Built 16 new systems, have same problem on all of them (not TDRs though) yeah... wtf
So I had to upgrade some of the systems in use at my LAN, and chose the following hardware for all of them;

AMD Phenom II 1055T (Not new by any means, but we had these on shelves)
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX
16gb of Corsair (4x 4gb vengeance modules) DDR3-1333
2x Gigabyte-Branded Nv Geforce 550Ti in SLI
1x Corsair SSD 60 GT as the Primary HD
3x Western Digital 1TB Mechanical as a striped RAID0 array for the secondary storage.
Thermaltake Toughpower 1200w PSU

Every single one of the systems works (as in it doesn't crash, bluescreen, or TDR). However, they are getting absolutely thrashed framerate wise against the previous systems, which we still have;

AMD Phenom II 1055T
ASUS M4N98TD EVO
8GB of Kingston DDR3-1333
2x Gainward-Branded Nv Geforce 450 GTS in SLI
1x Corsair SSD 60 GT as the Primary HD
3x Western Digital 1TB Mechanical as a striped RAID0 array for the secondary storage.
Corsair 1000w PSU

AMD Phenom 9850
ASUS M3N-HD/HDMI
8GB of Kingston DDR3-1333
2x Gigabyte-Branded Nv Geforce 260 GTX in SLI
1x Corsair SSD 60 GT as the Primary HD
3x Western Digital 1TB Mechanical as a striped RAID0 array for the secondary storage.
Coolermaster 1000w PSU

Do I have some weird glitch, or does the 550ti suck? The new systems are getting framerates on average 30-40 lower than the older ones. So either the GTX 260 > GTX 550, or I've done something REALLY wrong, lol. Has anyone else encountered poor performance from the GTX 550Ti ?

I'm running the 295.73 driver at the moment.
So I had to upgrade some of the systems in use at my LAN, and chose the following hardware for all of them;



AMD Phenom II 1055T (Not new by any means, but we had these on shelves)

ASUS Sabertooth 990FX

16gb of Corsair (4x 4gb vengeance modules) DDR3-1333

2x Gigabyte-Branded Nv Geforce 550Ti in SLI

1x Corsair SSD 60 GT as the Primary HD

3x Western Digital 1TB Mechanical as a striped RAID0 array for the secondary storage.

Thermaltake Toughpower 1200w PSU



Every single one of the systems works (as in it doesn't crash, bluescreen, or TDR). However, they are getting absolutely thrashed framerate wise against the previous systems, which we still have;



AMD Phenom II 1055T

ASUS M4N98TD EVO

8GB of Kingston DDR3-1333

2x Gainward-Branded Nv Geforce 450 GTS in SLI

1x Corsair SSD 60 GT as the Primary HD

3x Western Digital 1TB Mechanical as a striped RAID0 array for the secondary storage.

Corsair 1000w PSU



AMD Phenom 9850

ASUS M3N-HD/HDMI

8GB of Kingston DDR3-1333

2x Gigabyte-Branded Nv Geforce 260 GTX in SLI

1x Corsair SSD 60 GT as the Primary HD

3x Western Digital 1TB Mechanical as a striped RAID0 array for the secondary storage.

Coolermaster 1000w PSU



Do I have some weird glitch, or does the 550ti suck? The new systems are getting framerates on average 30-40 lower than the older ones. So either the GTX 260 > GTX 550, or I've done something REALLY wrong, lol. Has anyone else encountered poor performance from the GTX 550Ti ?



I'm running the 295.73 driver at the moment.

I have a lot of systems... a lot. You can view their status here; http://www.affsdiary.com/net-status.shtml ; every one of them has SLI.

#1
Posted 02/25/2012 05:46 AM   
Are you trying to play at 1080p? If so. Forget it with that card. It is meant for 1680x1050 and below.
Are you trying to play at 1080p? If so. Forget it with that card. It is meant for 1680x1050 and below.

