[Mid-to-High End Rig] Radeon HD 6970 or GeForce 570GTX?

[Dragonwell]

Greets.

After hammering out some minutae for my new gaming rig on the General Hardware forum (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2170944), the only part I have left to buy is the all-important GPU.

Right now I'm torn between the HD 6970 and the 570GTX. I've used nothing but nVidia cards since about 2004 and have never had a single problem with any of them. Their drivers are solid and their cards are, too. I've heard bad things about ATi/AMD's driver support, but good things about their cards. Indeed the HD 6970 and the 570GTX seem to go neck and neck in virtually all benchmarks I've reviewed.

Regarding my gaming habits. I have a 24" LG monitor with a max resolution of 1920x1200, which is the resolution I run most games at. I also run most games in windowed mode (does this affect performance at all, I'm curious?), and one in a while at a slightly lower resolution than that; 1600x1080 or something similar. I play Crysis, TF2, CS:S, EVE Online, WoW, Minecraft, Terraria, this that and the other. Of course I prefer to run at the highest detail possible but as far as Anti-Aliasing in particular goes, I'm not a huge fan simply because of the huge performance hit and, to be frank, seemingly (to me) marginal visual gain.

The HD 6970's one clear advantage seems to be its greater memory capacity at 2GB, which gives it an advantage at higher resolutions. The 570GTX on the other hand seems to perform better on tessellation-heavy games like Metro 2033 (though I don't play M2033).

Up til now my choice was with the HD 6970 more or less by recommendation of one person. Thus I haven't looked much at the various offerings by manufacturers for the 570GTX yet, but here are my choices for the 6970:

Sapphire:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-915-_-Product

XFX:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-517-_-Product

If you need more info / what have you just ask. Thanks for input.

-DW

 

[blackfallen]

my vote goes to HD 6970, it can handle higher res, but it really is up to you. I mean both are great cards, so which ever is cheaper get

 

[Madcatatlas]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=306

You seem to have a good idea of what card you want, but for the record, Radeon 6970 is faster than GTX570 in Metro at both 2560x1600 and 1680x1050.

Consider also that Radeons scale better in crossfire versus gtx in sli, incase you want to add another card later on.


A tip though, a new generation of cards is likely to be out before 31.12.11. Should bring 40% more performance at roughly the same prices as you would get a 570 or a 6970 for now.

Driver wise, i think you can safely say the score is even. Both products have seen bad drivers and both have good stability.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

In the games you play I don't think you'll notice the difference between these cards. None of those games, except for Crysis, is really demanding. Doesn't really matter which one you choose. The 570 can be found for a bit less so that's what I would recommend.

 

[Dragonwell]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=306

You seem to have a good idea of what card you want, but for the record, Radeon 6970 is faster than GTX570 in Metro at both 2560x1600 and 1680x1050.

Consider also that Radeons scale better in crossfire versus gtx in sli, incase you want to add another card later on.


A tip though, a new generation of cards is likely to be out before 31.12.11. Should bring 40% more performance at roughly the same prices as you would get a 570 or a 6970 for now.

Driver wise, i think you can safely say the score is even. Both products have seen bad drivers and both have good stability.

Unfortunately the mobo I picked out is not Crossfire compatible, what with having only one 16x PCIe slot (I knew that going in, and it was a conscious decision for the sake of economics and time). Still, good to know on Crossfire vs. SLi.

I had indeed heard that we will be seeing a new generation of cards before year's end, and that did make me wonder if I would be better off getting a <$200 card for now, and then shell out for a card at a $300+ price point when the new cards hit. I've got a couple weeks before I order either the 6970 or 570, so there's plenty of time to weigh options.

In general the consensus overall seems to be holding steady for the 6970.

 

[Spikesoldier]

With the recent price cuts to the 570 it makes it much more attractive than it had been.

I think for me the deciding factor is whether I ever plan to go with two cards for CF or SLI in the future. If so, I would go with the Radeon as CF scaling is almost linear with the second card. SLI can't yet make this claim.

