TR Forums

Does anyone think buying a higher end graphics card from say the 500 (nvidia) or the 6000 (amd) would be a good idea. The 570/580 prices have been cut since the new generation, and they are still a very viable option. Same with cards like 6950, etc.

Yay, or nay?

No, no, no and nay.

The previous-generation GPUs were built on TSMC's 40nm process. The current generation of GPUs are built at 28nm. Therefore, the newer chips use less power, clock higher, run cooler, and will eventually cost less to manufacture than the old ones did.

As JAE said, it's usually best to buy a current generation part for the lower heat and noise output at the same level of performance.

Depends what you are building for, the 580 is technically a more powerful card than the 680 in terms of calculations per second. The 680 is more energy efficient, true. The 680 also (slightly) outperforms in games because the architecture was changed to eliminate redundant calculations and be more efficient(playing games) but overall it is the weaker card.

Also there isn't a game on the market that has pushed my 580s. They usually run between 30 and 40 percent.

Nay.

New card generations typically can pump out more frames at lower power usage (and less heat), any maybe even cheaper.

Let's not forget that current-gen GPUs are delivering frames at a much smoother rate than ever before.

New? I would not. Used is a different story personally. While was I looking at getting a new GTX 670 or 680, I was tempted but didn't really want to spend that much on a new card. On the Evga Marketplace I found my GTX 580, complete with all accessories and AC3 download, high flow bracket, and Evga backplate for $200 shipped. Now I know there is always a risk involved with any used parts. But so far I have been very happy, and for what $200 would have gotten me new, I beat with a decent margin. Power consumption actually dropped for me since I was coming from an ATI 4870X2.

I generally agree with everyone that the answer is no. Only exception I can think of is if there's a crazy good deal on something, for theoretical example, a GTX 560 for $119. But thinking about that fact that you'll likely have the hardware for a couple or a few years and they have almost zero resale value after that, the newer the better.

Definitely not. Latest architecture uses less power, performs better and usually gains more performance improvements from latest driver optimizations (if you'll read driver release notes - you'll see that).

“Uses less power"--Spending 200 dollars more on a 680 so that you can save 5 bucks/month... smart.

Its kindof funny that i keep hearing " uses less power" and not, you know, anything else. I guess that power per watt marketing hype that nvidia and intel are working hard to shove down our throats is really taking hold over the weak minded.

God, I wish we still taught math in school.

Diplomacy42 wrote:

Its kindof funny that i keep hearing " uses less power" and not, you know, anything else.

That's because you don't want to hear anything else (this is not the only thing people mentioned) But keep on trying, maybe you'll get there some day...

Less power = cooler and quieter, and it doesn't require a super-expensive power supply.

Diplomacy42 wrote:

“Uses less power"--Spending 200 dollars more on a 680 so that you can save 5 bucks/month... smart. Its kindof funny that i keep hearing " uses less power" and not, you know, anything else. I guess that power per watt marketing hype that nvidia and intel are working hard to shove down our throats is really taking hold over the weak minded. God, I wish we still taught math in school.

I get what you're saying, but "uses less power" translates into "generates less heat, possibly lower system temps, smaller PSU requirements". It's generally not about saving money.

Also, we can still use our math skills to imagine a world where we all bought things on the basis of looking for least power use. We'd probably have a need for a good number fewer power generation facilities just by adding up power saved from alarm clocks, GPUs, televisions, and light bulbs.

Diplomacy42 wrote:

“Uses less power"--Spending 200 dollars more on a 680 so that you can save 5 bucks/month... smart.

Its kindof funny that i keep hearing " uses less power" and not, you know, anything else. I guess that power per watt marketing hype that nvidia and intel are working hard to shove down our throats is really taking hold over the weak minded.

God, I wish we still taught math in school.

Uses less power = less heat = less cooling requirements = less system noise.

No one is making a "save $5/month" case. Smaller transistors generate less heat, and a cool transistor is a happy transistor (this I learned in school ).

Diplomacy42 wrote:

I guess that power per watt marketing hype that nvidia and intel are working hard to shove down our throats is really taking hold over the weak minded.

