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

[Carfax83]

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.

What about DirectCompute? Looking at the Civ V, Nvidia also has the edge in DirectCompute texture decompression, but I'm not sure if thats due to the multithreaded drivers or not.

The Fermi architecture does seem to have greater computational abilities overall though.

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.

I'm certain BF3 will use it. I remember reading a quote from a BF3 dev lamenting the fact that at the time, neither AMD or Nvidia supported multithreaded drivers. Now that Nvidia supports it, I'm certain they will implement it in their game.

As for Crysis 2, I don't know, but I hope it will support it. Nvidia had a hand in the DX11 development, so we'll see.

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.

The 570 has 1.28gb, which is enough for the resolution the OP plays at. The 6970 is definitely more future proof in that regard however, I'll not deny that.

 

[Grooveriding]

6970 is the better card. More solid all around and better performance more often than the 570.

 

[nvidiaintelftw]

HD6970! easily the better option. If you go reference on a 570, they suffer from cheap circuitry

 

[Dark Shroud]

I love my HD 6970. I use every bit of the 2GB memory between multi-monitor and pump up graphics settings.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

For a single card I would go with the GTX570. Based on my limited experience with sli I would say that crossfire is better than sli.

HD6970! easily the better option. If you go reference on a 570, they suffer from cheap circuitry

The problem is that they scale so well with voltage. People are pumping an extra 25% voltage with vrms with no temp monitors and disabling ocp and wondering why they are popping vrms. I saw what voltage can do to vrm temps on my GTX280. Anyone who owned one or a 4870 knows what I mean.

 

[3DVagabond]

People are pumping an extra 25% voltage with vrms with no temp monitors and disabling ocp and wondering why they are popping vrms. I saw what voltage can do to vrm temps on my GTX280. Anyone who owned one or a 4870 knows what I mean.

We need for someone to do a "torture test" comparing the two designs. It appears that AMD cards have more durable VRM, and can handle more power.

There's always the better built models. They will eliminate the weak VRM issues. These won't be the cheaper models though.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...^14-127-582-TS

I, for one, don't see the value of O/C'ing with these cards (570 and 6970), YMMV. Rarely have I seen it make a playable difference in games. Then you are dealing with the extra heat, wear and tear, power usage, and noise.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

Well, I've never seen a picture of a 6950 with burnt vrms so I think that its safe to assume that Cayman is the better built design. You have to keep in mind that GTX570 scales better with voltage on air than Cayman does so people are a little more likely to push voltage harder.

You have to keep in mind that a GTX570 with a core voltage of 0.95 or so draws about what 6950 does at 1.1v. So when you bump them both up to 1.2v+ like some people are doing the GTX570 is going to draw considerably more current.

I sort of agree with you with overclocking video cards. The difference really isn't as big as you might see by overclocking a cpu.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well, I've never seen a picture of a 6950 with burnt vrms so I think that its safe to assume that Cayman is the better built design. You have to keep in mind that GTX570 scales better with voltage on air than Cayman does so people are a little more likely to push voltage harder.

You have to keep in mind that a GTX570 with a core voltage of 0.95 or so draws about what 6950 does at 1.1v. So when you bump them both up to 1.2v+ like some people are doing the GTX570 is going to draw considerably more current.

I sort of agree with you with overclocking video cards. The difference really isn't as big as you might see by overclocking a cpu.

It's definitely not comparing apples to apples if the same volts are put into both cards. nVidia runs at lower voltages. They must have lower impedance. With that said, I've seen reviewers pump 1.35v into AMD cards safely. 1.2v is definitely not safe for some nVidia cards. Ask W1zzard.

The reviews I've read that report VRM temps always show AMD cards being cooler running (VRM temps not GPU temps which everyone looks at when deciding a card runs cooler).

I definitely prefer AMD designs, overall. I'd never tell someone though that nVidia doesn't make good cards. The 580 is a monster. It's overpriced, but if you want the highest single GPU performance, it's the one, and they charge a premium for it. From the 570/6970 down though, I'd get AMD, myself. The exception being some of the 460's. Some of them are terrific values. The 6850 competes quite well with it overall. Being slightly faster at stock clocks in most instances. AMD doesn't really make anything in the same perf/$ class as the 460/768Mb. Some O/C 460's, if you can snag one at a good price, are excellent values, too. As always, YMMV. Nothing I've said here is meant to be definitive, just my opinions.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

It's definitely not comparing apples to apples if the same volts are put into both cards. nVidia runs at lower voltages. They must have lower impedance. With that said, I've seen reviewers pump 1.35v into AMD cards safely. 1.2v is definitely not safe for some nVidia cards. Ask W1zzard.

