The urge For More Powah = O

[QUOTE="BattleSpectre"]

I just called up the store where i picked up all my parts, and told them my story... for a second i thought they'd let me swap the CPU and just pay the price difference for the i7 2600k. But unfortunately that wasn't the case, because it's already been installed they can't do that.

So i'm just going to buy the i7 2600K anyway :D And overclock it when the times comes. I'd be happy with 4.5Ghz.... which should be easy to reach ;)

As for the i5 2500 cpu i'll either sell it or just keep it for backup just in case.

C_Rule

That is not entirely true. Over clocking is putting extra strain on the CPU whether it handles it great or not. Leaving the CPU at stock speeds and overclocking when needed is the smarter thing to do if you intend on keeping the same CPU for a while. Why put the stress on the CPU if it is already performing great, just wait until you need the bump in power.

As far as a cheap cooler for the 2600k, I went with a Zalman CNPS9900max it was about $80. I have heard great things about the CM 212 but cant really comment on how the cheaper coolers work for the 2600k. Just do some Googling and I am sure you will find an answer. Also check the feedback at newegg.com for a cooler in your price range and see if anyone has used it on the 2600k.

I just checked a few reviews for the CM Hyper 212 and for about $40 it seems to do great with the SB line of CPU's. The SB line is a very cool running CPU so with most any after market cooler you should be able to clear 4.0 easily and get to 4.3 easy as well. Beyond that I did not dig deep enough into the reviews to see how high people have taken the K series with that cooler.

[QUOTE="BattleSpectre"]

I just called up the store where i picked up all my parts, and told them my story... for a second i thought they'd let me swap the CPU and just pay the price difference for the i7 2600k. But unfortunately that wasn't the case, because it's already been installed they can't do that.

So i'm just going to buy the i7 2600K anyway :D And overclock it when the times comes. I'd be happy with 4.5Ghz.... which should be easy to reach ;)

As for the i5 2500 cpu i'll either sell it or just keep it for backup just in case.

C_Rule

Edit: Yes thank you very much cheesie that's exactly the point. When i upgrade to the i7 2600K i won't change this CPU for years to come. That's why i want to overclock it to a high level. I will check out that cooler and many more, cheers.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="BattleSpectre"]

I just called up the store where i picked up all my parts, and told them my story... for a second i thought they'd let me swap the CPU and just pay the price difference for the i7 2600k. But unfortunately that wasn't the case, because it's already been installed they can't do that.

So i'm just going to buy the i7 2600K anyway :D And overclock it when the times comes. I'd be happy with 4.5Ghz.... which should be easy to reach ;)

As for the i5 2500 cpu i'll either sell it or just keep it for backup just in case.

cheesie253

That is not entirely true. Over clocking is putting extra strain on the CPU whether it handles it great or not. Leaving the CPU at stock speeds and overclocking when needed is the smarter thing to do if you intend on keeping the same CPU for a while. Why put the stress on the CPU if it is already performing great, just wait until you need the bump in power.

As far as a cheap cooler for the 2600k, I went with a Zalman CNPS9900max it was about $80. I have heard great things about the CM 212 but cant really comment on how the cheaper coolers work for the 2600k. Just do some Googling and I am sure you will find an answer. Also check the feedback at newegg.com for a cooler in your price range and see if anyone has used it on the 2600k.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="BattleSpectre"]

I just called up the store where i picked up all my parts, and told them my story... for a second i thought they'd let me swap the CPU and just pay the price difference for the i7 2600k. But unfortunately that wasn't the case, because it's already been installed they can't do that.

So i'm just going to buy the i7 2600K anyway :D And overclock it when the times comes. I'd be happy with 4.5Ghz.... which should be easy to reach ;)

As for the i5 2500 cpu i'll either sell it or just keep it for backup just in case.

BattleSpectre

Edit: Yes thank you very much cheesie that's exactly the point. When i upgrade to the i7 2600K i won't change this CPU for years to come. That's why i want to overclock it to a high level. I will check out that cooler and many more, cheers.

If your case can handle it, the Thermaltake Frio.

Edit: also its a bit loud if both fans are on high, great cooler thought if you dont mind the noise.

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Absolutely no point in replacing a 2500 with a 2600K if you're not going to OC from the get-go, you may as well be buying a 2600.


Maybe wait until Ivy Bridge.

C_Rule

That is not entirely true. Over clocking is putting extra strain on the CPU whether it handles it great or not. Leaving the CPU at stock speeds and overclocking when needed is the smarter thing to do if you intend on keeping the same CPU for a while. Why put the stress on the CPU if it is already performing great, just wait until you need the bump in power.

