Single gtx 580 or SLI 570?

Hey guys,

At the risk of sounding silly, how are dual 570's more cost effective?  When I build a system there is about a $200 difference which isn't very cost effective in my opinion as explained in the OP.  The way I see it, I'm out 200 bucks and can't see a reason why..... Enlighten me my friends :)

Originally posted by Jimenemc At the risk of sounding silly, how are dual 570's more cost effective?  When I build a system there is about a $200 difference which isn't very cost effective in my opinion as explained in the OP.  The way I see it, I'm out 200 bucks and can't see a reason why..... Enlighten me my friends :)   Marc

Have you perhaps not checked the prices of 580s lately? They are massively overpriced because of low supply, a 580 costs $574 whereas a 570 is only $395 (from DS). That's a 45% ($179) increase in price for just 20% more performance.

It was even worse just yesterday, as 580s were $674, a 70% ($279) increase. Glad to see them drop a whole $100 over night.

less or equal performance?!

Alrighty!  I'm only using a 17" screen for now but may upgrade in future which means I'll be getting dual 570's in SLI.  It meets one of my criteria (survivability) so now I'm a believer!   BTW thanks for the visuals, I'm a very visual person :)

Once again Ender proves his superiority   He put his seal of approval on my other forum post with SLI 570s and I don't think I should mess with it.  The man obviously knows his *poo*.  I'll make another posting after I order my computer tomorrow.  I feel like a kid in a candy store! Such an awesome feeling...

Since when is 60 fps not smooth gaming?

you can't go by minimum fps cause you don't know how long you are in minimum, if its for a split second or 2 seconds then minimum fps dont' matter, but if a person wants zero lag then they need to look at minimum fps and cover that.

Show me how long a game is in minimum fps.

So that I'm clear, you are saying 60 fps is not smooth gaming with 60hz refresh rate? I never said anything about average you did, I said 60fps is smooth gaming, I didn't say average, you did. I did post a pic to show the op at a much higher res than his how he can get average fps, which then means for his lower res his average and minimum will be much higher. You claim you know what you are talking about but you can't even comprehend my post, so its not that I don't know how fps works, its that you can't understand my post, when I reference avg fps then obviously the smooth gaming is referencing avg playing time and not total.

now if minimum fps happens a lot then yes its a big factor.

I dont' half the time know where you are coming from when responding to my posts, cause half the time what you claim I'm saying I'm not, you just keep taking what I said out of context. my chart shows 4x aa and 16x af, how is that asking the user to turn down settings? and again tell me for how long and how low the fps will drop to the minimum on this game, and the chart is for higher res then his monitor, so the average and minimum that one would experience with lower res of 1600 x 1200 will bre different, and there will be no need to turn down anything.

Just so we are clear, I'm not saying sli will not help minimum fps, it will, and if one wants no lag what so ever then sli is needed depending on the res.

Now I'm sure you will respond again and take everything I said out of context, so you can look like I said something wrong, which of course I did not, you just keep taking things out of context.

If we are going to go by minimum fps then everybody needs sli or crossfire automatically to make sure minimum fps is always above 50 fps or higher, which is not the case.

So lets recap before you take everything I said out of context:

1. 60 fps is smooth gaming.

2. minimum fps do play a role but we need to know how much and for how long before we can tell anybody they need to cover it, cause if its for 2 seconds then its pointless.

3. if somebody wants no lag what so ever, then sli/crossfire is needed, as there is always a drop in fps and if it goes below 50 fps one could/might experience lag depending on how far down it goes.

4. Most people/places go by average fps cause that is what you get most of the game.

5. Dual sli 570 will kill single 580, whether you will notice the difference all depends on the game your res and how long minimum fps will last and how low it will go, for example if with one 580 your minimum is above 50 fps then sli performance will not be noticed.

@Jimenemc, ask him how often and for how long the minimum fps will occur with each game. I don't see how it makes sense to drop $400 for 2 seconds of gaming. think really hard about what people tell you, don't just take people's word for it.

everybody knows 50 to 60 fps is smooth gaming, yes minimum fps do play a role but till you know how big of a deal, its silly to throw money at it, specially when you can always add gpus later if needed, but you can't return the gpu for a full refund if you find out you don't.

when you get your sli 570 for your 17" monitor, remove one of the cards and watch how you wasted your money as you will barely notice the second card.

your mobo will not support the newer generation of cpus coming out. you can stick the 980x in there and as majik said there is one more extreme cpu coming out for this socket before they go to socket r.

Edited by DST4ME - 16 Dec 2010 at 1:17pm

Ok if you are upgrading and will be higher then 1900 x 1200 go ahead otherwise you might want to wait and see if you need the second one, you can always drop a second gpu in yourself, it takes 2 seconds.

Size of monitor is not important, the res is, if your 32" monitor has a res of 1900 x 1200 (hd tv is 1920 x 1080) then you are not that high, high res is more like 2560 x 1600.


most 32" monitors will have a res of 2560 x 1600, most 32" TVs will have the HD res which is 1920 x 1080.


