Naa this is the clock reported overclocked using the 3th party software Afterburner, the card seems to be only 607mhz... I hope the card can oc to more of 840mhz anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
Printable View
Naa this is the clock reported overclocked using the 3th party software Afterburner, the card seems to be only 607mhz... I hope the card can oc to more of 840mhz anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
Lanek's right: 840Mhz is the MSI afterburners limit. I don't think you'll be seeing much over 700Mhz with the stock cooling.
Of course I mean desktop cards. The 590 is a desktop cards after all. Me saying non-full support implies there is a card with fulldp support. Otherwise I wouldn't have even mentioned it. Geez. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
Good spot, the translated source says "38% overclocking potential". They should set the limit at 9001mhz. Imagine the marketing possibilites. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by halfwaythere
Or do it like asus does when they claim 50% OC, as in 50% better than the default volt oc, say 100 Mhz +50% = 150 MHz OC. You just gotta love marketing. :ROTF:
The way you wrote it implied that Fermi cards in general don’t have full DP support.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Even without full DP support, DP analogy for GTX590 will be higher than GTX295 but I don’t think he cares about DP with Cuda for Folding ;)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/n...th-the-wait-/6
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/n...5215/22218.png
fulldp is not utilized in folding @ home, at least at the time of that review.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
Since all the reviews you are talking about were done with 11.1 and 11.2 drivers that were out BEFORE the 6990, you are so right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
But 11.4 BETA are turning the table aroung. Look at the slides. Here, 3 of the most demanding games out there, and 6990 and 580 SLi are head-to-head.
Blah blah blah about the limited VRAM on the 580 Nvidia. But Nvidia are selling those POS card 500$, not me. And the 6990+6970 cost also 1000$. It's a real massacre. 580 SLI is totally obliterated.
And this is with BETA 11.4 drivers! So why talk about ''95% of the benchmarks'' with drivers that were out before even the 6990 was out! So relevant! 11.4 are the first drivers to support the 6990. Nah. Pesky little details. So easy to compare with old drivers not supporting the card.
The WEAK point of the 590 is the limited amount of VRAM, not the clock speeds. Look at the slides! Look what not enough VRAM is giving you! The results with the 590 will be the same, or lower then 580 SLI, since it's with lower clock speeds. And the limiting amount of VRAM will the same. 1.5Gb only. Results will be the same with the 590 against 6990.
Please look at those slides. Where do you see 580 SLI ''dominating'' the 6990? I don't see that. Point me to it. Please, analyze those slides, and don't elude the question by posting irrelevant videos. And not some old benchmarks done with 11.1 or 11.2. drivers... There are plenty of those stupid reviews done with drivers that were out before the 6990 was even out on the market. Too easy. But commenting those slides with 11.4 is tougher. And shouting ''troll fanboy FACT FAIL AMD DRIVERS, blah blah blah'' is so much easier and convenient. :)
The 6990 on OC BIOS is clearly head-to-head with 580 SLI 1.5GB. Please explain the ''domination''. I see 6990+6970 dominating the 580 SLI at the same price point, but not the 6990 OC BIOS versus 580 SLI. And the 590 will also by limited with only 1.5Gb. Same thing. Look at the slide. You can call me troll or fanboy all you want, but the topic is the 590, and that card will be underclock compared to 580 SLI, and also have only 1.5GB like those. So those slides are totally relevant to the topic.
People really beleive the 590 will BEAT 580 SLI? No. Or else Nvidia would sell the 590 1200$. They won't antagonize their 580 SLi market.
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031277.gif
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031319.gif
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031284.gif
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031323.gif
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031286.gif
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0031325.gif
And why not post your famous videos of 3X580 1.5GB, but against 3X6970 2GB this time with 11.4 drivers? Where are they? No. Since it would be too logical to do it. :) And since the 3X580 1.5Gb are VRAM limited, 3X6970 would be better. No. All happy to do 2X6990 against 3X580 1.5gb. But 3X 6970 should also be threre to compare, and with 11.4 (not 11.1) to be relevant. :rolleyes:
Or why no videos of 6990+6970 against 580 SLi 1.5Gb?
