GTX 590 Teaser vs GTX 580 AVP only video

[Kenmitch]

Found this following video which gives a quick idea of GTX 590 performance but it's only in AVP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn92O4l4XzQ

Not a bad looking card as far as look and size anyways. Looking forward to the reviews!

 

[RaistlinZ]

Weak. They only test at 1920x1080. And at that resolution, the 590 was 40% faster than the 580 in AVP.

I guess this is due to the low retail clocks of the 590. It will be interesting to see what it can do once fully overclocked.

 

[MentalIlness]

Weak review or not, That is one sexy card. I can't wait to see the EVGA models.

 

[Arkadrel]

Yeah looks like the 590 is around 40% faster than a 580 stock, in AvP @1920x1080.

So 590 ~40% faster than a 580.


Now lets see how much faster a 6990 is than a 580 in AvP @ 1920x1200 x4 AA:

(1 - (77.4 fps (6990) / 43.4 fps (580))) x 100% = ~78% faster

6990 stock is around 78% faster in this benchmark than the 580.
(590 in the youtube video above is only around 40% faster than a 580)


I know its not apples to apples, because they probably ran AvP on differnt hardware, differnt settings.
But it works as a referance point to some degree.

 

[toyota]

lol at using only 4x AA in BC 2 at 1920x1080. and they did not have any AA on in the AvP video if I am looking at that correctly.

 

[3DVagabond]

Weak. They only test at 1920x1080. And at that resolution, the 590 was 40% faster than the 580 in AVP.

I guess this is due to the low retail clocks of the 590. It will be interesting to see what it can do once fully overclocked.

Seems as you say, weak.

The only redemption there could possibly be is if the 590 @ stock clocks is ~300W or less. Then, when you O/C it beats the 6990 O/C'd. If so, then they will be pushing O/C'ing and factory O/C models really hard, like the gtx460. If not, then it's going to have to sell for less than the 6990. That would adversely effect the 580 pricing. It will have to be appreciably less than the 590.

If it's really only 40% faster than the 580 (assuming AvP is indicative of overall performance) the 6990 is going to slap it around pretty badly.

 

[SolMiester]

The 6990 & 590 will trade blows......the winner will be the quietest with the most functionality!
I think the 6990 OC is hampered by its cooling, the 590 by its power draw...I think the best thing about the 590, is the Surround, 3D and PhyX ability on 1 card, which always bothered me about the pricey 580!

 

[Kenmitch]

The 6990 & 590 will trade blows......the winner will be the quietest with the most functionality!
I think the 6990 OC is hampered by its cooling, the 590 by its power draw...I think the best thing about the 590, is the Surround, 3D and PhyX ability on 1 card, which always bothered me about the pricey 580!

I tend to agree with your statement. And the bolded part will most likely be the direction marketing will take.

It is a nice looking card and can see a place for it in the video card market!

The 6990 needs some better cooling than the ref design but I'm sure that it's already in the pipeline!

Makes a person wonder if EVGA will release a water cooled version of the 590

 

[Arkadrel]

I think the best thing about the 590, is the Surround, 3D and PhyX ability on 1 card, which always bothered me about the pricey 580!

Now for the ironic stuff...

6990 can do eyefinity (nvidia 3d surround), can do 3D too..... so really the only thing that sets it apart feature wise is the PhysX.

The 6990 & 590 will trade blows......the winner will be the quietest with the most functionality!

What about price tag? IF the 590 is slower than the 6990, and costs more... will you buy it because it has PhysX and is abit more quiet?

also we dont know yet if it is more quiet.. it could be just as noisy as the 6990 for all we know.

 

[SolMiester]

Now for the ironic stuff...

6990 can do eyefinity (nvidia 3d surround), can do 3D too..... so really the only thing that sets it apart feature wise is the PhysX.


What about price tag? IF the 590 is slower than the 6990, and costs more... will you buy it because it has PhysX and is abit more quiet?

also we dont know yet if it is more quiet.. it could be just as noisy as the 6990 for all we know.

LOL, AMD make think they can do 3D, but they cant, its open source, so isnt in the same league as NV...as for the question, PhysX and quieter...hell yes!

 

[Keysplayr]

Yeah looks like the 590 is around 40% faster than a 580 stock, in AvP @1920x1080.