#2
Posted 02/25/2012 07:41 AM   
GTX 550Ti aren't exactly worldbeaters when it comes to specs...192sp puts you roughly at.... a GTX 260. Little bit faster there, little bit slower there but very similar performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4221/nvidias-gtx-550-ti-coming-up-short-at-150/13

Edit: Just re-read, no they shouldn't be that much slower if its SLI vs. SLI, they should be very similar in performance. I'd verify SLI is enabled on the 550Ti rigs, use a program like MSI AfterBurner and watch GPU usage % to make sure the GPUs are hitting close to 100% utilization.
GTX 550Ti aren't exactly worldbeaters when it comes to specs...192sp puts you roughly at.... a GTX 260. Little bit faster there, little bit slower there but very similar performance.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/4221/nvidias-gtx-550-ti-coming-up-short-at-150/13



Edit: Just re-read, no they shouldn't be that much slower if its SLI vs. SLI, they should be very similar in performance. I'd verify SLI is enabled on the 550Ti rigs, use a program like MSI AfterBurner and watch GPU usage % to make sure the GPUs are hitting close to 100% utilization.

-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings

Intel Core i7 920 D0 @4.0GHz 1.29V | EVGA X58 Classified 760 | Win7 x64 Ultimate | Antec 620 LC
Galaxy GeForce GTX 670 GC SLI | Asus VG278H 120Hz LCD + 3D Vision 2 | 12GB Samsung DDR3 1600 35nm
Intel X25-M G2 160GB SSD | WD Black 3x1.5TB RAID 0 | Kingston HyperX 2x128GB SSD RAID 0
Sony STR-DG1000 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G700/G110/G27 | CM HAF X Blue | Antec TPQ-1200W

#3
Posted 02/25/2012 07:49 AM   
260 GTX has much more memory bandwidth (448-bit bus vs 192-bit bus) and more texture units. So yes, a GTX 260 > 550 Ti

Perhaps you should try researching what you're buying.
260 GTX has much more memory bandwidth (448-bit bus vs 192-bit bus) and more texture units. So yes, a GTX 260 > 550 Ti



Perhaps you should try researching what you're buying.

#4
Posted 02/25/2012 09:01 AM   
Edit; nm, misread ;o
Edit; nm, misread ;o

I have a lot of systems... a lot. You can view their status here; http://www.affsdiary.com/net-status.shtml ; every one of them has SLI.

#5
Posted 02/25/2012 10:11 AM   
[quote name='joeking' date='25 February 2012 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1330160507' post='1374819']
260 GTX has much more memory bandwidth (448-bit bus vs 192-bit bus) and more texture units. So yes, a GTX 260 > 550 Ti

Perhaps you should try researching what you're buying.
[/quote]

Yeah, I probably should (along with others here) however laziness + lack of time resulted in that not happening this time around. Well, it's not too bad - they do still run well above smooth so no violence is required.
[quote name='joeking' date='25 February 2012 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1330160507' post='1374819']

260 GTX has much more memory bandwidth (448-bit bus vs 192-bit bus) and more texture units. So yes, a GTX 260 > 550 Ti



Perhaps you should try researching what you're buying.





Yeah, I probably should (along with others here) however laziness + lack of time resulted in that not happening this time around. Well, it's not too bad - they do still run well above smooth so no violence is required.

I have a lot of systems... a lot. You can view their status here; http://www.affsdiary.com/net-status.shtml ; every one of them has SLI.

#6
Posted 02/25/2012 10:13 AM   
[quote name='Affirmative' date='25 February 2012 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1330164817' post='1374839']
Yeah, I probably should (along with others here) however laziness + lack of time resulted in that not happening this time around. Well, it's not too bad - [b]they do still run well above smooth[/b] so no violence is required.
[/quote]

They also draw less power and produce less heat making the fan quieter. Also, 550 Ti's have more pixel fillrate (approximately 34% more according to some theoretical benchmarks) compared to a GTX 260. This should convert into better performane with FSAA and/or higher resolutions but the smaller memory bus and texel output would most likely negate any possible gains over the GTX 260.
[quote name='Affirmative' date='25 February 2012 - 05:13 AM' timestamp='1330164817' post='1374839']

Yeah, I probably should (along with others here) however laziness + lack of time resulted in that not happening this time around. Well, it's not too bad - they do still run well above smooth so no violence is required.





