Gigabyte GTX580 Super Overclock Review
Introduction and Technical Specifications
Published: 20th October 2011 | Source: Gigabyte | Price: £419 |
Introduction
The GTX580 is still, many months after it's release, the absolute single-GPU king.
Indeed the performance is so spectacular that if you're in the market for some hardcore performance then three of these will out-perform any quad-GPU setups such as GTX590s in SLI or Crossfire HD6990s.
So with this in mind we were excited to get the Gigabyte Super Overclock version of the GTX580 in the office. These are cherry-picked FM110 cores making sure that you get only the very best chips nVidia can produce on your card. The benefits of this are multiple. Not only does it ensure that you get a chip that will overclock like a demon, but also one that doesn't require a nuclear power plant strapped to it to do so. As if that isn't enough it also comes with Gigabytes first foray into the world of triple-fan coolers and they've gone the whole hog with a vapour-chamber as well as the massive heatpipe and fin arrangement we're used to.
You all know what the GTX580 is about by now, so we shall crack on.
Technical Specifications
As you can see out of the box it appears to be a fairly standard GTX580. Then you note those clock-speeds and get a feel that something special is going on with the Gigabyte GTX580 SOC. As is often the case though the specifications don't tell the full story. So let's grab a look at the card shall we.
| Chipset | GeForce GTX 580 |
| Core Clock | 855 MHz |
| Shader Clock | 1710 MHz |
| Memory Clock | 4100 MHz |
| Process Technology | 40 nm |
| Memory Size | 1536 MB |
| Memory Bus | 384 bit |
| Card Bus | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 |
| DirectX | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 |
| Digital max resolution | 2560 x 1600 |
| Analog max resolution | 2048 x 1536 |
| Multi-view | 2 |
Most Recent Comments
Impressive card. I must admit that Gigabyte is becoming my favourite brand. Would love to have two of these in sli. Will probably cost around 800£ for two of these
Actually two costs 946£. Gotta love the prizes in Norway
Quote
Actually two costs 946£. Gotta love the prizes in Norway
QuoteWish I could afford one
Gigabyte need to scrap the blue PCB though it looks nasty to me, black PCB FTW
Quote
Gigabyte need to scrap the blue PCB though it looks nasty to me, black PCB FTW
QuoteThis is a great card. I don't mind blue PCB, but I do agree that matte black PCB is still the best looking. I wonder how the 3GB versions will perform? 
Quote
QuoteMighty impressive card,looking at performance.
Quote
QuoteGlad you're getting concerned about benching results. I'm flogging a dead horse, but they haven't been 'right' since the 6xxx series came out.
One to look at in todays review is the 8xAA here. I'd go out on a limb and say that the reference 580 can-not be faster than either an oc'd 580 or indeed this card. (I'll bow to anyone who can explain how the same tech running slower can produce a faster result however)
I've noticed it in something like the 6970 reviews onwards. The base cards in many graphs being faster than the 'technically' faster card. This, not only is "wrong", but shows that something is wrong with the system being used for testing.
I'll harp on about it again, but I *think* it's your Windows 7 setups. Of course I can be wrong, but that's where I'd be looking.
Good write-up tho.Quote
One to look at in todays review is the 8xAA here. I'd go out on a limb and say that the reference 580 can-not be faster than either an oc'd 580 or indeed this card. (I'll bow to anyone who can explain how the same tech running slower can produce a faster result however)
I've noticed it in something like the 6970 reviews onwards. The base cards in many graphs being faster than the 'technically' faster card. This, not only is "wrong", but shows that something is wrong with the system being used for testing.
I'll harp on about it again, but I *think* it's your Windows 7 setups. Of course I can be wrong, but that's where I'd be looking.
Good write-up tho.Quote
omfg - i am in lurve with this card.
(where's my tissues)
i can only dream of the scores (FPSs) i would get on my rig with one of these bad boys in it.
(too many plans for the new build)Quote
(where's my tissues)
i can only dream of the scores (FPSs) i would get on my rig with one of these bad boys in it.
(too many plans for the new build)
QuoteI'll run the Heaven Benchmark when I get home today at 1920 x 1080 and see what I get.Quote
can someone tell me why is it in a OC situation the card has lower minimum FPS than the cards default OC and that's in some games only, is it to do with the OC of the video memory because I have heard that DDR 5 performance degrades when pushed to far.
Quote
Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by silenthill
can someone tell me why is it in a OC situation the card has lower minimum FPS than the cards default OC and that's in some games only, is it to do with the OC of the video memory because I have heard that DDR 5 performance degrades when pushed to far. |
Awesome review, i couldn't be happier with my SOC.Quote
Great review! Had me considering buying one...until the cheapest one I could find came in at £432!! I could get the lightning extreme edition for that money Quote
Quotethis isnt there first jump into triple fan coolers i had a 470 SOC and that had that exact cooler 
but i think its minus the vapour chamberQuote
but i think its minus the vapour chamberQuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by thestepster
this isnt there first jump into triple fan coolers i had a 470 SOC and that had that exact cooler but i think its minus the vapour chamber |
.QuoteBlue PCB........... 