So 590 ~40% faster than a 580.


Now lets see how much faster a 6990 is than a 580 in AvP @ 1920x1200 x4 AA:

(1 - (77.4 fps (6990) / 43.4 fps (580))) x 100% = ~78% faster

6990 stock is around 78% faster in this benchmark than the 580.
(590 in the youtube video above is only around 40% faster than a 580)


I know its not apples to apples, because they probably ran AvP on differnt hardware, differnt settings.
But it works as a referance point to some degree.

WOW! That 6990 really kicks some arse!!!!

 

[Arkadrel]

LOL, AMD make think they can do 3D, but they cant, its open source, so isnt in the same league as NV...as for the question, PhysX and quieter...hell yes!

Bold statement.... but your over exaggerating.

Site dedicated to 3D gameing, tests the 3 solutions and compaires them:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=76

Lets have a look at testers conclusions about 3d gameing:

Left 4 Dead: (all equally well)

DDD, iZ3D, and NVIDIA driver developers fared equally well with Left4Dead.

Metro 2033 (iZ3D + DDD > nvidia)

Metro 2033 is a successful title on all three driver solutions. While Nvidia offered the highest image setting flexibility, they lost points because out of screen effects were almost nil, and this undermined an otherwise flawless game. DDD and iZ3D scored equally well and made Metro 2033 a well rounded stereoscopic 3D gaming experience once the right settings were in place.

BF:Bad Company 2 (Nvidia > DDD > iZ3D)

On condition that the user hack is in place and/or Dice officially reactivates the 3D Vision optimizations, the winner for the best stereoscopic 3D experience with Bad Company 2 was Nvidia. For all intensive purposes, the 3D experience is nearly flawless, and earned our top rating.

DDD is a close second, and is handicapped only by Nvidia's optimizations and Punkbuster's incompatibility with their drivers. I strongly recommend that Dice implement some kind of option in the game's menus to turn the extra Nvidia optimizations on or off.

iZ3D came in third, but I expect them to eventually have DX10 support, and if they can get around the PunkBuster and shadow problems, their work could prove to be very competitive.

Mass Effect 2: (sucks equally bad on all 3)

The game's decision making process, the story, and the superb voice acting made Mass Effect 2 a wonderful game...in 2D. Unfortunately, the stereoscopic 3D gaming experience was a big disappointment for all three driver developers. There are occasionally some good out of screen effects, but nothing like Avatar or even Tomb Raider in S-3D.

Crysis Warhead: (iZ3D > Nvidia)

The NVIDIA drivers did not allow us to properly save images with this game. Just as well, because the GeForce 3D Vision solution is equally plagued by anomalies.

Even with NVIDIA’s recommendations of reducing shadows to low or off, shaders and post processing to low or off, and motion blur to off, the game has limited playability. Leading anomalies include doubled images or objects in one eye, doubled crosshairs in the scopes, post processing interfering with the S-3D effect, and a disproportionately separated weapon when out of screen effects are activated. In a best case scenario, fire and smoke effects will be rendered in 2D or at screen depth compared to the other objects on the screen.

I think NVIDIA was far too generous when they ranked Crysis: Warhead in their “good” category for S-3D compatibility. We scored NVIDIA’s GeForce 3D Vision slightly less than iZ3D because they required more drastic reductions in eye candy to get the game working.

I just took randomly some popular games, you can check out their reviews on other games if you want. There are pictures showing things, youtube videos where they compair ect the 3 solutions of 3D drivers for 3D gameing.

My point was just this... its abit early to say Nvidia solution is the best, it depends on which game your playing.

 

[hdfxst]

I believe this was run on the same settings as in the video http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6990-antilles-crossfire,2878-8.html and it looks like the 6990 gets a couple more fps than the 590

 

[SolMiester]

Not the conclusions I expected....

 

[SolMiester]

deleted...

 

[3DVagabond]

LOL, AMD make think they can do 3D, but they cant, its open source, so isnt in the same league as NV...as for the question, PhysX and quieter...hell yes!

You sound like you own royalties in nVidia IP. Just because something is open source doesn't in any way make it inferior by default. (Arkadrel's post demonstrates that)

Nobody (virtually) cares about PhysX.