If you plan on rolling with one card only, either one is a solid choice for this budget segment.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think the 6970 is the better card for you resolution. But, they hover around $320+. The GTX570 might be the better buy seeing as they are going sub-$300 after rebate.

I'm not sure if you overclock, but I recall a lot of talk of GTX570's failing with overclocking. That might be worth looking in to.

If it were me, if a stellar deal on a GTX570 came up, I'd go that direction. If I didn't mind spending a bit more, I'd get the 6970 because I honestly believe it's the better part. But you'll probably be well served by either of those cards, they're pretty close overall.

 

[RussianSensation]

I had indeed heard that we will be seeing a new generation of cards before year's end, and that did make me wonder if I would be better off getting a <$200 card for now, and then shell out for a card at a $300+ price point when the new cards hit. I've got a couple weeks before I order either the 6970 or 570, so there's plenty of time to weigh options.

That's exactly what I would do. If you play at 1680x1050 some of the time, you are better off getting a GTX560 Ti or an HD6950 1GB for ~$200.

GTX560 Ti for $195. Overclock it to 950mhz, and it's very close to a GTX570 for $85 less. Then in the fall when faster 28nm GPUs come out, just sell your card and get something faster. Right now the performance difference between a $200 and a $300 videocard is fairly small.

You can also hedge your bets a little and get an EVGA GTX560 Ti for $200 (after rebate). With registration, you'll have the option for 90-day step-up. This way, if you decide you want more performance, you can always upgrade to the 570.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

That's exactly what I would do. If you play at 1680x1050 some of the time, you are better off getting a GTX560 Ti or an HD6950 1GB for ~$200.

GTX560 Ti for $195. Overclock it to 950mhz, and it's very close to a GTX570 for $85 less. Then in the fall when faster 28nm GPUs come out, just sell your card and get something faster. Right now the performance difference between a $200 and a $300 videocard is fairly small.

You can also hedge your bets a little and get an EVGA GTX560 Ti for $200 (after rebate). With registration, you'll have the option for 90-day step-up. This way, if you decide you want more performance, you can always upgrade to the 570.

If he's going to drop that low he might as well go all the way down to the $120 GTX 460 1GB or even $100 GTX 460 SE. Overclocked or not, these cards are going to be more than enough to hold him over until the end of the year while he plays TF2, CS:S, EVE Online, WoW, Minecraft, Terraria. They'll hold their own in Crysis, too.

 

[badnewcastle]

Glad I saw this thread. I'm trying to figure out the exact same thing.

I'm leaning toward the 6970 part based on load consumption alone (since they are both so similar).

Rest of the rig so far:
Corsair Obsidian 600 case (need a new case)
2600k
Asus P8P67 Deluxe
G.Skill 16GB 1600 4x4gb cas 8 @ 1.5v (already purchased)
Thermaltake 700w psu (already own)
2 1 TB drives WD's black (already own)
Windows 7 Home x64 (already own)

 

[betasub]

^ You didn't list your monitor/resolution, bn!

 

[badnewcastle]

^ You didn't list your monitor/resolution, bn!

1920x1080 2x23" ws (I only use one screen for gaming)... one or the other. often windowed.

And to answer the OP, sometimes windowed makes it slower. Seems to depend on the game imo.

 

[Dragonwell]

So far I'm still favoring the 6970 in a contest between the two cards I mentioned.

In regard to opting for a lesser card to wait for the new ones, right now I run a 9800GTX+. It runs what I need it to run at more or less playable framerates in my current rig. What if I were to just keep the 9800GTX+ until the next gen cards arrive? Or are the performance gains in opting for some of the lower-priced cards mentioned here large enough to warrant that temporary upgrade?

1920x1080 2x23" ws (I only use one screen for gaming)... one or the other. often windowed.

And to answer the OP, sometimes windowed makes it slower. Seems to depend on the game imo.