As far as a cheap cooler for the 2600k, I went with a Zalman CNPS9900max it was about $80. I have heard great things about the CM 212 but cant really comment on how the cheaper coolers work for the 2600k. Just do some Googling and I am sure you will find an answer. Also check the feedback at newegg.com for a cooler in your price range and see if anyone has used it on the 2600k.

Again not true. Whether or not an overclock will shorten the life dramatically is unknown. I know people that have used the same CPU for six or seven years. There is no way to tell if had they overclocked from the start if it would have lasted that long. Not everyone upgrades their CPU like others do. While I don't think the stress will kill the chip before he looks to upgrade it, I just don't think it is a smart thing to do until it is needed when someone is wanting to hold on to the CPUfor a long time orit cant keep up anymore for their needs. I personally overclocked my 2600k right away but I know that I will upgrade within a year or two at most anyway. Over clocking a CPU shortens the life any way you look at it. Whether or not it will kill off the CPU before you intend to upgrade is unknown. That is part of the risk with over clocking, hell you could pop your new CPU right out of the box. I have done it.

This is why i always come to this part of the forum first before i ask anywhere else. Always get my questions answered quickly and the best advice.

Thank you once again everyone. The CM Hyper 212 looks promising.

There are quite a few very helpful and knowledgeable people here which is great. The 212 will probably be a great choice for you, after reading up some more on it it has done a great job for being a budget cooler. Like I said also with SB being such a cool running CPU I think they would pair very well.

This is why i always come to this part of the forum first before i ask anywhere else. Always get my questions answered quickly and the best advice.

Thank you once again everyone. The CM Hyper 212 looks promising.

BattleSpectre

Get the TT Frio, its big and heavy and loud, but with that, you can get to 5Ghz probably.

[QUOTE="BattleSpectre"]

This is why i always come to this part of the forum first before i ask anywhere else. Always get my questions answered quickly and the best advice.

Thank you once again everyone. The CM Hyper 212 looks promising.

GTR12

Get the TT Frio, its big and heavy and loud, but with that, you can get to 5Ghz probably.

Doubt it would be stable, but what an achievement that would be eh :P

I'm settling for 4.5Ghz+ which should be possible to do with the CM Hyper 212 cooler.

if you get a sabortooth motherboard p67 and a 2600k m8 i write everything down what i done in bio's im running at 4,8 Max core temp is around 1.36 to 1.38

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

Get the TT Frio, its big and heavy and loud, but with that, you can get to 5Ghz probably.

BattleSpectre

Doubt it would be stable, but what an achievement that would be eh :P

I'm settling for 4.5Ghz+ which should be possible to do with the CM Hyper 212 cooler.

With enough time and patience, it'll be possible.

I know the 580 is a bit stronger than the 6970, but the difference is small in most cases and the 6950 2gb is half the price of a 580 gtx and can easily unlock to a 6970. This is why I recommended getting 2 X 6950 2gb unlock to 6970. Also you wasted your money on 2 580 in sli, you shouldve kept your 6970 and then picked up a 6990 and crossfired the cards.

I know the 580 is a bit stronger than the 6970, but the difference is small in most cases and the 6950 2gb is half the price of a 580 gtx and can easily unlock to a 6970. This is why I recommended getting 2 X 6950 2gb unlock to 6970. Also you wasted your money on 2 580 in sli, you shouldve kept your 6970 and then picked up a 6990 and crossfired the cards.

blaznwiipspman1

How did I wast my money? For one it is my money and I decide to spend it how I feel. At my resolution currently you could say it is a waste to have more than one card so why would I tri fire when a GTX560 or a AMD 6950 would be more than fine. Thing is I plan on going with three monitors, for those only using one monitor I would never recommend running more than one card let alone tri fire.My buddy just put two 580's in his rig I built him and he has a 1080p monitor. That is a waste of money. Tri fire on a single monitor is a waste of money.

For strictly gaming I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I myself don't mind spending the money for more power but those on a budget the AMD line is top pick. I thought about going tri fire with a 6990 and 6970 but I didn't want to deal with the noise and heat of that combo. IF I run into problems with the 580 sli at 57x12 I would try the tri fire setup for the extra ram. In my case I have the money to do so, most people can not. That's why I think, with AMD cards being great cards, they cater to two different kinds of gamers. People who use one card to power a single monitor or use two or more cards to power high resolution and surround set ups. If you have one monitor a 6970 is enough power for great settings on most games and a very well priced card. With three monitors the AMD line in cross or trifire is great due to its Vram. If you have money to "waste" or want the best single card and are willing to pay the 580 is a beast.

I actually see the AMD line as more of an enthusiast card as it tears up the high resolution gaming with its added ram. Thing is I will be spending $1500 on monitors so it really doesn't make a difference to me if I spend $1000-$1500 for two orthree 580 or $1000-$1500 for tri fire 6990/6970 or quad fire 6990. Which ever one gives me results I am satisfied with wins. If two 580 in SLI runs my 57x12 setup fine I wont take the time to try out the tri fire set up I would most likely try adding a third 580 first.

