Well, nVidia would be the first to start shouting at anyone who would listen if the reverse was true!

haha, benchmark comparison is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

real world gaming experience is where it's at. and judging by latest title such as Crysis 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood lack of support for multi-GPU. good luck actually playing games on those monstrosities.


/hugs my single fastest single GPU, goes off to play AC Brotherhood :D

Tell them to prove it with folding...
I just want to see a better AMD/ATi GPU Client

I don't think anyone is clearly ahead.
They're so close, depending on what game / what resolution / what emphasis they come out as aven or only slightly apart.
If for instance, i read Bit-Tech's test, looking at the minimum frame rates, the GTX comes out slightly ahead in most games tested here.
If I read them looking at the average frame-rate, it's about 50-50.
I'm sure if you selected different game the radeon would come out slightly ahead.

The problem with COD (both of them falling behind) shows SLI-on-a-stick may not be for everybody.
I'd rather have a fast single chip card thank you.

Quite frankly my opinion is that they are pretty evenly matched so why does it matter which one might have a slight advantage here but lose out here. If i was an AMD/ATi fanboy I'd buy the 6990, if I was an Nvidia fanboy I'd buy the 590. If I wasn't sure I'd look at which games I play and whether I'd want it to fold or not.

Fact is there is no clear performance king, period. :D

nvidia would simply suggest to use hawkz and stone giant....

3dm11 is a reasonable tool - as long as AMD doesnt use any drivers with adaptive tessellation - oh wait , they still reduce tessellation level in the driver slider ignoring what's set in game/ programme.

I'd be folding if we had a decent AMD Folding client.

:(

In regards to this, I'd like to see another 590 vs 6990 in a month or so with decent games no Black Ops at large resolutions.

:D

I always find it amusing when AMD and Nvidia start waving their schlongs around in public like this.

All I heard was the entire of Nvidia's customer base go "Challenge Accepted" and AMD stand there looking all egotistical and awesome >.<

This would be intresting to see... Maybe a massive worldwide benchmark of Nvidia Versus ATI/AMD cards? Hosted on 21.12.2012 to see whats fastest? *chuckles*

Real Games (Multiples, not just one or two). Who gives a Donkey if its fastest just in 3DM11.

For me its the 6990 that wins, by a hair, in standard mode.
In the 450W mode its a bit better, but not what i'd call efficient scaling. Later drivers may help.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/825-17/dossier-nvidia-repond-amd-avec-geforce-gtx-590.html

Originally Posted by fingerbob69
Well, nVidia would be the first to start shouting at anyone who would listen if the reverse was true!

+1

think nvidia wins when it comes to blowing your card up.

Outstanding, let's all buy incredibly fast, incredibly expensive graphics cards to render xbox and playstation games at four hundred frames per second!

It's just a pissing contest really. AMD have their "Leaked" powerpoint presentations showing how fantastic they are and Intel beating performance figures. Which then turn out to be targets rather than actual performance figures. As to moaning and quoting other sites favouring their products, well that just stinks.

They are all as bad as each other but the problem here is that some are siding with either side and we don;t have a conclusive winner. However, Phil Rhodes above has the post to put it all into prespective.

Although 3D mark isn't real world, it still shows its potential, right? Obviously it's driver dependent.

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Outstanding, let's all buy incredibly fast, incredibly expensive graphics cards to render xbox and playstation games at four hundred frames per second!

Your forgeting eyefinity and 3D gaming. Regardless if one uses this, this card is pretty much required to play games like this.

I bet AMD weren't too pleased with Bit-tech's review of the 590 then

@j_jay4 ya i bet, considering many other websites did not seem to be as favorable. i often question bit-tech's benchmarks reliability, but you should never just rely on 1 site for all your information.

to me, right now both cards are about equal. theres some tests where one clearly is ahead of the other and vise versa. but, considering amd/ati has always released products with terrible drivers, i feel like the 6990 will EVENTUALLY be the fastest, but currently neither is really better than the other.

