NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 580: Fermi Refined
by Ryan Smith on November 9, 2010 9:00 AM ESTFinal Thoughts
Even though NVIDIA is only launching a single card today there’s a lot to digest, so let’s get to it.
Since the GeForce GTX 580 arrived in our hands last week, we’ve been mulling over how to approach it. It boils down to two schools of thought: 1) Do we praise NVIDIA for delivering a high performance single GPU card that strikes the right balance of performance and temperature/noise, or 2) Do we give an indifferent thumbs-up to NVIDIA for only finally delivering the card that we believe the GTX 480 should have been.
The answer we’ve decided is one of mild, but well earned praise. The GTX 580 is not the true next-generation successor to the GTX 480; it’s the GTX 480 having gone back in the womb for 7 months of development. Much like AMD, NVIDIA faced a situation where they were going to do a new product without a die shrink, and had limited options as a result. NVIDIA chose wisely, and came back with a card that is both decently faster and a refined GTX 480 at the same time.
With the GTX 480 we could recognize it as being the fastest single GPU card on the market, but only by recognizing the fact that it was hot and loud at the same time. For buyers the GTX 480 was a tradeoff product – sure it’s fast, but is it too hot/too loud for me? The GTX 580 requires no such tradeoff. We can never lose sight of the fact that it’s a high-end card and is going to be more power hungry, louder, and hotter than many other cards on the market, but it’s not the awkward card that the GTX 480 was. For these reasons our endorsement of the GTX 580 is much more straightforward, at least as long as we make it clear that GTX 580 is less an upgrade for GTX 480, and more a better upgrade for the GTX 285 and similar last-generation cards.
What we’re left with today is something much closer to the “traditional” state of the GPU market: NVIDIA has the world’s fastest single-GPU card, while AMD is currently nipping at their heels with multi-GPU products. Both the Radeon HD 5970 and Radeon HD 6870 CF are worthy competitors to the GTX 580 – they’re faster and in the case of the 6870 CF largely comparable in terms of power/temperature/noise. If you have a board capable of supporting a pair of 6870s and don’t mind the extra power it’s hard to go wrong, but only if you’re willing to put up with the limitations of a multi-GPU setup. It’s a very personal choice – we’d be willing to trade the performance for the simplicity of avoiding a multi-GPU setup, but we can’t speak for everyone.
So what’s next? A few different things. From the NVIDIA camp, NVIDIA is promising a quick launch of the rest of the GeForce 500 series. Given the short development cycles for NVIDIA we’d expect more refined GF10x parts, but this is very much a shot in the dark. Much more likely is a 3GB GTX 580, seeing as how NVIDIA's official product literature calls the GTX 580 the "GeForce GTX 580 1.5GB", a distinction that was never made for the GTX 480.
More interesting however will be what NVIDIA does with GF110 since it’s a more capable part than GF100 in every way. The GF100 based Quadros and Teslas were only launched in the last few months, but they’re already out of date. With NVIDIA’s power improvements in particular, this seems like a shoo-in for at least one improved Quadro and Tesla card. We also expect 500 series replacements for some of the GF100-based cards (with the GTX 465 likely going away permanently).
Meanwhile the AMD camp is gearing up for their own launches. The 6900 series is due to launch before the year is out, bringing with it AMD’s new Cayman GPU. There’s little we know or can say at this point, but as a part positioned above the 6800 series we’re certainly hoping for a slugfest. At $500 the GTX 580 is pricey (much like the GTX 480 before it), and while this isn’t unusual for the high-end market we wouldn’t mind seeing NVIDIA and AMD bring a high-intensity battle to the high-end, something that we’ve been sorely missing for the last year. Until we see the 6900 series we wouldn’t make any bets, but we can certainly look forward to it later this year.
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.