Dont take this as AMD bashing because like I said the 6000 line has done some amazing things. I am just one of those people that will pay more for something better. Whether or not that is a "smart" move or "worth" the premiumdoesnt concern me because I am getting a better product and again it is my money.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

I know the 580 is a bit stronger than the 6970, but the difference is small in most cases and the 6950 2gb is half the price of a 580 gtx and can easily unlock to a 6970. This is why I recommended getting 2 X 6950 2gb unlock to 6970. Also you wasted your money on 2 580 in sli, you shouldve kept your 6970 and then picked up a 6990 and crossfired the cards.

cheesie253

How did I wast my money? For one it is my money and I decide to spend it how I feel. At my resolution currently you could say it is a waste to have more than one card so why would I tri fire when a GTX560 or a AMD 6950 would be more than fine. Thing is I plan on going with three monitors, for those only using one monitor I would never recommend running more than one card let alone tri fire.My buddy just put two 580's in his rig I built him and he has a 1080p monitor. That is a waste of money. Tri fire on a single monitor is a waste of money.

For strictly gaming I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I myself don't mind spending the money for more power but those on a budget the AMD line is top pick. I thought about going tri fire with a 6990 and 6970 but I didn't want to deal with the noise and heat of that combo. IF I run into problems with the 580 sli at 57x12 I would try the tri fire setup for the extra ram. In my case I have the money to do so, most people can not. That's why I think, with AMD cards being great cards, they cater to two different kinds of gamers. People who use one card to power a single monitor or use two or more cards to power high resolution and surround set ups. If you have one monitor a 6970 is enough power for great settings on most games and a very well priced card. With three monitors the AMD line in cross or trifire is great due to its Vram. If you have money to "waste" or want the best single card and are willing to pay the 580 is a beast.

I actually see the AMD line as more of an enthusiast card as it tears up the high resolution gaming with its added ram. Thing is I will be spending $1500 on monitors so it really doesn't make a difference to me if I spend $1000-$1500 for two orthree 580 or $1000-$1500 for tri fire 6990/6970 or quad fire 6990. Which ever one gives me results I am satisfied with wins. If two 580 in SLI runs my 57x12 setup fine I wont take the time to try out the tri fire set up I would most likely try adding a third 580 first.

Dont take this as AMD bashing because like I said the 6000 line has done some amazing things. I am just one of those people that will pay more for something better. Whether or not that is a "smart" move or "worth" the premiumdoesnt concern me because I am getting a better product and again it is my money.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/1

There you go, the 6990 + 6970 shames a 580 in sli and the best part is it costs the SAME has SIMILAR power requirements has the SAME temperature COSTS the SAME amount of $$ ANNNNNNNND its on 2 cards so it doesn't feel like tri fire. I doubt you're going to buy another 580 for tri sli...most people just stop at dual card setups since triple cards take up alot of space and cause the inside of the case to heat up like an oven. As you can see in the review the 6990+6970 beats out the 580 sli in EVERY SINGLE benchmark at HIGHER SETTINGS. Well I guess you jumped the gun and didn't consider all your options, though you're right when you say its your money and how you decide to spend it is all up to you.

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

I know the 580 is a bit stronger than the 6970, but the difference is small in most cases and the 6950 2gb is half the price of a 580 gtx and can easily unlock to a 6970. This is why I recommended getting 2 X 6950 2gb unlock to 6970. Also you wasted your money on 2 580 in sli, you shouldve kept your 6970 and then picked up a 6990 and crossfired the cards.

blaznwiipspman1

How did I wast my money? For one it is my money and I decide to spend it how I feel. At my resolution currently you could say it is a waste to have more than one card so why would I tri fire when a GTX560 or a AMD 6950 would be more than fine. Thing is I plan on going with three monitors, for those only using one monitor I would never recommend running more than one card let alone tri fire.My buddy just put two 580's in his rig I built him and he has a 1080p monitor. That is a waste of money. Tri fire on a single monitor is a waste of money.

For strictly gaming I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I myself don't mind spending the money for more power but those on a budget the AMD line is top pick. I thought about going tri fire with a 6990 and 6970 but I didn't want to deal with the noise and heat of that combo. IF I run into problems with the 580 sli at 57x12 I would try the tri fire setup for the extra ram. In my case I have the money to do so, most people can not. That's why I think, with AMD cards being great cards, they cater to two different kinds of gamers. People who use one card to power a single monitor or use two or more cards to power high resolution and surround set ups. If you have one monitor a 6970 is enough power for great settings on most games and a very well priced card. With three monitors the AMD line in cross or trifire is great due to its Vram. If you have money to "waste" or want the best single card and are willing to pay the 580 is a beast.