For now there is no clear winner because GTX 590 isn't simply = to 2xGTX580. GTX590 is seriously under-clocked because it is technically impossible to deliver more power via 2x8 pin connectors and PCI-Ex slot. Add another 8-pin PEG, clock both chips and memory to designed speed and see 6990 crumble in benchmarks... not to mention Folding.

Not a fan of AMD, but not a fanboy of nVidia either. Just stating the facts. AMD should shut up, because theirs supposedly super-duper-fastest-mega-6990-moar VGA is beaten [or equal] by what in essence is under-clocked GTX570 in SLI.

C'mon MSI/Asus give GTX590 some TwinFrozr3/DirectCU+Mars treatment!

I'm sure both sides can produces plenty of statistics that prove their point, however none will be realistic situations. This is just like Oracle vs SQL Server transaction speeds many years ago, Ferrari vs Porsche.... etc.
We can just sit back and laugh at them

Can open, worms everywhere.

People are missing the point here. Of course it matter's who has the fastest graphics card, thats what its all about. You don't see Ferrari trying to build the fastest production car then being happy "its as good but we are not sure" as a Maserati.

These two companies pride themselves on providing you, the customer with the best your money can buy and if both sides cliam to produce the most powerful card then of course it muct be tested and proved, not just to show off but if anything so the losing side can go back and bring something even better out.

Plus all the inovations they make at this end of the scale are what trickle down to the cheaper cards making them even better value.

innovations made for fastest GPU gets trickled down to cheaper cards.

innovation made for dual-GPU card are simply how to fit them onto a board and how to cool them. zero actual GPU innovation that is of any use to cheaper cards.


this multi-GPU on business is getting ridiculous by the day. this is why i read bit-tech and CPC, for their ever lasting single GPU support, instead of mixing messy multi-card graph getting mixed in the review.

Fear is the mind killer. And heat is the board killer. The one thing ive learned over the long years is that x2 cards get too hot and aren't fun when it comes to overclocking your rig. Plus stay away from nvidia's current flagship single chip cards as they tend to be too hot. Plus dual card setups have a tendancy to fry what ever card is in the secondary slot(but this could happen as much as 2-3 years after the dual install) Ah im glad i got that off my chest

Originally Posted by Hakuren
For now there is no clear winner because GTX 590 isn't simply = to 2xGTX580. GTX590 is seriously under-clocked because it is technically impossible to deliver more power via 2x8 pin connectors and PCI-Ex slot. Add another 8-pin PEG, clock both chips and memory to designed speed and see 6990 crumble in benchmarks... not to mention Folding.

Not a fan of AMD, but not a fanboy of nVidia either. Just stating the facts. AMD should shut up, because theirs supposedly super-duper-fastest-mega-6990-moar VGA is beaten [or equal] by what in essence is under-clocked GTX570 in SLI.

C'mon MSI/Asus give GTX590 some TwinFrozr3/DirectCU+Mars treatment!

Hang on hang on... Let me get your argument. The only way that the GTX 590 (which is two throttled back 580's) will beat the 6990 (which is two throttled back 6970s) is by unlocking the clocks on the 590 to make it two full fat 580's? And only then will it make the 6990 "crumble".

Urrmmm... As Ron Burgundy said "you know that doesn't make sense"

G o to both of reviews, 6990 and 590. Ofcourse AMD wouldn't be happy with these reviews. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 1,680 x 1,050, nvidia 590 review came after 6990 review, and amd is clearly ahead, but is not listed in the 590 review. and then there two games that bit-tech did not compare with the 2 cards. Arma 2 and Just Cause 2. So they are just comparing 3 games only.

In Black Ops AMD Radeon HD 6990 4GB is worse than 5850. That's interesting too. + the fps for AMD's card in 2 reviews is totally different.

And I don't have the slightest idea why they are testing cards on Dirt 2. Because it's just not for radeon. It's like comparing which will be the best nvidia card, there is no competition with amd on that game.

