GTX 580, 670 or 680 for new build?

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I'm currently in the process of finishing off buying parts for my new rig. Currently it consists of the following:

 

2700K

Asus P8Z77-V Pro

8GB 2133mhz RAM CAS9

 

All of this will be running on one 23" monitor although I may upgrade to a 27" or higher down the road, but no plans on multi screen setups.

 

I will more than likely go with an air cooler and OC as far as I can which might only mean 4.2ghz or there about using an air cooler but I just don't want to take the risk of faulty or leaking liquid cooling to ruin the party. I'm fine with not being able to push the limits of 4.5ghz or above using liquid cooling since the new rig will undoubtedly be much better than I am running now and even on the old rig in my sig column I dont have any FPS issues with FSX.

 

Having said that, after research both the hardware guides here and Nicks recommendations here (halfway down) http://www.simforums.com/forums/memeory-timings-vs-speed_topic41484.html I am at a standstill when it comes to choosing which video card to buy. Some recommendations say that if your only going to clock the i7 to around 4.7ghz or less than the GTX580 or 670 might be the way to go, or the 680 if clocking higher. I ran a comparison from newegg here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006519%2050001402%2040000048&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&ActiveSearchResult=True&CompareItemList=48%7C14-130-587%5E14-130-587-TS%2C14-130-771%5E14-130-771-TS%2C14-130-787%5E14-130-787-TS between the 3 cards and still can't decide which one.

 

The of course when it comes to the GTX680 there are the superclocked ones and the regular, although they seem to both be priced around $399. Considering that the various GTX680 models seem to be the absolute fastest between the 580, 670 and 680 and then considering that FSX doesn't really utilize GPU's as much as it does raw power, I am thinking of going with either the 580 or 670 and saving myself the extra $100. FSX is the only thing the rig will be running as I dont use any other sims or games, although I may venture into trying X-Plane down the road but its not really a consideration until PMDG gets involved if ever.

 

Interested in thoughts or recommendations you guys have on these choices.

Thanks

[Ben Cap 89]

GTX680.... no question

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

GTX680.... no question

 

Wow Ben, your Johnny on the spot with a reply only 3 minutes after I posted.

 

So you think the GTX680 is really worth the extra $100 considering that I wont be pushing the overclock limits and that I will be only running 1 monitor? 

[Paul J 349]

Sean, if 4.7 is where you're headed, then the 580 is very, very adequate for that one monitor. Mine is a stock EVGA GTX 580 @1536 working from the 2600K @5.0 gig on water, and it runs the TripleHead2Go beautifully. If I had a 2700K, heading for, say 5.2 gig or so, then I might look at the 680.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

Sean, if 4.7 is where you're headed, then the 580 is very, very adequate for that one monitor. Mine is a stock EVGA GTX 580 @1536 working from the 2600K @5.0 gig on water, and it runs the TripleHead2Go beautifully. If I had a 2700K, heading for, say 5.2 gig or so, then I might look at the 680.

 

Thanks Paul. 

 

Since it will probably be under 4.7ghz considering I am going to be using an air cooler (don't know how far you can push a 2700k on a good air cooler), I was thinking the GTX680 might be overkill and the difference in performance slim.

 

Granted on paper the 680 is faster, but since I will be on one monitor, don't plan on using 2048 or 4096 res clouds since I don't like the look of the extra sharpness of them and will most likely stick to running all my 3rd party a/c re-paints at 2048 or less, will remain on 8XS AA settings for inspector, the 580 may well just be fine enough.

 

Now if I was hell bent on running every texture that is available at 4096, using more than one monitor or one extremely large one, extreme AA levels, or as you say 5.0ghz OC, then the 680 might be a better choice. Or of course if FSX took advantage of of a GPU more than it does now.

 

Thanks for your insight Paul. I think I will probably lean toward the 580 for this build and see how it goes. I could always try a 680 down the road when they get cheap as they all end up doing anyway, but I would probably not be surprised if I tried one down the road and didn't see any difference, which is something I see posted a lot of when people upgrade video cards for FSX to the latest and greatest and see little to no improvement if things are set up properly in the first place.

 

Thanks again.

[Ben Cap 89]

 

worth the extra $100 considering that I wont be pushing the overclock limits and that I will be only running 1 monitor? 

 

I personally think it is worth it. The extra power helps out a good bit in SGSS + Clouds. 

 

I think I will probably lean toward the 580 for this build and see how it goes.

 

If you decide on the 580, get the 660Ti instead. It is much quieter, cooler, and is about 15% faster. 

[Illegitimi non carborundum 4]

OP

Just remember that the GTX 5xx were FERMI architecture which was considered by many to be flawed in several ways and the GTX 6xx series is Kepler which fixed a lot of FERMI issues and removed some of the general computing features so that the cards were faster than the same GTX 5xx series.

Just an opinion

pH

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

With all due respect 680 is not over kill that's for sure we all know the better the hardware the better the performance take it from someone who has owned a 580 - 680 and now a titan all have made a noticeable difference over the last.

