Why is the GTX 580 superior to the Radeon 6970?

[Suprnovo]

Hello. I'm building a new rig by October, and I'm carefully choosing every component for it, and there's one thing that bothers me. I've always been kind of a "Nvidia guy", but after seeing many reviews and benchmarks where the GTX 580 absolutely beats the 6970, I find the results very odd, because, according to this chart (please scroll down a bit to see it), the 6970 has higher clocks, compute performance, texture fillrate/units and stream processors than the GTX 580. That'd be enough for the 6970 to beat the GTX 580, isn't it?

Then why the GTX 580 kicks 6970' ass in every benchmark I've seen? Is it because of superior chip architecture, and thus cannot be changed, or it's a matter of bad drivers? It bothers me, because if it's a matter of drivers, who can say that ATi won't release a new Catalyst version that fixes them, and unleash all the horsepower the ATi 6xxx cards theorically have?

Thanks in advance for your answers

 

[Rhoxed]

From that chart the 6970 has less ROPS, pixel fillrate, and memory bandwidth. Also a much smaller die and less transistors. Im sure all of this has an impact just as the 6970 has some advantages over the GTX580 (compute, and texture units)

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Before you decide which card is "better" you need to figure out what games you plan on playing and at what resolution. You also need to figure out if the price performance difference between the two cards is worth it at your resolution. If the difference is the gtx 580 gets 125fps at 1680x1050 costing $500, but the 6970 gets 115fps, but only costs $380 you tell me which is the better buy?

Also, you can take into account temperatures, noise, and power consumption for both cards.

The two companies chips work differently and that's why clock speed doesn't necessarily indicate performance.

 

[MentalIlness]

Completely different architecture.

/thread

 

[3DVagabond]

They are different architectures. You can't compare them the way you are. The biggest difference for the consumer is price. Just for comparison, the 6970 starts on Newegg @ $320.00 while the 580 starts @ $450.00 (both prices after rebates).

 

[Suprnovo]

Before you decide which card is "better" you need to figure out what games you plan on playing and at what resolution. You also need to figure out if the price performance difference between the two cards is worth it at your resolution. If the difference is the gtx 580 gets 125fps at 1680x1050 costing $500, but the 6970 gets 115fps, but only costs $380 you tell me which is the better buy?

Also, you can take into account temperatures, noise, and power consumption for both cards.

The two companies chips work differently and that's why clock speed doesn't necessarily indicate performance.

Price is not a concern to me. Resolution would be 1920x1080 at minimum, playing games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, Crysis 1/Crysis 2, Metro 2033...all at max detail, of course.

About temperatures and noise, I don't care, because I'm going to watercool my system. That's why I'm also aiming (ideally, and if I can find it) for a 900+ mhz (core) GTX 580 with 3 gb's of RAM. Or maybe even 2 of them in SLI.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

If you were going with sli I'd look at reviews of 6970 crossfire if I were you. Either one of these cards is going to be overkill at 1920x1080, so just pick the more cost effective card.

 

[Suprnovo]

I'm aiming for a bit of overkill And also for quality over cost.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Price is not a concern to me. Resolution would be 1920x1080 at minimum, playing games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, Crysis 1/Crysis 2, Metro 2033...all at max detail, of course.

About temperatures and noise, I don't care, because I'm going to watercool my system. That's why I'm also aiming (ideally, and if I can find it) for a 900+ mhz (core) GTX 580 with 3 gb's of RAM. Or maybe even 2 of them in SLI.

-Sounds like the GTX 580 is your thing, if price is no concern. Absolutely the fastest single GPU card you can get.

Divide AMD's Stream Processor count by 4 to get the "equivalent number" of Nvidia CUDA cores. I'll do it for you: 384 VLIW4 Processors for the HD6970. That's in comparison to the GTX 580's 512 CUDA cores.

Oh yeah and the cards are built so differently that its almost pointless to try to compare straight across in standing.

 

[Suprnovo]

-Sounds like the GTX 580 is your thing, if price is no concern. Absolutely the fastest single GPU card you can get.

Divide AMD's Stream Processor count by 4 to get the "equivalent number" of Nvidia CUDA cores. I'll do it for you: 384 VLIW4 Processors for the HD6970. That's in comparison to the GTX 580's 512 CUDA cores.

Oh yeah and the cards are built so differently that its almost pointless to try to compare straight across in standing.

Ahmmm...I begin to understand now...

Well, I think it's officially 2x GTX 580 for me (I'm not happy with the GTX 590). I just hope to find the right ones by Oct. (ideally watercooled & fabric OC at 9xx(+) core / 1xxx shaders / 4xxx memory, and with 3 gb's of RAM each).

 

[3DVagabond]

Ahmmm...I begin to understand now...

Well, I think it's officially 2x GTX 580 for me (I'm not happy with the GTX 590). I just hope to find the right ones by Oct. (ideally watercooled & fabric OC at 9xx(+) core / 1xxx shaders / 4xxx memory, and with 3 gb's of RAM each).

If you don't care about cost and want a 1 or 2 gpu system then go the 580. Just buy the water cooled EVGA models. Stay away from the 590. It's weakly built. The 6990 is the card to go with if you want a dual GPU card.