Originally Posted by Pot Of Jam
Can open, worms everywhere.

Well put.

-What are the other components of the PC? They may have an impact.
-If you're using synthetic benchmarks, which ones? Different benchmarks may stress different features.
-If you're using games, which ones? Different games have been shown to heavily favor one side or the other. Just look at Dirt 2 and Nvidia, or STALKER and AMD.
-What resolution are you running at and with what settings? Different cards can have different strengths and weaknesses which may become apparent with different settings.
-Are you looking at average or minimum frames per second.
-What about anti-aliasing quality? Using a prettier method may give a better experiece even if it doesn't give as many FPS.

And countless other factors which I can't be bothered to think about.

Originally Posted by DwarfKiller
Tell them to prove it with folding...

I'm gonna go ahead and cosign this.

I love how AMD just happens to conveniently exclude real-world gaming benchmarks, especially since they've been known to have driver optimizations for those benchmarks.

It's really poor of them to do this. They realize they're outgunned, and their first reaction is to complain.

590 = Yes it'll play Crysis, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Arma II and even Minecraft
6990 = Yes it'll play Crysis, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Arma II and even Minecraft.

590 = Yes it'll bloody expensive.
6990 = Yes it'll bloody expensive.

590 = So very dependent on having drivers tweaked to the game / benchmark
6990 = So very dependent on having drivers tweaked to the game / benchmark

590 = Beats 6990 in some tests
6990 = Beats 590 in some tests

590 = For willy waving by those that own one
6990 = For willy waving by those than own one

590 = For willy waving by those that make them
6990 = For willy waving by those that make them

They seem pretty similar to me...

And I do love AMD's disclaimer...

"Dave Erskine is the Senior Public Relations Manager for Graphics Desktop at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions."

So under those terms, dear old Dave Erskine can say whatever he likes, pick and choose his "facts" as it's not AMD saying this, it's just one guy.

Originally Posted by Guinevere
And I do love AMD's disclaimer...

"Dave Erskine is the Senior Public Relations Manager for Graphics Desktop at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions."

So under those terms, dear old Dave Erskine can say whatever he likes, pick and choose his "facts" as it's not AMD saying this, it's just one guy.

this kind of disclaimer is under all blog posts so i'm not sure what you're getting at.

Here's hoping for a new graphics card manufacturer in the near future, because AMD and nVidia are starting to get long in the tooth - not mention taking the p1ss. Who cares which is faster? Well, obviously they do, but how many sales will a public hissy-fit gain for them? 0.001% increase or something?

We need a modern day equivalent of the times when we had S3, Matrox, 3dfx -- ie more competition!!

Run tests at 2560x1600 (minimum) on a wide variety of popular current games (from the last 3 years) and average out who scores better overall.

Although I prefer nVidia, I have a feeling at those resolutions the 6990 would come out on top thanks to the extra 512MB VRAM on each GPU..

I would really love to see a detailed analysis on which is actually the OVERALL fastest card. As they are quite close

Originally Posted by timevans999
Fear is the mind killer. And heat is the board killer. The one thing ive learned over the long years is that x2 cards get too hot and aren't fun when it comes to overclocking your rig. Plus stay away from nvidia's current flagship single chip cards as they tend to be too hot. Plus dual card setups have a tendancy to fry what ever card is in the secondary slot(but this could happen as much as 2-3 years after the dual install) Ah im glad i got that off my chest

not if your motherboad has 3 slot spacing for SLI/xfire - aka virtually all reasonable SandyBridge Mobos, and some higher end 1366's (some even have the two main slots 4 spaces apart due to quad capabilities)

Originally Posted by Ficky Pucker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinevere
And I do love AMD's disclaimer...

"Dave Erskine is the Senior Public Relations Manager for Graphics Desktop at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions."

So under those terms, dear old Dave Erskine can say whatever he likes, pick and choose his "facts" as it's not AMD saying this, it's just one guy.

this kind of disclaimer is under all blog posts so i'm not sure what you're getting at.