Quiet is important. If one card is loud and the other is quiet, then it matters. If they are both loud, but one isn't quite as loud, then they both suck. Just one sucks harder.

I wouldn't want any card that was loud, a power hog, and who's cooling solution wasn't adequate enough to keep the components on the card "cool". I think because we are skipping a process shrink the current series of cards, from both vendors, are at a disadvantage in all of those categories. We are relegated to buying the card that sucks less. There are a few exceptions, but overall the cards are either power hogs, and therefore produce a lot of heat by default, or use crippled, underclocked GPU's and are lower powered and cooler because they aren't stressed at all.

 

[Keysplayr]

n/m

 

[Keysplayr]

You sound like you own royalties in nVidia IP. Just because something is open source doesn't in any way make it inferior by default. (Arkadrel's post demonstrates that)

Nobody (virtually) cares about PhysX.

Quiet is important. If one card is loud and the other is quiet, then it matters. If they are both loud, but one isn't quite as loud, then they both suck. Just one sucks harder.

I wouldn't want any card that was loud, a power hog, and who's cooling solution wasn't adequate enough to keep the components on the card "cool". I think because we are skipping a process shrink the current series of cards, from both vendors, are at a disadvantage in all of those categories. We are relegated to buying the card that sucks less. There are a few exceptions, but overall the cards are either power hogs, and therefore produce a lot of heat by default, or use crippled, underclocked GPU's and are lower powered and cooler because they aren't stressed at all.

He's not taking that out of thin air. "AMD's" 3D, which isn't really even AMD's, is a very poor showing in comparison to Nvidia's 3D solution. I believe it easy to find any number of articles in which the two are compared.

 

[Arkadrel]

@Keysplayr

When the 6990 launched wasnt there comments about the 590?
Isnt it the same with any other card?

But yeah.. its off topic, but really what is there to say about the video?

They run a AvP benchmark with a 580, then run it again with a 590, and get 40% higher performance.

If Im to stay on topic... Id say I was expecting abit more, than that 40% gain in AvP from 580->590.

 

[Keysplayr]

@Keysplayr

When the 6990 launched wasnt there comments about the 590?
Isnt it the same with any other card?

But yeah.. its off topic, but really what is there to say about the video?

They run a AvP benchmark with a 580, then run it again with a 590, and get 40% higher performance.

If Im to stay on topic... Id say I was expecting abit more, than that 40% gain in AvP from 580->590.

I retracted my statement. Wasn't the right venue for it.

 

[Arkadrel]

I will say this though, Im amased that they could fit everything into such a small package. AMD cards are getting rediculous.... if they get any longer they wouldnt fit inside most peoples cases.

And reguardless of which turns out faster, either card is more than powerfull enough to handle any game on the market in 1920x 2560x resoultions.

Also from that other thread, a guy posted about them going for around 719$, basically same price as the 6990. So they ll priced lower than I expected which is definatly a neat thing.

 

[badb0y]

So, GTX 580 price drop soon .

 

[3DVagabond]

He's not taking that out of thin air. "AMD's" 3D, which isn't really even AMD's, is a very poor showing in comparison to Nvidia's 3D solution. I believe it easy to find any number of articles in which the two are compared.

He's reasoning that because nVidia's is proprietary and AMD utilizes an open source approach is reason enough for nVidia's to be superior. He's not showing any tests, reviews, etc. that demonstrate his position. Simply his opinion that open source is inferior. Whether you agree with it or not, at least Arkadel presented an article to back up his position that it was in fact no better than AMD in many games.

I'm not stating which is superior, just that his proprietary/open source reasoning is without merit.

 

[3DVagabond]

I will say this though, Im amased that they could fit everything into such a small package. AMD cards are getting rediculous.... if they get any longer they wouldnt fit inside most peoples cases.

And reguardless of which turns out faster, either card is more than powerfull enough to handle any game on the market in 1920x 2560x resoultions.

Also from that other thread, a guy posted about them going for around 719$, basically same price as the 6990. So they ll priced lower than I expected which is definatly a neat thing.

Before we decide why one is bigger and whether it needs to be, we need to see both cards sans heatsinks. There might be some sections of the card that are lacking on the smaller design.

 

[Mopetar]

I guess this is due to the low retail clocks of the 590. It will be interesting to see what it can do once fully overclocked.

Cause a structure fire?