[RWFeldman 159]

Just went from a 580 to a 680..... 0, notta, no difference. In fact, kinda wish I had the 580 back. Oh well may someday Ill run three monitors instead of two. Word Not Allowed warned me I be wasting time and money. He's correct as usual.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

no difference - that doesnt make sense as I have seen some nice differences, Mr. K has stated that  titan would make a difference if you have seen his review - not quite correct in your statement 

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

 

If you decide on the 580, get the 660Ti instead. It is much quieter, cooler, and is about 15% faster. 

According to this site http://www.hwcompare.com/13161/geforce-gtx-580-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti/  the 580 is faster in 2 of the three areas of comparision, only slower in AF. Plus NickN's guide that I linked in my first post recommends to stay away from cards market with the "Ti" attached to the model number.

 

 

 

Just remember that the GTX 5xx were FERMI architecture which was considered by many to be flawed in several ways and the GTX 6xx series is Kepler which fixed a lot of FERMI issues and removed some of the general computing features so that the cards were faster than the same GTX 5xx series.

Thanks for sharing that bit of info, I didn't know that.

 

 

 

 

With all due respect 680 is not over kill that's for sure we all know the better the hardware the better the performance take it from someone who has owned a 580 - 680 and now a titan all have made a noticeable difference over the last.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said overkill, but more to the effect of being more card that I need for a single monitor setup and using 8xS for my AA selection. As well as the fact that I don't use or plan on using 2048/4096 clouds, water, or repaint textures. The thing is that currently even on my old rig and what would be considered a dog of a card by todays standards, my GTS250 has no issues with heavy cloud/stormy weather using my 1024 cloud and water sets.

 

The other thing is how do you quantify the 680 as being that much better than the 580 you used to own. Do you get more FPS using the 680 and if so how much or are you able to crank up more AA than say 8xS and have no reduction in performance? If its the first being more FPS and the result being 1 to 3 more FPS or 1 to 3 more FPS while using higher levels of AA?

 

 

 

Just went from a 580 to a 680..... 0, notta, no difference. In fact, kinda wish I had the 580 back. Oh well may someday Ill run three monitors instead of two. Word Not Allowed warned me I be wasting time and money. He's correct as usual.

 

That's exactly what I am worried about and hesitant to spend the extra $100 when I might not otherwise see any difference in DX9 mode (dont plan on using DX11). If a 680 resulted in maybe 5 to 10 more FPS across the board in all every situation I wouldn't even consider getting anything less or other than the 680, however since I have read time and time again that monster cards like the 680 when people have upgraded to them make very little difference, except for those running multi monitors, huge screens/very high resolutions, or extreme levels of AA, they a lot of times post their disappointment in having spent the money on the upgrade.

 

Not long ago I purchased a 560 for my current rig just to see if I would get any type of performance increase over my old GTS250 since on paper the 560 was almost twice as fast. DIdn't see one difference in performance so I took it back and put the 250 back in. Although I might not have seen any increase in peformance just due to my system being older and that I could have a bottle neck due to this and the 560 didn't make any difference at all.

 

In a lot of bench marks I read where they compare video cards using regular video games, then newest and fastest cards always result in more FPS, but since FSX doesn't utilize GPU the way modern games do, I am thinking that the 680's increase in performance might not be big enough to justify the extra price.

 

I'm not against spending the money on a 680, but at the same time I don't want to spend extra money for a 1 or 2 FPS gain or the ability to crank AA up more than what I am currently using with great IQ.

 

 

Thanks to everyone who has chimed in so far. It's given me a few things to think about going forward. 

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Its not about fps thats all BS its all about a smooth presentation - no artifacts on the screen and turning up settings with out loosing those quality's that's what its all about even if your getting 900 fps and you are seeing issues its unacceptable so this is how I base my new video card upgrades for instance from a 580 to 680 4gig card I could get higher settings without dealing with the issues stated above I do not over do the cloud textures either and run the main textures at 2048 now with the titan once it is dialed in I crank up almost everything and this is what I must maintain - artifacts and crisp clear distance textures was an issue on every card for me until the titan now I am a happy camper, hope this clears things up better hardware = a better experience gauranted

[dazz 69]

 

I don't want to spend extra money for a 1 or 2 FPS gain or the ability to crank AA up more than what I am currently using with great IQ.

 

In that case a 660/660Ti will be more than enough. Even your current 250 may be enough!

Also if you're trying to save money and a 4.4 - 4.5 OC is what you're targeting, get an I5 3570K and 2400MHz RAM.

 

What will be the case, cooler and PSU btw?

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

 

Its not about fps thats all BS its all about a smooth presentation - no artifacts on the screen and turning up settings with out loosing those quality's that's what its all about even if your getting 900 fps and you are seeing issues its unacceptable so this is how I base my new video card upgrades for instance from a 580 to 680 4gig card I could get higher settings without dealing with the issues stated above I do not over do the cloud textures either and run the main textures at 2048 now with the titan once it is dialed in I crank up almost everything and this is what I must maintain - artifacts and crisp clear distance textures was an issue on every card for me until the titan now I am a happy camper, hope this clears things up better hardware = a better experience gauranted

 

I agree, its not all about FPS. The hard part to quantify is IQ and smoothness between two cards, especially when the one asking the question (me) has no way to visually see the difference you had when changing from your 580 to the 680, that's the part that is hard to get across in internet forums, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your circumstance greater detail.

[megs8888 20]

I got a gtx670 very happy no issues with it either CPUi7 2700K OC 4.5 works well.