You know exactly what he's getting at.

The fact is AMD are not saying this, it's just their PR guy having a hissy fit.

Originally Posted by Guinevere
590 = Yes it'll play Crysis, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Arma II and even Minecraft
6990 = Yes it'll play Crysis, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Arma II and even Minecraft.

590 = Yes it'll bloody expensive.
6990 = Yes it'll bloody expensive.

590 = So very dependent on having drivers tweaked to the game / benchmark
6990 = So very dependent on having drivers tweaked to the game / benchmark

590 = Beats 6990 in some tests
6990 = Beats 590 in some tests

590 = For willy waving by those that own one
6990 = For willy waving by those than own one

590 = For willy waving by those that make them
6990 = For willy waving by those that make them

They seem pretty similar to me...

Very nicely put :D

Consider this 2 6950s unlocked ( aka 2 6970s) beat both for outright performance cost bearly £500 and dont sound like a vacuum cleaner in take Off mode

Anyone buying a £5-600 card is going to have an sli or crossfire board I don't really see the point in duel gpu cards

Go read amd forums about crysis 2 support as the game is crippled and bearly playable ac brotherhood is the same.

As for biggest games is that by sales?

World of Warcraft does not support duel gpu cards or sli or crossfire nor will It ever
Cod mw2 min fps above 100 on any card built in last years
Cod black ops same as above
Sims3 it runs on integrated graphics
Football manager same as above

That's by sales of pc games in last 5-6 years

Metro 2033 did not sell well
Crysis did not sell well
AVP was a truly awful game and did not sell well
They are the 3 most demanding games graphically released in the last 5 years .

Hawx the only real testilation game has nvidia ahead so far it's not even a close match 570 onwards beats any amd card

Bit tech review what people actually play. Not games nobody plays or else you could add those 4 games into results would not change much

Originally Posted by rollo


Go read amd forums about crysis 2 support as the game is crippled and bearly playable ac brotherhood is the same.

Err so what version of Crysis 2 have I been playing then? I have 2 x 6870's and it's running extreme settings on a 1920 x 1200 res...

So far I have not noticed any "crippling" game play.

Greetings!

Originally Posted by rollo
Go read amd forums about crysis 2 support as the game is crippled and bearly playable ac brotherhood is the same.

The usual TWIMTBP games?

Rollo the logic of you arguement would have Bit-tech simply saying in their gpu reviews

"You're all playing these games...

World of Warcraft
Cod mw2
Cod black ops
Sims3
Football manager

....this HDxxxx or this xxxgtx gives you 60fps no probs. Enjoy." End of review!

Where as Metro, Crysis and, as you say AvP do test a gpu but aren't used in the reviews... from Bit-tech 20.10.10. review of the 470 AMP! ed. ...

"Ah, yes, but can it play Crysis? There, we beat you to it...

If there’s one game to prove whether a graphics card has enough performance to cope with any game you might throw at it, it’s Crysis. Even though the game released in November 2007, it still remains one of the most visually stunning games around, with volumetric fog, crisp textures and more eye-candy than an optician’s sweet shop."

That was the last gpu review to use Crysis. Isn't the point of a test review to actually test the cards in a controlled and FAIR manner? However Dirt 2 remains as a bench mark to this day. Which is strange given...

"However, Dirt 2 is a game in which Nvidia cards perform very well and this means that the HD 6870 1GB is fighting off competition from the GeForce GTX 460 1GB rather than its price point competitor" ...Bit-tech's 22.10.10 review of the HD6870.

And this...

"In Dirt 2, a game in which we’ve found Nvidia cards hold a significant advantage, the 6990..." ...from Bit-tech's 6990 review.

Which of Arma ll, Bad Company 2 or CoD:Black Ops is known to 'favour' AMD gpus?

A game that tests all cards is dropped, a game known to favour one gpu supplier is kept. Go figure!