Edited by DST4ME - 16 Dec 2010 at 10:31am

if your going to stay with your current resolution all you will need is a single 570, if your going to increase the resolution dual sli 570 would be recommended.

one thing you need to consider games like crysis, metro 2033 are hogs and require a large amount of gpu muscle to get to 60 fps. also games like gta 4 require tons of vram (1.5gb) to max out. games like these will become more numerous in the future.

so single 580 vs sli 570 have their pros and cons. the sli 570 will give you more performance but a single 580 will allow you turn up settings higher on games that require more vram. you can not combine card a+b for 2x vram it only uses one cards vram. it is a trade off either way.

edit: changing 470 to 570


Edited by Raif - 16 Dec 2010 at 1:49pm

dso warranty is not what it used to be it no longer covers your parts for the duration of the warranty. so the only real bonus is the tested video card with dso markup. also if he wanted a tested gpu he can order if via the dso upgrade center

what dst was saying with that is if he is staying at the current res for some time having sli would be pointless, with the psu upgrade when he upgrades his display he can also upgrade his gpu to sli. this way there is nothing wasted performance wise or money. if he is going to need the power in the not too distant future then it would be better the get it now if he can afford it. if it will be some time spending more money for the same performance later when you need it later is pointless

granted if he buys now he will be ahead of the curve and buying later will be maintaining the curve. adding in a gpu is as simple as one, two, three

1. unplug computer
2. open the case
3. attach static bracelet to case
4. neutralize your charge by touching case
5. position and install card screw in if needed
6. plug in power cables to both card and mobo
7. remove static bracelet
8. close case
9. plug in computer
10. update drivers
 

that is right the fps do jump, but when getting 60 fps on the average then that means most times you are getting 60 fps. AS Magik pointed out, we really need 30 fps to run a game but to be super smooth we look for 60 fps, so that if not all but most of the game runs smooth with little or no lag and the games goes faster.

As you notice ender, you are the only person on this forum that keeps telling people to upgrade their monitor not me, I build around what they need with room to grow, your type of thinking waste people's money for no good reason.

And BTW all games are not like metro, so using it as an example does not prove anything that has to do with 80% of the games out there.

And once again you take things out of context, adding gpu later has to do with just money, people like magik that find their games running smooth even at 30 to 40 fps, people like that will see no real gain in their games from a second card and it is pointless to add another card, these people are saving money and losing out on nothing, you seem to not be able to differentiate from seems important to you and what is important to the buyer. Most buyers don't want sli so they can avoid little bit of 30 or 40 fps instances, so the hilarious thing here is that you are not giving people what they need, but what you think they need, there is a big difference.



Edited by DST4ME - 16 Dec 2010 at 3:13pm

I think DST has a point, really, IMO, 24 fps is sheer minimum for a smooth experience without any noticeable effect on how the video generally looks. Most videos are in the 24~30'ish fps range, and I see no real problems with them so far. 30 fps would be preferred, 60s range is a luxury that lets you get in on as much as you can for most monitors.

And just to go along with that, on techspot's review, the 580 never drops below 30 fps on Metro at 1920x1200. (570 never does too, but it's pushing it...)



Edited by ablahblah - 16 Dec 2010 at 3:13pm

What the hell are y'all talking about? You can't compare movie FPS to game FPS because in movies they use things like motion blur to cover it up, plus it is a consist unchanging FPS the whole time, not variable like in a game.

I'm not talking about movies, if somebody was I missed it. 30 fps in most games is very playable with very little lag, below 30 fps is when the sh*t hits the fan lol. Of course 30 fps is nothing like 60 fps as far as smooth and speed goes.

Edited by DST4ME - 16 Dec 2010 at 3:28pm

Originally posted by MagiK Dragoon you are incorrect, FPS is FPS the human eye can't distinguish much beyond 30fps,  Biological fact.  The problem with games is that they are not a SOLID Frames per second, they surge and dip and are inconsistant due to system load, that is the difference between a movie and a game.  You want to see this in action record a choppy scene from a game, and play it back as pre-rendered and you will see it smoothe right out.

Wow. Can't argue with that. Grade A cold hard facts here.

Set your monitor to 30Hz, tell me how long until you get a headache.

Is everybody forgetting when 30 or 40 fps was all we could get back in the day?

Edited by DST4ME - 16 Dec 2010 at 3:45pm

I can remember being very happy when I first breached 30fps. 

Edited by Tidgxor - 16 Dec 2010 at 4:22pm

played Divinity 2 for a while, before I went on vacation, game is locked at 30 FPS, makes it hard to play, some scenes it is ok, but fast moving scenes make me want to scream in agony.. 60 FPS min is nice, not required. forget all those graphs, none are ever at max settings 99.9% of all reviewers have no idea what max settings even are, or how to obtain them.