Printable View
Really no tradeoffs? The power consumption is around the 6990 is OC mode and the temps...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031535.png
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/747-...thermique.html
6990 : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/747-...thermique.html
Noise levels are lower, but calling it "very quiet" is a stretch. Although they indeed make say, what was AMD thinking? I guess it will be up to the AIBs to design something better there.
The graphics card industry has been a disappointment for the last 4 years, and the trend continues.
Yeah, i'd agree with that. What gets me is somebody claiming that performance takes a back seat, when the community furiously objects to any opinion that anything other than an intel CPU is not worthy of consideration. So what i'd like to know, is only the best worthy of XS or not? These ever changing goal posts are a real problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Both cards are disappointing but I would choose the 6990 at this point because of the overclocking danger that might be on the gtx 590. Both are fast enough for current games but none the less, I would say the 6990 is slightly faster. BUtthe only reason I would get get a 6990 is because I also have a water block. That tomshardware video makes the 6990 sound unusable with it stock cooling.
If I didn't have a water setup I would choose the gtx 590.
Both cards are showing the limitations of being stuck on 40nm which makes both cards a barrel of compromises.
Yeah, hopefully 28nm fixes the short comings we're seeing now. The feeling you get from 40nm on these latest chips from both is kinda like wearing shoes a size too small, it just doesn't quite seem comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
That's kind of pointless. It's a popular game. Just bench Civ V gameplay and stick the Civ V Compute benchmark where it belongs with all the other compute benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Anandtech seems to sort it just fine. :shrug:
I think people who seriously want a 590 or 6990 should wait for their special versions from Asus Gigabyte Msi ... I think the partners can improve these cards a lot and make them worth it.
well some of us do have standards.... when the performance difference is as small as 5-10% it makes sense and as pointed out there are extra bonuses that the GTX 590 has over the 6990 which for some people are a really big deal...Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
AMD CPU's are just not competitive for almost any sort of high performance computing especially RTS (CPU intensive) gaming.... Sandy Bridge destroys AMD's current CPU in almost every way possible.... to think of getting one for an "Xtreme System" would be questionable.... ya they are "good CPUs" and fine for web browsing or for your parents computer but they get cleaned out pretty good in everything else.
I can see myself in many situations recommending a GTX 590 for customers of mine. but not an AMD CPU for anything besides home usage.... in which case I would most likely recommend an i3 to save some money...
granted once you OC 1100T to around 4GHZ it can handle pretty much any gaming without issue.... But why you would get one over a cheaper 2500K that can OC to 5GHZ is beyond me....
probably caused by a that whole 230/115v conundrum...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
looks like a lot of people have had issues:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...&postcount=137
Amazing reading ... so the 6990 has a better thermal performance all in all ? Really weird after all what was said about GTX590 cooling and temperatures...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Must agree here again. The monolitic nvidia design needs an upgradeQuote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Well when i agree on 40nm .... speaking about watercooling only for the 6990 is way to exagerate. third party air coolers, as the Artic cooling one, is to an option, when someone want OC under aircooling for the CPU, he buy a Noctua or whatever good air cooler, when someone want or silent or performance, this is the same for the GPU .. ofc here we are compare ref vs ref cards ..Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
this is really starting to be sucpiscious, ofc i retain all judgement before get more infos about this...Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanw1995
What do you understand by "thermal performance"? The 590 is more efficient at taking the heat away from the cores, but since it takes more power in watts, those have to be disposed somewhere. 6990 disposes half of the heat back into the case, the 590 more than half, since there are memory chips on the backside, cooled by semi-backplates. This is most likely the reason for the 111C reading on the back. Still, that heat has to go somewhere. Another point in case would be measurments done at Anandtech:Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
Code:Seagate 500GB Hard Drive Temperatures
Video Card Temperature
GeForce GTX 590 42C
Radeon HD 6990 37C
Radeon HD 6990OC 40C
Radeon 6970CF 27C
Yeah, but Civ is within Steam's top 10 with above 15,000 players on a regular basis. So is CS:S, Shogun 2, BLOPS / MW2, TF2, and L4D2. *Including* (but not being exclusive) any of these games in a testing suite is almost a prerequisite for staying relevant and not just benchmarking fancy tech demos like AvP: 264 current players in the 1 million steam users online.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
^ On all those games you listed, except Shogun, does it matter which card gets the better frame rate when they are pushing 150 fps anyway at high res and AA?
