Did I make a mistake in my GPU purchase?

[d3fu5i0n]

A while ago - I think in March - I purchased my 6950 2GB [non-reference SapphireTech model] for £195.
For £199, I could've got a GTX480 brand new - Gigabyte branded, with the reference heatsink.
I believe I posted a thread on OC3D about what GPU to get, and as well as convincing myself and with the recommendations from others, it seemed that going for the 6950 2GB was the better option due to the noise being far less as well as the temperatures, despite the 480's performance being on par with the 570 which was, at the time, priced at around £280 or more (as far as I can remember).

Did I make the wrong choice...? - I know it doesn't change anything now - but I'm starting to think I did.

Check latest post (on 2nd page) [about OC'ing my current GPU, now]

 

[Corporate Thug]

why worry about it now? what's been done has been done

 

[d3fu5i0n]

why worry about it now? what's been done has been done

I know, I know. But I was just curious. At the time I was thinking the 480 was a no-no, even with that price, due to the issues with the GF100.

But yeah, the tess. performance I could've had, and general framerates - as well as PhysX and driver-level AA.

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is all right. A small overclock and that 6950 gives near performance to the GTX480. GPU physX is still a gimmick (most physX games actually run on both AMD and NVIDIA and I'm not sure what you mean by driver level-AA.

 

[Rvenger]

I really don't think you made a bad decision.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=309

 

[d3fu5i0n]

It is all right. A small overclock and that 6950 gives near performance to the GTX480. GPU physX is still a gimmick (most physX games actually run on both AMD and NVIDIA and I'm not sure what you mean by driver level-AA.

AMD cards have to do AA through DX9 I believe. I don't know too much about it.

Yeah, it is a gimmick and real CPU physics apparently can be far more powerful than nVidia's GPU PhysX method.

It can run on both, but PhysX is run on the CPU. My new 2500K handles it MUCH better than my Q6700, yet it still struggles. I wish games would just use Havok - I much prefer Havok.

 

[power_hour]

Decent card for that price point. Here in Canada they average a bit higher, around $250. Quite a few ppl I know went with one and plan to add a second for Crossfire config. Again that depends on your game and system build. But 2x cheaper cards seems to be a more common option.

The problem right now is the jump in price between cards is a bit steep.

 

[Crap Daddy]

It was a bad decision but what's done is done.

 

[tweakboy]

You have driver level AA with ATI as well using ATI Tray Tools ,,,, but ya your missing phsyx with them and horrible drivers in general, and CCC hell,, thx gl

 

[GaiaHunter]

AMD cards have to do AA through DX9 I believe. I don't know too much about it.

Ah.

Some DX9 engines need AA trough driver, sure but AMD also supports AA through driver, although generally it takes somewhat higher performance hit than NVIDIA similar performing cards.

Still, you can also activate MLAA on AMD cards.

It was an acceptable decision.

There are 2 types of physX - GPU accelerated physX that runs on NVIDIA cards and non-GPU physX that runs on the CPUs. A large majority of games that use physX use the non-GPU version (for example DA).

Probably the best known games that uses GPU physX are Batman:AA and Batman:AC.

Which games do you want to play that support hardware physX?

 

[FalconHorse]

Have you tried unlocking the shaders to 6970? The Sapphire cards have the pre-installed bios, right? See if you can flip that switch and unlock it.

http://www.techenclave.com/guides-and-tutorials/simple-way-unlock-sapphire-hd6950-dual-204263.html

 

[d3fu5i0n]

Have you tried unlocking the shaders to 6970? The Sapphire cards have the pre-installed bios, right? See if you can flip that switch and unlock it.

http://www.techenclave.com/guides-and-tutorials/simple-way-unlock-sapphire-hd6950-dual-204263.html

It's the non-reference one without the switch, as I mentioned in the first post of the thread. [Well, I just stated 'non-reference'].
The only way I have seen how to unlock them on this card. I can't find the thread [I believe it was on HardOCP] at the moment, but if I can, I'll update that.

 

[Yukmouth]

For the future no, you made the right choice going with a 2gb card.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

For the future no, you made the right choice going with a 2gb card.

2GB of VRAM is pointless in the future, as the GPU itself won't be powerful enough for future games. ...Well, if we don't stick on console-focused engines so much, and game developers actually do something innovative for the PC community.

However, the 480 still had 1.5GB of VRAM, that's enough.

I have been getting annoyed with AMD's drivers though. Albeit the fears of owning an nVidia card and having a driver that'll stop the fan from operating does scare me.

If I upgrade it's Southern Islands or Kepler that are the two roads of which to choose from.

 

[RavenSEAL]

This guys must have never heard a GTX 480 fan @ 40%.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

This guys must have never heard a GTX 480 fan @ 40%.

Well, I'd watched Linus' video on YouTube, and I believe he showed 45% and 100%.
100% is like a very loud hair-dryer, but 45% was fine from what I could hear.

It depends what auto puts it at when under load.

If you were referring to me, you shouldn't be presumptuous (If you weren't, fair enough).

I did mention in the very first post of the thread "it seemed that going for the 6950 2GB was the better option due to the noise being far less as well as the temperatures"

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Both the cards are quite capable and the 6950 will last just as long as a GTX 480 would have.

Like you said there is no reason to worry about the past, what is done is done.

The VRAM stuff doesn't matter unless you do eyefinity with multiple GPU's. A single GPU cannot handle all that VRAM.