The reviews I've read that report VRM temps always show AMD cards being cooler running (VRM temps not GPU temps which everyone looks at when deciding a card runs cooler).

Well to start with there are no tempature sensors on the vrms on Cayman or GTX570 so I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers.

Secondly the old 6950 with the dual bios is being phased out so those are getting hard to come by anyways. On air 6970 doesn't really scale past 1.2v unlike GTX570 and that is part of the problem. Like I said even at the same voltage GTX570 draws more current. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. What do people expect from a 25%+ bump in core voltage?

You talk about performance but have you used both cards? GTX570 has much better minimum framerates than 6950 or 6970 in quite a few games that I have tried, it also seems to perform more reliability which is a problem that I've always had with ATI. Some games don't run as well on ATI hardware. GTA4, opengl source ports, NWN2, FSX, The Sims 3 etc. Some of these have been an issue since at least 4870. You call GTX580 overpriced but the performace difference between it and 570 is bigger than the difference between 570 and GTX560ti. Thats on a single gpu. We also aren't talking launch prices anymore.

Like I said based on my limited experience with sli crossfire does seem quite a bit better.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well to start with there are no tempature sensors on the vrms on Cayman or GTX570 so I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers.

Secondly the old 6950 with the dual bios is being phased out so those are getting hard to come by anyways. On air 6970 doesn't really scale past 1.2v unlike GTX570 and that is part of the problem. Like I said even at the same voltage GTX570 draws more current. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. What do people expect from a 25%+ bump in core voltage?

You talk about performance but have you used both cards? GTX570 has much better minimum framerates than 6950 or 6970 in quite a few games that I have tried, it also seems to perform more reliability which is a problem that I've always had with ATI. Some games don't run as well on ATI hardware. GTA4, opengl source ports, NWN2, FSX, The Sims 3 etc. Some of these have been an issue since at least 4870. You call GTX580 overpriced but the performace difference between it and 570 is bigger than the difference between 570 and GTX560ti. Thats on a single gpu. We also aren't talking launch prices anymore.

Like I said based on my limited experience with sli crossfire does seem quite a bit better.

behardware does infrared thermography on the cards they test. Typically, the power stages run hotter than the GPU on nVidia cards, where as it's the opposite on AMD designs, where the GPU is generally the hottest spot on the card.

I'm not sure why you are mentioning the dual bios 6950's? This is 6970/570.

What molehill am I making a mountain out of?

No one is required to have had any of the hardware being discussed to join a thread or have an opinion. I have my own reasons for buying hardware, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

Looking at current reviews, of current equipment, with current games, I see no evidence that the 570 has any advantage in minimum frame rates, where those figures are posted.

I'm not the only one who thinks the 580 is over priced based on it's performance. Specifically, vs. the 6970 as resolution increases. As I said though it still is the highest performance single GPU there is, and it costs you a premium for that performance. It's understandable, and not unique to the GPU industry. Intel X processors aren't a good performance value either. Want an unlocked 6 core (12 thread) Intel processor though, and that's just what they cost and you will be able to squeeze more performance out of one than any other CPU.

 

[Carfax83]

Like I said based on my limited experience with sli crossfire does seem quite a bit better.

Hehe, for me it's the exact opposite. Although I haven't used Crossfire since the 4870 days, I had a horrible experience with it. One card never going into idle mode, flickering textures, among other issues..

Undoubtedly it has improved since then though. The current 6xxx series scale amazingly well! AMD must have some kind of hardware design to mitigate the software bottleneck, unlike Nvidia. On Nvidia video cards, you need a fast CPU to make up for the driver overhead.

So far though, I can't really complain about SLi. Other than increased waiting for profiles or game support, I haven't had many problems.

 

[Dragonwell]

Sheeyit, lots of feedback here. The general consensus still seems to lie with the 6970.

Having finally built my system with everything but a new GPU, I have noticed a great performance increase in all games but Crysis, which for some reason I have yet to nail down seems to run worse than it did prior to the build. And that's on Gamer settings all around, minus motion blur. In fact, the game crashed shortly before the first segment in Warhead that says "use strength mode to vault over this cliff!" or what have you.

Anyway, being that I don't play Crysis all that much and that the games I do play regularly have seen such a great increase in performance (I really <3 my new system), I think I'll instead invest in a faster harddrive, either SSD or disk, come payday rather than a GPU, and I'll wait a few months for news on the next generation of GPUs.

With all that said, by all means continue debating the ins and outs of either board. It's been an interesting read.