I mean, CS:S? TF2? Source at all?
On the subject of games in the suite, X3: Terran Conflict is often overlooked because it is massively CPU bound. But if you are benchmarking with a 4GHz+, you'll really unlock that game. Ramp up the res and the AA and pop into a crowded sector and watch your graphics card take a beating. I recommend this game to all reviewers who have overlooked it.
I can promise you that Shogun WILL be added once the DX11 patch is released in the next few weeks. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
I love those guys over there :up: :up: :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Keep it cold it will run.
Seems NVIDIA has an FAQ up about the OCP:
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/n...p?p_faqid=2947
Are you serious man? I can game CSS @ 2560x1600 on my 8800 Ultra at high FPS :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
That's strange, because busy situations in TF2 @ 1440 x 900, 2xAA 8xAF with a 4850 and a C2D e7200 at 3.2 Ghz are still not as smooth as I'd like them to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich
Including a source game serves as a valuable reference for those of us who have old cards. We know how our cards perform, we can see how newer cards perform, and we can at least roughly translate this performance upgrade to other games.
Another thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Just for you :D
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4239/n...ngle-card-king
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=716&Itemid=72
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...0-3gb-review/1
http://www.chiphell.com/en/graphics/nvidia-gtx-590/
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/g...force-gtx-590/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...o_card_review/
http://hardwarebg.com/geforce-gtx590...8%D0%B0%D0%BB/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...gb-review.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/825-...e-gtx-590.html
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29724&page=1
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDI...F110s-One-PCB/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...90-sli-review/
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/asus-ge...-of-the-titans
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/asus-gt...-frecventa-cpu
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1576/1/
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/g...tx590_review/1
http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=948018
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1098
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/artikkel...-590-2-x-gf110
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...Force_GTX_590/
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/03/...g-of-the-hill/
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20629
http://www.techspot.com/review/378-n...force-gtx-590/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...6990,2898.html
http://www.tomshw.it/cont/articolo/g...0/30402/1.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...e-gtx-590.html
1. $700 video card buyers can afford the power difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
2. was it guru3d that has the performance difference across many games averaged as 3%?
3. most kids think noise doesnt matter. I know, I was one. then we grow up. 6990 is significantly, prohibitively more noisy than 590.
Video of a GTX 590 going POP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRo-1...layer_embedded
The problem with these is, one result can give you a completely skewed picture. Take for example Far Cry 2 being 30% faster on the 590. Remove that one ancient nVidia benchmark and that 3% faster overall now looks quite removed from the average.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
Maybe I'm missing something about what you're talking about but the 590 is slower than the 6990 in farcry2, at least in the couple reviews I have looked at.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
From what I can gather of your disdain towards Nvidia you would probably want them to keep that one ancient farcry2 in the round ups to pump up the 6990's avg, no?
Cool story bro, there's a reason I own a $350 water loop to cool my $220 CPU, hint hint, it has to do with noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
It's really not very hard to modify fan curves in Radeon BIOS Editor or even afterburner, simply setting the fan manually to 45-50% would solve the noise issue.
I own a 4870X2 in my other rig, I know exactly how annoying these cards can be.
What I was saying is that the TPU review shows that the 6990 is ahead perf per watt overall by 20% despite being over 30% slower than the 590 was in two of TPU's game tests.
Performance across the board was nearly even, but the 6990 gained over the 590 at high resolutions.
Can the HD6990 stay stable at a lower fan speed?
I suppose it would depend on what you call stable, able to run games for 6 hours straight, furmark for an hour or running F@H 24/7...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Temps in TPU review were ~85c on both cores, 87 and 91 with a 10% OC, I'm sure you could run stock speeds with a lower fan speed and stay under 100c...
And this isnt the first time that Nvidia's drivers have caused their cards to explode. They had some drivers for some Blizzard game (cant remember which game or card) that cause card explosions too :D
I see a few people whining about ATI drivers again, at least ATI's drivers dont cause their cards to blow up.
