GTX 670 vs 580
Ok, lets talk turkey. Bought a Zotac gtx 580 amp edition about a week ago to replace my MSI Twin Frozr II 560ti my son will be inhereting. Plugged it in and wow, the difference is amazing. The card was $280 and comes with Assassin's Creed Brotherhood in the box plus a Steam coupon for Duke Nukem Forever. Looking online I saw I could get a MSI gtx 670 factory OC reference design card for about $70 more and comes with Steam coupons for Assassin's Creed 3 and Borderlands 2. I thought about it and said what the heck, I'll order it too and if its as good as people are making it out to be I'll send back the 580 or give it to my son instead. Did a few tests and here is my impression. Does the 670 run BF3 at higher fps? Yes, though there seems to be a bit of random jerkiness either due to the game or driver. Does the 670 use less power? Yes. How does the 670 run last gen games like Arma OA or Fallout New Vegas? Actually, a little worse then the 580. In fact the whole machine seemed to run better with the 580. I'll explain. Now while on paper the 670 is supposed to have a higher bandwidth then the 580 dispite the 256 bit bus as opposed to 384, the memory clock among other things is supposed to more the compensate for the lower width memory bus. Perhaps it does, but it doesn't seem like the 670 has the seer brute force of the 580. From what I've read, card and game developers are moving in more of a texel direction then pixel direction. From one comparison I've seen the 580 actually has a higher pixel fill rate then the 670 though the 670's texel fill rate far exceeds that of the 580. Ok, you say so what does that mean? Well, its looking like if you run the very latest games like BF3, or even Duke Nukem Forever (which I know is considered a crappy game, but I found it kind of funny actually) the 670's performance increase is very good, borderlining on very, very good. However if you run something a bit older like Fallout New Vegas or a bit more intensive, possibly using a bit older rendering techniques like Arma 2 OA or ROF the 670 seems to run a bit worse in the way of lower fps and less smoothness. I was using the 306.97 certified drivers from Nvida during all of this. I downloaded the latest Beta drivers last night but haven't had a chance to test them yet. I think they may smooth out BF3 and increase fps a bit but I am not too hopeful about older titles gaining much benefit. The other thing I noticed is that the problem of z fighting, where distant texture are not rendered properly on top of one another, and cause a flicking effect as they jockey for position, seems to be greatly reduced on the Zotac gtx 580. This results of course in better image quality, and let me say that the image quality of the Zotac is outstanding in general. I'v had this same z fighting issue with my MSI 560ti and drivers never seemed to make a bit of differnce. It seems to have to do with the cards percision when if comes to calculating z depth at distance. I don't know if this problem is more common with MSI cards but I was hoping the new cards refernce design might eliminate the issue however it didn't. Overall, it seems like they've robbed Peter to pay Paul so to speak. While the new games run better and the card requires less wattage I can't say that the overall performance I've seen so far is equal or let alone worth the extra cost. Perhaps if they lowered to cost $80 and didn't give you the 2 $40 - $50 dollar games. I can't say that I could recommend this card to anyone at this point and with the 680 only showing about a 7% performance increase I definitely wouldn't recommend that either especially for the added expense. If I had it to do over again I'd have ordered a 7970. I'm having to make a tough choice now of which card to keep and which to send back and I am leaning more towards keeping the 580. Either that or send them both back and get a 7970 in which case I'll have to swallow 2 restocking fees of about $35 each.
Ok, lets talk turkey. Bought a Zotac gtx 580 amp edition about a week ago to replace my MSI Twin Frozr II 560ti my son will be inhereting. Plugged it in and wow, the difference is amazing. The card was $280 and comes with Assassin's Creed Brotherhood in the box plus a Steam coupon for Duke Nukem Forever.

Looking online I saw I could get a MSI gtx 670 factory OC reference design card for about $70 more and comes with Steam coupons for Assassin's Creed 3 and Borderlands 2. I thought about it and said what the heck, I'll order it too and if its as good as people are making it out to be I'll send back the 580 or give it to my son instead.

Did a few tests and here is my impression.

Does the 670 run BF3 at higher fps? Yes, though there seems to be a bit of random jerkiness either due to the game or driver.

Does the 670 use less power? Yes.