Quote
Quotesweet 580, just wish it have a black pcb, OR a backplate what was black, (maybe blue is ok for a blue/white or blue/black rig, but not for most others)
also folding the same WU with my matrix (at stock), i get the same ppd as you were getting with it OCed ? weird, and when i turned up the volts and the clock to what you have in your review i was getting around 20.7 - 21.1k ppd with it.... BUT it was hotter and much too loud.Quote
also folding the same WU with my matrix (at stock), i get the same ppd as you were getting with it OCed ? weird, and when i turned up the volts and the clock to what you have in your review i was getting around 20.7 - 21.1k ppd with it.... BUT it was hotter and much too loud.Quote
Still with that ugly ass PCB!!Quote
I think it could have done with a black PCB or, backplate, but otherwise it appears to be stupidly good.Quote
This is my result with Unigine Heaven 2.1. It is similar to TTL's. My card is at stock right now and I will overclock it soon . I'm not sure why mine and TTL's results show a lower average FPS than a regular 580 on Unigine, but better results on the Games.
Quote
. I'm not sure why mine and TTL's results show a lower average FPS than a regular 580 on Unigine, but better results on the Games.QuoteThink its what platform you use.Yours is 1155 and TTL use the 1366.Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilobravo
Think its what platform you use.Yours is 1155 and TTL use the 1366. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
I'm talking about his Gigabyte SOC result and mine. There is only a 1-2 frame difference, hence why I said our results are similar. I was comparing the Gigabyte cards result with the regular 580, which has a higher fps for unigine. |
Probably some driver issues, the card is obviously better than a reference 580Quote
It looks like a very solid performing card was suprised to see it beat a lightning too. Good work Gigabyte.Quote
ive been tending to focus on min fps lately.......and i almost switchd to nvidia whilst ditchin my bulldozer rig for a sandy rig.....but i think ill stick with my 6970cfxQuote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by badtaylorx
ive been tending to focus on min fps lately.......and i almost switchd to nvidia whilst ditchin my bulldozer rig for a sandy rig.....but i think ill stick with my 6970cfx |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
6970cfx is an awesome setup mate, why would you even think about replacing them, unless they are too loud and hot. My min framerates are generally quite good, but on heaven the lowest I got was 5fps, which was at the beginning when the benchmark was starting so I'm not bothered. |
QuoteHi everyone , i show my benchmark score to compare with others !
I'm french from Dijon.
Here my bench score:
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3...nigine2011.png
My CPU is overcloked :
Intel Core I3 530 2,93 Ghz to 3,9 Ghz
Free voltage and C6 State ON (1,8 to 3,9 Ghz)
Memory :
G.Skills Pi series 2000 Mhz cas 6 (2 x 2Go)
My GTX 480 is overclocked :
OC / STOCK
-GPU= 814 / 700 Mhz
-Shader= 1628 / 1401 Mhz
-Memory= 4250 / 3696 Mhz
-Voltage= 1,138 / 1,038 V
Quote
I'm french from Dijon.
Here my bench score:
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3...nigine2011.png
My CPU is overcloked :
Intel Core I3 530 2,93 Ghz to 3,9 Ghz
Free voltage and C6 State ON (1,8 to 3,9 Ghz)
Memory :
G.Skills Pi series 2000 Mhz cas 6 (2 x 2Go)
My GTX 480 is overclocked :
OC / STOCK
-GPU= 814 / 700 Mhz
-Shader= 1628 / 1401 Mhz
-Memory= 4250 / 3696 Mhz
-Voltage= 1,138 / 1,038 V
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by Lanic29
Hi everyone , i show my benchmark score to compare with others ! I'm french from Dijon. Here my bench score: http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3...nigine2011.png |
A nice result you got there. It seems Unigine heaven doesn't like the Gigabyte GTX 580 SOC. Would you care to do a Crysis 2 Benchmark with the same settings as TTL, just so we can see what results you get
. I ran the benchmark using the Adrenaline Crysis 2 Benchmark Tool and my Crysis 2 average with TTL's settings was 56.5.
QuoteHi , i can't run this benchmark ! He cannot find the Crysis2.exe !!! I think it's because Crysis 2 is not installed on my Windows C: hard drive but in another one (E
.
If you want me to do a different bench , please tell me witch oneQuote
! He cannot find the Crysis2.exe !!! I think it's because Crysis 2 is not installed on my Windows C: hard drive but in another one (E.If you want me to do a different bench , please tell me witch one
QuoteQuote:
|
Originally Posted by Lanic29
Hi , i can't run this benchmark ! He cannot find the Crysis2.exe !!! I think it's because Crysis 2 is not installed on my Windows C: harddrive but in another one (E.If you want me to do a different bench , please tell me wich one |
No Metro 2033 sorry , but :
- Rage
- Dead Island
- Deus EX Revolution
- Street Fighter 4
- DIRT 3Quote
- Rage
- Dead Island
- Deus EX Revolution
- Street Fighter 4
- DIRT 3Quote
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lanic29
No Metro 2033 sorry , but : - Rage - Dead Island - Deus EX Revolution - Street Fighter 4 - DIRT 3 |
.Quote
CSS Valid
Continue ReadingQuote