GTX 570 1280MB Superclocked vs. GTX 570 HD 2560MB

[ChronicSilence]

Hey all,

Trying to pick out a card for my gaming rig, wondering which of these two would be better?

The GTX 570 1280MB Superclocked has higher clock and (from what I hear) better cooling, but the HD has twice the memory. Price isn't an issue, the store has them within $10 of each other.

Thanks!

 

[RavenSEAL]

I doubt ONE GTX570 will be able to use that much memory at optimal FPS anyways.

In other words,

Unless you plan to go SLi in the future, get whatever is cheaper.

 

[toyota]

if they are within 10 bucks of each then of course go with the 2.5gb model. you can probably easily oc it to sc speeds.

 

[Corporate Thug]

if they are within 10 bucks of each then of course go with the 2.5gb model. you can probably easily oc it to sc speeds.

True, but don't expect additional performance from the extra ram.

 

[edplayer]

are these EVGA? If so it would 797MHz vs. 732. I would be tempted to get the lower vram version because of what I heard of 570 overclocking but I don't know. If it were the classified (822MHz) it would be an easier choice.

 

[lavaheadache]

I doubt ONE GTX570 will be able to use that much memory at optimal FPS anyways.

In other words,

Unless you plan to go SLi in the future, get whatever is cheaper.

My Skyrim game runs at just over 1.4gigs of vRAM at 1920x1080 4xaa. With that 1.28 card the game would be unplayable. On my 30 incher I couldn't even run AA without maxing my old 580's 1.5 limit.


Games are going to start using more RAM sooner than later. If it were me I would *have* to get the larger RAM spec'd card.

 

[toyota]

I would not count on SC cards always being much better than what their standard gtx570 can do. EVGA overestimated what many of those SC binned gpus could do and had to release a bios that upped the voltage. in other words he may have to add additional voltage on the SC card just to be stable at its out of the box clocks.

 

[edplayer]

My Skyrim game runs at just over 1.4gigs of vRAM at 1920x1080 4xaa. With that 1.28 card the game would be unplayable.

Of course it would be playable. You don't need 4XAA for the game to run

 

[toyota]

My Skyrim game runs at just over 1.4gigs of vRAM at 1920x1080 4xaa. With that 1.28 card the game would be unplayable. On my 30 incher I couldn't even run AA without maxing my old 580's 1.5 limit.


Games are going to start using more RAM sooner than later. If it were me I would *have* to get the larger RAM spec'd card.

surely you must have the game modded?

EDIT: here at 1920x1080 with "Ultra Detail, 4x MSAA Plus Transparent/Adaptive AA", even just 1gb of vram is not a problem. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-8.html

 

[kami]

surely you must have the game modded?

EDIT: here at 1920x1080 with "Ultra Detail, 4x MSAA Plus Transparent/Adaptive AA", even just 1gb of vram is not a problem. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-8.html

Obviously it's mods. Saying Skyrim isn't playable at 1080p on anything less than a GTX 580 is laughable.

 

[amenx]

My Skyrim game runs at just over 1.4gigs of vRAM at 1920x1080 4xaa. With that 1.28 card the game would be unplayable.

Bollocks. 570 here and very playable @ 4xAA. Max vram used in my case is around 1100mb. You have to realize vram is adaptable according to the cards. A game will scale up or down in vram usage according to card capacity, it will not become 'unplayable' with lower vram cards.

On my 30 incher I couldn't even run AA without maxing my old 580's 1.5 limit.

Something wrong with your system. A 580 does well even at 8xAA at 2560x1600 (52fps avg):

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/21/elder_scrolls_v_skyrim_performance_iq_review/4

Also you may want to try the TESV Application Layer mod which fixes anomalies in Skyrims coding.

 

[aphelion02]

True, but don't expect additional performance from the extra ram.

Why do people say this yet always recommend the 6950 2gb?

 

[toyota]

Why do people say this yet always recommend the 6950 2gb?

because the other choice is a 6950 1gb and some games can utilize just over 1gb at settings a 6950 can handle. I own a gtx570 and having more than 1.25 gb is not really needed though. with some modded games it could help though so the 2.50 gb is not completely useless for some people. at 10 bucks more, at would go for it.

 

[lavaheadache]

Bollocks. 570 here and very playable @ 4xAA. Max vram used in my case is around 1100mb. You have to realize vram is adaptable according to the cards. A game will scale up or down in vram usage according to card capacity, it will not become 'unplayable' with lower vram cards.


Something wrong with your system. A 580 does well even at 8xAA at 2560x1600 (52fps avg):

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/21/elder_scrolls_v_skyrim_performance_iq_review/4

Also you may want to try the TESV Application Layer mod which fixes anomalies in Skyrims coding.

My install is loaded with tons or shall I say gigabytes of texture mods.

A card will not scale textures up and down based on the relative amount of ram. That is absurb to even think about.

I have run a GTX 280, GTX 460 1 gig sli, HD 4870 1 gig trifire and a GTX 580 all on the same system with the texture packs. All of the 1 gig card setups suffer terribly as you run across the world or enter new areas as textures filled in. Running 4xaa at even 1920x1080 made all but the GTX 580 stuttery during gameplay. sure, If you stand still or happen to be in a low vram area the problem doesn't show itself but to deny facts is crazy.

2560x1600 was virtually unplayable (to me) on everything but the GTX 580. Even then, I couldn't run any AA without running (litteraly) into texture swapping.

Maybe I have very high standards but it is what it is.

I have nothing to gain by saying this other than trying to help someone.