I actually see the AMD line as more of an enthusiast card as it tears up the high resolution gaming with its added ram. Thing is I will be spending $1500 on monitors so it really doesn't make a difference to me if I spend $1000-$1500 for two orthree 580 or $1000-$1500 for tri fire 6990/6970 or quad fire 6990. Which ever one gives me results I am satisfied with wins. If two 580 in SLI runs my 57x12 setup fine I wont take the time to try out the tri fire set up I would most likely try adding a third 580 first.

Dont take this as AMD bashing because like I said the 6000 line has done some amazing things. I am just one of those people that will pay more for something better. Whether or not that is a "smart" move or "worth" the premiumdoesnt concern me because I am getting a better product and again it is my money.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/1

There you go, the 6990 + 6970 shames a 580 in sli and the best part is it costs the SAME has SIMILAR power requirements has the SAME temperature COSTS the SAME amount of $$ ANNNNNNNND its on 2 cards so it doesn't feel like tri fire. I doubt you're going to buy another 580 for tri sli...most people just stop at dual card setups since triple cards take up alot of space and cause the inside of the case to heat up like an oven. As you can see in the review the 6990+6970 beats out the 580 sli in EVERY SINGLE benchmark at HIGHER SETTINGS. Well I guess you jumped the gun and didn't consider all your options, though you're right when you say its your money and how you decide to spend it is all up to you.

Lets see 6990+6970 running some physx. :lol:

580 SLI will blow through physx without breaking a sweat.;)

Or how about custom profiles for games? With such immense powah I DONT want to be limited to in game settings, I want to do crazy things like 16xAA, super sampling, ambient occlusion etc. Only nvidia allows you to do that.

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

I know the 580 is a bit stronger than the 6970, but the difference is small in most cases and the 6950 2gb is half the price of a 580 gtx and can easily unlock to a 6970. This is why I recommended getting 2 X 6950 2gb unlock to 6970. Also you wasted your money on 2 580 in sli, you shouldve kept your 6970 and then picked up a 6990 and crossfired the cards.

blaznwiipspman1

How did I wast my money? For one it is my money and I decide to spend it how I feel. At my resolution currently you could say it is a waste to have more than one card so why would I tri fire when a GTX560 or a AMD 6950 would be more than fine. Thing is I plan on going with three monitors, for those only using one monitor I would never recommend running more than one card let alone tri fire.My buddy just put two 580's in his rig I built him and he has a 1080p monitor. That is a waste of money. Tri fire on a single monitor is a waste of money.

For strictly gaming I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I myself don't mind spending the money for more power but those on a budget the AMD line is top pick. I thought about going tri fire with a 6990 and 6970 but I didn't want to deal with the noise and heat of that combo. IF I run into problems with the 580 sli at 57x12 I would try the tri fire setup for the extra ram. In my case I have the money to do so, most people can not. That's why I think, with AMD cards being great cards, they cater to two different kinds of gamers. People who use one card to power a single monitor or use two or more cards to power high resolution and surround set ups. If you have one monitor a 6970 is enough power for great settings on most games and a very well priced card. With three monitors the AMD line in cross or trifire is great due to its Vram. If you have money to "waste" or want the best single card and are willing to pay the 580 is a beast.

I actually see the AMD line as more of an enthusiast card as it tears up the high resolution gaming with its added ram. Thing is I will be spending $1500 on monitors so it really doesn't make a difference to me if I spend $1000-$1500 for two orthree 580 or $1000-$1500 for tri fire 6990/6970 or quad fire 6990. Which ever one gives me results I am satisfied with wins. If two 580 in SLI runs my 57x12 setup fine I wont take the time to try out the tri fire set up I would most likely try adding a third 580 first.

Dont take this as AMD bashing because like I said the 6000 line has done some amazing things. I am just one of those people that will pay more for something better. Whether or not that is a "smart" move or "worth" the premiumdoesnt concern me because I am getting a better product and again it is my money.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/1

There you go, the 6990 + 6970 shames a 580 in sli and the best part is it costs the SAME has SIMILAR power requirements has the SAME temperature COSTS the SAME amount of $$ ANNNNNNNND its on 2 cards so it doesn't feel like tri fire. I doubt you're going to buy another 580 for tri sli...most people just stop at dual card setups since triple cards take up alot of space and cause the inside of the case to heat up like an oven. As you can see in the review the 6990+6970 beats out the 580 sli in EVERY SINGLE benchmark at HIGHER SETTINGS. Well I guess you jumped the gun and didn't consider all your options, though you're right when you say its your money and how you decide to spend it is all up to you.

