sampling) or using mods, then I can't see how a ~$200 GTX660 won't serve your needs.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814500270

It's going to be about as fast as a 580, has more VRAM and uses less power.

For a lot of those older DX9 games, you might actually start becoming CPU limited without 'exotic' AA filters with cards like GTX670. Some of the performance improvement from 660 is going to be more academic in nature like moving from 70-80 fps to 100 fps. It's not really worth the extra $ to get a 670 from a 660 for those old games, unless you just love the idea of running super-sampling or just need very high frames for competitive Q3 gaming.

 

[Anarchist420]

Thanks guys. I think I'll get the 570 since it's cheaper than a 670 with a 680 PCB.

 

[skipsneeky2]

For strict gaming,your better off choosing a 7850 or even a 7870 but for older games def a 7850 at best or like RS mentioned,a gtx660

Your Op failed to mention if this is a newegg purchase brand new,or used but currently the gtx570 is a bad deal brand new.

 

[RussianSensation]

Thanks guys. I think I'll get the 570 since it's cheaper than a 670 with a 680 PCB.

I don't understand why you would get the 570. It's the worst card among 7870/660/660Ti. Not only that but it uses more power than all of those, and has the least amount of VRAM. If you cannot afford to spend $200, I would even get the 7850 2GB over the 570 if you are on a tight budget. The 7850 will use way less power, has 2GB of VRAM and is barely slower at stock speeds, but it can overclock 30-40%.

You do realize GTX570 is a 40nm card, right? It uses 110W of power than a 7850 for 9% more performance.

 

[toyota]

I don't understand why you would get the 570. It's the worst card among 7850/7870/660/660Ti.

yep getting a 570 at this point is just silly unless its one heck of a really good deal.

 

[RussianSensation]

yep getting a 570 at this point is just silly unless its one heck of a really good deal.

Ironically, HD6950 (esp. unlocked) or 6970 is a better deal than 570 for old games since Fermi cards are worse in OpenGL/ DX9 titles which is a ton of old games. The strength of GTX400/500 series was always DX11, not OpenGL or DX9.

In the used GPU market, I think an unlocked 6950 2GB would be an even better value.

P.S. toyota congrats on the GTX660 Ti upgrade. Didn't even notice

 

[BFG10K]

I don't understand why you would get the 570.

He thinks hardware scheduling and DP are important for games when in reality they're of zero use.

So he chooses the opposite of reality and ends up with the inferior gaming part, while it chews more power at the same time.

 

[Red Hawk]

I echo the thought that a Radeon HD 7850 or a Geforce GTX 660 would be the better purchase than a Geforce GTX 570.

Edit: Wait. This is Anarchist. He's particularly anti-AMD so of course he won't get a 7850, 7870, or 7950. Still, he was considering a 670, so a 660 or 660 Ti should be well within his price range. It just makes zero sense to go for a 570 over any one of those.

 

[Termie]

I'm sure he bit on the $180 deal that was floating around for a 570 on a shrunken PCB. Even so, a 660, even if more expensive, would have been better. The 570 vs. 670 comparison was a red herring because they aren't even remotely in the same price class.

 

[Anarchist420]

I decided to get a 660 Ti. It should be fast enough for everything that I throw at it since I don't see any need to play at my monitor's native res (1920x1200). 1600x1200/900 or 1680x1050 is plenty.

I wish there were some decent monitors out there though.

 

[bigted41]

660Ti is a great card, but why would you not game at 1920x1200?

 

[Anarchist420]

660Ti is a great card, but why would you not game at 1920x1200?

If the game doesn't support 1920x1200 then that's one reason.

If I was playing something that was pixel fillrate intensive, then that's another reason.

 

[Ketchup]

I think you'll be happy with it. Love my 660 (non-ti)

 

[FalseChristian]

I don't know. I've always found that nVidia cards are better at older games especially games like JDoom, GLQuake (or Quake HD), Quake II HD and Quake 3:Arena.

My 2 GTX 460 1GB run these older games which I still enjoy so fast that, really, does it matter whether AMD or nVidia cards are faster in these older OpenGL games?

No, I'm not biased toward nVidia. My favourite GPU of all time was my 256MB Radeon X800 XT PE. It's IQ was unmatched for its time.