Stating the GTX 580 does average of 52 fps using 8X AA @ 2560 means nothing either as those averages don't account for 1 second pauses as textures load. I'm not even saying that that happens as clearly those fps are calculated on a vanilla Skyrim install.

How about you ask any of the guys using Ravenseals drag and drop texture pack what their Vram usage is like?

 

[amenx]

My install is loaded with tons or shall I say gigabytes of texture mods.

OK so I wasnt too far off by saying somethings 'wrong with your system' :biggrin:. You've basically hobbled it with "gigabytes of texture mods". And at 2560x1600 you may indeed be having low FPS. But the mainstream, even those with 30" screens, 580s will not likely be having issues with the vanilla Skyrim as [H] demonstrated.

A card will not scale textures up and down based on the relative amount of ram. That is absurb to even think about.

I didnt say the card was scaling vram but rather the game adjusts vram loading according to the cards capacity. This is something I've learned with 512, 896 and 1294mb cards, that they've never reached their max vram (even the 512mb one), but will load up to near the cards capacity. If somethings 'unplayable' it may not just be the vram, but the cards design/performance is a factor too (which is why the 570 1.2gb will beat the 6950 2gb in most games, even at 2560x1600). But yes, in some games at very high resolutions the extra vram will help. As to make a game "unplayable" vs "playable" solely due to the vram can be a misleading proposition.

 

[Grooveriding]

I didnt say the card was scaling vram but rather the game adjusts vram loading according to the cards capacity. This is something I've learned with 512, 896 and 1294mb cards, that they've never reached their max vram (even the 512mb one), but will load up to near the cards capacity. If somethings 'unplayable' it may not just be the vram, but the cards design/performance is a factor too (which is why the 570 1.2gb will beat the 6950 2gb in most games, even at 2560x1600). But yes, in some games at very high resolutions the extra vram will help. As to make a game "unplayable" vs "playable" solely due to the vram can be a misleading proposition.

This is nonsense, dude. I've watched VRAM usage in all my games and there are only 3 games that load out my VRAM. BF3, modded Skyrim and Crysis 2. The rest use as little as 800MB to around 1.35GB, and this is running them on their highest settings.

This whole 'games scale up' stuff is hogwash. The one game that has been said to be designed for this is BF3, using a texture streaming method, to allow for less loading time on textures. And that game still uses loads of VRAM as a necessity if you are playing on ultra and moreso if trying to use MSAA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vuhEQsAhUjo Around 8:10

 

[lavaheadache]

OK so I wasnt too far off by saying somethings 'wrong with your system' :biggrin:. You've basically hobbled it with "gigabytes of texture mods". And at 2560x1600 you may indeed be having low FPS. But the mainstream, even those with 30" screens, 580s will not likely be having issues with the vanilla Skyrim as [H] demonstrated.


I didnt say the card was scaling vram but rather the game adjusts vram loading according to the cards capacity. This is something I've learned with 512, 896 and 1294mb cards, that they've never reached their max vram (even the 512mb one), but will load up to near the cards capacity. If somethings 'unplayable' it may not just be the vram, but the cards design/performance is a factor too (which is why the 570 1.2gb will beat the 6950 2gb in most games, even at 2560x1600). But yes, in some games at very high resolutions the extra vram will help. As to make a game "unplayable" vs "playable" solely due to the vram can be a misleading proposition.

"(which is why the 570 1.2gb will beat the 6950 2gb in most games, even at 2560x1600). "


I see what is going on here... This is not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about FPS here. I'm talking about texture thrashing. This is what makes things not playable. Not the FPS but the huge pauses in gameplay as your card has to jumble around information across vram cause it can't store everything and has to shuffle things back and forth. It is very easy to replicate if you have want to see it for yourself.

 

[RussianSensation]

For $10 more, I'd get the 2560mb card. The question is what are you actually paying for those cards? I don't imagine GTX570 2560mb to be cheap.

EVGA GTX570 2560mb on Newegg is $395.
EVGA GTX570 SC is $340.

If you are spending anywhere near these levels, you might want to consider that you can pick up a Galaxy GTX570 for $270.

 

[amenx]

"(which is why the 570 1.2gb will beat the 6950 2gb in most games, even at 2560x1600). "


I see what is going on here... This is not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about FPS here. I'm talking about texture thrashing. This is what makes things not playable. Not the FPS but the huge pauses in gameplay as your card has to jumble around information across vram cause it can't store everything and has to shuffle things back and forth. It is very easy to replicate if you have want to see it for yourself.

At 1920x1080, you must be one of the very few 580 owners who is claiming to be vram challenged. I've experienced something similar to what you're describing 'texture thrashing' in a couple locations but resolved it pretty quick with the TESV App Layer mod. Even in places like Markath it runs as smooth as butter. Once again I strongly suggest you read up on the games coding problem and try the above fix. Theres also an alternate fix which doesnt rely on the SKSE script extender but works on same principle.

 

[lavaheadache]

please read what I posted...

My install is utilizing over 1.4 GB of vram at 1920x1080 with 4xaa in Skyrim (modded)!!!! I do not have any issues. I'm just going to wait until I get my 7970. All I have to do is rename my texture folder to something else and viola... magically my vram usage drops to well below 1gb.

I sold my 580 a few days ago and am having to "settle" with using my HD4870 trifire setup and am learning how accustomed I have gotten to having a card with high Vram. Even Rage with the 8k texture mod is killing my setup. I would rather not undo eveything I have worked to setup so instead I am settling by playing games that don't break the bank. These cards still man handle Slightly older games that don't use more than 1 gb of vram.

Crysis runs awesome as does AVP, Battefield Bad company 2 and the countless others I have tried, just not Skyrim(modded or Rage(modded).

Get it now?