By the same token, though, I could really use some suggestions on fast, but reasonably priced, SSDs and disk drives. According to windows my harddrive is my single biggest bottleneck in terms of performance (I bought it for its size, not its speed). Perhaps I should start a thread in the other forum?

Thanks for the input.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

What processor were you using before, and what kind of performance were you seeing in TF2?

 

[betasub]

According to windows my harddrive is my single biggest bottleneck in terms of performance

That's just the way that WEI rates components. Not say that you won't get a great boost from an SSD for your OS, but don't set too much store in WEI as a benchmark

 

[Dragonwell]

What processor were you using before, and what kind of performance were you seeing in TF2?

I was on a Core 2 Duo 6400 at 2.13GHz per core. With the settings I'm running TF2 at on the new system, I'd be getting low to mid 30s in framerates on the bridge in a busy, instaspawn 32-man 2fort server. Now it dips to low 50s at the worst. Bear in mind, though, that I run the game in DX9 mode since I just don't see any point in DX11 in terms of visual quality gains. Currently I have everything maxed with 2x AA and 16x AF. 1920x1200 resolution.

i5 2500K ftw, really, and I haven't even overclocked it yet.

That's just the way that WEI rates components. Not say that you won't get a great boost from an SSD for your OS, but don't set too much store in WEI as a benchmark

Fair enough, looked at it more for curiousity's sake than anything. My CPU and memory numbers jumped quite a bit after the changeover.

 

[mosox]

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?

[my emphasis]

I would get a HD 6850, or to be more specific this XFX HD 6850 with lifetime warranty (you need to register the card on the XFX site within 30 days of purchase in order to activate the lifetime warranty).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150515

It's $155 after the mail-in rebate.

Later this year the new HD 7000 series will hit the stores. Keep that 6850 until then or until next year, plenty of power for your needs. Sell the thing (it's easy with the lifetime warranty), add the $200 you saved now and get a 7000 series or Nvidia or whatever will be the best in your budget (claerly a much better card than the 6970/570).

This XFX HD 6870 is only $20 more after the rebate -> $175:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150521

Both are cool and quiet.

 

[RussianSensation]

Sheeyit, lots of feedback here. The general consensus still seems to lie with the 6970.

But no one has been able to explain why the HD6970 is better at today's prices for 1920x1200 or below - because it isn't unless you are gaming at 2560x1600.

Some mentioned that the GTX570 "dies" when overclocked. These claims are based on anecdotal evidence (same as saying all Vertex 3 drives give you BSOD).

For $310 you can get an EVGA GTX570 factory pre-overclocked to 797mhz. Not only is this faster than an HD6970 at 1920x1200 (wins 5 benches, ties 1, loses 1), but you also get Lifetime Limited Warranty + 90-day step-up (although this likely won't help since Kepler is prob more than 90 days away).

On top of all of this, the Superclocked 570 also runs cooler than the 6970.

The Superclocked also overclocked to a 874 mhz on the GPU. At those speeds it was 26% faster than HD6970 in BF:BC2 at 1920x1200. We also know that HD6970 is a horrible overclocker (esp. on the stock cooler) and doesn't even scale well when overclocked.

In summary, the Superclocked 570 is faster at your intended resolution(s), runs cooler, has far greater overclocking potential, and has lifetime warranty for the same price as the 6970.

I think I'll instead invest in a faster harddrive, either SSD or disk, come payday rather than a GPU, and I'll wait a few months for news on the next generation of GPUs.

If the performance is satisfactory for you, then save your $

 

[Elfear]

But no one has been able to explain why the HD6970 is better at today's prices for 1920x1200 or below - because it isn't unless you are gaming at 2560x1600.

Some mentioned that the GTX570 "dies" when overclocked. These claims are based on anecdotal evidence (same as saying all Vertex 3 drives give you BSOD).

For $310 you can get an EVGA GTX570 factory pre-overclocked to 797mhz. Not only is this faster than an HD6970 at 1920x1200 (wins 5 benches, ties 1, loses 1), but you also get Lifetime Limited Warranty + 90-day step-up (although this likely won't help since Kepler is prob more than 90 days away).

On top of all of this, the Superclocked 570 also runs cooler than the 6970.

The Superclocked also overclocked to a 874 mhz on the GPU. At those speeds it was 26% faster than HD6970 in BF:BC2 at 1920x1200. We also know that HD6970 is a horrible overclocker (esp. on the stock cooler) and doesn't even scale well when overclocked.

In summary, the Superclocked 570 is faster at your intended resolution(s), runs cooler, has far greater overclocking potential, and has lifetime warranty for the same price as the 6970.



