NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 570: Filling In The Gaps
by Ryan Smith on December 7, 2010 9:00 AM ESTBattlefield: Bad Company 2
The latest game in the Battlefield series - Bad Company 2 – remains as one of the cornerstone DX11 games in our benchmark suite. As BC2 doesn’t have a built-in benchmark or recording mode, here we take a FRAPS run of the jeep chase in the first act, which as an on-rails portion of the game provides very consistent results and a spectacle of explosions, trees, and more.
Bad Company 2 is another game where the GTX 570 takes a notable lead over the GTX 480, and is clearly exceeding the theoretical clockspeed advantages of the GTX 570 and drifting in to architectural optimizations. Unfortunately this advantage for the GTX 570 plays out best at lower resolutions, resulting in the gap disappearing by the time we hit 2560. Even at 1920 the advantage is barely worth mentioning, meaning we’re once more at parity with the GTX 480.
Perhaps it would have been better for NVIDIA if that advantage had held, because it means the Radeon 5870 gets uncomfortably close at higher resolutions. Negligible at 2560, the GTX 570 advantage is only 10% at 1920. AMD’s strong CF scaling also puts NVIDIA in a tough position here, as the 6850 CF is a whopping 32% faster than the GTX 570 when it comes to Bad Company 2.
NVIDIA does manage to turn the tables with our Waterfall benchmark however, which serves as a proxy for minimum framerates. The GTX 570 is still tied with the GTX 480 here, but it’s also now at parity with the 6850CF and over 50% faster than the 5870, easily demonstrating that if you’re worried more about minimums than averages in Bad Company 2 that the 5870 and GTX 570 aren’t nearly as close as they were at first glance. Extra RAM would probably be of great benefit to AMD here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
xxtypersxx - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
If this thing can hit 900mhz it changes the price/performance picture entirely, why no overclock coverage in such a comprehensive review?Otherwise great write up as always!
Bhairava - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Yes good point.vol7ron - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Why do graphics cards cost more than cpu+mobo these days?I know there's a different design process and maybe there isn't as much an economy of scale, but I'm just thinking about the days when it was reverse.
Klinky1984 - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Well you're essentially buying a computer on a card with a CPU these days. High performance GPU w/ high performance, pricey ram, all of which needs high quality power components to run. GPUs are now computers inside of computers.lowlymarine - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
I think it's simply that GPUs can't get cheaper to the extent that CPUs have, since the die sizes are so much larger. I certainly wouldn't say they're getting MORE expensive - I paid $370 for my 8800GTS back in early 2007, and $400 for a 6800 in early 2005 before that.DanNeely - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
High end GPU chips are much larger than high end CPUchips nowdays. The GF110 has 3bn transistors. For comparison a quadcore i7 only has 700m, and a 6 core athlon 900m, so you get 3 or 4 times as many CPUs from a wafer as you can GPUs. The quad core Itanic and octo core I7 are both around 2bn transistors but cost more than most gaming rigs for just the chip.GDDR3/5 are also significantly more expensive than the much slower DDR3 used by the rest of the computer.
ET - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
They don't. A Core i7-975 costs way more than any graphics card. A GIGABYTE GA-X58A-UD9 motherboard costs $600 at Newegg.ET - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Sorry, was short on time. I'll add that you forgot to consider the price of the very fast memory on high end graphics cards.I do agree, though, that a combination of mid-range CPU and board and high end graphics card is cost effective.
mpschan - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - link
Don't forget that in a graphics card you're getting a larger chip with more processing power, a board for it to run on, AND memory. 1GB+ of ultra fast memory and the tech to get it to work with the GPU is not cheap.So your question needs to factory in cpu+mobo+memory, and even then it does not have the capabilities to process graphics at the needed rate.
Generic processing that is slower at certain tasks will always be cheaper than specialized, faster processing that excels at said task.
slagar - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - link
High end graphics cards were always very expensive. They're for enthusiasts, not the majority of the market.I think prices have come down for the majority of consumers. Mostly thanks to AMDs moves, budget cards are now highly competitive, and offer acceptable performance in most games with acceptable quality. I think the high end cards just aren't as necessary as they were 'back in the day', but then, maybe I just don't play games as much as I used to. To me, it was always the case that you'd be paying an arm and a leg to have an upper tier card, and that hasn't changed.