No. Too easy. 2X6990 against 3X 580, while even my old mother knows that Quad-Fire on 2 cards doesn't scale well, just like Quad-SLI (2X590) will totally loose against 3X 6970 2Gb. SAME THING.
Why not do a more logical video of 2X6990 against 2X590 next week? That,s what I want to see.
Does Folding@Home use DP at all ?? I had the impression it only uses FP32.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyshaw
I have often expressed my concerns over the lack of VRAM on high end GPU's Not only for frame buffer and >1920*1200 resolution, but also as there are games which love the extra VRAM (especially when you start adding high resolution texture packs to them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Levesque
Unless nVidia either significantly increase the efficiency of memory allocation on their GPU's and/or special editions of the GTX590 with 3GB per GPU are released your analysis will be absolutely correct.
Oh and IF special edition 590's with 3GB per GPU are released they will be very, very, very expensive
John
i never said ati drivers suck...Quote:
Originally Posted by Levesque
i had just as many issues with ati drivers as i had with nvidia drivers...
yepp, a lot of people already made up their mind and are trying to justify their decision :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
thats true... the position of the power plugs on the 590 are really bad for ln2 and not great for water either...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
i dont think that itll make people chose a 6990 over a 590... people who want a 590 will still go for it i think...
Correct, the GPU code only uses FP32 currently. And in fact a lot of scientific code use DP only as a safety measure against cumulative precision loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
I really don't understand what you're asking. 3D rendering is an extremely compute intensive process and the vast majority of that burden falls to the graphics card. What do you mean by the GPU is the bottleneck? The reason a cheap dinky CPU is good enough is because 3D rendering is a mostly GPU intensive task. Anybody who follows this scene should know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Try rendering a game on your CPU and see how well your 95w CPU does at that task.
That's not what I'm talking about. There are plenty of tasks for a CPU to do. It is running the rest of the computer's programs as well. A single core CPU doesn't cut it anymore. That's why we have 4 and 6 core CPUs. Also, GPU's will always be better at their given tasks. A GPU with hundreds of cores is far better at chucking out pixels very quickly than a few cores from the CPU. However, a CPU is much better at taking linear instructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
What I'm saying is that a very CPU intensive game such as BC2 can be maxed out on a high-powered dual core or a mediocre quad core, and the framerate will remain above 60 FPS if the video cards are powerful enough. It calculates a lot of stuff. Gun shots/hit detection, environmental interactions, physics calculations, plotting character movement and AI interactions, etc. On top of all that, it runs any sorts of programs the OS is running in the back ground as well, including the sound driver, video driver, hardware controllers, etc. The CPU is the brain of the computer. Somehow, that dinky CPU can do a ton of stuff while the GPU is completely devoted to rendering in games.
For reference, I bet we could have games that uses twice as much CPU resources as BC2, and if you get a SB i5/i7 CPU (around $230) a $110 motherboard, and $50 worth of memory, it will chew it up and spit it right back in your face. You do the same thing for games (create a game that uses twice as much rendering power) and the best video cards out there will choke and sputter, even the uber powerful $1000 video card setups. Hell, we still can't max out Crysis at 60 FPS without spending $1000+ on video hardware. Even a couple 6990's can't keep Crysis above 60 FPS the entire time. (Start @ 17:49 for Crysis) That game was released 4 years ago. Why is it still a benchmark for which hardware companies are trying to overcome?
GPUs are very complex pieces of hardware. No doubt. But a GPU cannot function on its own with out a CPU to drive it. A GPU does not render that scene by itself unless it's programmed to do so. It still has to have the coordinates for rendering and other instructions given by the CPU. That's why a benchmark like Heaven requires about 5-20% of CPU power to run flawlessly, even though it has virtually no AI or interactions requiring CPU power.
