Official GTX 590 Review Thread (23 reviews at this time)

[happy medium]

And that 590 is the biggest bang for the buck is true on so many levels. We have already established that GPUs on 590 are superior to those on 6990, now if we could only find a way to feed em...

feed them to me ,I'll show these guys how to overclock them.

 

[pcm81]

feed them to me ,I'll show these guys how to overclock them.

You cant, that's the problem.... You would need to redesign the power circuit on 590 to push it to its max...

 

[happy medium]

You cant, that's the problem.... You would need to redesign the power circuit on 590 to push it to its max...

Pulls out credit card......:biggrin:

How high would you consider a good overclock?
How about over gtx580 speeds at under 90c?
If I can do it, you buy me a second card, if I can't, I'll buy you a card in the same price range. :thumbsup:

I'll use this one with the overclocking warranty.
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=03G-P3-1598-AR&family=GeForce 500 Series Family&sw=

 

[Zanovar]

Here is an example of sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xw_O63GKB8&feature=player_embedded

It's nice to hear instead of numbers.

Anyone know what that heatsink is at 0.45 in?,nvm spinq vt

 

[pcm81]

Pulls out credit card......:biggrin:

How high would you consider a good overclock?
How about over gtx580 speeds at under 90c?
If I can do it, you buy me a second card, if I can't, I'll buy you a card in the same price range. :thumbsup:

I'll use this one with the overclocking warranty.
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInf...family=GeForce 500 Series Family&sw=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRhne0odjJA

But this is an exception to the rule...

EDIT:
For a reference I get X3224 on single 6990 at 830 MHz.

 

[happy medium]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRhne0odjJA

But this is an exception to the rule...

I'm sorry if i come accross so confident.
I am sure with my case airflow and the latest 267.85 drivers, and my knowledge of overclocking, that 775 core would be a walk in the park at under 90c.
I would be a little worried about my psu, but my daughter has a 1000 watt monster I could borrow.

Really though man, this blowing up crap is gonna be old news in a week.

 

[WelshBloke]

Here is an example of sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xw_O63GKB8&feature=player_embedded

It's nice to hear instead of numbers.

6990 doesn't sound as horrific as I'd imagined in that video.

Of course it could have been the Billy Mays diction on the guy deadening my eardrums.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm sorry if i come accross so confident.
I am sure with my case airflow and the latest 267.85 drivers, and my knowledge of overclocking, that 775 core would be a walk in the park at under 90c.
I would be a little worried about my psu, but my daughter has a 1000 watt monster I could borrow.

Really though man, this blowing up crap is gonna be old news in a week.

 

[ocre]

They are still the same GPUs.

Does the GPU on my 6950 change into a different one when its at 2d clocks?

the 590 is a gpu that is completely different from the 580. They are two different GPUs. Different in many ways. The individual chips maybe similar, it doesnt malke them 580 cores. They are 590 cores. You are trying to call them something they are not. think...e8200, e8400, e8600...all the same design, but sold as a different models at different speeds and power ratings. if you were to say they were both gf110 then i could agree. its a 590, and its totally different than the 580. they both use gf110 based cores that are aimed ar different power envelopes.

This is everyday in the pc world, different models of the same architecture using differnt clocks and power. Can u really say for sure that the 590 cores are capable of 580 speeds and performance? no, it could even be that these are chips that cannot reach high speeds in the first place. its not the 580, its gf110 cores that run on lowlow volts and low clocks while using less power.

 

[pcm81]

Quick question:
6990 costs $700.
590 costs $800.
800/700=1.142

So, how many people here can, with confidence, say that a 590 is overall 14.2% or more better than 6990?

 

[WelshBloke]

the 590 is a gpu that is completely different from the 580. They are two different GPUs. Different in many ways. The individual chips maybe similar, it doesnt malke them 580 cores. They are 590 cores. You are trying to call them something they are not. think...e8200, e8400, e8600...all the same design, but sold as a different models at different speeds and power ratings. if you were to say they were both gf110 then i could agree. its a 590, and its totally different than the 580. they both use gf110 based cores that are aimed ar different power envelopes.

