GTX 590 reviews

[XRL8]

Like the unlucky coincidende of his review showing the GTX590 being faster (all resolutions)

Well, you said its faster at all resolutions.It isnt.
Its faster at low ones, and ties/slower at high ones.So you cant say "its faster".Cos it "depends" on the conditions.And realistically you have to admit that these cards aint gonna be used at 1024x and neither 1650x most probably.I know its hard pill to swallow.ITS NOT FASTER :-).

In a dual GPU solution, that costs $700, that is big, hot and power hungry, who really cares about perf. per watt?

Anybody who cares about heat output and noise of their system.For example.
You put waterblock on a card A that draws 100W and card B that draws 200W, in the latter example you will have to turn up fan on your radiators.
Same goes for any decent aftermarket cooling.Idle wattage is important also, low enough idle gives you silent system in non gaming scenarios.
I know i know, nvidia has put bigger fan on their reference cooling.But im gonna point you to the 700$ bit, if people arent concerned with power consumption due to the electricity bills, they most probably can afford arctic cooling silencer or a waterblock ;-).

As to the temperature, i honestly missed that bit.Yes.Nvidia wins, by one celsius on one of the GPU`s which isnt in boundaries of a statistical error at all...
Besides if you dont use same cooling, results arent really comparable.
Yes in idle it looks better for nv, but higher idle temp(still lowish) while consuming less power on the ati card clearly indicates different fan/and its temp curve.

Quieter, cooler, more all round performance, higher OC (26% vs 10% of the 6990), same price and... 7.0 score. Go figure.

The CARD isnt cooler, it exhausts more HEAT into the system than the 6990, it was proved in anands test for example.Besides its pure physics.Uses more power,generates more heat.Then there are of course those temp shots on this french website which clearly show that the card is hotter (while the GF chips are a bit colder,bigger fan).
TPU is european website, price isnt "same" also here.
As for the OC capability, it gets dangerous on the 590 ,a few of them blew up, and not only at 1.2v, 1.025v was one of them.Besides for ocing, GTX580 or HD6970 are much better suited.
And dont get me wrong, i wouldnt buy any of them.
580 or a pair of 6950`s .Thats the only thing that makes real sense.

[RSC]

Lower core temperatures are not everything, you know?

This has been posted so many times already, you must have seen it.

Oh, and your OC figure is wrong. TPU got 775mhz, which is stock clock for a GF110 chip. So that's a 0% overclock. And not a given on all cards. AMD still managed to get a positive here in any case.

1- Is it that hard to understand that I was only referring to the tPU! review? On tPU! he doesn't test system temp, nor mosfets or VRMs temp. He tests core temp. And on that matter, as I said and as it is written on both reviews, the GTX590 got... better temps.

2- The card comes stock @ 613MHz core clock, he got it to 775MHz core clock. That's 26% OC. Don't try to spin it...

What you want to do is not to compare those two monster cards in idiotic resolutions like 720p. What you should want is compare them FullHD+ and maybe perfomance per watt and perfomance per dollar.

(...)

Considering that. GTX 590:

+ Looks nicer than HD6990
+ Runs quieter than HD6990
- Runs hotter than HD6990
- Has a risk of overheating PWM area
- Has no multiple monitor indipendent desktop support
- Is more expensive than HD6990 in europe.

In my eyes HD6990 wins.

My point is not what I should be comparing. My point is what the tPU! review showed in their tests and how, independently of that, the GTX590 got a 7.0 score when the 6990, that had worse all round results, got 9.1.

Well, you said its faster at all resolutions.It isnt.
Its faster at low ones, and ties/slower at high ones.So you cant say "its faster".Cos it "depends" on the conditions.And realistically you have to admit that these cards aint gonna be used at 1024x and neither 1650x most probably.I know its hard pill to swallow.ITS NOT FASTER :-).

1- Mate, I was talking, as you understood by now, about the "Relative performance (All resolutions)" chart. So don't try to change the subject. Cause on that chart, which is the global performance chart for the tPU! tests, the GTX590 is FASTER than the 6990.

2- Do you have any stats on the resolution at which dual gpu cards are used? Any study, etc? No, you don't. So you can't say that they will be used at this or at that resolution. It is like saying all Asus Rampage boards were bought by people who overclock. This is computer hardware and lots of people buy stuff just cause it's expensive.

As to the temperature, i honestly missed that bit.Yes.Nvidia wins, by one celsius on one of the GPU`s which isnt in boundaries of a statistical error at all...

You missed the idle temps also, didn't you? And the OC temps as well...

Besides if you dont use same cooling, results arent really comparable.
Yes in idle it looks better for nv, but higher idle temp(still lowish) while consuming less power on the ati card clearly indicates different fan/and its temp curve.

That is irrelevant to me. Again, my point is just the difference in score on the tPU! reviews. GTX590 got better all round results and lower score. And that, in my book, is shady. And I won't even start on the EPIC FAIL anagram...

The CARD isnt cooler, it exhausts more HEAT into the system than the 6990, it was proved in anands test for example.

Take N: I was talking about tPU! review only. And they measure only core temp.

TPU is european website, price isnt "same" also here.

Price is the same on their review. $699 each.

As for the OC capability, it gets dangerous on the 590 ,a few of them blew up, and not only at 1.2v, 1.025v was one of them.

Have you read why? Go search this thread about SweClockers and drivers, maybe you will get it.

[STEvil]

1- Is it that hard to understand that I was only referring to the tPU! review? On tPU! he doesn't test system temp, nor mosfets or VRMs temp. He tests core temp. And on that matter, as I said and as it is written on both reviews, the GTX590 got... better temps.

2- The card comes stock @ 613MHz core clock, he got it to 775MHz core clock. That's 26% OC. Don't try to spin it...



My point is not what I should be comparing. My point is what the tPU! review showed in their tests and how, independently of that, the GTX590 got a 7.0 score when the 6990, that had worse all round results, got 9.1.




1- Mate, I was talking, as you understood by now, about the "Relative performance (All resolutions)" chart. So don't try to change the subject. Cause on that chart, which is the global performance chart for the tPU! tests, the GTX590 is FASTER than the 6990.

2- Do you have any stats on the resolution at which dual gpu cards are used? Any study, etc? No, you don't. So you can't say that they will be used at this or at that resolution. It is like saying all Asus Rampage boards were bought by people who overclock. This is computer hardware and lots of people buy stuff just cause it's expensive.



You missed the idle temps also, didn't you? And the OC temps as well...




That is irrelevant to me. Again, my point is just the difference in score on the tPU! reviews. GTX590 got better all round results and lower score. And that, in my book, is shady. And I won't even start on the EPIC FAIL anagram...





Take N: I was talking about tPU! review only. And they measure only core temp.




Price is the same on their review. $699 each.




Have you read why? Go search this thread about SweClockers and drivers, maybe you will get it.

This is why you should read multiple reviews.