The point was the 5 most popular games by sales can be played on max on any settings on any midrange card at the popular resolution aka 1920x 1080 16af 4aa. 3 are console ports 1 is the sims and 1 is wow.

The amount who play

Arma2 metro 2033 orginal crysis avp is probably less than just 1 of those games. And I'd guess bit tech have checked there page view count and relise black ops tops page count

590 and 6990 both suffer issues with crysis 2 that is related to the drivers I didn't mention the 6970 which for reference can play on extreme at that Rez

So Rollo: is the point of a gpu test to see how well it plays what is popular or how well it plays that which graphically testing?

And is it fair to have a game where...[Bit-tech]"have found Nvidia cards hold a significant advantage"?

But can they play tetris?

Fingers duel gpu needs to beat the equive sli cf setup or it's pointless and that includes price no one who knows anything will buy this or 590 as both get beaten and if your board does not support sli cf you need a bigger upgrade than a £600 gpu

6970 cf beats both for alot less money

Don't forget. Both cards use a hell lot more power and two GPU but only manage about 40 percent faster than Gtx 580.

Whichever way you look at it, I think zero fuss fastest single GPU solution is still best at the moment. :p

Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Don't forget. Both cards use a hell lot more power and two GPU but only manage about 40 percent faster than Gtx 580.

Whichever way you look at it, I think zero fuss fastest single GPU solution is still best at the moment. :p

Depending on your needs, a single GTX580 only goes so far afterall. It may draw less power and cost less for the performance, but if your performance requirements are higher than it provides then it's not a viable option. Once you pass the realm of the GTX580's performance your only options are multi-GPU single card, multi-card, suck it up and drop your performance requirements, or suck it up and wait for next-gen. :D

Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Don't forget. Both cards use a hell lot more power and two GPU but only manage about 40 percent faster than Gtx 580.

Whichever way you look at it, I think zero fuss fastest single GPU solution is still best at the moment. :p

According to this http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/03/08/amd-radeon-hd-6990-review/9 the 6990 pulls less power than a 580 when idle and only around 20% more under load?

Although, the 590 pulls a similar amount of power to the 580 when idle but 45% more under load
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/24/nvidia-geforce-gtx-590-3gb-review/8

Still, i think the 580 probably makes better sense at the minute, especially given the lack of games pushing graphics hardware.

I haven't been a huge fan of sandwich or dual gpu cards for this exact reason. There is no conclusive recommendation anywhere stating their superiority over single cards when you weigh up cost, performance and power draw.

I'm with Frontline with the 580. There's nothing really testing beyond that.

Originally Posted by Snips
I haven't been a huge fan of sandwich or dual gpu cards for this exact reason. There is no conclusive recommendation anywhere stating their superiority over single cards when you weigh up cost, performance and power draw.

I'm with Frontline with the 580. There's nothing really testing beyond that.

I'll just go ahead and...

Originally Posted by Sloth
Depending on your needs, a single GTX580 only goes so far afterall. It may draw less power and cost less for the performance, but if your performance requirements are higher than it provides then it's not a viable option. Once you pass the realm of the GTX580's performance your only options are multi-GPU single card, multi-card, suck it up and drop your performance requirements, or suck it up and wait for next-gen. :D

There's a very simple and extremely conclusive recommendation for dual GPU setups (including SLI/CF). If your single GPU card doesn't give playable frame rates for your given setup, then it's out of the picture.

Now, there's certainly some debate about what SLI/CF setups are better than multi-GPU cards. That isn't so conclusive.

Originally Posted by Sloth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snips
I haven't been a huge fan of sandwich or dual gpu cards for this exact reason. There is no conclusive recommendation anywhere stating their superiority over single cards when you weigh up cost, performance and power draw.

I'm with Frontline with the 580. There's nothing really testing beyond that.