How does the 670 run last gen games like Arma OA or Fallout New Vegas? Actually, a little worse then the 580. In fact the whole machine seemed to run better with the 580. I'll explain.

Now while on paper the 670 is supposed to have a higher bandwidth then the 580 dispite the 256 bit bus as opposed to 384, the memory clock among other things is supposed to more the compensate for the lower width memory bus. Perhaps it does, but it doesn't seem like the 670 has the seer brute force of the 580.

From what I've read, card and game developers are moving in more of a texel direction then pixel direction. From one comparison I've seen the 580 actually has a higher pixel fill rate then the 670 though the 670's texel fill rate far exceeds that of the 580.

Ok, you say so what does that mean? Well, its looking like if you run the very latest games like BF3, or even Duke Nukem Forever (which I know is considered a crappy game, but I found it kind of funny actually) the 670's performance increase is very good, borderlining on very, very good. However if you run something a bit older like Fallout New Vegas or a bit more intensive, possibly using a bit older rendering techniques like Arma 2 OA or ROF the 670 seems to run a bit worse in the way of lower fps and less smoothness.

I was using the 306.97 certified drivers from Nvida during all of this. I downloaded the latest Beta drivers last night but haven't had a chance to test them yet. I think they may smooth out BF3 and increase fps a bit but I am not too hopeful about older titles gaining much benefit.

The other thing I noticed is that the problem of z fighting, where distant texture are not rendered properly on top of one another, and cause a flicking effect as they jockey for position, seems to be greatly reduced on the Zotac gtx 580. This results of course in better image quality, and let me say that the image quality of the Zotac is outstanding in general.

I'v had this same z fighting issue with my MSI 560ti and drivers never seemed to make a bit of differnce. It seems to have to do with the cards percision when if comes to calculating z depth at distance. I don't know if this problem is more common with MSI cards but I was hoping the new cards refernce design might eliminate the issue however it didn't.

Overall, it seems like they've robbed Peter to pay Paul so to speak. While the new games run better and the card requires less wattage I can't say that the overall performance I've seen so far is equal or let alone worth the extra cost. Perhaps if they lowered to cost $80 and didn't give you the 2 $40 - $50 dollar games.

I can't say that I could recommend this card to anyone at this point and with the 680 only showing about a 7% performance increase I definitely wouldn't recommend that either especially for the added expense. If I had it to do over again I'd have ordered a 7970. I'm having to make a tough choice now of which card to keep and which to send back and I am leaning more towards keeping the 580. Either that or send them both back and get a 7970 in which case I'll have to swallow 2 restocking fees of about $35 each.

#1
Posted 12/13/2012 09:30 AM   
I have to disagree. I upgraded from the GTX 580 to two EVGA GTX 670's in SLI, and in my experience one 670 was 25-30% faster than the 580 in general. Also, it consumes far less power and runs way cooler. I have nothing bad to say about the 670, as it's a heck of a GPU for the price. AMD's 7xxx series easily matches the 600 series though, so I won't argue that point.
I have to disagree. I upgraded from the GTX 580 to two EVGA GTX 670's in SLI, and in my experience one 670 was 25-30% faster than the 580 in general. Also, it consumes far less power and runs way cooler.

I have nothing bad to say about the 670, as it's a heck of a GPU for the price. AMD's 7xxx series easily matches the 600 series though, so I won't argue that point.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#2
Posted 12/16/2012 07:21 PM   
Yeah, the GTX 670 is a rock'en card. I have two MSI GTX 580's "Lightings" and it takes both to run as good as my GTX 670. The GTX 670 is a smooth running overclocking Kepler. I like it! Check out this Bench, 3DMark 11 [url]http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5257258[/url]
Yeah, the GTX 670 is a rock'en card. I have two MSI GTX 580's "Lightings" and it takes both to run as good as my GTX 670. The GTX 670 is a smooth running overclocking Kepler. I like it! Check out this Bench, 3DMark 11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5257258

CM HAF 932 - ASUS Rampage IV Extreme- Intel i7 3930K - Mushkin Redline 16GB 2133 - Antec HCP 1200kw - Galaxy GTX 670 3 way SLI - 2 WD 1TB Black,WD 640GB Black, WD SSD 64GB - Thermaltake CLW0217 Water 2.0 Extreme - ASUS 24x - Logitech G9 - Logitech G105 - I INC 28" Monitor at 1920 X 1200 (Native) Wow Gaming is great! Speakers - Logitech 530's - Win 7 Ultimate 64bit