So you didn't read my post at all did you? I have considered the option you listed as I just stated and compared to two sli cards it is a waste at my current resolution. Not to mention the NOISE and heat of that combo. The 6990 in my opinion is just not a great card. The 6970tri firehas so many advantages over it. Because money is not an issue with me lets fairly make a comparison. 580 tri sli vs 6990/6970 tri fire. Guess who wins? Its the setup that has the more powerful single gpu to start. Like I said paying for a better setup is not a problem. Again like I said before AMD is best for those on a budget, which I am not. If I am spending $1500 on monitors I will buy what runs my setup the best, not what setup saves a couple bucks. When some reviews come out showing that the tri fire combo bests a tri sli set up then you can say I wasted my money. Money is not wasted if I am willing to pay for more performance. So like I said before AMD for a budget and Nvidia for pure power. Its nota matter of what setup performs best for x amoint of money it is a matter of what setup will perform the best!

Also are you the same person pushing the 6990/6970 combo on other forums talking about how it wastes the sli setup? What you posted seems so familiar. Levesque was the persons name.

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

[QUOTE="BattleSpectre"]

Thanks for the tips and advice guys. I feel quite stupid for not getting the i5-2500K now :( How hard is it to replace the Processor?

BattleSpectre

Not hard, removing the heatsink is the pain.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

How did I wast my money? For one it is my money and I decide to spend it how I feel. At my resolution currently you could say it is a waste to have more than one card so why would I tri fire when a GTX560 or a AMD 6950 would be more than fine. Thing is I plan on going with three monitors, for those only using one monitor I would never recommend running more than one card let alone tri fire.My buddy just put two 580's in his rig I built him and he has a 1080p monitor. That is a waste of money. Tri fire on a single monitor is a waste of money.

For strictly gaming I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I myself don't mind spending the money for more power but those on a budget the AMD line is top pick. I thought about going tri fire with a 6990 and 6970 but I didn't want to deal with the noise and heat of that combo. IF I run into problems with the 580 sli at 57x12 I would try the tri fire setup for the extra ram. In my case I have the money to do so, most people can not. That's why I think, with AMD cards being great cards, they cater to two different kinds of gamers. People who use one card to power a single monitor or use two or more cards to power high resolution and surround set ups. If you have one monitor a 6970 is enough power for great settings on most games and a very well priced card. With three monitors the AMD line in cross or trifire is great due to its Vram. If you have money to "waste" or want the best single card and are willing to pay the 580 is a beast.

I actually see the AMD line as more of an enthusiast card as it tears up the high resolution gaming with its added ram. Thing is I will be spending $1500 on monitors so it really doesn't make a difference to me if I spend $1000-$1500 for two orthree 580 or $1000-$1500 for tri fire 6990/6970 or quad fire 6990. Which ever one gives me results I am satisfied with wins. If two 580 in SLI runs my 57x12 setup fine I wont take the time to try out the tri fire set up I would most likely try adding a third 580 first.

Dont take this as AMD bashing because like I said the 6000 line has done some amazing things. I am just one of those people that will pay more for something better. Whether or not that is a "smart" move or "worth" the premiumdoesnt concern me because I am getting a better product and again it is my money.

Elann2008

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/1

There you go, the 6990 + 6970 shames a 580 in sli and the best part is it costs the SAME has SIMILAR power requirements has the SAME temperature COSTS the SAME amount of $$ ANNNNNNNND its on 2 cards so it doesn't feel like tri fire. I doubt you're going to buy another 580 for tri sli...most people just stop at dual card setups since triple cards take up alot of space and cause the inside of the case to heat up like an oven. As you can see in the review the 6990+6970 beats out the 580 sli in EVERY SINGLE benchmark at HIGHER SETTINGS. Well I guess you jumped the gun and didn't consider all your options, though you're right when you say its your money and how you decide to spend it is all up to you.

hmm I see, so how do you define a gpu? Maybe by the size of it? In that case each 6970 takes only 389 square mm of gpu space while each 580 gtx and 570 has 520 square millimeter of space. Do you also consider that "fair" when you count each gfx card. AMD could have made a super beast with 500 sq mm of gpu space but they chose NOT to, and as you can see they still remain competitive. Not to mention the number of transistors in each amd chip is fewer than in the nvidia chip. What does all this mean? Superior engineeriing at its very core. Which is why before you act like a noob and count the number of gpus you should look at the bigger picture first. So a 6990 + 6970 compared with a 580 sli is NOT unfair at all.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

How did I wast my money? For one it is my money and I decide to spend it how I feel. At my resolution currently you could say it is a waste to have more than one card so why would I tri fire when a GTX560 or a AMD 6950 would be more than fine. Thing is I plan on going with three monitors, for those only using one monitor I would never recommend running more than one card let alone tri fire.My buddy just put two 580's in his rig I built him and he has a 1080p monitor. That is a waste of money. Tri fire on a single monitor is a waste of money.