If the performance is satisfactory for you, then save your $

You make some valid points but I've noticed that Hardware Canucks seems to have the Nvidia cards they test running faster than most other review sites I've seen. What I mean by that is if most review sites show a 10% performance difference in AMD's favor, HC will show the advantage going to the Nvidia card. I realize different games and different testing methodologies will result in different conclusions but it seems to happen on a regular basis.

Besides the performance delta though I agree with your other points.

 

[Spikesoldier]

But no one has been able to explain why the HD6970 is better at today's prices for 1920x1200 or below - because it isn't unless you are gaming at 2560x1600.

Some mentioned that the GTX570 "dies" when overclocked. These claims are based on anecdotal evidence (same as saying all Vertex 3 drives give you BSOD).

For $310 you can get an EVGA GTX570 factory pre-overclocked to 797mhz. Not only is this faster than an HD6970 at 1920x1200 (wins 5 benches, ties 1, loses 1), but you also get Lifetime Limited Warranty + 90-day step-up (although this likely won't help since Kepler is prob more than 90 days away).

On top of all of this, the Superclocked 570 also runs cooler than the 6970.

The Superclocked also overclocked to a 874 mhz on the GPU. At those speeds it was 26% faster than HD6970 in BF:BC2 at 1920x1200. We also know that HD6970 is a horrible overclocker (esp. on the stock cooler) and doesn't even scale well when overclocked.

In summary, the Superclocked 570 is faster at your intended resolution(s), runs cooler, has far greater overclocking potential, and has lifetime warranty for the same price as the 6970.



If the performance is satisfactory for you, then save your $

A lot of people immediately dismiss the 570 because of its initial price tag, but now at today's prices (sub-$300) you have your choice of 570's.

At this price it really brings the heat on with the 6970. Like I suggested, the only consideration that would cause me to go 6970 would be if I ever planned to go CF and add another one because of the great CF scaling. It doesn't sound like you will to me, so the 570 is the slightly better choice.

Now if you throw the 6950 into the mix, thats an excellent value if you think you are buying too much of a card with the 6970 or 570.

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

Hehe, for me it's the exact opposite. Although I haven't used Crossfire since the 4870 days, I had a horrible experience with it. One card never going into idle mode, flickering textures, among other issues..

Undoubtedly it has improved since then though. The current 6xxx series scale amazingly well! AMD must have some kind of hardware design to mitigate the software bottleneck, unlike Nvidia. On Nvidia video cards, you need a fast CPU to make up for the driver overhead.

So far though, I can't really complain about SLi. Other than increased waiting for profiles or game support, I haven't had many problems.

Lets put it like this I used 6950 crossfire for three months and I did not see one game with negative scaling. I found one the first day that I had used GTX570 sli. One other thing that I had noticed is that minimum framerates seem to scale better with crossfire than sli.

 

[Phynaz]

You mentioned you have been happy with Nvidia in the past.

Stick with the 570 then, for peace of mind.

 

[3DVagabond]

HD6870 isn't bad advice. Excellent card, whose performance has continued to improve since it's release. Many (I include myself in this) thought that the 6800, with the "old" VLIW5 arch wouldn't see much improvement with driver updates. This hasn't been the case, though.

The one Mosox recommended seems like a good choice. It's cool and quiet, and with the lifetime warranty, it will retain more of it's resale value.
http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/c...com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150521

 

[BababooeyHTJ]

I honestly couldn't justify buying a 6870 over a GTX560ti at that price. 6870 just does not overclock.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I was on a Core 2 Duo 6400 at 2.13GHz per core. With the settings I'm running TF2 at on the new system, I'd be getting low to mid 30s in framerates on the bridge in a busy, instaspawn 32-man 2fort server. Now it dips to low 50s at the worst. Bear in mind, though, that I run the game in DX9 mode since I just don't see any point in DX11 in terms of visual quality gains. Currently I have everything maxed with 2x AA and 16x AF. 1920x1200 resolution.

That's about the same framerate I get in heavy action sequences. I once had someone on the TF2 forum try to tell me he gets 100 fps all the time with a stock E6400.

 

[Dragonwell]

Good suggestion on the 6870 vs. 560. Still plenty of time to think it through, and if I do decide to get a GPU either of those might be my choice, although I'm going to look at a matchup between the 6870 and the 6950 here in a bit. Still, I'm impressed with the gains I've seen just in CPU / memory upgrades.

That's about the same framerate I get in heavy action sequences. I once had someone on the TF2 forum try to tell me he gets 100 fps all the time with a stock E6400.

He'd have to have a beast GPU and lots of memory but even then... my Core 2 was becoming a major bottleneck, as was having just 2GB of DDR2 665.

So you get the low to mid 30s I mentioned or bottom out at 50ish?