Nvidia prismatchar Geforce GTX 590

Från vad jag kan se i denna bilden så kommer även 6990 med 3xDVI i form av adaptrar
http://www.sweclockers.com/image/red/2011/03/08/IMG_6330.jpg?...

EDIT: Yup. Från Gigabytes 6990 så tilkommer 2st MiniDP till DVI adaptrar. Plus en HDMI adapter
http://www.inet.se/artikel/5409159/gigabyte-radeon-hd6990-antilles-4gb

Så 3xDVI på 590 är ingen fördel längre då heller.. Känns lite som enda riktiga fördelen 590 har nu över 6990 är 3d Vision..

Nvidia vill väll vara grafikkortens "Apple".

det där skiten med att 120fps såg ut att hacka fram i 30fps med ett ATI 5970 är det crappet fixat eller är det som vanligt med ATI att dom gör B grejor ;)?

Båda adaptrarna är single link vilket kan hantera max 1920x1200, mina skärmar kräver dual link, samt att den passiva inte ens fungerar med mina skärmar.

Så tillbaka till noll, GTX 590 > 6990
Även fast jag är en ATI fanboy, det är skamligt så dem smackar på värdelösa skitkontakter.

Though the Nvidia GTX 590 is a nice piece of hardware, the AMD Radeon HD 6990 still has some performance advantage over the GTX 590 in some games. However, the GTX 590 does have its own advantage in the tessellation, because in tessellation heavy games and benchmarks, the GTX 590 would leave the HD 6990 in the dust. This is especially important for upcoming games, as the importance of tessellation is growing in modern games, and this trend is sure to continue.

We truly thought the GTX 590 was going to make the Radeon 6990 look bad, but the fact of the matter is that NVIDIA made the 6990 look that much better. The GTX 590 is not the "World's Fastest Single Card Solution" as stated on our page 1 slides; the Radeon HD 6990 is very much retaining that title. Hail to the King, baby!

Based on our testing AMD's Cayman GPU is about 20% more efficient than NVIDIA's GF110, which means that AMD can run their GPU faster, letting it catch up on the single-GPU performance disadvantage it has. Now with two GPUs in place, single GPU performance doesn't matter anymore but performance per Watt.
As a result GTX 590 and HD 6990 are roughly the same performance when averaged. In lower resolutions GTX 590 wins, at 1920x1200 both are even, and at 2560x1600 AMD's HD 6990 wins by 3%. Since 2560x1600 is the primary resolution that both of those cards should be used for, my conclusion is that GTX 590 is slower than HD 6990, but not by much. It is still disappointing to see that NVIDIA could not turn their single-GPU winning GF110 into a dual-GPU design win too[.....]Price-wise both HD 6990 and GTX 590 are tied around $700 which is a lot of money to spend on a graphics card. My recommendation would be to go with a single GPU GTX 580 and wait what the future brings in terms of games - most games are console ports, Crysis 2 is DX9. Developers! The PC needs more love from you.

The GTX 590 3GB is definitely of the former persuasion, topping our performance charts in almost every test, no matter what resolution or game we used. In some games the lead over even AMD’s massive Radeon HD 6990 4GB was substantial and in others only marginal, but the GTX 590 3GB is the king of the graphics cards based on the performance we saw

The end result is a card which runs cooler than the Radeon 6990, runs quieter than the 6990 and in a number of games it performs faster too. When allowed to perform at its maximum the GTX 590 hits framerates which are exceptional, even at 5760x1080 with maximum detail. Crysis 2 was a prime example of this.

Refinement is always welcome but the bread and butter of any $700 graphics card is performance. In this respect, the GTX 590 puts up some great numbers but ultimately falls short of dethroning AMD’s HD6990 in convincing fashion. The two dual GPU cards trade blows from one game and resolution to the next which means the HD 6990 no longer boasts the title of “fastest graphics card in the world” but neither does the GTX 590. The end result between these two cards on the performance front is just too close to call.

In our testing, there seems to be a prevailing pattern that the GTX 590 can't quite shake; in most cases the GeForce GTX 590 is faster than the Radeon HD 6990 at the lower resolutions of 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 but it either ties or falls behind the performance of the HD 6990 at the top resolution of 2560x1600. Now, I know you might be saying "Ryan, not many gamers have 30" panels that require that kind of resolution" and I would agree with you. However, these cards are built for and target the extreme enthusiast gamer and many of those WILL have those kinds of monitors or are going to planning on getting one. And don't forget Surround/Eyefinity testing: even though the 2560x1600 resolution isn't a direct indicator of performance in that configuration, the more pixels the cards are rendering the more power it is going to take. A 30-in monitor renders at about 4M pixels; a three panel 5760x1080 screen is 6.2M pixels.