 

[Suprnovo]

If you don't care about cost and want a 1 or 2 gpu system then go the 580. Just buy the water cooled EVGA models. Stay away from the 590. It's weakly built. The 6990 is the card to go with if you want a dual GPU card.

Out of curiosity, is there any chance Nvidia will release a "GTX 595", fixing all the weak points that the GTX 590 has? (at least 1 extra GB of RAM, much better clockspeeds, etc).

If so, I'd consider buying it. If not, superclocked SLI GTX 580 with 4-6 Gbs of RAM > 6990

 

[RobertPters77]

I've actually always wondered the same thing. What I was told was that; Imagine if you will Amd's shaders are 4-5 pairs of small hands each controlled by a single brain. Each pair of hands can do a single task or can combine with the others to do more complicated tasks. The brain splits resources and attention amongst each pair of hands. The flaw here is if each pair of hands is doing something different, then they all slow down, because the brain has an information backup waiting for each hand to finish a task before going on to a new one. Sometimes 1 or more pairs are left idle because the brain can't sort out tasks fast enough and the other pairs are already done with theirs. But if they all do the same task, then the hands work at maximum efficiency. Also since the resources are pooled the hands + brain take up much less space even though there's more of them.

Nvidia's shaders are bit different. Nvidia's shaders are a single pair of big burly hands that operate twice as fast as the competition. With only a single pair of hands the brain can deal and sort tasks much easier. And it does not have to split attention. It can schedule and estimate when a task will be finished which much greater efficiency. The catch is that the hands work so fast they create so much sweat and require more space to work. But they are extremely efficient.

In short.

Amd needs games that are written in VLIW 4 or 5 to maximize and saturate the 4-5 way shader cores for best performance.

Nvidia can work with pretty much anything. But needs alot more die area.

 

[3DVagabond]

Out of curiosity, is there any chance Nvidia will release a "GTX 595", fixing all the weak points that the GTX 590 has? (at least 1 extra GB of RAM, much better clockspeeds, etc).

If so, I'd consider buying it. If not, superclocked SLI GTX 580 with 4-6 Gbs of RAM > 6990

Who knows what nVidia "might" do? I don't think they are going to release a 595, but I'm not privy to any inside info one way or the other. Someone "might" come out with a custom 590 that will fix the weak power stage of the 590. I think that's more likely. Right now the 590's can't be found in most countries anyway. So, it's a moot point.

I'm not sure why your reference to 580SLI being > the 6990. You said price didn't matter. If that's the case then 580SLI will give you better raw performance than the 6990. If you wanted a single card though, with dual GPU then the 6990 is the best card to get. At your resolution you're talking overkill with either setup.

I'm not trying to discourage you though. Go ahead and get down with your bad self and enjoy. I wish I had an uber water cooled rig. (Mine would have dual CPU rather than dual GPU though.) :thumbsup:

 

[Suprnovo]

I wish I had an uber water cooled rig. (Mine would have dual CPU rather than dual GPU though.) :thumbsup:

Dual CPU? Nah, I hope the future octo-core AMD Bulldozer will do the trick. I'm eagerly waiting for their benchmarks, to see how good they are

I hope I don't have any problem finding an AM3+ mobo with SLI support...but I think I've read there won't be any issues regarding that. And if not, well....it's Sandy Bridge for me...

I've actually always wondered the same thing. What I was told was that; Imagine if you will Amd's shaders are 4-5 pairs of small hands each controlled by a single brain. Each pair of hands can do a single task or can combine with the others to do more complicated tasks. The brain splits resources and attention amongst each pair of hands. The flaw here is if each pair of hands is doing something different, then they all slow down, because the brain has an information backup waiting for each hand to finish a task before going on to a new one. Sometimes 1 or more pairs are left idle because the brain can't sort out tasks fast enough and the other pairs are already done with theirs. But if they all do the same task, then the hands work at maximum efficiency. Also since the resources are pooled the hands + brain take up much less space even though there's more of them.

Nvidia's shaders are bit different. Nvidia's shaders are a single pair of big burly hands that operate twice as fast as the competition. With only a single pair of hands the brain can deal and sort tasks much easier. And it does not have to split attention. It can schedule and estimate when a task will be finished which much greater efficiency. The catch is that the hands work so fast they create so much sweat and require more space to work. But they are extremely efficient.

In short.

Amd needs games that are written in VLIW 4 or 5 to maximize and saturate the 4-5 way shader cores for best performance.

Nvidia can work with pretty much anything. But needs alot more die area.

Thanks for the example I don't mind about the sweat, as they'll receive a nice continuous shower of deionized water + cooling liquid in order to keep them fresh and clean

 

[3DVagabond]

I use my computer for modeling and rendering them. While GPU performance is important, CPU performance is still king (for the time being, anyway).

 

[bunnyfubbles]

With any luck, we very well might have new GPUs on the 28nm process on or shortly after your October time frame.

That being said, as of right now, the GTX580 is the fastest GPU and is overpriced priced accordingly It is faster by brute force, AMD's GPUs are simply more efficient per silicon used when it comes to gaming performance.