EVGA GTX 590 Classified
Single & Twin Packs
http://www.evga.com/articles/00621/
Any game that didnt have functioning Vsync could cause it. Because lets face it, too many FPS is BAD for us! Cant have more than vsync, nope!Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
At idle, yes. Loaded, in some cases. But then people would complain about high temperatures (while not bothering to check fan speeds).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
LOL Twin packs ..... awesome, I notice after the recent noise about their warranty they have mentioned it clearly in every card's specs. 22mhz oc for a classified edition :(
sweclockers video of a 590 popping :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRo-1...layer_embedded
only 1.025v... so yeah, theres def something wrong with those drivers...
I think this is the third or forth time we see this very link in this thread.
sorry :D
I wonder if that hurts the MSI "Lightning" branding.
Is there any review with microstutter or image quality comparison with 6990?
Why is SKYMTL so much behind Nvidia always :-P
If Nvidia is depending on drivers for any sort of hardware protection, that is a big problem in itself.... and a really crappy design.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Quote:
Some websites have said the issue is isolated to the ForceWare 267.52 drivers, but this isn't true as we only tested on the FW 267.71 driver and ours did die as well when overclocking.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/19192/...oke/index.htmlQuote:
Do Not increase voltage above 1.05v, even if the option is there to go higher. We've only heard as high as 1.000v has been tested.
That's not his fault. Sascha doesn't know very well XS ... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by p2501
1.05v set by software is really 1.1v measured with a DMM. The VRM on GTX 590 is a joke, look at those tiny chokes :)
The tiny chokes are giving tiny farts ... but smelly as hell !!! eheheh
Bahhhhhh ... "worthless piece of junk" ... lol
ThxQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
Though my opinion on this card hasn't changed.
In the end they're equal, the only problem is higher nvidia price
I cant comprehend how people think this card gives less heat than the 6990 while at the same time consuming more power :-/.
Ive looked at anand results and it seems card is a bit hotter than 6990, has virtually same heatsinks and heats inside of a pc more.
Its quieter because they use different fan, its by no means quiet tho.Any sensible person would change cooling on these cards to some huge radiator or water.
All in all, they are the same.One gets faster in title A, other one in title B.They Consume similar power (nv a little more) and are not quiet (nv a little quieter) .
Ati is longer, but 590 seems to have a Explode Ready feature.
Is that right. Any sensible person. Is that what you're doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Did you read the review? I mean actually READ it? I thought I was quite transparent about the card's shortcomings.Quote:
Originally Posted by regenade
As for the "puff of smoke" issue, I am taking a wait and see approach rather than running around like my hair is on fire.
Its pretty stupid that NVIDIA priced the GTX 590 higher than the 6990, both are on equal performance. As usual, NVIDIA's pricing on their products don't surprise me.
I never use reference cooling.Either i use third party one or buy a vendor modified one so it can stay cool n quiet.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
Is that weird ?
And i own mid range gpus.On high end ones i would think its a no brainer.
Another GTX 590 bites the dust, this time on suggested Nvidia drivers 267.71
link: http://pclab.pl/news45334.html
It has nothing to do with drivers, the pcb and the vrm in particular sucks big time and is seriously underpowered and I'm going to go into the sensors reporting issue. How long do you think an electronic part can survive at 110 degrees celsius?
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031587.png
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/825-...e-gtx-590.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
not agian you need to use goolgle translate lol:p:
about as long as the 6990? or the 5980?Quote:
Originally Posted by halfwaythere
the 59x2 cards i had would easy get over 120c on vrm area.;)
but yeah f these duel cards dont even want to see aibs wasting time to make them better. spend r&d time on 28mn
the worst duel franken launch card ever... it seems just like yesterday i was using rivatuner to add volts without a hicup on my 295/gx2 cards
heck my 7950x2 can take the added voltage better.:yepp:
maybe better next time to not skimp ou to keep cost down on a "best card we ever made"product.
4870 X2s were the hottest dual GPU cards made and could run up to 120 degrees without going pop this easily.
this is definitely true, when i had issues with mounting my waterblock my vrm area would hit 124C and never had an issue with the card itself..and this was for more then a few runs until i figured out the mounting issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Bottom line is they went cheap on a certain area for god knows what reasons and more then likely will pay the price for it.