If you are considering one of these new dual-GPU options, then you need to consider if you are comfortable running at the 1920x1200 resolution with that much power, and if you are, then either the GTX 590 or HD 6990 is going to fit the bill nicely. If you are running at higher resolution than that then our results point towards the Radeon HD 6990 being the better choice[...]The downside to this release is that quite clearly the GTX 590 isn't up to the task of beating the performance of the HD 6990 at the highest resolution tested, 2560x1600. At both 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the GTX 590 was either better than or equal to the results from AMD's new flagship.

Still, based on our tests, the Radeon HD 6990 has an appreciable performance lead over the GTX 590 at the same price. Yes, that lead largely evaporates with our WICKED overclocked config, but going WICKED involves some pretty extreme power draw, even compared to AMD's (admittedly more conservative) AUSUM option.

Judged by the gaming performance metric alone, and it's the first aspect many enthusiasts will zoom in on, NVIDIA's GTX 590 is simply outclassed by AMD's chief performance protagonist in many games, to the tune of 25 per cent in worst-case scenarios. We can infer that CrossFire's excellent scaling coupled with AMD's insouciance for a well-balanced solution - HD 6990 really puts foot-to-the-floor performance first - are two reasons why the big-ass Radeon is so fast.

Based on the fourteen games that we tested with the GeForce GTX 590 was found on average to be 1% faster than the Radeon HD 6990. So as it stands the GeForce GTX 590 is about as fast as the Radeon HD 6990, and depending on the game the results can swing around ~20% in either direction....he GeForce GTX 590 does have a noise advantage as it is much quieter than the Radeon HD 6990 when operating, even under full load. However the GTX 590 does also consume more power, around 9% more under load and 10% more at idle.

Certainly the GTX 590 doesn't come cheap, but considering it will easily beat the Radeon 6990 in almost every manner while costing the same, we think the price is warranted. It's about maximum performance, and perhaps even bragging rights, and there's no doubt the ASUS GTX 590 is the fastest gaming card on the planet.

Även om GTX 590 har prestanda så det räcker och blir över är det AMD som leder ligan och ledartröjan är just vad som räknas i den mest extrema prestandaklassen.

Om man går in på din profil här på Swec och kollar vilka speltrådar du skrivit i så hittade jag inte en enda där du nyttjar CUDA eller Physx.
Om du inte spelar ett enda spel som använder CUDA varför är det då så viktigt att ha det? Sälja CUDA till dig är som att sälja en plasma tv till en blind.

nja. stämmer inte riktigt. apple gör bäst datorer på marknaden och då kostar de också pengar.

on topic: AMD vann denna gången vilket jag uppskattar, Nvidia har regerat allt för länge.

Å andra sidan klarar ett GTX 590 tre skärmar utan aktiva adaptrar för 4000:- som dessutm är skräp enligt folk som har testat.

Skulle köra på 6990 alla dagar i veckan om det inte vore för just det här att dem gör det omöjligt att ansluta det till ens outbytbara monitor-uppsättning. Det finns inga 30" att byta ut till utan att lägga 25K+ per EIZO monitor >.<. Allt annat är nedgradering som kostar massor och nonexistent andrahandsvärde då marknaden för 30" är liten.

Hade dem lämnat två DVI på 6990 hade det vart ett val, men nejnej.
Dem måste fan göra något expanderkort av något slag så man kan ansluta sina skärmar i eyefinity utan att bryta crossfire. Välja själv vilka utgångar man vill ha, DVI har väl fortfarande majoriteten av folket? Så varför ta bort fler och fler DVI portar med varje nytt grafikkort, går ju inte att köpa nytt grafik snart pga att dem inte går att ansluta till skärmarna.

Å andra sidan klarar ett GTX 590 tre skärmar utan aktiva adaptrar för 4000:- som dessutm är skräp enligt folk som har testat.

Skulle köra på 6990 alla dagar i veckan om det inte vore för just det här att dem gör det omöjligt att ansluta det till ens outbytbara monitor-uppsättning. Det finns inga 30" att byta ut till utan att lägga 25K+ per EIZO monitor >.<. Allt annat är nedgradering som kostar massor och nonexistent andrahandsvärde då marknaden för 30" är liten.

Hade dem lämnat två DVI på 6990 hade det vart ett val, men nejnej.
Dem måste fan göra något expanderkort av något slag så man kan ansluta sina skärmar i eyefinity utan att bryta crossfire. Välja själv vilka utgångar man vill ha, DVI har väl fortfarande majoriteten av folket? Så varför ta bort fler och fler DVI portar med varje nytt grafikkort, går ju inte att köpa nytt grafik snart pga att dem inte går att ansluta till skärmarna.