Posted by Rsabatino, techjesse you are the people's champ of overclocking

Vantage P70249ORB
Image

#3
Posted 12/18/2012 10:30 AM   
“All these advertised extra features and nowhere am I told what I will be able to do with my GTX 680 or Quadro K5000 that I couldn’t do with my GTX 580 or Quadro 6000” I have a lot of experience on this topic from trying different cards for my display business. I have a range in stock at all times and use the most demanding games, and 3D modeling programs like Maya and 3DS. You gained nothing by upgrading from the 580 to the 670. Ask yourself what you can do that you couldn’t before? For games, I found the 580 and 670 to be equal, give or take, depending on the game. For most programs, my 3 GTX 680's perform no better than a single 580. There are still no games that really push these cards to their limits so extra performance is wasted. The technology to really backwards. They can’t even take advantage of the cards combined memory so my 3 GTC 680’s are still limited by the 2G of one card…. Don’t want to pee on your fire but you are just victims of good marketing. For a new build with a $400 GPU budget, I'd go with a GTX 590 which are selling for a bargain price of $400 on Ebay right now. The performance between Ferni and Keplar is not noticeable to me with current gaming software. An extra 10FPS once you are passed 60 can't be detected without software. Oh and the myth that the 500 series works for 3D rendering and the 600 series has been crippled is BS. They both perform ok for hobby art but poorly for real work. A quadro 2000 I have on a spare machine works materially better for Maya than 3 way SLI GTX 680's or 580's. For example, Maya works on the 680 until I try and add an effect like hair which crashes everything. Even CPU rendering seems to crash the 680 (and 580) in programs like Daz 3D. I can’t explain that one. The AMD cards are faster on paper than the Nvidia for 3D work, and in practice for a small number of applications. The consumer cards however are no more reliable or usable for the 3D modeling and rendering that the Geforce. Cost was their advantage but the Firepro cards are no cheaper. On paper they kill the Nvidia cards but for some software related reasons, they don't perform better in practice. Despite selected benchmarks you’ll find online. You’ll also note how every benchmark seems to tell you the opposite of the last. BTW, I don't prefer one over the other. I carry both brands but I will say, I get more quality problems with the AMD cards. I had 4 returned from customers this week for being DOA. They are however both terrible in their own ways and both have the saving grace of being the only options. Essentially, faster cards are pointless as current hardware (580 and 670) are capable of running any current software on high settings as long as the drivers are optimized. Both will perform poorly if they are not, even with extra power. I know all everyone wants is reassurance that you made the right choice. If the card does what you wanted, you did. If it doesn't, then you didn’t. None of the cards or brands here are good, we just have no choice. All these advertised extra features and nowhere am I told what I will be able to do with my GTX 680 or Quadro K5000 that I couldn’t do with my GTX 580 or Quadro 6000. Also, It doesn’t say what I can’t do. Every year there is this drip of selective performance increases to keep us buying new cards to feed our desire to have the “latest technology”. Technology is going backwards here not forwards! In 2012 / 2013, One card should be able to play games. 3D model and render/compute. And, there shouldn’t be any new cards that don’t do something genuinely new. Sony don’t bring out a new PlayStation every 6 months and expect you to buy it to play the same games. Forget the energy savings from new cards. How about not shipping millions of cards round the world every year and throwing away non-upgradable cards! Let me add more memory to my existing cards to avoid waste and sell me an upgrade stick with additional cuda cores when I need them. You’ll never convince me that there is nothing I could salvage from my old GTX 560 TI for example, to improve the performance of a new setup .
“All these advertised extra features and nowhere am I told what I will be able to do with my GTX 680 or Quadro K5000 that I couldn’t do with my GTX 580 or Quadro 6000”