This is everyday in the pc world, different models of the same architecture using differnt clocks and power. Can u really say for sure that the 590 cores are capable of 580 speeds and performance? no, it could even be that these are chips that cannot reach high speeds in the first place. its not the 580, its gf110 cores that run on lowlow volts and low clocks while using less power.

Sorry I think you are wrong here. I've not seen any evidence that says they are different GPUs, yes they run at different speeds but they are the same GPUs.

I'm open to them being different GPUs but just a change in clock speed or a better binning doesn't make it that way.

 

[WelshBloke]

Quick question:
6990 costs $700.
590 costs $800.
800/700=1.142

So, how many people here can, with confidence, say that a 590 is overall 14.2% or more better than 6990?

I think value for money is not really a selling point of either card.

If you're willing to pay for a 6990 I don't think the price of a 590 would put you off.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Quick question:
6990 costs $700.
590 costs $800.
800/700=1.142

So, how many people here can, with confidence, say that a 590 is overall 14.2% or more better than 6990?

Nvidia tax. 3D vision and better drivers are gonna cost you something. They have to pay people to make the drivers and 3d vision work and work well, which they do. I'll pay a slight premium for that but not 14%.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Ocre you keep saying people aren't seeing your point of view, but it also seems like you aren't seeing their point of view. This is not an insult, but an observation.

the 590 is a gpu that is completely different from the 580. They are two different GPUs. Different in many ways. The individual chips maybe similar, it doesnt malke them 580 cores. They are 590 cores. You are trying to call them something they are not. think...e8200, e8400, e8600...all the same design, but sold as a different models at different speeds and power ratings. if you were to say they were both gf110 then i could agree. its a 590, and its totally different than the 580. they both use gf110 based cores that are aimed ar different power envelopes.

This is everyday in the pc world, different models of the same architecture using differnt clocks and power. Can u really say for sure that the 590 cores are capable of 580 speeds and performance? no, it could even be that these are chips that cannot reach high speeds in the first place. its not the 580, its gf110 cores that run on lowlow volts and low clocks while using less power.

I don't agree with this sentiment. If this is really the point of view you're taking, then folks we have established why you've spent the last two pages repeating yourself. The 570, 580, and 590 all use the same chips. They are all GF110. 6950, 6970, and 6990 all use the same chips; they are all Caymans. These families all share the same core. It very much seems like you're arguing with semantics, so now we're all caught up in a semantics debate. And so I see everyone go round and round in circles - frustrating.

This is the point pcm has been making: The GF110 cores are capable of a lot, but since they are so power hungry they are (severely?) limited when trying to cram two of them onto the same PCB. It doesn't seem out of place to expect the cores that make it onto the 590 also being able to be cores worthy of going on a 580 board. These 590 chips are supposed to be the top-binned parts, after all. But due to power, thermal, and PCB restraints, they are held back on the reference design. AMD is too, but the 6990 still has better power characteristics than the 590.

 

[notty22]

Quick question:
6990 costs $700.
590 costs $800.
800/700=1.142

So, how many people here can, with confidence, say that a 590 is overall 14.2% or more better than 6990?

The gtx 590 is 729.00 at tiger direct and newegg.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...p?EdpNo=128723
Don't know about price comparisons in Europe etc

 

[ocre]

Quick question:
6990 costs $700.
590 costs $800.
800/700=1.142

So, how many people here can, with confidence, say that a 590 is overall 14.2% or more better than 6990?

No way! i cant see them selling well at that price, wonder whats up with that? We arent even sure if the 590 is worth 700$. Or i am not sure anyways

Sorry I think you are wrong here. I've not seen any evidence that says they are different GPUs, yes they run at different speeds but they are the same GPUs.

I'm open to them being different GPUs but just a change in clock speed or a better binning doesn't make it that way.

the evidence is on the box, on the sticker identification which is different for the 580 and the 590. One says 590, the other says 580. The 590 consist of two gf110 cores which are aimed at at a specific power limit as well as efficiency, the other is one has a gf110 that is aimed at high clocks and uses 250W of power. it is currently the highest performing single GPU solution on the market. Two different architectures that use the GF110 in different ways.