Sorry but I'm really not getting your point here. You started off saying that GPUs are "bottlenecking CPUs". That's completely false. A cheap CPU is enough to run most games but we need expensive GPU hardware. That's cause games don't need much CPU power but a lot of GPU speed. That's not the fault of GPU manufacturers or GPU hardware, it's just a fact based on how the software is written.
A bottleneck occurs when a component is unable to do more work because it's held up by another component. That's not the case here. CPUs don't do more work cause the software isn't giving them more work to do.
So you're saying that the first statement is false, and the second statement is true? A bottleneck happens when a piece of hardware isn't fast enough to keep up with the rest of the computer. Very rarely is a CPU the bottleneck. Most of the time the GPU is the bottleneck in a game. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't see how the first half and the second half of that statement don't go hand in hand. When a GPU bottlenecks a CPU, it means the GPU isn't fast enough to keep up. It also means that you can use lower power CPU's to run games in most instances.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
You just reinforced my point about GPUs not being able to keep up with CPUs. Thanks. :)
I'm not sure what the performance will be on a 590 but from what I recall you can bottleneck a cpu with software audio requiring enough hardware threads and cpu cycles that an overclock may be needed. And the thing is most of the newer games coming out today use software audio. This isn't implying that those games audio bottleneck the cpu. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical situation when now you want the full CPU's attention to run a dual gpu solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Too true. My fiance's system with an e8400 idles at around 5-7% CPU usage because of that stupid audiodg file. Everything sound wise is done via software now if you're running Vista or 7. This makes a lot of sound cards useless except for post-processing effects.
I've never found the extra CPU overhead to be a problem though.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Remember this all started with you complaining about the size of GPU coolers and their power consumption. I'm simply saying that GPUs have higher power consumption and bigger coolers cause they do far more of the work. Your complaints ignore the realities of the software being run on modern systems.
If you want to argue that high end CPUs are "bottlenecked" in games cause they hardly have any work to do during 3D rendering I can get behind that :) I would say CPUs are underutilized by game engines. There is a lot more work CPUs could be doing that have no dependency at all on the GPU - better sound, AI, animation, physics etc. The fact that your six core CPUs are idling is no fault of the graphics card.
I'm just going to say that with a single 6950 I saw some nice improvements with a few games with a conservative overclock on my i7 860 which is still a top notch cpu.
I want this
There are more games out now and down the pipeline that are requiring the latest SB cpus. Battlefield is the perfect example of this. at 19xx res and up you almost double your fps going from a quad 775 to a a 2500k/2600k overclocked and that is with just single player. With multi player it CPU comes more into play. MMO's and RTS are also known CPU hogs.
When I changed my E8500 for my current x3370 I did notice an increase in the frame rate but I don't think that a much more powerful CPU will be as useful.
Going from 30fps to 60 fps is a nice performance increase, but going from 60 to 120 is absolutely useless (as long as you don't use 3D, that's it)
can you please post your source on that, about SB getting double fps in battlefield than a 775 quad? bad company 2 i presume.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...600k-review/21 plus this: http://www.overclock.net/intel-gener...4-955-3-a.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
Sorry to say, but that statement is false. The framerate is virtually identical. At that level, you're GPU limited. Even with an HD 6990 or GTX 590, you're still going to have some limitations. There's no doubt that an i7 2600k is faster than a Phenom II X4 @ 4Ghz or a similar Core 2 Quad, but when you're arguing that a faster CPU will benefit the gaming experience, in this case, I just don't see how that can be possible. I mean, even when the CPU is the limitation at 1024x768, BC2 is still chucking out 90+ FPS on a Phenom II quad core. As soon as you move up one more level to 1280x1024 or 1600x900, the CPU is no longer an issue. Would anyone here seriously consider that a bad thing?
