I CANT DECIDE!!!

tomhcb

New member
I need a graphics card but I can't decide on which one.

It's a toss up between:

MSI GTX 560 ti twin frozr II

MSI R6950 twin frozr III

MSI GTX 570 twin frozr III

Is the gtx 570 worth the big price increase (I could spend the money but if its for only a little performance I would rather not)?

I will probably do some overclocking

I'm only using 1 monitor at 1920 1080 so the 2GB memory on the raedon card isn't really needed.

Anywaze opinions guys??

cheers
 
No problem with choosing.The gtx 570
biggrin.gif
 
At 1920x1080 I would recommend the GTX 570. It wouldn't be a massive performance increase from the GTX 560 to the GTX 570, but you wouldn't suffer fps drops if you wanted to max everything e.g. AA, AF.
 
At 1920x1080 I would recommend the GTX 570. It wouldn't be a massive performance increase from the GTX 560 to the GTX 570, but you wouldn't suffer fps drops if you wanted to max everything e.g. AA, AF.

570's are great! I've had one since launch and got a 2nd one fairly recently...really rather happy
smile.gif


I use 1920x1200 and sometimes run a 2nd monitor too for monitoring stuff when I'm dabbling with overclocks etc. One 570 handled things nicely, TWO 570's are fantastic.

Scoob.
 
Go with the 570 if you can afford it but if not get the MSI R6950 twin frozr III, I own one of these and love it but for that little extra more you can get something a bit better
 
I was going to ask the same question, looks like I have the answer lol. This rig is getting very expensive now! It's gonna take me awhile to afford all of this hardware! I've ordered my P67 Sabertooth and i5 2500k @3.3GHz, which will no doubt be over 4GHz. This card will be the last purchase I think. Need to get RAM and PSU yet >.<. Oh the joy of viewing peoples rigs and feeling jealous and spending silly amounts of money on something that you actually didn't need. <3 OC3D lol.

570 it is then!
 
So basically what you're all trying to say is, buy the 560 ti....

Not but really it looks like 570 the one. I was almost decided on that anyway but its always easy for all the different review sites to sway my mind but I'm set on this one now, I trust your judgments, I'll get it the end of this month when the pay-check gets in.
biggrin.gif


Cheers guys!!!x
 
The GTX 570 is BARLEY faster than the 6950 in tests i have seen (toms hardware). But in reality (being a HUGE AMD fan) I would settle with the 570 because of Cuda and PhysX. But if you plan on running resolutions higher than 1920x1200, their is no doubt you will get better performance with a 6950 because of the 2gb.
 
The GTX 570 is BARLEY faster than the 6950 in tests i have seen (toms hardware). But in reality (being a HUGE AMD fan) I would settle with the 570 because of Cuda and PhysX. But if you plan on running resolutions higher than 1920x1200, their is no doubt you will get better performance with a 6950 because of the 2gb.

570 OCs very well too, but the AMD cards are handy because of higher RAM
 
If you want higher ram evga offer a 570 with 2.5gigs of ddr5 ram. There really is no question, the 570 is probably the best price/performance card on the Market right now.
 
Hi,

Really don't see the point of the 2.5gb 570 - unless you run a 30" monitor and are sure the extra vRam is what you need. If you like massive amounts of AA and simply must have super-sampling enabled then it might help. However I think the 1.25gb card is more than adequate for 1920x1080/1200, with 16xAF and 4xAA applied. Note: I have run some games (just to test it) with 16xAF, 32xAA and 8x Super Sampling. It takes an FPS hit of course, but it's not running out of vRam.

I remember after Crysis had come out I tried to run it at 2560x1600 on my 512mb 8800GT, it played surprisingly well. Ok, FPS was low but vRam wasn't the issue - running out of vRam would usually mean a proper slide-show, whereas Crysis played at low-fps for sure, but you could play it. This was with settings maxed, but no AA, just for the hell of it. Obviously Crysis needed a more powerful card, but my old 8800GT did its self proud!

My GTX 275 had 896mb vRam, yet that never exhibited the symptoms of running out of vRam either.

So yeah, a GTX 570 1.25gb is a great card, I'd not spend the extra for double the vRam unless I had a very good reason.

Oh, one more thing, one chap on another forum constantly posts how "anything less than 2gb vRam isnt enough" - he regularly states as "proof" the fact that Shogun 2 won't let you run the benchmark at high resolutions with high settings. He totally ignores that fact that the actual game will play just fine at these settings with less vRam, given a sufficiently powerful AMD/NV GPU of course.

Here's the thing. I think GPUs cache data. I.e. Playing Crysis 2 I might see 1.2gb of vRam used - "oh noez, I'm running out of vRam!" well, no. I can be using 1.2gb vRam, hit a checkpoint (save) quit the game, reload, do a 360 degree look around (so all texures and objects as before are loaded) yet now I'm showing 700mb vRam used...sorta proves that stuff was cached from prior scenes to me & swapped out as needed. I notice this in a lot of games, my vRam filling up the longer I play. This is a GOOD thing as the game is making the best use of what it has to potentially speed things up.

This is just how Windows 7 works - for example, this PC (my Q6600, now my gateway PC) is currently using over 6gb RAM just at the desktop with a browser open. That's because it's cached loads of stuff it might need - this is instantly freed up if it's needed for something else. Use resmon and you'll see what I mean. I'll often see only 1 or 2mb "free" as the system caches stuff it thinks I might need - likely why W7 works so well.

Cheers,

Scoob.
 
Ive spent 1100 on my rig so far and i have still got to buy the cpu 2 gpus mobo ram and water blocks but its the most exciting 1100 ive ever spent. And its not like im loaded and have money to burn. This i just something ive wanted to do for ages so dude. Enjoy spending the money its part of the experience
 
Back
Top