It seems to explain why they were "able" to make 590 shorter than 6990.They didnt engineer them with enough spare OC room.More beefed up VRM would take more space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
If thats the case, so much for innovation!
So I take it Futuremark is just to stressful on GPU's now ?
I thought that was the whole idea of it, stress the GPU's to max and see the score.
I wonder if Nvidia told them not to use Futurmark ?
From Guru3D
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/7
Note: As of lately, there has been a lot of discussion using FurMark as stress test to measure power load. Furmark is so malicious on the GPU that it does not represent an objective power draw compared to really hefty gaming. If we take a very-harsh-on-the-GPU gaming title, then measure power consumption and then compare the very same with Furmark, the power consumption can be 50 to 100W higher on a high-end graphics card solely because of FurMark.
After long deliberation we decided to move away from FurMark and are now using a game like application which stresses the GPU 100% yet is much more representable of power consumption and heat levels coming from the GPU. We however are not disclosing what application that is as we do not want AMD/NVIDIA to 'optimize & monitor' our stress test whatsoever, for our objective reasons of course.
So now we have no idea on what they used to run there tests on so we cannot repeat or try to at home. That makes perfect sense to me, hide the results you get with software only they know what was used :shrug:
Furmark =/= Futuremark
Ah yes, my mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by RSC
Still what I said holds true
The 4870x2 was an engineering masterpiece and can't be compared with the 590 which uses sub-high end standard components. Some cards are built to run at high temps while others just crash and go pop.
sweet. i know that these are limited for power consumption, I wonder if somone unlocked its potential and fed it all the wattage it could take if it would be a massive boostQuote:
Originally Posted by vern
It's ridiculous. How can anyone take any review seriously anymore, when the goal posts keep changing to suit the reviewers agenda. Does anyone really believe reviews are impartial and there is any sort of objectivity? My guess is that many of these reviewers have a (in)vested interest in public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
A standardized set of review criteria, like the Phoronix test suite, would go a LONG way in creating a fair and open playing field that doesn't change on a per review basis. There is no way hardware vendors can sastisfy consumers when they are constantly bombarded with different demands (from entitled reviewers and enthusiasts alike) and these designs can be 5 years in the making. There is something inherently flawed with the entire system and surely it will reach a breaking point, that much seems pretty obvious. Just throwing a gazillion reviews at the problem, and taking the average isn't going to accomplish anything.
/rant :D
Looking at the component numbers on a retail GTX 590 shows me VRMs that are rated for extended use at 175°, capacitors that are rated at 105°C, a 12-layer PCB with a copper core and chokes that are good to 125°. Seems perfectly suitable and in line with most other high-end GPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfwaythere
The only potential issue I see is the 5-phase x 2 design that may not be sufficient for the current generated by highly increased core voltage.
:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mycoolcar
Damn, these dying cards appear to be popping up decently. Considering this is extremesystems, this appears to be an unbuyable card due to these shortcomings. NV should of made the card long with better cooling.
My little space heater brings back memories.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
I had 2 4870's X2 die and I made a thread on Guru3D that alot of people have the same issue. Even though they can run hot it isn't desirable and lead to early death of alot of cards. I always kept my fan speed cranked up and it keep it 65-75C on the GPU. The problem is that the VRM's had insufficient (or no) cooling. This causes them to go bad. I had both my original and RMA replacement have the VRMs go bad and there are dozens of people on Guru3D that had the same issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
The reviewers cards that have blown up, are the reviewers fault for pumping 1.2v through it with stock cooling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X.T.R.E.M.E_ICE
SweClockers.comQuote:
Benchmark running was 3DMark 11. Settings used during card failure:
GPU Clock @ 772 MHz
GPU VCore @ 1,025 V
I am just going to dump some more fermi burning pics for the occasion.
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/147...fermititle.jpg
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7...mididegypt.jpg
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5...rmiliftoff.jpg
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8...6378325097.jpg
I'd sum it up this way:
While nVidia did a fair job releasing a card that is (questionably though) as fast as 6990, that is shorter (at what cost) than the competition and is "qieter" (at the cost of dumping more heat inside the case thus heating everything else). All in all as the pricing suggests in the end the two cards are "equal" at the usual higher consumption on the green side I already got used to.