Interesting. I seem to remember a few oldschool games I used to play (think Starsiege: Tribes era here; oh God how I love Tribes) running better in windowed mode as opposed to fullscreen. In practice though the biggest reason I opt for windowed mode is as a contingency for when a game crashes. I've had TF2 crash on me in fullscreen and I will not for the life of me be able to alt-tab it down and get it closed through task manager. It's a cinch if I'm in windowed mode, though.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

In regard to opting for a lesser card to wait for the new ones, right now I run a 9800GTX+. It runs what I need it to run at more or less playable framerates in my current rig. What if I were to just keep the 9800GTX+ until the next gen cards arrive? Or are the performance gains in opting for some of the lower-priced cards mentioned here large enough to warrant that temporary upgrade?

You could keep the 9800, and you might still see a boost from upgrading the rest of the system. A GTX 460 is definitely an upgrade from a 9800GTX, especially for newer titles where drivers are going to be optimized for the 460 and not necessarily the 9800.

I've had TF2 crash on me in fullscreen and I will not for the life of me be able to alt-tab it down and get it closed through task manager. It's a cinch if I'm in windowed mode, though.

I've had that happen as well. A trick I like to do is ctrl+alt+del, then select task manager, and then it usually lets me alt+tab to close the game.

 

[Carfax83]

I'd recommend the 570 over the 6970. With more and more DX11 games coming down the pipeline, the 570 (which is practically even with the 6970) will come to dominate the 6970..

The upcoming DX11 Crysis 2 patch will be very telling I think. It will show that Nvidia has a strong advantage in games that utilize DX11 heavily, ie Civ V.

Metro 2033 isn't a good example, as it isn't optimized very well. Civ 5 uses DX11 more than any other game out right now, and Nvidia performs exceptionally in it.

Battlefield 3 which promises to use DX11 to great effect will most likely run better on Nvidia as well, since Nvidia supports features like deferred context rendering, while AMD doesn't.....at least not at this time.

 

[Destiny]

Both are awesome cards... if you have a 1920 x 1200 monitor like I do and game at the highest quality - both will do very well... IMHO go with whom ever has the best deal with a well known brand...

if you do decide get the Nvidia GTX 570 - I recommend EVGA, you have 90 days to use the step up program if a new card comes out in that time frame... I used it to step up from a GTX 470 to a GTX 570 (when the GTX 570 came out) and I have been very happy - plus their customer service is top notch... When I bought the 470 I knew the 570 was coming out in about a month or two - but I need a new card with my new build (plus I was getting my butt kicked in FPS)... EVGA applied what I paid for the 470 to the 570 and I just paid the difference...:thumbsup:

 

[3DVagabond]

I'd recommend the 570 over the 6970. With more and more DX11 games coming down the pipeline, the 570 (which is practically even with the 6970) will come to dominate the 6970..

The upcoming DX11 Crysis 2 patch will be very telling I think. It will show that Nvidia has a strong advantage in games that utilize DX11 heavily, ie Civ V.

Metro 2033 isn't a good example, as it isn't optimized very well. Civ 5 uses DX11 more than any other game out right now, and Nvidia performs exceptionally in it.

Battlefield 3 which promises to use DX11 to great effect will most likely run better on Nvidia as well, since Nvidia supports features like deferred context rendering, while AMD doesn't.....at least not at this time.

The 570 is not faster in Dx11 games than the 6970. Here's a recent review.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/06/22/powercolor_pcs_radeon_hd_6970_video_card_review/1

 

[Gikaseixas]

Great cards for your resolution. Go with the best deal you can find.

 

[Carfax83]

The 570 is not faster in Dx11 games than the 6970. Here's a recent review.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/06/22/powercolor_pcs_radeon_hd_6970_video_card_review/1

You and I have already had a discussion about HardOCP's testing methodologies, so you know I think them flawed for a number of reasons.