For strictly gaming I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I myself don't mind spending the money for more power but those on a budget the AMD line is top pick. I thought about going tri fire with a 6990 and 6970 but I didn't want to deal with the noise and heat of that combo. IF I run into problems with the 580 sli at 57x12 I would try the tri fire setup for the extra ram. In my case I have the money to do so, most people can not. That's why I think, with AMD cards being great cards, they cater to two different kinds of gamers. People who use one card to power a single monitor or use two or more cards to power high resolution and surround set ups. If you have one monitor a 6970 is enough power for great settings on most games and a very well priced card. With three monitors the AMD line in cross or trifire is great due to its Vram. If you have money to "waste" or want the best single card and are willing to pay the 580 is a beast.

I actually see the AMD line as more of an enthusiast card as it tears up the high resolution gaming with its added ram. Thing is I will be spending $1500 on monitors so it really doesn't make a difference to me if I spend $1000-$1500 for two orthree 580 or $1000-$1500 for tri fire 6990/6970 or quad fire 6990. Which ever one gives me results I am satisfied with wins. If two 580 in SLI runs my 57x12 setup fine I wont take the time to try out the tri fire set up I would most likely try adding a third 580 first.

Dont take this as AMD bashing because like I said the 6000 line has done some amazing things. I am just one of those people that will pay more for something better. Whether or not that is a "smart" move or "worth" the premiumdoesnt concern me because I am getting a better product and again it is my money.

cheesie253

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/11/amd_radeon_69906970_crossfirex_trifire_review/1

There you go, the 6990 + 6970 shames a 580 in sli and the best part is it costs the SAME has SIMILAR power requirements has the SAME temperature COSTS the SAME amount of $$ ANNNNNNNND its on 2 cards so it doesn't feel like tri fire. I doubt you're going to buy another 580 for tri sli...most people just stop at dual card setups since triple cards take up alot of space and cause the inside of the case to heat up like an oven. As you can see in the review the 6990+6970 beats out the 580 sli in EVERY SINGLE benchmark at HIGHER SETTINGS. Well I guess you jumped the gun and didn't consider all your options, though you're right when you say its your money and how you decide to spend it is all up to you.

So you didn't read my post at all did you? I have considered the option you listed as I just stated and compared to two sli cards it is a waste at my current resolution. Not to mention the NOISE and heat of that combo. The 6990 in my opinion is just not a great card. The 6970tri firehas so many advantages over it. Because money is not an issue with me lets fairly make a comparison. 580 tri sli vs 6990/6970 tri fire. Guess who wins? Its the setup that has the more powerful single gpu to start. Like I said paying for a better setup is not a problem. Again like I said before AMD is best for those on a budget, which I am not. If I am spending $1500 on monitors I will buy what runs my setup the best, not what setup saves a couple bucks. When some reviews come out showing that the tri fire combo bests a tri sli set up then you can say I wasted my money. Money is not wasted if I am willing to pay for more performance. So like I said before AMD for a budget and Nvidia for pure power. Its nota matter of what setup performs best for x amoint of money it is a matter of what setup will perform the best!

Also are you the same person pushing the 6990/6970 combo on other forums talking about how it wastes the sli setup? What you posted seems so familiar. Levesque was the persons name.

Sorry about that I went back and read your entire post and damn it was a waste of my time. All it said was you are rich and can afford to go quad fire 580 gtx because your rich and want to power your eyefinity monitors. Well congrats I guess. Also read my other post, all AMd gpus are physically smaller than the current line of geforce cards, so while YOU may be happy about the performance of your geforce card I guarantee you nvidia is NOT at all. They are probably working there arses off at this moment to catch up to AMD since they know there performance per mm square is actually alot less than AMD's and there chips can't just keep getting bigger and bigger. I bet they probably reverse engineered a few AMD chips. Why do you think the 590 performs worse than the 6990, and it is actually weaker when theres 2 580 cores? The size, power heat are all monsttrous. Anyhow I am actually glad there are 2 gpu makers and no matter how much I like AMD do NOT want to see nvidia gone and will pay just to keep them there. Competition is whats keeping the tech moving at such a high pace and prices so low.