-Flamesuit on-

 

[d3fu5i0n]

A single GPU cannot handle all that VRAM.

My point exactly. I like 1.25GB though [1280MB], I think that's a good amount for a single 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 display.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

My point exactly. I like 1.25GB though [1280MB], I think that's a good amount for a single 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 display.

1.25GB is more then plenty for that resolution IMO.

It gives you some wiggle room that 1GB doesn't have and not as excessive as 2GB.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

1.25GB is more then plenty for that resolution IMO.

It gives you some wiggle room that 1GB doesn't have and not as excessive as 2GB.

If you use high-res textures, a lot of high quality AA and long render/draw distances, you'll need a LOT more VRAM than 1GB.

I already tip over 1GB in GTA IV. I believe around 1200. And don't forget, there's no AA there - and that's without mods (pointing towards larger textures in this case - VRAM hungry).

But yeah, what do you think will trump, Kepler or Southern Islands?
I think I'll upgrade. But even with the new tessellation system for Southern Islands, it still looks weak [tessellation performance] compared to the GF110. :\

Will we have a 500 > 6000 like last time, or a 400 < 5000 again? [sort of opinionated, but pretty much proven - not performance wise, but the overall "package"; including temperatures, noise, efficiency, features, performance, price].

 

[bryanW1995]

Well, I'd watched Linus' video on YouTube, and I believe he showed 45&#37; and 100%.
100% is like a very loud hair-dryer, but 45% was fine from what I could hear.

It depends what auto puts it at when under load.

If you were referring to me, you shouldn't be presumptuous (If you weren't, fair enough).

I did mention in the very first post of the thread "it seemed that going for the 6950 2GB was the better option due to the noise being far less as well as the temperatures"

The short answer is "it depends". The long answer? With the 6950 you what you're gonna get. However,there are different versions of gtx 480. If the one for sale at that time was one of the original gtx 480's with serious power/heat/nosie issues, then you almost certainly made the right choice. I've heard lots of bad things about those, to the point that I hesitated to buy one a couple of months ago. However, the later gtx 480's do a much better job at dealing with power/heat/noise, plus they have much better components than gtx 570 so they're more apt to overclock better. If you got one of those (which I fortunately did), then you'll be able to run a very quiet rig with a gtx 480 in it. Regardless of which one you got, it is possible to manually set the fan profiles in Afterburner to keep the card quiet(er) than it normally would be otherwise, and several people i know have replaced the TIM from the factory and gotten a significant operating temperature/noise reduction as well.

Personally, if I were in your shoes I'd flash your card to a custom 6950 bios or at least manually overclock it. The dual bios switch is only there for extreme overclockers who might flash to a too-aggressive bios.

If you use high-res textures, a lot of high quality AA and long render/draw distances, you'll need a LOT more VRAM than 1GB.

I already tip over 1GB in GTA IV. I believe around 1200. And don't forget, there's no AA there - and that's without mods (pointing towards larger textures in this case - VRAM hungry).

But yeah, what do you think will trump, Kepler or Southern Islands?
I think I'll upgrade. But even with the new tessellation system for Southern Islands, it still looks weak [tessellation performance] compared to the GF110. :\

Will we have a 500 > 6000 like last time, or a 400 < 5000 again? [sort of opinionated, but pretty much proven - not performance wise, but the overall "package"; including temperatures, noise, efficiency, features, performance, price].

I think it's more likely to be like 400 < 5000 this time because we're at another node change, and step one (AMD launching first) has already happened. The big weakness of 500 mm2 + dies is that it takes longer to get them right. Kepler 1 will probably be a bit like fermi 1, and, just like the recent generation, the refresh part will benefit immensely from the matured manufacturing process.

 

[rgallant]

My point exactly. I like 1.25GB though [1280MB], I think that's a good amount for a single 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 display.

and if you add a second card ,the gpu's are crippled even at those stated res.
-I could max. the 1.5 mb in bf3 @ 1920-1200
-@ 2560x1440 the fps crashed when over maxing the vram [1538mb]
-solved by turning down a setting but ,I would say 90% of nv card problems on the bf3 forums are lack of vram related ,along with the drivers and game not nerffing the settings low enough for low vram cards.

 

[lsv]

I went with an Asus 6950 DCII because I want a cool and quiet card versus performance, this rig is for both gaming during downtime and mixing/mastering before finalizing in a studio.

If OP is worried about noise with about GTX 480 performance then the 6950 is the way to go. If you wanted more performance then the GTX 480 stock cooler is a better choice.

To be frank, both are fine. Give the 6950 a light OC and you'll surpass a 480 in most if not all games.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

To be frank, both are fine. Give the 6950 a light OC and you'll surpass a 480 in most if not all games.

A "light OC"?

What would you recommend on the core and memory then?

 

[d3fu5i0n]

and if you add a second card ,the gpu's are crippled even at those stated res.
-I could max. the 1.5 mb in bf3 @ 1920-1200
-@ 2560x1440 the fps crashed when over maxing the vram [1538mb]
-solved by turning down a setting but ,I would say 90% of nv card problems on the bf3 forums are lack of vram related ,along with the drivers and game not nerffing the settings low enough for low vram cards.

Well yeah, VRAM doesn't stack in multi-GPU setups. - if that's what you meant. Still, when you use more of the newer shaders/SPs that are available (and such), that takes load off of the rest, which allows the use of AA to be more effective.