Number one reason being, that they present unplayable settings as playable. Also, like most other review sites, they use the default driver settings which skews the benches towards AMD, since AMD has an optimized default driver profile.

Perfect example is Metro 2033. Only an idiot would think that Metro 2033 is playable on a single 6970 @ 2560x1600 Very High and tessellation on (average 35 min 24), yet according to the reviewer, those settings are playable. D:

I've played through Metro 2033 twice on a 30 inch LCD panel, so I know that Metro 2033 isn't playable at those settings on any current single GPU....including the GTX 580! To have truly playable frames at 2560x1600 very high with tessellation on, you need to have SLi or Crossfire.

Then he does the apples to apples settings, and the 570 comes in 6&#37; behind the 6970, which falls within the increased performance AMD gets from using the default driver setting.....so I call Metro 2033 a draw.

The 570 wins in BC2, pulls even in DA2 (which surprised me, but goes to show how awesome Nvidia's driver team is), and legitimatedly loses in F1 2010 and Dirt 3....although Nvidia hasn't even released optimized drivers for Dirt 3 yet.

Anyway, my original point still stands. None of those games use DX11 extensively. With increased DX11 usage a la Civ V (and possibly Crysis 2), Nvidia should have the upper hand.

Plus you get added bonuses like PhysX if you want to use it.

 

[3DVagabond]

You and I have already had a discussion about HardOCP's testing methodologies, so you know I think them flawed for a number of reasons.

Number one reason being, that they present unplayable settings as playable. Also, like most other review sites, they use the default driver settings which skews the benches towards AMD, since AMD has an optimized default driver profile.

Perfect example is Metro 2033. Only an idiot would think that Metro 2033 is playable on a single 6970 @ 2560x1600 Very High and tessellation on (average 35 min 24), yet according to the reviewer, those settings are playable. D:

I've played through Metro 2033 twice on a 30 inch LCD panel, so I know that Metro 2033 isn't playable at those settings on any current single GPU....including the GTX 580! To have truly playable frames at 2560x1600 very high with tessellation on, you need to have SLi or Crossfire.

Then he does the apples to apples settings, and the 570 comes in 6% behind the 6970, which falls within the increased performance AMD gets from using the default driver setting.....so I call Metro 2033 a draw.

The 570 wins in BC2, pulls even in DA2 (which surprised me, but goes to show how awesome Nvidia's driver team is), and legitimatedly loses in F1 2010 and Dirt 3....although Nvidia hasn't even released optimized drivers for Dirt 3 yet.

Anyway, my original point still stands. None of those games use DX11 extensively. With increased DX11 usage a la Civ V (and possibly Crysis 2), Nvidia should have the upper hand.

Plus you get added bonuses like PhysX if you want to use it.

You stated it was faster in Dx11. I showed a review, from a reputable site, done just a day ago, with 5 Dx11 titles. It was not faster in 4 out of 5. You claim everything from flawed tests to unfair drivers. Your opinion is not definitive just because you say so with nothing else to back it up.

You don't like [H] procedures. I don't like the reviewer leaving the PC running canned benchmarks while he's off making P&J sandwiches. Running benches where the frame rates are 100+ FPS is far less valid than running the cards stressed to the limit of playability.

Please note that I never claimed the 6970 was faster. Just that the 570 is in fact not faster in Dx11 titles because it's not.

 

[Carfax83]

You stated it was faster in Dx11. I showed a review, from a reputable site, done just a day ago, with 5 Dx11 titles. It was not faster in 4 out of 5. You claim everything from flawed tests to unfair drivers. Your opinion is not definitive just because you say so with nothing else to back it up.

Well you took my post out of context. I didn't explicitly say that the 570 was faster than the 6970 in DX11.

If you read my post, I was stating that as games begin to use DX11 more and more heavily, then Nvidia should gain the upper edge.

Emphasis being on heavily.

As an example, I cited Civ 5, which uses DX11 features more than any other present title. The truth is, most of these so called DX11 games barely use DX11 at all.