Do you not consider CPUs by their different names even though there is little differences between them? Can we call a phenomII 925 as being a phenomII 975? Well these are much more similar than the gf110 cores used in the 580 vs the 590. do you consider the phenom 925 a crippled 975? They are named different and sold as different, aiming for a specific market and purpose. How do you know the gf110 cores in the 590 are capable of 580 clocks and power usage? they are tweaked for their applications. which differ greatly in consumption. the gf110 design is what they share. the cards are very different

you cannot call a gtx 590 a gtx 580 as they are two radically different GPUs.

 

[WelshBloke]

No way! i cant see them selling well at that price, wonder whats up with that? We arent even sure if the 590 is worth 700$. Or i am not sure anyways



the evidence is on the box, on the sticker identification which is different for the 580 and the 590. One says 590, the other says 580. The 590 consist of two gf110 cores which are aimed at at a specific power limit as well as efficiency, the other is one has a gf110 that is aimed at high clocks and uses 250W of power. it is currently the highest performing single GPU solution on the market. Two different architectures that use the GF110 in different ways.

Do you not consider CPUs by their different names even though there is little differences between them? Can we call a phenomII 925 as being a phenomII 975? Well these are much more similar than the gf110 cores used in the 580 vs the 590. do you consider the phenom 925 a crippled 975? They are named different and sold as different, aiming for a specific market and purpose. How do you know the gf110 cores in the 590 are capable of 580 clocks and power usage? they are tweaked for their applications. which differ greatly in consumption. the gf110 design is what they share. the cards are very different

you cannot call a gtx 590 a gtx 580 as they are two radically different GPUs.

OK I can see where you're getting confused.

A GTX590 is not a GPU its a video card.

GF110 is a GPU, G80 is a GPU.

No ones saying a gtx580 is the same as a gtx590, they do have the same GPUs on them running at different speeds.

And you cant compare them to CPUs as you don't buy GPUs on their own, you buy video cards.

 

[96Firebird]

Quick question:
6990 costs $700.
590 costs $800.
800/700=1.142

So, how many people here can, with confidence, say that a 590 is overall 14.2% or more better than 6990?

If that is how much the cards are selling for in your neck of the woods, sucks to be you!

 

[ocre]

Ocre you keep saying people aren't seeing your point of view, but it also seems like you aren't seeing their point of view. This is not an insult, but an observation.



I don't agree with this sentiment. If this is really the point of view you're taking, then folks we have established why you've spent the last two pages repeating yourself. The 570, 580, and 590 all use the same chips. They are all GF110. 6950, 6970, and 6990 all use the same chips; they are all Caymans. These families all share the same core. It very much seems like you're arguing with semantics, so now we're all caught up in a semantics debate. And so I see everyone go round and round in circles - frustrating.

This is the point pcm has been making: The GF110 cores are capable of a lot, but since they are so power hungry they are (severely?) limited when trying to cram two of them onto the same PCB. It doesn't seem out of place to expect the cores that make it onto the 590 also being able to be cores worthy of going on a 580 board. These 590 chips are supposed to be the top-binned parts, after all. But due to power, thermal, and PCB restraints, they are held back on the reference design. AMD is too, but the 6990 still has better power characteristics than the 590.

so then now you have to go back and call the 295 a crippled disappointment, and every other card that wasnt clocked as high as their other GPUs in that family as you are now looking at the 590. Its nothing but a way to feel better about one card when the outcome is the same. If cayman is so efficient why too did they have to down-clock their 6990 to the point a crippled gtx 590 reach? Is it again, cayman didnt have to down clock as much as nvidia to not be able to beat it in the end? the 6990 is crippled 6970s and two 6970s blow it away. Whats the point in this? Start with a full gf110 and a full cayman, its off before you even start. The full gf110 is faster and more power hungry than the 6970. But you think it shouldnt have had to be underclocked for the 590??? Even the 6970s in the 6990 had to be underclocked to stay withen power limits. But nvidia should some how not do this too. why is this? Nvidias gf110 is naturally downclocked more, take a look at the 6970 vs the 580. AMD couldnt get the 6990 without downclocking their already effecient gpus. Nvidia downclocked more cause the gf110 is more power hungry as wel as more powerful. They bothed reached their limits and are nearly even.