They are probably working there arses off at this moment to catch up to AMD since they know there performance per mm square is actually alot less than AMD's and there chips can't just keep getting bigger and bigger. I bet they probably reverse engineered a few AMD chips. Why do you think the 590 performs worse than the 6990, and it is actually weaker when theres 2 580 cores? The size, power heat are all monsttrous.

blaznwiipspman1

And the 6950 and 6970 are bigger than GTX 580.:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpxihI0pKc

And the 590 being worse than 6990? looool

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself now.:lol:

They are probably working there arses off at this moment to catch up to AMD since they know there performance per mm square is actually alot less than AMD's and there chips can't just keep getting bigger and bigger. I bet they probably reverse engineered a few AMD chips. Why do you think the 590 performs worse than the 6990, and it is actually weaker when theres 2 580 cores? The size, power heat are all monsttrous.blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]They are probably working there arses off at this moment to catch up to AMD since they know there performance per mm square is actually alot less than AMD's and there chips can't just keep getting bigger and bigger. I bet they probably reverse engineered a few AMD chips. Why do you think the 590 performs worse than the 6990, and it is actually weaker when theres 2 580 cores? The size, power heat are all monsttrous.superclocked

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

They are probably working there arses off at this moment to catch up to AMD since they know there performance per mm square is actually alot less than AMD's and there chips can't just keep getting bigger and bigger. I bet they probably reverse engineered a few AMD chips. Why do you think the 590 performs worse than the 6990, and it is actually weaker when theres 2 580 cores? The size, power heat are all monsttrous.

Gambler_3

And the 6950 and 6970 are bigger than GTX 580.:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpxihI0pKc

And the 590 being worse than 6990? looool

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself now.:lol:

yawn you posted a "relative" performance chart that has games that most of which are sponsored by nvidia to perform better on their hardware. Check 3dmark11 and the scores are irrefutable that the 6990 is the strongest dual card available. Also I wasn't talking about the actual LENGTH of the cards I was talking about the core itself

"Cayman,Radeon HD 6970 and 6950 cards will have a 389 square millimetre core that packs 2.64 billion transistors.

Nvidia's GF110 chip, the one behind the Geforce GTX 580 and 570 is a massive 520 square millimetre core and has some three billion transistors. AMD's chip is some 30 percent smaller in size and it has some 15 percent fewer transistors than Nvidia's which is impressive. In the end Nvidia looks like a slightly faster solution, but its core is bigger.

Nvidia's chip is more complex and more expensive to produce. It ends up with better shader performance, but overall AMD did a good job of making something that is close to the GTX 580 in terms of performance and significantly faster than the now obsolete GTX 480, all with fewer transistors in a smaller package.

The chips are ready and the cards will be available on Tuesday the 15th of December in Europe and in the US in the night of 14th of December. We are not sure about the price as AMD will finalize its pricing literally at the last minute, but we guess it will be less than Nvidia wants for GTX 580 and the recently introduced GTX 570."

I bolded the important stuff for you so you understand.

For one I am in no way rich. I am just using my buying habits as an example.I work my tail off to buy everything I want. I pay a mortgage and every one of my bills myself. I choose where my extramoney goes. Some people sink their money into cars or comic books, I buy computer parts and collect vintage video games. If you dont have a job or dont make a lot of money there is nothing wrong with buying what is within your means and buying a better priced option. I dont go around telling people "hey you are just rich and showing off with that Mercedes" people work hard for their money and spend it how they see fit.

I am not debating the cost of these cards I am debating their performance. Period.

Card for card Nvidia 580 will beat out the same number of AMD in most situations.

I don't think after this comment many people are going to keep going with you. You read only what you want to see and present only facts that go with your reasoning. In the end the 580 is a better card over the 6970 and a Nvidia solution in most all cases wins until the vram is needed. AMD cards are not better performers untilreally high resolutions and surround gaming comes in. That is where they shine, and shine they do.

Price is only an issue with people on budgets not enthusiasts who want and can afford the best.There is nothing else to it. We can argue over prices and different scenarios until we turn blue.

I dont think after this comment many people are going to keep going with you. You read only what you want to see and present only facts that go with your reasoning. In the end the 580 is a better card. There is nothing else to it.

cheesie253

hm maybe but the facts are the 6970 is a smaller card and still packs the same amount of performance as nvidias strongest cards. I think youre in denial and don't want to accept facts that are in your face. Im not saying the 580 isnt the strongest card. Im saying that HAD amd chosen to make a card the same size as the 580, then the 580 wouldn't be the strongest card.

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

I dont think after this comment many people are going to keep going with you. You read only what you want to see and present only facts that go with your reasoning. In the end the 580 is a better card. There is nothing else to it.

blaznwiipspman1

hm maybe but the facts are the 6970 is a smaller card and still packs the same amount of performance as nvidias strongest cards. I think youre in denial and don't want to accept facts that are in your face. Im not saying the 580 isnt the strongest card. Im saying that HAD amd chosen to make a card the same size as the 580, then the 580 wouldn't be the strongest card.