I have a lot of experience on this topic from trying different cards for my display business. I have a range in stock at all times and use the most demanding games, and 3D modeling programs like Maya and 3DS.
You gained nothing by upgrading from the 580 to the 670. Ask yourself what you can do that you couldn’t before?
For games, I found the 580 and 670 to be equal, give or take, depending on the game. For most programs, my 3 GTX 680's perform no better than a single 580. There are still no games that really push these cards to their limits so extra performance is wasted. The technology to really backwards. They can’t even take advantage of the cards combined memory so my 3 GTC 680’s are still limited by the 2G of one card…. Don’t want to pee on your fire but you are just victims of good marketing.
For a new build with a $400 GPU budget, I'd go with a GTX 590 which are selling for a bargain price of $400 on Ebay right now. The performance between Ferni and Keplar is not noticeable to me with current gaming software. An extra 10FPS once you are passed 60 can't be detected without software.
Oh and the myth that the 500 series works for 3D rendering and the 600 series has been crippled is BS. They both perform ok for hobby art but poorly for real work. A quadro 2000 I have on a spare machine works materially better for Maya than 3 way SLI GTX 680's or 580's. For example, Maya works on the 680 until I try and add an effect like hair which crashes everything. Even CPU rendering seems to crash the 680 (and 580) in programs like Daz 3D. I can’t explain that one.

The AMD cards are faster on paper than the Nvidia for 3D work, and in practice for a small number of applications. The consumer cards however are no more reliable or usable for the 3D modeling and rendering that the Geforce. Cost was their advantage but the Firepro cards are no cheaper. On paper they kill the Nvidia cards but for some software related reasons, they don't perform better in practice. Despite selected benchmarks you’ll find online. You’ll also note how every benchmark seems to tell you the opposite of the last.
BTW, I don't prefer one over the other. I carry both brands but I will say, I get more quality problems with the AMD cards. I had 4 returned from customers this week for being DOA. They are however both terrible in their own ways and both have the saving grace of being the only options.
Essentially, faster cards are pointless as current hardware (580 and 670) are capable of running any current software on high settings as long as the drivers are optimized. Both will perform poorly if they are not, even with extra power. I know all everyone wants is reassurance that you made the right choice. If the card does what you wanted, you did. If it doesn't, then you didn’t. None of the cards or brands here are good, we just have no choice.
All these advertised extra features and nowhere am I told what I will be able to do with my GTX 680 or Quadro K5000 that I couldn’t do with my GTX 580 or Quadro 6000. Also, It doesn’t say what I can’t do.
Every year there is this drip of selective performance increases to keep us buying new cards to feed our desire to have the “latest technology”. Technology is going backwards here not forwards! In 2012 / 2013, One card should be able to play games. 3D model and render/compute. And, there shouldn’t be any new cards that don’t do something genuinely new. Sony don’t bring out a new PlayStation every 6 months and expect you to buy it to play the same games.
Forget the energy savings from new cards. How about not shipping millions of cards round the world every year and throwing away non-upgradable cards! Let me add more memory to my existing cards to avoid waste and sell me an upgrade stick with additional cuda cores when I need them.
You’ll never convince me that there is nothing I could salvage from my old GTX 560 TI for example, to improve the performance of a new setup .

#4
Posted 12/27/2012 12:30 AM   
Kudos to the previous post. There's been no significant improvement in software (for gaming at least) since DX11 which came in at the release of windows 7, so there really has been no point in upgrading my dual 460 sli setup for that very reason. I had issues with textures in BF3 for a while as my 1gb memory would fill up, but drivers and a bf3 patch has fixed that - so again, no fault of the cards themselves. Basically, there's no point in upgrading unless you want to run a multi monitor setup with 3d vision on max settings. That's the only time the extra power will come in handy over the 460 sli setup I have, in terms of gaming anyway. I don't do modeling but the smart people would stick with quadro anyway for that.
Kudos to the previous post. There's been no significant improvement in software (for gaming at least) since DX11 which came in at the release of windows 7, so there really has been no point in upgrading my dual 460 sli setup for that very reason. I had issues with textures in BF3 for a while as my 1gb memory would fill up, but drivers and a bf3 patch has fixed that - so again, no fault of the cards themselves.

Basically, there's no point in upgrading unless you want to run a multi monitor setup with 3d vision on max settings. That's the only time the extra power will come in handy over the 460 sli setup I have, in terms of gaming anyway. I don't do modeling but the smart people would stick with quadro anyway for that.

#5
Posted 01/04/2013 09:33 AM   
Scroll To Top