I dont think your gonna get what i am saying, had it been the 570, nvidia would have much higher clocks. the 570 performs nearly exactly as the 6970 cores. It uses similar power...a lot less than the 580. If nvidia went this route, your point would be more valid. Do you really think nvidia shouldve been able to get two fully enabled gtx 580 cores on the 590? do you know how many watts one uses by itself? Again, AMD had to underclock their more effiecent cayman, why are you concerned nvidia did this to?

Whats the result, Nvidias gtx 580 cores use a lot of power for the performance they deliver, This is true, and why two fully clocked cores is impossible to be made in the given power envelope. But two full speed caymans werent able to either. Nvidia clocked down further to met the needs than AMD. Nvidia produced a card that is just as powerful as AMDs more effiecent dual cayman solution. Nvidia could not beat it. But AMD couldnt even get two full caymans either. Its fact. On the 590 Nvidias gf110 cores are so underclocked they perform on the level of AMDs cayman. They are also using similar energy and the results are....they both performed almost identical. wow

 

[Lonyo]

If that is how much the cards are selling for in your neck of the woods, sucks to be you!

UK:
HD6990: £515
GTX590: £560
From the quick look I had of prices.

NV often seems to be more expensive than AMD in the UK when cards are similarly priced in the US.

 

[ocre]

its hard for me to get on one side or the other, i really really love AMDs solution. I am more proud of it than nvidias. 6990 tickled me sweet spots. i was giddy. I think its to a point where if you say something the other side takes it as against them. I dont want to be doing that.

i am very proud of amds dual gpu. Like most ppl, cayman kinda wasnt as powerful as we thought. It was clear nvidia had the top spot, cayman ended up taking on nvidias 2nd best. This was shocking to many, me included. So the fact that the 6990 shows its not beatable by nvidia means a lot to me. It was a verification than cayman was the right move. You cant say that once cayman came out behind the 580, you knew that the 6990 would be unbeatable. can you? To me thats what i see, i see nvidias solution as powerful and power limited too. But to me it proves that AMD has got it right, but i would be a fool to say Nvidias architecture wasnt great too. If nvidia went for a 200-225w max flagship it would have been the same now but AMD wouldve tied them for the top with the 6970. Nvidia didnt go that route. AMDs route was a good one, but nvidia executed a equal performer not the top spot. This is not fermi's failure or the draw backs of the gf110. This is the worthy competitors. I think AMD really delivered a great surprise to us all. Nvidias card proves its greatness. The lower clocks are only a result of the different architectures used in the first place. AMD had a better starting GPU, it was in a good power range for a dual GPU. Nvidia either had to use 570 cores or down clock 580s. the best part is the downclocks matched each others performance. Something must be right if they both got to the same max

 

[-Slacker-]

at ocre:

geforce 7950 gx2, geforce 8800 gx2, geforce 9800 gx2, radeon hd 3870 x2, radeon hd 4850 x2, radeon hd 4870.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

so then now you have to go back and call the 295 a crippled disappointment, and every other card that wasnt clocked as high as their other GPUs in that family as you are now looking at the 590. Its nothing but a way to feel better about one card when the outcome is the same.

It seems like you are doing the same - in reverse? People are dogging the 590 because some reviewers are blowing them up when overclocked. So they are disappointed in its overclocking abilities, and of course there are some people who are taking the situation and mocking it. But just deal with it. This happens when Nvidia makes mistakes. This happens when AMD makes mistakes. Are you trying to make people feel better about the 590? I simply don't get this crusade your on when you said you feel pretty neutral about both cards. Of course I do not agree with the people mocking and blowing this situation up, but I do very much think the discussion of GF110's efficiency and how that relates to some 590s blowing up when overclocked is very much valid. And part of this discussion is how well the PCB is built, and that has lead us to this point.

the 6990 is crippled 6970s and two 6970s blow it away.

