GPU Value Comparisons

Guys look, if you want to argue about different GPUs, and resolutions etc etc please make another thread. I'd like to keep this clear for pricing updates, new releases etc.
 
sounds like a good idea, i just have to inform all that i know why everyone is dissing me like this, and that would be because my card is not a 6800 but a 9600gt 512mb gs.
and that makes a huge difference, still going to run the test though. couldnt understand why when i google my card(as i gave it up to be here) doesnt look like the one i have.
me - out
 
Couple of other things to take into account.

1. CPU/Motherboard bottlenecking GPU performance. Whilst this seems like a moot point, actually, some tests have found that even though theres loads of Bandwidth available on the PCIe lanes, a lot of GPU processing still needs CPU for queuing, offloading and general processing and even the Latest Sandy Bridge processors can hold back some of the latest GFX cards....so FPS is a combo if CPU/GPU more than you'd think

2. Value from some vendors with Factory overclock/superclock etc etc. Some cards have the tiniest premium for a huge warranted covered factory overclock..that to me adds value

3. Discomfort noise...some cards are just plain noisy, some are amazing. Personally I like the idea of the quiet cards, like the GTX570 - case fans make more noise than that card even at FULL load using benchmarking tools... it's like there isnt a card in the machine - that adds value to me.

4. Software, this is the race between ATi and Nvidia, where some software updates have HUGE impact on certain game performance - another thing of value to me.

Anyway, great thread - should try get it STICKIED for future... GFX cards seem to be updated fairly frequently. From what I've heard, if you've got an SLi capable motherboard you get Massive bang-for-buck out of SLi GTX560i (2 X GTX560i) .... kudos
 
all very valid points there Leelo.
well i did run that test, and they where not joking when they said that small app drains your GPU like crazy.
well i do have my results should any one still be interested and should any one of done the benching.

on a side note, i was had a discussion between the ATI and Nvidia brands, all i can say for from looking at both over the years, is that, it doesnt really matter, nvidia just has more options and price ranges, where as you get big jumps in ATI, almost like there is only a low and high end class, no middle class.
dont know if any one ells picked this up at some point, perhaps it has already changed, since AMD has it now
 
[H]ardOCP found in a recent test that a 3.6GHz Intel Core i7 920 bottlenecked Tri-SLI GTX580s, so it is definitely worth considering once you move up in the food chain GPU-wise.

I believe they retested with a 2600K at 4.5GHz (or similar, can't remember exactly) and found that it provided a nice improvement in terms of FPS.
 
I think the new 2600K processors aren't necessarily holding the GPU's back a bit, rather the rather strangely strangled P67 motherboards. Personally I'm waiting for the Z68 or X68 motherboards to arrive before an upgrade to Sandy Bridge, that way I know the motherboard won't be holding me back in any way.
 
leelo said:
I think the new 2600K processors aren't necessarily holding the GPU's back a bit, rather the rather strangely strangled P67 motherboards. Personally I'm waiting for the Z68 or X68 motherboards to arrive before an upgrade to Sandy Bridge, that way I know the motherboard won't be holding me back in any way.
Click to expand...

I wonder if RAM influences the average speed of a system much? Especially today's systems...you have to have a bottleneck somewhere along the line. GPU's are plenty fast these days, and the i5 and i7 chips are also pushing a lot of numbers per second. RAM latencies are on the rise with the rising speeds...would that make a big difference?
 
leelo said:
I think the new 2600K processors aren't necessarily holding the GPU's back a bit, rather the rather strangely strangled P67 motherboards. Personally I'm waiting for the Z68 or X68 motherboards to arrive before an upgrade to Sandy Bridge, that way I know the motherboard won't be holding me back in any way.
Click to expand...

The motherboard does not hold you back in any way at all in ANY single GPU setup. That should really be the very last thing you worry about.
 
i have done some tests in the past, so should they still apply (the results that is) is another question, but in the past, if used a 1 gig chip with a 2 gig chip (ram) and the board supports dual channel, it would impact the speed, as quicker is better than bigger, in other words, 2 1 gig modules would be faster than the above mentioned.
 
It would not impact gaming at all. Hardcore RAM benchmarks yes, but nothing that a home user would be able to notice in day to day activities
 
yes that is true. my aim was just always to get my pc to run as in sync as possible. as i always tell people, what would the point be in buying a Ferrari body of over a million and then put a 1400 beatle engine in, for me the same applies to computers. one thing i have seen allot was that no matter the size of the graphics card i never see my CPU running at 100% note though that this was never with a graphics card of over 4k, point being though that if you do have a fairly good CPU you shouldnt have issues with it not coping.
 
yodaspike said:
yes that is true. my aim was just always to get my pc to run as in sync as possible. as i always tell people, what would the point be in buying a Ferrari body of over a million and then put a 1400 beatle engine in, for me the same applies to computers. one thing i have seen allot was that no matter the size of the graphics card i never see my CPU running at 100% note though that this was never with a graphics card of over 4k, point being though that if you do have a fairly good CPU you shouldnt have issues with it not coping.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the biggest bottleneck of all, the 60hz monitor...
 
doobyscoo said:
Let's not forget the biggest bottleneck of all, the 60hz monitor...
Click to expand...

Haha, a 60Hz monitor is WAY overkill for your eyes, which will fail to recognize anything past 24hz (or 24fps - same thing)

the only way you need more than 24fps for your eyes is if you want to fool your eyes with three different simultaneous images (like 3D).
 
Frag said:
Haha, a 60Hz monitor is WAY overkill for your eyes, which will fail to recognize anything past 24hz (or 24fps - same thing)

the only way you need more than 24fps for your eyes is if you want to fool your eyes with three different simultaneous images (like 3D).
Click to expand...

Have you actually sat and looked at a 120hz monitor vs a 60hz one?
 
Frag said:
Haha, a 60Hz monitor is WAY overkill for your eyes, which will fail to recognize anything past 24hz (or 24fps - same thing)

the only way you need more than 24fps for your eyes is if you want to fool your eyes with three different simultaneous images (like 3D).
Click to expand...

Your brain can go into overdrive and actually process images much quicker, especially if you are playing a FPS. I can see plasmas at 60hz flicker when I'm just watching TV...

The biggest problem with graphics cards is that the frames don't always come out at regular intervals, it could be running at 60fps, but every now and then there is a delay in the display of a frame and that is actually the bothersome part. That is why you need a much higher average framerate to ensure that you have a fresh one at least every 1/30th of a second...
 
I'll try update the charts again this weekend. Need to add the HD6990 and GTX560 (although with a quick glance it looks like the same as a GTX560Ti)
 
got myself an hd 6950 2g. apparently one can flash it to 6970 with an easy bios upgrade. makes it even better value for money then.
any thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X