Page 1 of 1

560ti 2GB vs 570 1.2GB

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 00:59
by super12
hello... i need advice... need suggestion with cards...

i am running i7 8GB RAM 3x1680x1050 monitors... which of the following setup is better?

-- 560 ti 2GB SLI

OR

-- 570 1.2GB SLI

Please let me know... I see couple after Christmas sale and it is difficult to decide which is better assuming money is not the deciding factor.... Thanks.

IF you take money out of it,

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 02:02
by Abram
IF you take money out of it, get the 570's. No current game will reasonably top out 2.4gb of VRAM at 3x 1680x1050.

If money was an issue (for the sake of argument), one would be off (IMO) to get the 260 ti's and OC them, putting teh difference to after-market coolers or more RAM or something.

I've been dealing with a similar quandary. It was solved for me by oen product being sold out because i hesitated..>(

thanks....the reason i

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 02:10
by super12
thanks....

the reason i asked is because i wonder if 1.2 GB would be "enough"... i actually can see the difference between 560ti 1GB and 2GB in SLI setting... that's why I am a bit hesitated to jump on the 570 1.2GB....

Go with the 560 2gb... when

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 02:23
by Delphium
Go with the 560 2gb... when running in surround your want the extra VRAM as it is frequently a bottleneck.

There is an article about 1gb vs 2gb for the 460 here http://widescreengamingforum.com/article/palit-nvidia-gtx460-surround-1gb-vs-2gb-conclusions that would be worth a read and still stands true.

yeah.. i think i saw your

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 03:05
by super12
yeah.. i think i saw your post on another thread and read that article.. that's why i returned my 560ti 1GB and got the 2GB... and I can report that I see significant improvement on games etc...

now the question is... will the extra GPU power from 570 able to overcome the VRAM shortcoming....

EVGA makes a GTX 570 with

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 04:34
by Armenius
EVGA makes a GTX 570 with 2.5GB of VRAM, the GTX 570 HD 2560MB. If you have the money for pair, you can't go wrong with them (they retail for $399.99 each). I can't speak for its multi-monitor performance, but I purchased one of these myself for single screen 1080p gaming and I couldn't be happier.

this is where I dont

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 05:21
by super12
this is where I dont understand... say for skyrim, both of my cards' memory runs at about 900MB... peak at about 1300.... then why do I need 2GB? does that mean I am not pushing my cards to the max? or does that mean ~900MB is all it needs to push 3 monitors?


399.99 is a bit too much, i am looking at ~320 for the 1.2GB cards....


on a related note... will 570 run much hotter than 560ti?

Some games have larger

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 12:23
by Delphium
Some games have larger textures than others, also anti-alising will eat up VRAM for breakfast, lunch, dinner and for a midnight feat!

so this goes back to the

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 14:59
by super12
so this goes back to the question of GPU vs VRAM... which one is more important in the process...

but so far, I havent seen a game uses more than 1.5GB... maybe I am not pushing my cards hard enough, but then I feel like my cards have reached their limit... if I push them any harder, FPS drops significantly....

If you can have a faster GPU

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 15:33
by Abram
If you can have a faster GPU and a total of 2.4gb VRAM, go for that. It's enough.

Abram wrote:If you can have a

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 20:27
by Delphium
If you can have a faster GPU and a total of 2.4gb VRAM, go for that. It's enough.


Note this 2.4gb of VRAM is not total VRAM, it is the max of 1 card, in the op's case 1.2gb of VRAM is the max.

The data in the VRAM is mirrored to addtional cards, it is not combined to create a larger total VRAM storage.

As such I personally would be more inclided to go with 560 with 2gb over the 570 with 1.2gb, and just look at OC'ing the 560's a bit.

Delphium wrote:Abram wrote:If

Posted: 28 Dec 2011, 21:50
by super12
[quote]If you can have a faster GPU and a total of 2.4gb VRAM, go for that. It's enough.


Note this 2.4gb of VRAM is not total VRAM, it is the max of 1 card, in the op's case 1.2gb of VRAM is the max.

The data in the VRAM is mirrored to addtional cards, it is not combined to create a larger total VRAM storage.

As such I personally would be more inclided to go with 560 with 2gb over the 570 with 1.2gb, and just look at OC'ing the 560's a bit.


hahaa... funny... this is exactly the two side of the arguments going on in my head for the last couple days... seems like there is no definite answer to this debate... it maybe easier to justify the 570 1.2GB if it is for a single monitor setup... thing just get so much more complicated once it is a 3 monitors setup...

but then again, I never see my cards use more than 1.3 GB.. usually below 1GB... so is 2GB a bit overkill? dont get me wrong, i definitely agree more the better for VRAM... but then now we also have the GPU power in consideration here....

Delphium wrote:Abram wrote:If

Posted: 29 Dec 2011, 03:20
by Abram
[quote]If you can have a faster GPU and a total of 2.4gb VRAM, go for that. It's enough.


Note this 2.4gb of VRAM is not total VRAM, it is the max of 1 card, in the op's case 1.2gb of VRAM is the max.

The data in the VRAM is mirrored to addtional cards, it is not combined to create a larger total VRAM storage.

As such I personally would be more inclided to go with 560 with 2gb over the 570 with 1.2gb, and just look at OC'ing the 560's a bit.


Oh. that's pretty lame. Now I know...

Hell yes, get teh 560 and OC it.

I use two Palit 560TI 2GB

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 16:29
by Vorpal
I use two Palit 560TI 2GB cards in SLI and they serve me well in games (I have yet to feel the need to OC them). I've been able to max out just about every game (Skyrim, Just Cause 2, SWTOR are the most recent I've played) I've thrown at it (save for AA which I never use anyway) and have had playable FPS. My resolution is 5892x1080 with bezel correction factored in. The lowest I hit is in SWTOR when I planet hop and have to restart the client to achieve playable FPS, at which point I'm running at 40+ FPS depending on the planet I'm on. The other two games I didn't experience any significant performance hits to my recollection. Skyrim played smooth (until Bethesda patched it into oblivion, making the game unplayable) as did Just Cause 2. I've played other games, but I don't think they are more system intensive.

If you run into a GPU limit

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 19:21
by Haldi
If you run into a GPU limit (and thats was supposed to happen... But for comparision we take a gtx570) youre gonna lose 10% Framerates (compared to the gty570)

If you run into a VRAM Limit (and thats not supposed to happen! If it does you can reduce AA or resolution) you're gonna drop to 2-5FPS!

So, depends on what you want to do! Skyrim with ultrahigg texture +8xAa i'd reccomend more Vram!
If you insist on 5FPS more ingamebut reduce to 2xAA (well only that will give way more FPS^^, but just for comparission) youre better off with a faster GPU.

Best is still, invest more money. Get better GPU with more Vram xD