If you were going with sli I'd look at reviews of 6970 crossfire if I were you. Either one of these cards is going to be overkill at 1920x1080, so just pick the more cost effective card.

not for a 120Hz monitor, and certainly not for any of the games he listed.

-Sounds like the GTX 580 is your thing, if price is no concern. Absolutely the fastest single GPU card you can get.

Divide AMD's Stream Processor count by 4 to get the "equivalent number" of Nvidia CUDA cores. I'll do it for you: 384 VLIW4 Processors for the HD6970. That's in comparison to the GTX 580's 512 CUDA cores.

Oh yeah and the cards are built so differently that its almost pointless to try to compare straight across in standing.

That doesn't work at all, because the 6970 trades blows with the GTX 570 which has 480 SPs...and is why those two are priced similarly.

 

[nitromullet]

If you're only planning on building in October I would probably suggest re-assessing the situation at that time. It's possible that by October NV and AMD's next generation cards will have launched or their launch will be imminent. Buying high end cards is something you do at the beginning of a new generation, not at the end (unless you get a really good deal on them).

 

[Suprnovo]

If you're only planning on building in October I would probably suggest re-assessing the situation at that time. It's possible that by October NV and AMD's next generation cards will have launched or their launch will be imminent. Buying high end cards is something you do at the beginning of a new generation, not at the end (unless you get a really good deal on them).

I know, but I'm very unwilling to buy my PC later than November (as much). 11/11/11 is a sacred day, after all (not counting BF3 also). On the other hand, I also don't like the idea of buying expensive 580 at the end of it's generation, so...

Oh, well, I guess I won't decide anything DEFINITELY until September or October itself...

P.D: Besides, are DX 11.1 or 12 going to be released as well? What would those cards offer then if not? Only more performance?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

That doesn't work at all, because the 6970 trades blows with the GTX 570 which has 480 SPs...and is why those two are priced similarly.

It works as a very, very, very rough estimation if you normalize clockspeed - like comparing the GTX 560 Ti (384 SPs) at similar clocks to the 6970.

The GTX 570 just doesn't operate at the same clockspeeds as the 6970. So it has more SPs, but at lower clocks, constrained by the thermal and power envelope and targeted market.

 

[Arkadrel]

the 6970 is a tiny bit faster than a 570...
2nd best single gpu card isnt so bad... and if you look at the prices...
6970 is like 320$ on newegg, vs the 580's 500$ pricetag.

Lets say the 580 is like ~10% faster, but it costs ~56% more.

You have to ask yourself if 10% more performance, is worth paying 56% more for?

Neither cards are bad, and can probably handle anything single monitor resolution wise you throw at them.



*** PS:

6950 cost around 240$, flash that to a 6970, save yourself a ton of $.

again.... 500$ ish 580 cost, vs a 240$ 6950->6970 flashed card.
thats a price differnce of over 100%! twice as much for about 10% performance.

the 6950 2gb is great value... get one and flash it, be happy you saved a ton of $.

 

[3DVagabond]

the 6970 is a tiny bit faster than a 570...
2nd best single gpu card isnt so bad... and if you look at the prices...
6970 is like 320$ on newegg, vs the 580's 500$ pricetag.

Lets say the 580 is like ~10% faster, but it costs ~56% more.

You have to ask yourself if 10% more performance, is worth paying 56% more for?

Neither cards are bad, and can probably handle anything single monitor resolution wise you throw at them.



*** PS:

6950 cost around 240$, flash that to a 6970, save yourself a ton of $.

again.... 500$ ish 580 cost, vs a 240$ 6950->6970 flashed card.
thats a price differnce of over 100%! twice as much for about 10% performance.

the 6950 2gb is great value... get one and flash it, be happy you saved a ton of $.

He doesn't care about money, power usage, or heat. Sounds like the 580SLI is perfect for him.

 

[soccerballtux]

-Sounds like the GTX 580 is your thing, if price is no concern. Absolutely the fastest single GPU card you can get.

Divide AMD's Stream Processor count by 4 to get the "equivalent number" of Nvidia CUDA cores. I'll do it for you: 384 VLIW4 Processors for the HD6970. That's in comparison to the GTX 580's 512 CUDA cores.

Oh yeah and the cards are built so differently that its almost pointless to try to compare straight across in standing.

it's divide by 3 not 4

 

[Arkadrel]

Price is not a concern to me. Resolution would be 1920x1080 at minimum, playing games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Mass Effect 3, Crysis 1/Crysis 2, Metro 2033...all at max detail, of course.

Didnt notice above at first...

Well if price is no concern... looks like you want 4x 580 SLI
Im pretty sure there isnt a game within the next 2 years, that 4x580 wont be able to man handle.

Resolution would be 1920x1080

A single 6970 or 580 is all you need for that really.... But get 4x580 if you want 300+ fps in games at that resolution.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

it's divide by 3 not 4

Naw, its divide by 4 for the 6900 series (3 simple sps+1 complex sp=1 Vliw4 processor). So 4 units make one complete processor core for AMD's cards. AMD's arch is very efficient though and largely focused on gaming rather than gpu computing like Fermi, so each SP yields more performance.