BUT, what pisses me off is that nvidia failed AGAIN on the hardware front. As it seems to me for quite some time now, nvidia opts for cheaper components, weaker design, and "fair enough" overall construction to save some money (and make more) on us. On people who made them who they are.
Sure, their driver team is a bit better on the game optimization front, and their drivers can generally be considered more stable, but I have never seen an ati driver being even remotely responsible for the death of their hardware (remember the fried nvidia cards with stopped fans?).
Everybody makes mistakes. But if someone makes the same "mistakes" (is it?) again and again it's definitely not good.
I'd really love to buy an nvidia product, I would really like them to deserve my money again but I am a hardware guy and on the hardware side of things there is no real choice for the past couple of years. Even in the days ati had the most powerhungry cards, they were constructed to withstand not just the normal operation.
The most sad thing about this all is that they generally do this to their high end. ...and do I want a burnt 700$ card to extend my collection of dead hardware? No.
How long did they run before they died?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
my 4870x2 is still kicking. Have run it 24/7 since I got it.
Yes, the cooling solution on the 4870x2 left a LOT to be desired..
I've had my 4870X2 up around 1.35v no problems :/
But then again I've only ran it 3-4 times for less than a week.
I wish to see no power limiter ICs for both AMD / NVIDIA
We already have 590's, and 570's blowing up, why would you want to remove the chip that attempts to stop some of them sometimes when it feels like it depending on the day, driver, and tilt of the galaxy from blowing up, catching fire or smoke....Quote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
How can you call this "very quiet" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAADf...layer_embeddedQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Sure its quieter than a 6990 but its still loud as hell.
Looks like i made the right choice picking upo the 6990 over the 590, Now just a matter of time till i pick up a koolance block for it since i dont like the noise :)
Is the innovation award you gave the 590 the highest you dish out? I enjoyed your review BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
As for 590 running cooler and quieter, I thought this was pretty interesting.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...53&postcount=1
No doubt a future driver version will have a default fan speed increase, and make this quieter card not so quiet anymore. After all the initial reviews are done, and first impressions of a quiet card are cast of course.
This card blows, literally. :rofl:
That would be despicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Those pics only show the hotter vrm area of the 590 not the cores and on the 6990 shows only the core.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
IMHO F these x2 cored cards no matter amd or nv :p:
:rofl: :rofl:
Anyone notice this?
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=47
wow, when W1zzard want make some " funny things " ... well im not right with all the conclusion but that's another story.
hahahahaha :DQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
dunno why this card would be called "epic fail" though... especially when compared to 6990 I think it would be the better card if not for the exploding card syndrome, obviously it's a huge issue but it's not mentioned in the TPU review, so I don't know what basis they have for calling it epic fail.
Here the 590 costs 100€ more than the HD6990. I think that this is a good reason to call it epic fail :down:
We can also add that in the things that matter with this gpu's (higher resolution, multimonitor, 3d) HD6990 is the better choice performance wise.
1920x1080/1920x1200 --> too low for a dual gpu.
They need a more expensive "6GB" 590 to do something. And thats another problem of not using 256bit, if they want to compete they need to put more memory than necessary.
Really ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/..._card_review/3
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4...zcp5we335l.gif
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/211...zcp5we345l.gif
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5...zcp5we355l.gif
http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/3...zcp5we365l.gif
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4...zcp5we375l.gif
Another triple monitor review. Again both cards perform the same
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...lletstorm.html
Another one with both cards O/C and again both perform the same.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html
I will agree at 2560x1600 HD6990 is the fastest card.
Dunno if this is previously posted, but:
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/n...p?p_faqid=2947
:shrug:
Im pretty sure it was simply an unlucky coincidence :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrdurr
:shocked::ROTF::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
thanks oth
Like the unlucky coincidende of his review showing the GTX590 being faster (all resolutions), cooler, quieter, more OCable (22% vs 10% of the 6990) and consuming less power and still it got a final score of... 7.0, versus the 9.1 of the 6990. Oh, and then he blew the card up with 1.2v and... stock clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by h0bbes
I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidende.
He probably took off points for the card dying. It's a lot harder to win a decathlon if you drop dead during one of the events.
I think you need to read that review once again, more carefully and apply a bit of logic too (to the "all resolutions" part).Quote:
Originally Posted by RSC