Tessellation is nice, but Direct Compute and deferred context rendering are far more important and significant.

Games like Civ 5 and the upcoming BF3 (and hopefully Crysis 2 DX11 as well) make use of these features, and Civ 5 performs exceptionally well on Nvidia hardware.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well you took my post out of context. I didn't explicitly say that the 570 was faster than the 6970 in DX11.

If you read my post, I was stating that as games begin to use DX11 more and more heavily, then Nvidia should gain the upper edge.

Emphasis being on heavily.

As an example, I cited Civ 5, which uses DX11 features more than any other present title. The truth is, most of these so called DX11 games barely use DX11 at all.

Tessellation is nice, but Direct Compute and deferred context rendering are far more important and significant.

Games like Civ 5 and the upcoming BF3 (and hopefully Crysis 2 DX11 as well) make use of these features, and Civ 5 performs exceptionally well on Nvidia hardware.

You are right. You did not specifically say it was faster. It is the way I took you to mean "dominate".

The reason nVidia is faster in civ 5 is because Civ V is the first game to use DX11 multi-threaded rendering. It's a single Dx11 feature. It doesn't mean that as other Dx11 features are utilized that nVidia will be faster. It only means that nVidia is faster with that one feature only. You can't extend that to any other features. I'd be surprised if AMD doesn't pick up multi-threaded rendering, as well. Time will tell.

Remember though that it's only one game that currently uses it. Do you know that Crysis 2 and BF3 are going to use it too? If not then you can't say nVidia will have any advantage in those games. Eventually I would imagine other games will use it, just as I imagine AMD will support it as well.

Keep in mind too that the 570 is limited to 1gig of VRAM, when you are suggesting it will be better in future games. That could very possibly kill it quick if games demand more RAM. We are on the cusp in some games now. More than just one game using multi-threaded rendering.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

The 570 is a turd. Only 1200mb of memory and more than a few have popped while overclocking. I'd go 6970 IMO. Drivers at this point are not a factor. I prefer nvidia but only because nvidia 3d vision. If you aren't going 3d then go 6970 for sure.

 

[Spikesoldier]

3d vagabond and oil's got a point. 1280mb framebuffer will start showing its limitations when you throw all the AA and AF on, even at 1920x1200. Forget 2560x1600 with the 570.

I have heard stories of 570's popping while OCing, but I think it was only the reference MSI model that was always discounted at newegg that had that problem?

and also, fermi can tesselate its ass off. at least heaven 2 benchmark says that. that doesnt necessarily mean that anything with a shitload of dx11 means auto win for the 570. as 3d vagabond said, it is one feature only.

but really, that statement almost falls in the same category of the nv slideshow at fermi paper launch saying zomg we got 400&#37; better than amd card in tesseleation benchmark. geforce now 4x faster!

 

[RussianSensation]

3d vagabond and oil's got a point. 1280mb framebuffer will start showing its limitations when you throw all the AA and AF on, even at 1920x1200. Forget 2560x1600 with the 570.

Actually very few games need more than 1GB of ram at 4AA 2560x1600. The limitations starts to become an issue at 8AA (at which point most of these cards aren't fast enough). When games start to need more than 1.28 GBs of ram at 1920x1200, the GTX570 GPU will already be too slow anyway (and we'll be way on our way into the GTX680/HD7970 generation.

None of the games OP listed are graphically demanding for a GTX570/HD6970. So if he is buying to "future proof" for games in 6-12 months, that's a bit of a waste since $100 saved today can be put towards a much faster card in that timeframe given that 28nm should not be too far off.

You can't really lose with either card. However, GTX570 does have superior Tessellation and if comparing overclocked cards, the HD6970 won't catch it at 1920x1200. Bottom line is, now with GTX570 cards that can be found at $285, it's hard to recommend an HD6970 since it has little overclocking headroom (esp. with stock coolers at reasonable noise levels).