NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 580: Fermi Refined
by Ryan Smith on November 9, 2010 9:00 AM ESTWolfenstein
Finally among our revised benchmark suite we have Wolfenstein, the most recent game to be released using the id Software Tech 4 engine. All things considered it’s not a very graphically intensive game, but at this point it’s the most recent OpenGL title available. It’s more than likely the entire OpenGL landscape will be thrown upside-down once id releases Rage next year.
Wolfenstein ends up getting CPU bound rather quickly, particularly with multi-GPU in the mix. Only at 2560 can these cards really get out and stretch their legs, and even the 480 SLI is likely approaching the cap. With that in mind the GTX 580 ends up splitting the difference between the GTX 480 and 5970 – the 5970 is around 17% faster than the 580, followed by the 580 being about the same difference from the 480.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
160 Comments
View All Comments
TemplarGR - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
This card is not enough. It is much worse than 2x 6870s in CF, while needing slightly more power and producing more heat and noise. For such levels of performance, minimum framerates are a non-issue, and this won't change in the foreseeable future since all games are console ports...It seems AMD is on its way to fully destroy NVIDIA. This will be both good and bad for consumers:
1) Bad because we need competition
2) Good because NVIDIA has a sick culture, and some of its tactics are disgusting, for those who know...
I believe on die gpus are more interesting anyway. By the time new consoles arrive, on die gpu performance will be almost equal to next-gen console performance. All we will need by then is faster ram, and we are set. I look forward to create a silent and ecological pc for gaming... I am tired of these vacuum cleaners that also serve as gpus...
Haydyn323 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
Nobody seems to be taking into account the fact that the 580 is a PREMIUM level card. It is not meant to be compared to a 6870. Sure 2x 6870s can do more. This card is not, however, geared for that category of buyer.It is geared for the enthusiast who intends to buy 2 or 3 580s and completely dominate benchmarks and get 100+ fps in every situation. Your typical gamer will not likely buy a 580, but your insane gamer will likely buy 2 or 3 to play their 2560x1600 monitor at 60fps all the time.
I fail to see how AMD is destroying anything here. Cost per speed AMD wins, but speed possible, Nvidia clearly wins for the time being. If anyone can come up with something faster than 3x 580s in the AMD camp feel free to post it in response here.
TemplarGR - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
Do you own NVIDIA stock, or are you a fanboy? Because really, only one of the two could not see how AMD destroys NVIDIA. AMD's architecture is much more efficient.How many "insane gamers" exist, that would pay 1200 or 1800 dollars just for gpus, and adding to that an insanely expensive PSU, tower and mainboard needed to support such a thing? And play what? Console ports? On what screens? Maximum resolution is still 2560x1600 and even a single 6870 could do fine in most games in it...
And just because there may be about 100 rich kids in the whole world with no lives who could create such a machine, does it make 580 a success?
Do YOU intent to create such a beast? Or would you buy a mainstream NVIDIA card, just because the posibility of 3x 580s exists?Come on...
Haydyn323 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
So, the answer is no; you cannot come up with something faster. Also, as shown right here on Anandtech:http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/amds-radeon-687...
A single 6870 cannot play most modern games at anywhere near 60fps at 2560x1600. Even the 580 needs to be SLI'd to guarantee it.
That is all.
Haydyn323 - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
Oh and yes I do intend to buy a couple of them in a few months. One at first and add another later. I also love when fanboys call other fanboys, "fanboys." It doesn't get anyone anywhere.smookyolo - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
PC games are not simply console ports, the fact that you need a top of the line PC to get even close to 60 FPS in most cases at not even maximum graphics settings is proof of this.PC "ports" of console games have been tweaked and souped up to have much better graphics, and can take advantage of current gen hardware, instead of the ancient hardware in consoles.
The "next gen" consoles will, of course, be worse than PCs of the time.
And game companies will continue to alter their games so that they look better on PCs.
It's a fact, live with it.
mapesdhs - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
'How many "insane gamers" exist, that would pay 1200 or 1800 dollars just for gpus, ...'
Actually the market for this is surprisingly strong in some areas, especially
CA I was told. I suspect it's a bit like other components such as top-spec
hard drives and high-end CPUs: the volumes are smaller but the margins
are significantly higher for the seller.
Some sellers even take a loss on low-end items just to retain the custom,
making their money on more expensive models.
Ian.
QuagmireLXIX - Sunday, November 14, 2010 - link
"Maximum resolution is still 2560x1600 and even a single 6870 could do fine in most games in it..."Multiple monitors (surround, eyefinity) resolutions get much larger.
7Enigma - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
Just to clarify your incorrect (or misleading) statement 2 6870's in CF use significantly more power than a single 580, but also perform significantly better in most games (minimum frame rate issue noted however).TemplarGR - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link
True. I made a mistake on this one. Only in idle power it consumes slightly less. My bad.