Those tests were done with a GTX 580, too. No way that thing could be considered a bottleneck. :p:
Exactly. A CPU does the same amount of work to render a frame at 1024x768 as it does at 5760x1080. It contributes nothing to the increase in quality and IQ when you raise the resolution. That's why mediocre CPUs work just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Well it isnt a good thing. It means CPUs are badly underutilized. We should be aiming for 60 FPS @ 800x600 with three or four CPU cores maxed out. At that point our CPUs will be properly utilized. Then we can just bump up resolution from there depending on the graphics card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
A hypothetical situation -
Intel buys the unlimited detail technology. After a bit more R&D combining this new tech with their current efforts with dabbling in graphics card design and manufacturing, Intel bring their 'graphics card' to the market bringing forth CPU tech to the GCard sector rather than vice versa in combination with the massive benefits of Unlimited Detail.
Is it me or would something like this pwn the market?
Lastest news:
Asus GTX590, European prices
799 EUR
Starting to sell tomorrow!
Confirmed by the owner of the store i use to buy stuff to...
Wayyyyy to expensive .... 6990 will own this ... 200 Euros difference is way too much of a difference...
John Carmack has already touched on the ability to handle unlimited geometry and has stated that their next engine will revolve around this after idtech 5. No point in buyin this one out considering John already began work on said engine and when combined with the insane texturing ability of idtech 5 it'll easily blow the "unlimited detail" engine out of the water anyway... :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SabreWulf69
make sure that's not a single pcb GTX295 design ... it was very similar :)
Im pretty sure its not because of the Fan-sink plate on the PCB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillo-kun
This is on multi player http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592732Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
Time to upgrade your cpu? Not saying either of your links is incorrect although the first one is a canned benchmark. The multi player is more cpu intensive.
You be the judge.
surry but this is a 295 single pcb...Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...e-pcb-review/5
Agreed, everything looks alike - the cutout of the heatsink fins to make room for a side power supply, the three screw spots, the back plate not covering the middle of the card....Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe
The linked site even mentionons it's a GTX295 in the middle frame! Scam attempt or weak trolling? :confused:
Ok, now I give you the reason :bows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
I hope that GTX 590 is much better than HD6990. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense buying the GTX 590 :confused:
Here's the *real* GTX 590 compared to a HD6990
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/at...4&d=1300728337
Very small :up:
will it launch tomorrow or thursday?
Well, I just saw an GTX 590 with a price of 825 in other European shop... Really expensive for a vga :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
Well nVidia will win points with people who value aesthetics.
I must say im impressed with engineering on this one.
It has 2 much bigger,potentially more power hungry chips which use wider bus.And they were able to cramp it to much smaller space.
Way to go Nv!
that game looks worse and worse all the time. it's really to bad to be honest... so much hope and potential lost...
but to the card. I'm liking the look of it so far. I also am loving the whole fact that it is WAY smaller then a 6990... to be honest I have no idea how they pulled that off considering a GTX 580 is not a small card. also it just looks a whole lot better. the real test however will be overclocking. If it can hit 800mhz it will be a real winner...
Size is perfect for my tiny case, looks like it have the same length of a GTX 580. Is the price confirmed (799€)?
ho ho nice size ...
( im just a bit worry of the trace... all pieces around the 2 cores should be really close of them... we can see the 2 vapor chambers ( copper ) the only space between is the fan size.. )
Wow. And I thought a Q9650 was more powerful than that. My PII 965 achieves 20-30% higher framerate in the same areas (granted it's overclocked), and at that framerate, I see no reason to upgrade to anything higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
The Sandy Bridge CPU's are very nice, no doubt about it. Lets see if a GTX 590 can put it to work.
That card is going to be so ridiculously hot temperature wise :/
Any review !Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004
Like an HD6990...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004
impressiveQuote:
Originally Posted by ahu
it will take elite skill to make 590 faster and quieter than 6990. especially when it is already smaller.
it's a dual gpu card...they all are hot
Any info on which memory chips they're using on GTX 590?
am i seeing right? 120 fps in bc2 single card... no waaaaaay...Quote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
edit: aaaahh 1600x1200 resolution...