I'll just go ahead and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloth
Depending on your needs, a single GTX580 only goes so far afterall. It may draw less power and cost less for the performance, but if your performance requirements are higher than it provides then it's not a viable option. Once you pass the realm of the GTX580's performance your only options are multi-GPU single card, multi-card, suck it up and drop your performance requirements, or suck it up and wait for next-gen. :D

There's a very simple and extremely conclusive recommendation for dual GPU setups (including SLI/CF). If your single GPU card doesn't give playable frame rates for your given setup, then it's out of the picture.

Now, there's certainly some debate about what SLI/CF setups are better than multi-GPU cards. That isn't so conclusive.

That isnt a simple or extremely conclusive recommendation at all.

Originally Posted by Snips
That isnt a simple or extremely conclusive recommendation at all.

Consider someone wishing to play Arma II and BF:BC2 at 2,560x1,600 with all the settings maxed on each, and at a minimum of 30FPS. Hmmmm, let's see, looks like the GTX590 is the only option from the cards tested which meets the criteria for both games. The 6990 doesn't cut it for Arma II, and all other cards fail on both games.

What isn't conclusive is finding out what setups missing from the cards tested may work.

Your argument seems to be based off of your applications not requiring a dual GPU card. There are, however, other people out there with different desires.

Not many I may add.

LMFAO

Nvidia and AMD/ATI comparing there schlongs again?

So what if Nvidia or AMD/ATI have the fastest card?

I have 2 GTX 580's in sli and at the moment I am struggling to play games due to the crappy driver's although that may be my fault will find out over the weekend.

I chose to get 2 GTX 580's instead of a 6990 or 590 because I wanted the better performance and I don't like having 2 gpu's on 1 pcb.

I think they should run games like:

Crysis
Crysis Warhead
Crysis 2
BFBC2
Metro 2033

All these games are more demanding than the ones they use in 90% of the reviews, as the rest of them are all crappy console port's.

Modern Warfare 2 was limited to 90fps, Black Op's gain's no performance increase from using a top of the range card from a bottom of the range card.

Folding has been Nvidia's trump card for quite a while now, and I would love to see ATI finally claw it back but I cannot see it happening.

"Folding has been Nvidia's trump card for quite a while now, and I would love to see ATI finally claw it back but I cannot see it happening"

While a worthy cause it is a niché of a niché.

There a so many flaws/holes/outrightmisleadinginformation in Bit-Tech's 590 review it's worthy of the monika "Swiss Cheese"!!!

fanboys here, fanboys there, fanboys everywhere, my god, your all boring me to death, couldnt give a toss which card or company has the better or fastest card, BORING, now im away to fire up my ancient 1650x pro and play world of tanks, at 12 fps....my next upgrade will be to 2 gtx250's in sli, why ?, cause its bloody cheap thats why, about £60, thats all I need to power games. You are all desperate to think you have the best system, the most powerfull gpu, try and think about the games, and what you need to play em, me, im into WoT and combat arms, both require a very low base level, direct x 11 wont be worth investing in until christmas at least.

Originally Posted by mingemuncher
fanboys here, fanboys there, fanboys everywhere, my god, your all boring me to death, couldnt give a toss which card or company has the better or fastest card, BORING, now im away to fire up my ancient 1650x pro and play world of tanks, at 12 fps....my next upgrade will be to 2 gtx250's in sli, why ?, cause its bloody cheap thats why, about £60, thats all I need to power games. You are all desperate to think you have the best system, the most powerfull gpu, try and think about the games, and what you need to play em, me, im into WoT and combat arms, both require a very low base level, direct x 11 wont be worth investing in until christmas at least.

I respect your thoughts, just buy what you need, I agree.

However, there are those of us that need more power than playing WoT at 12FPS. I commend you for braving 12FPS.

I think that the only one-up that AMD has on Nvidia right now is the ability to go 5x1 portrait mode with five displays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkDX2pcg0U

From the bench marks I have see the new Radeon 7000 series does better at higher resolutions than Nvidia again so the 7990 may yet beat the 690 in multiple monitor setups too. http://www.whichgraphicscard.com