News AMD challenges Nvidia's 'fastest graphics card' claim

The point was the 5 most popular games by sales can be played on max on any settings on any midrange card at the popular resolution aka 1920x 1080 16af 4aa. 3 are console ports 1 is the sims and 1 is wow.

The amount who play

Arma2 metro 2033 orginal crysis avp is probably less than just 1 of those games. And I'd guess bit tech have checked there page view count and relise black ops tops page count

590 and 6990 both suffer issues with crysis 2 that is related to the drivers I didn't mention the 6970 which for reference can play on extreme at that Rez

 

So Rollo: is the point of a gpu test to see how well it plays what is popular or how well it plays that which graphically testing?

And is it fair to have a game where...[Bit-tech]"have found Nvidia cards hold a significant advantage"?

 

But can they play tetris?

 

Fingers duel gpu needs to beat the equive sli cf setup or it's pointless and that includes price no one who knows anything will buy this or 590 as both get beaten and if your board does not support sli cf you need a bigger upgrade than a £600 gpu

6970 cf beats both for alot less money

 

Don't forget. Both cards use a hell lot more power and two GPU but only manage about 40 percent faster than Gtx 580.

Whichever way you look at it, I think zero fuss fastest single GPU solution is still best at the moment.

 

Depending on your needs, a single GTX580 only goes so far afterall. It may draw less power and cost less for the performance, but if your performance requirements are higher than it provides then it's not a viable option. Once you pass the realm of the GTX580's performance your only options are multi-GPU single card, multi-card, suck it up and drop your performance requirements, or suck it up and wait for next-gen.

 

According to this http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/03/08/amd-radeon-hd-6990-review/9 the 6990 pulls less power than a 580 when idle and only around 20% more under load?

Although, the 590 pulls a similar amount of power to the 580 when idle but 45% more under load
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/24/nvidia-geforce-gtx-590-3gb-review/8

Still, i think the 580 probably makes better sense at the minute, especially given the lack of games pushing graphics hardware.

 

I haven't been a huge fan of sandwich or dual gpu cards for this exact reason. There is no conclusive recommendation anywhere stating their superiority over single cards when you weigh up cost, performance and power draw.

I'm with Frontline with the 580. There's nothing really testing beyond that.

 

I'll just go ahead and...

There's a very simple and extremely conclusive recommendation for dual GPU setups (including SLI/CF). If your single GPU card doesn't give playable frame rates for your given setup, then it's out of the picture.

Now, there's certainly some debate about what SLI/CF setups are better than multi-GPU cards. That isn't so conclusive.

 

That isnt a simple or extremely conclusive recommendation at all.

 

Consider someone wishing to play Arma II and BF:BC2 at 2,560x1,600 with all the settings maxed on each, and at a minimum of 30FPS. Hmmmm, let's see, looks like the GTX590 is the only option from the cards tested which meets the criteria for both games. The 6990 doesn't cut it for Arma II, and all other cards fail on both games.

What isn't conclusive is finding out what setups missing from the cards tested may work.

Your argument seems to be based off of your applications not requiring a dual GPU card. There are, however, other people out there with different desires.

 

Not many I may add.

 

LMFAO

Nvidia and AMD/ATI comparing there schlongs again?

So what if Nvidia or AMD/ATI have the fastest card?

I have 2 GTX 580's in sli and at the moment I am struggling to play games due to the crappy driver's although that may be my fault will find out over the weekend.

I chose to get 2 GTX 580's instead of a 6990 or 590 because I wanted the better performance and I don't like having 2 gpu's on 1 pcb.

I think they should run games like:

Crysis
Crysis Warhead
Crysis 2
BFBC2
Metro 2033

All these games are more demanding than the ones they use in 90% of the reviews, as the rest of them are all crappy console port's.

Modern Warfare 2 was limited to 90fps, Black Op's gain's no performance increase from using a top of the range card from a bottom of the range card.

Folding has been Nvidia's trump card for quite a while now, and I would love to see ATI finally claw it back but I cannot see it happening.

 

"Folding has been Nvidia's trump card for quite a while now, and I would love to see ATI finally claw it back but I cannot see it happening"

While a worthy cause it is a niché of a niché.

There a so many flaws/holes/outrightmisleadinginformation in Bit-Tech's 590 review it's worthy of the monika "Swiss Cheese"!!!

 

fanboys here, fanboys there, fanboys everywhere, my god, your all boring me to death, couldnt give a toss which card or company has the better or fastest card, BORING, now im away to fire up my ancient 1650x pro and play world of tanks, at 12 fps....my next upgrade will be to 2 gtx250's in sli, why ?, cause its bloody cheap thats why, about £60, thats all I need to power games. You are all desperate to think you have the best system, the most powerfull gpu, try and think about the games, and what you need to play em, me, im into WoT and combat arms, both require a very low base level, direct x 11 wont be worth investing in until christmas at least.

 

I respect your thoughts, just buy what you need, I agree.

However, there are those of us that need more power than playing WoT at 12FPS. I commend you for braving 12FPS.

I think that the only one-up that AMD has on Nvidia right now is the ability to go 5x1 portrait mode with five displays:

 

From the bench marks I have see the new Radeon 7000 series does better at higher resolutions than Nvidia again so the 7990 may yet beat the 690 in multiple monitor setups too. http://www.whichgraphicscard.com