If really the clock are 612-613mhz ... not faster. but smaller and quieter can appeal to some.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
2 problems here when you look at the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
1. He used a dual monitor for the one of them. He should have removed the monitor to make sure there is no unusual delta in performance.
2. The clock rates are not equal between results.
Guys really smaller = equals faster = silent :rofl: :ROTF: I myself do not buy that review. All I am going to say is this new GTX590 will have to beat there own 2 x GTX570 in SLI to sell period. Why would anyone pay $800 to get something less, and it will not beat 2 x GTX 580 in SLI because then no one would buy $1000 in cards to get less in performance when you can get it for $800.00 in one card. I see many review on highend video cards at low low low resolutions and say they suck. Why don't we wait tell some reviews come out and then we decide instead of calling the GTX590 a winner because of it's small size.. :shakes:
Its HD 3800X2 <> 9800GX2 and GTX 295 <> 4870X2 all over again:up:
The only difference is price scaling which is double:D
Probly buy both cards and be done with it...
Too bad most gamers have horrible taste though. OMG LEET RED GLOW EDGES STEALTH FIGHTER LOOOOOONGQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
(I'm just lashing out at how ridiculous it's becoming- people calling crysis 2 ugly and all)
So many spec difference , i guess its all just fake ones. i guess nobody know the real clock of the core. 2 more days and it will all show up. but i wish NV dnt lose on this one
How does it get P33520? A pair of 580's at stock clocks gets that same amount, no way it would get that at 600 mhz.
Now if by any chance its also 700$ this is gonna be a winner. Hopefully its not more than 5% slower than 6990.
it's the complete score, not gpu, so well, estimated perf, or just PhysX on or with a I7 980x ... all depend what is used or even if they have test really the card or not. without saying the clock speed change again there, 607-612-613 .... we should put some bet at this points on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark-Energy
http://vr-zone.com/articles/2-way-an...e/10585-5.html Vantage + 2600K @4.7
The Asus card is just their normal "OC" of ~5-10 Mhz.
The Gigabyte box seems nice, but who really wants a bundled mouse? Usually people already have a mouse they're happy with.
Especially someone buying a 700 dollar graphics card. The best thing they could pack into these special editions is a damn water block. Considering these special editions have often a 100 dollar mark up, they could definitely squeeze one in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
I remember the most useful bundle ever came from foxxconn bloodrage x58 board. It was only 50-75 dollars more expensive, it came with a soundcard, a waterblock, a ln2 pot, and a passive heatsink with a fan.
What's with these stupid bundles for such expensive cards such as stupid metal cases, tool boxes, gun shaped cases. The gun shaped case is the most ridiculous since the bundle costed the most and it has zero usefulness. In addition, the gun case really looks silly and cheap.
I actually was one of the outspoken people about CPU 775 to current made no difference in games. I've seen enough testimony from quite a few BF BC2 players that upgraded to the SB to make me go out and buy one pretty soon. Just read through the thread. Even if it isn't the double that his test results showed its definitely noticeable real world improvement for quite a few people. Another game to test out is Civ V. So despite some of the things he did like the dual monitor its enough for me. The bottom line: 775 quads are severely bottlenecking current systems still stands in games like BF BC2 and soon BF 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7797/dsc3585s.jpg
here's the vapor chamber of the 580 ... if i see the photos of the 590, it look like both have been extremely reduced. let's hope the card can overclock enough.
this confirm 24th..
yep yepQuote:
this confirm 24th..
Small is nice and all but I wouldnt mind if it was a tad bigger and used beefier heatsinks . But anyhow pretty amazing they packed 2 x 580's in that , if they did some voodoo with it and the scaling is insane ..... well lets see the clocks are pretty sad.
Private video? Tsk tsk :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Last Meal
was not before.......... as i have no YT account -Quote:
Originally Posted by MrToad
Does anyone know if you can have two of these beasts in SLi?
EDIT: nvm, I just saw the SLi connector on the top.
I just can't see this card costing "only" 700USD! In Europe it's at 799 - 826 Euros ... So at least, it must cost the same in USD ... at least! ...