It's "weak-minded" to think that a part with the same performance for 1/2 the power is worth a small price premium?「(°ヘ°)

Diplomacy42 wrote:

God, I wish we still taught math in school.

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin', trollin', trollin'~ ヽ(´▽｀；)♪

For the record, on the topic, I'm still running a GTX 460, and it does alright, although I'm looking for an upgrade preeettty soon. We'll see if JohnC comes through with that Titan for me!(ノ＞▽＜。)ノBuying something from the Fermi generation isn't a terrible idea if you get it real cheap, but I sure wouldn't pay what these vendors are asking for them new.

It's not really a "small" premium, as you get an inferior card and pay more for it. And the implication that 580 cards run hotter or fail more often is false. Ill run my cards for days at 100%, they stay nice and cool with the fans at 70%. Keeps the whole house warm though, I'll give you that.

My point is that like 5 people here said that they wouldn't even consider choosing 580s regardless of price, because the 680s are newer. That is an emotional decision, not a rational one.

Diplomacy42 wrote:

(a bunch of ridiculous things)

Yeah, I don't even really know where to start, or even if I should bother. （｀＾´）ノ You're blatantly just trolling, or genuinely foolish. Let's see...

Diplomacy42 wrote:

“Uses less power"--Spending 200 dollars more on a 680 so that you can save 5 bucks/month... smart.

So many things wrong with this statement alone:

• Assumption that the reduced power usage alone is the only useful feature of a newer chipset despite other people saying to the contrary
• Assumption that you need to buy a 680 to get better performance
• Assumption that a 680 will only save $5/month over a 580
• Assumption that you can get a 580 for $200 less than a 680

Diplomacy42 wrote:

Its kindof funny that i keep hearing " uses less power" and not, you know, anything else.

Obvious denial of what others have said...

Diplomacy42 wrote:

I guess that power per watt marketing hype that nvidia and intel are working hard to shove down our throats is really taking hold over the weak minded.

Purposefully inflammatory and insulting statement that assumes that "power per watt" is not an important metric and also assumes that Nvidia and Intel are the only ones pushing this metric...

Diplomacy42 wrote:

God, I wish we still taught math in school.

Another inflammatory statement that is obviously factually incorrect.

Diplomacy42 wrote:

It's not really a "small" premium, as you get an inferior card and pay more for it.

Huh, I think lower average frame times makes the newer cards superior, not "inferior", right? As far as the "small" premium, let's have a look:

• Here's the cheapest GTX580 on NewEgg: $310
• Here's the cheapest GTX660Ti: $269

And you can see that those cards are comparable, with the GTX660Ti coming out on top more often than not, here:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/647?vs=517

Diplomacy42 wrote:

And the implication that 580 cards run hotter or fail more often is false. Ill run my cards for days at 100%, they stay nice and cool with the fans at 70%. Keeps the whole house warm though, I'll give you that.

Your cards might stay cool with the fans at 70%, but that doesn't mean they aren't running hotter -- see the Anandtech Bench link above. Hotter parts fail more often, simply speaking, because not everyone runs their fans at a higher-than-stock speed, and not everyone has a well-ventilated case.

Diplomacy42 wrote:

My point is that like 5 people here said that they wouldn't even consider choosing 580s regardless of price, because the 680s are newer. That is an emotional decision, not a rational one.

No, nobody said that. Please stop with the blatant lies. Or better yet, just stop posting. It's embarrassing.

Now, now, no need to feed more fuel to teh firez, just click a person's name, then click on "Add foe" and be done with this

Add me to the resounding chorus of 'No's.

A GTX 570 with 1.25 GB RAM still goes for around $250+, whereas a GTX 660 2 GB can be found at or under $200.

The 660 has more RAM, is faster in practically every game and draws 100W less power under load, so there's no real reason to get the 570 over it for gaming unless someone is unloading a used 570 for free or for $150. The 570 is a bit (but not especially so) faster for compute tasks like folding, but in perf/watt, the 660 still comes out ahead.

And if everyone would take two steps away from the keyboard and a couple of nice deep breaths before jumping back into the fray I'd be much appreciative.

Thanks for listening.