The size of the tech they used is neither here nor there. Both companies made the card they made and what you are now arguing has no bearing on this discussion. What they "could have done" is just that. A could have. In the end, and you said it yourself, the 580 is the fastest card.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

I dont think after this comment many people are going to keep going with you. You read only what you want to see and present only facts that go with your reasoning. In the end the 580 is a better card. There is nothing else to it.

cheesie253

hm maybe but the facts are the 6970 is a smaller card and still packs the same amount of performance as nvidias strongest cards. I think youre in denial and don't want to accept facts that are in your face. Im not saying the 580 isnt the strongest card. Im saying that HAD amd chosen to make a card the same size as the 580, then the 580 wouldn't be the strongest card.

The size of the tech they used is neither here nor there. Both companies made the card they made and what you are now arguing has no bearing on this discussion. What they "could have done" is just that. A could have. In the end, and you said it yourself, the 580 is the fastest card.

Yep the 580 is the fastest card I will admit, but it sacrifices power for horrible inefficiency. Thats the game, and how nvidia played it. But I will also say that amd is undeniably the strongest in performance per mm^2 of gpu. End of story.

Again who cares about the size of the process. Most people care about the actual performance. I guess I will give you that to make you happy but I think it is funny that that is what you are using now to claim AMD is better. If the shoe was on the other foot and X brand had the best performing card for a higher price I would argue they are they best. Where as you would still fight for the brand you are a fanboy to. I am a fanboy of whoever makes the best card. If the 7000 series is the top card I no doubt will change over. If the next round of cards come out and Nvidia is cheaper and close to AMD in performance but still behind what card would you choose? Going buy all the "points" you have had to argue for the AMD this current round of cards you should be saying you would go with Nvidia but I have a feeling if it went to AMD next round you would be bragging about how much better they are over Nvidia.

Again who cares about the size of the process. Most people care about the actual performance. I guess I will give you that to make you happy but I think it is funny that that is what you are using now to claim AMD is better. If the shoe was on the other foot and X brand had the best performing card for a higher price I would argue they are they best. Where as you would still fight for the brand you are a fanboy to. I am a fanboy of whoever makes the best card. If the 7000 series is the top card I no doubt will change over. If the next round of cards come out and Nvidia is cheaper and close to AMD in performance but still behind what card would you choose? Going buy all the "points" you have had to argue for the AMD this current round of cards you should be saying you would go with Nvidia but I have a feeling if it went to AMD next round you would be bragging about how much better they are over Nvidia.

cheesie253

sure I prefer AMD :D Im not denying it. But its not like I have anything against nvidia, I actually purchased a geforce 240 gt first, found it a bit weak then bought my current card. I have nothing against them and I WILL purchase their products if I find it a good value. For example if I were to buy a card now and my budget was sub 200 then I would go with a 460 1gb card. If it were sub $250 then I would go with AMD 6950 1gb, sub $300 then the 6950 2gb. I wouldn't spend over $300 on a video card but if I WERE interested then I would pick the 6970.

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]

Again who cares about the size of the process. Most people care about the actual performance. I guess I will give you that to make you happy but I think it is funny that that is what you are using now to claim AMD is better. If the shoe was on the other foot and X brand had the best performing card for a higher price I would argue they are they best. Where as you would still fight for the brand you are a fanboy to. I am a fanboy of whoever makes the best card. If the 7000 series is the top card I no doubt will change over. If the next round of cards come out and Nvidia is cheaper and close to AMD in performance but still behind what card would you choose? Going buy all the "points" you have had to argue for the AMD this current round of cards you should be saying you would go with Nvidia but I have a feeling if it went to AMD next round you would be bragging about how much better they are over Nvidia.

blaznwiipspman1

sure I prefer AMD :D Im not denying it. But its not like I have anything against nvidia, I actually purchased a geforce 240 gt first, found it a bit weak then bought my current card. I have nothing against them and I WILL purchase their products if I find it a good value. For example if I were to buy a card now and my budget was sub 200 then I would go with a 460 1gb card. If it were sub $250 then I would go with AMD 6950 1gb, sub $300 then the 6950 2gb. I wouldn't spend over $300 on a video card but if I WERE interested then I would pick the 6970.

Hey man all in all I was just having fun debating with you. It is fun to do every now and then right? I am one of the most un biased people when it comes to things. Even though I may prefer one thing I know that everything has faults. This round I prefer Nvidia although I know AMD has done a hell of a job with the 6000 series. The scaling they are getting and the performance for the money is great. Like I said before though I am one of those guys that will pay for more even when it is not the "smartest" option. No doubt the AMD line in my opinion is actually a better card considering the price and perfromance. In the end like I have said before you cant go wrong either way. AMD or Nvidia both are great this round.

If the damn 6990 was not so loud I would definately be using it in tri fire for surround gaming when I get there due to the Vram. I am hoping the 3gb 580 is widely available soon, if not I will put off three monitor gaming until the next round of cards and see who takes the top spot before I jump into more monitors.