Hardware Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 3GB Review

Having looked at a few sites including this one, I think the decision is made for me to get the 6990. They are both extremely good cards, as they should be. My taste in games is more BC2, Crysis, Stalker etc. Although Dirt2 I'd have hoped to be better on the 6990, but nevermind.

One thing I haven't seen yet is Valve's Source engine tested, off to hunt one down ...

 

how long (on average) is every run ? (ex: testing X card at Y resolution)

 

In light of everything that was mentioned in the recent 'Farewell to DX' piece. What's the point of bringing out ever more powerful graphics HW, if what we've got already is running at a fraction of its potential?

 

the cards are still working at 100% of their potential, they're just swimming in mud rather than water. It's like when you walk on an icy sidewalk, you're still walking as fast as you can even though you're going slower than you could. Faster card do make a difference even though they have untapped potential, as do older cards as well

 

When the phrase 'triple slot reference cooler' starts getting used you know a process shrink is well overdue. How long have they been using 40nm now?

 

Because the GTX 570 sli is not as good as the GTX 590, but the GTX 580 sli demolishes it.

The 6990 dependant on site and cpu etc is 80% times faster on the reviews but 20% say the Nvidia is faster.

The 6970 Crossfire is a touch faster in certain test's and slower in others.

To be honest I am going for a GTX 580 sli setup don't see the point in either the 6990 or GTX 590 as they both don't perform as good, but cost not far off the same price and I don't see the point in Tri SLI either not really worth it for the price.

 

Yeah, glad to hear it. Though most recent cards can be ranked easily, comparisons of folding performance and power consumption including older cards such as 8800GT and GTX260 would be very helpful

 

its fast, its hot, it requires a heck lot of power ti run, and alas, its pricey, for me the performance diff between the two cards is so damn close I dont think its worth it (Im guessing ATI are having driver problems with some games as usual). but really 500 and 600 price diff for a small percentage increase in performance.. if only I was that rich

 

First this site reviews Crysis 2 360 and not the PC version then this.....

590 GTX
Performance 10
Features 8
Value 8
Over all 8
Recommended

HD6990
Performance 10
Feature 7
Value 7
Overall 8
Not Recommended

That's really lame!! HD 6990 has the same features and is cheaper than the 590 GTX and if you would of done 3 monitor testing (the whole reason for these cards) the HD 6990 is a clear winner but got lower scores and no recommendation. Good thing HARDWARE CANUCKS has the best testing on the Internet to help make a sound buying decision cause this site doesn't cut it anymore. Thanks for testing Arma II.
I Quit!

 

This right here. 1080p are the consoles of desktop displays. Any PC enthusiast with the slightest self respect knows that a proper 24" monitor is 1920x1200, just as proper english spells colour, not color.

 

I must have missed your switch in opinion, but of course you're right.
1920x1080 is the new 1280x1024

1920x1200 may be a more "professional" size, but monitors are hard to come by, and every man and his dog has a 1920x1080 by now.

So does it run Crysis?

 

I am a self respecting PC Enthusiast but I have a resolution of 1920x1080 simply because I don't use a poxy 24" monitor for my pc I use a 42" Plasma 1080p TV, until I can find a 42" TV with a higher resolution that doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds then maybe I will look at it but for now and like most, people who use large TV's as monitors I will stick with 1920x1080.

 

using a TV as PC monitor doesn't count as being PC enthusiast.

using anything above 24inch with 1080p resolution doesn't count as using a PC monitor.



i think the problem is lack of 2560 panels on the market. not many people are willing to buy IPS panels. but having said that, anyone spend this amount of money on a graphics card really should have their head checked if they game at 1920 or lower on a TN panel.

 

I wonder how it compares to 2x 6950 2GB in crossfire flashed to 6970 spec (almost £200 cheaper)?

 

People complain about anything these days, don't they? It's only an extra 120 vertical pixels, it's going to make almost no difference whatsoever to the results. These reviews are about testing real world scenarios, not deciding what aspect ratio is best for PC gaming, and whether you like it or not 16:9 monitors are fast becoming standard just like 16:10 widescreen monitors superseded 4:3 monitors several years ago. If you absolutely feel the need to see benchmarks in other resolutions or for older games which few people play any more but still obsess over for benchmarking reasons, then there are plenty of other sites out there you can go to for this information.

/anti-rant rant

 

Interesting result, with hindsight you can see why XFX, a board parntner that uses nvidia and amd chips, suddenly warrantied the 6990 overclock switch, it would appear that the switch must be used to keep up at high performance levels.

 

i think it was only for the US. elsewhere colour is still being used, (europe, au, etc)

 

Where's the Crysis? Where's the Metro 2033? Where's anything that taxes the card? Sounds like you've picked your benchmarks very carefully to get on ASUS/NVIDIA's good books

 

This question has been answered so many times. No one plays Crysis or Metro 2033. So we don't test them.

We took the same benchmarks we've used for the last 6 months, and added the ultra demanding ARMA2. No /tinfoil hat here.

 

These are the same benchmarks used in every graphics card review bit-tech has published this year.

Is it just me or are people being intentionally stupid today?