You're criticizing people for blowing (pun not intended) the 590 disappointment out of proportion yet you are using a disproportional description of measurement when comparing the 6990 to 6970s? FYI cripple idiomatically refers to chip which have units disabled or not functional. The 6990 has all of Cayman's functional units working, the same the 590 has all the GF110 units functional. So I would not call the 6990 nor the 590 cripples in the proverbial meaning of the word.

I dont think your gonna get what i am saying, had it been the 570, nvidia would have much higher clocks. the 570 performs nearly exactly as the 6970 cores.

Don't insult us. We (well, I) get what you are saying just fine.

If cayman is so efficient why too did they have to down-clock their 6990 to the point a crippled gtx 590 reach?

On the 590 Nvidias gf110 cores are so underclocked they perform on the level of AMDs cayman. They are also using similar energy and the results are....they both performed almost identical. wow

etc...

Pretty consistent across reviewers is the 6990 using less power than the 590, while being of similar or better performance. But performance is erratic simply because of SLI and Crossfire scaling issues - so this is actually the variable with the greatest range. Regardless, the consensus is the 6990 is at least as fast. Which means AMD's more efficient strategy has produced a more efficient chip. That has been their design goal and they met it.

Here are some numbers to represent what I'm talking about.

----------------------------------------------------------
In Crysis - http://www.anandtech.com/show/4239/nvidias-geforce-gtx-590-duking-it-out-for-the-single-card-king/16
HD6990: 64 fps per 491 system watts
GTX590: 56.7 fps per 506 system watts

In Bad Company 2 - http://techreport.com/articles.x/20629/11
HD6990: 82 fps per 497 system watts
GTX590: 80 fps per 541 system watts

TPU performance per watt - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_590/24.html
HD6990: 121%
GTX590: 100%

In Crysis - http://www.techspot.com/review/378-nvidia-geforce-gtx-590/page12.html
HD6990: 60 fps per 476 system watts
GTX590: 54 fps per 517 system watts

In Just Cause 2 - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29724&page=12
HD6990: 70.4 fps per 449 system watts
GTX590: 69.4 fps per 494 system watts

In Bad Company 2 - http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...eforce-gtx-590/9/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme
HD6990: 100.3 fps per 567 system watts
GTX590: 96 fps per 633 system watts
----------------------------------------------------------

In terms of efficiency I don't really think you can say they are as close as you are trying to get people to believe. AMD still has a very distinct advantage. Is it absolutely huge? Nope, but the advantage is pretty clear. The 6990 is a power hungry card, but despite the clockspeed sacrifices Nvidia made the 590 is even more so.

 

[Silverforce11]

There's around a 50W gap at load, NV's 375W is again their "average" TDP. As for the 6990 using crippled cores, no. Because they all can be manually OC well beyond stock 6970 speeds.. and still staying safe.

 

[pcm81]

I think value for money is not really a selling point of either card.

If you're willing to pay for a 6990 I don't think the price of a 590 would put you off.

Marginally true... I would not compare 2x6970s to 1x6990, because there are other factors involved than raw performance (noise, PCIe slots, etc). But, for 2 HALO cards there are 2 possibilities:

1. I will buy the best there is and OC it to the max. In this case stock performance is irrelevant.
2. I will buy the best and run it at stock, to get the biggest bang for the buck. In this case Overclockability is irrelevant, but performance per dollar is.

When I see a bench of 2x590s or 3x590 overclocked to their max running highest res and detail possible better than 2x6990 OCed to their max, then I'll agree that 590 is the new king of ultra high end setup.

when I see 1x590 OCed to its max beating 1x6990 Oced to its max in games / resolutions where cards struggle to push 60FPS then I will give 590 a single card crown.

For the people falling into 2nd category:
when I see GTX590 priced cheaper than 6990 and yeild same performance at meaningful resolutions in DX11 games, then I will give 590 the crown.