They also draw less power and produce less heat making the fan quieter. Also, 550 Ti's have more pixel fillrate (approximately 34% more according to some theoretical benchmarks) compared to a GTX 260. This should convert into better performane with FSAA and/or higher resolutions but the smaller memory bus and texel output would most likely negate any possible gains over the GTX 260.

#7
Posted 02/25/2012 11:55 AM   
About the most intense work the cards ever have to do is WoW/SC2/BF3, which they seem to run fine (I've heard no complaints from clients yet) @ 1920x1080. I haven't had the chance to really look up Nvidia's naming scheme in a long time nor did I bother to check the inventory when it arrived (I just built them). Based on what I've read on this forum, I'm just glad the ****s don't TDR - but that's an error I've never had ;o
About the most intense work the cards ever have to do is WoW/SC2/BF3, which they seem to run fine (I've heard no complaints from clients yet) @ 1920x1080. I haven't had the chance to really look up Nvidia's naming scheme in a long time nor did I bother to check the inventory when it arrived (I just built them). Based on what I've read on this forum, I'm just glad the ****s don't TDR - but that's an error I've never had ;o

I have a lot of systems... a lot. You can view their status here; http://www.affsdiary.com/net-status.shtml ; every one of them has SLI.

#8
Posted 02/25/2012 12:06 PM   
[quote name='Affirmative' date='25 February 2012 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1330171563' post='1374872']
About the most intense work the cards ever have to do is WoW/SC2/BF3, which they seem to run fine (I've heard no complaints from clients yet) @ 1920x1080. I haven't had the chance to really look up Nvidia's naming scheme in a long time nor did I bother to check the inventory when it arrived (I just built them). Based on what I've read on this forum, I'm just glad the ****s don't TDR - but that's an error I've never had ;o
[/quote]

Almost forgot, DX11 support. I use a 550 Ti (MSI OC edition) and have no real complaints either. It runs Source engine games at 1920x1080, settings maxed with 4x AA at smooth framerates. Unfortunately, I bought the card for all the wrong reasons and looking back, it was a mistake. I wouldn't go anything less than a 560 for serious gaming these days but that's just my opinion. As for naming schemes:

590/580/570 would be enthusiast

560 Ti 448 cores/560 Ti/560 would be mainstream

550 Ti would be midrange I guess. Not mainstream but not budget.

Anything below 550 Ti (like 540, 530, 520) would be budget cards and not suitable for gaming [i]in my opinion[/i].
[quote name='Affirmative' date='25 February 2012 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1330171563' post='1374872']

About the most intense work the cards ever have to do is WoW/SC2/BF3, which they seem to run fine (I've heard no complaints from clients yet) @ 1920x1080. I haven't had the chance to really look up Nvidia's naming scheme in a long time nor did I bother to check the inventory when it arrived (I just built them). Based on what I've read on this forum, I'm just glad the ****s don't TDR - but that's an error I've never had ;o





Almost forgot, DX11 support. I use a 550 Ti (MSI OC edition) and have no real complaints either. It runs Source engine games at 1920x1080, settings maxed with 4x AA at smooth framerates. Unfortunately, I bought the card for all the wrong reasons and looking back, it was a mistake. I wouldn't go anything less than a 560 for serious gaming these days but that's just my opinion. As for naming schemes:



590/580/570 would be enthusiast



560 Ti 448 cores/560 Ti/560 would be mainstream



550 Ti would be midrange I guess. Not mainstream but not budget.



Anything below 550 Ti (like 540, 530, 520) would be budget cards and not suitable for gaming in my opinion.

#9
Posted 02/25/2012 12:37 PM   
Scroll To Top