+1 this card will be very expensive and hot :/ people I feel are hoping too much and are going to fall flat on their face...Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
I think 6990 will pull the first place in this segment ... not talking about real world performance, but the best price balanced card ... These cards have an 150-200 Euros price difference ... so, it's like the 570 to the 580 ... so ... by just looking at the price, they should be in different leagues ... but no ... they are both "fighting" for the niche market of dual gpu single pcb cards ...
G4M3rZ like bricks ? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Wow, that Gigabyte card is sold in a toolbox! That's the normal, non-OC ARES type of model? Along with the mouse, I guess that confirms low supply of those cards.
Here is how GTX 590 should look to beat HD 6990:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6176/27632449.jpg
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4697/81674858.jpg
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1271/39295014.jpg
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6420/67363267.jpg
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/374/49574297.jpg
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4066/34871878.jpg
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/3774/55695649.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3510/59525125.jpg
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9376/74713620.jpg
http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=9710026218
Yeah cause we really care that it gets 225 fps when the other guy only gets 200. Pick better games people.
The box and bundle of the Gigabyte model confirms that this will be like a special limited edition card. Not many cards in the market, high price, and poor performance/cost ratio.
Nice fake on thoses benchmark a single GTX580 beat the 6990 in Vantage ? ( and beat the 880mhz ) right .. P25757K for the 6990 ... lol ... I hope it's official benchmark ans Jen will make some comment on the floor for it .... ( like this we will get 3years of video parody to made for this ) ( they have use a Pentium II and PhysX on ? )
lol .. if seriously this is the presentation of Nvidia , im really affraid
As many people guessed, the GTX 590 is slower than the 6990 because of the lower clock speed but I wonder how did Gigabyte make theirs go faster, if that benchmark is legit.
Games are well chosen, for sure :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Detector
The real joke is world in conflinct results where their sli doesn't work, probably neither crossfire works, but since they are ahead of the competition -even by a couple fps-, they decided to show it.
Those 3dmark11 scores of the 6990 doesnt seem correct to me :/
Thats nice i wonder if the tool box is usable for something even just to hold fishing lures or odds & ends
thats a great deal if it had a 100pc tool set inside too.
Maybe asus will have a fire extinguisher or 2 ton car jack? :D
Best bet for todays games they could put a xbox 360 inside :rofl:
Yeah, that's enough for making GTX 590 a better choice over competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Im not surprised it is faster at 1920x1200 but it will lose at 2650x1600 and in Triple monitor setup.
When both cards will be O/C it will be a different story and the one im looking forward to see.
well if the tools was in the box and not the bad quality they put inside hardware box normally .. ( i remember some PSU, HIS gpu )Quote:
Originally Posted by cowie
but you are suprised of what ? thoses numbers are completely crap. Have you read the comment on other post before yours ? some was from some peoples who was really waiting on this card..Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
If these Numbers are correct ...... GTX 590 Mission completed :D
The availability of children on the Web a cause for concernQuote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
From those numbers I can tell that SF4, TLR and Warhead are all way lower that what an HD 6970 in CFX with downclock (830/5000) can do. Leave alone those 3DMark's, all HD 6990 stock scores are lower than actual results. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Last Meal
Really? 12% slower than 6990 stock in the only relevant benchmark of those listed - 3dMark11 Extreme setting. And that's before you look at resolutions higher than 1920x.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Last Meal
I am unimpressed that Gigabyte is only showing 1900x1200 resolution. Nobody is buying this card to run at that res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
I am baffled that Nvidia is promoting the 590 like this: http://twitter.com/NVIDIAGeForce/sta...80424151998464
It is a stretch to call the dual chip board a "next generation GPU". It is a stretch to say they've been working on it for years. Unless they've got some magical news, it doesn't make sense.
baaaah still,the 6990 is beaten the 590 in HL1 and Deus Ex1 by 21% we can conclude of a draw ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Last Meal