Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 3 GB Review: Firing Back With 1024 CUDA Cores

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bilfred

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
10
0
18,510
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]Bottom line is that GTX590 slower than HD6990 and consumes more power.[/citation]

Wow, you've outdone yourself here, Scrum: a) assuming the 590 is slower on average, b) ignoring the OBVIOUS evidence that the reference 6990 cooler is obnoxiously loud in favor of mentioning power.

I dunno man, given the choice between unbearable noise and a few hundredths of a penny more in extra wattage... you're pushing your pro-AMD agenda a little too far, here. ;)
 

cburke82

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2011
1,126
0
19,310

Well the answer to A is yes it is slower on avg not by much but at anything 1080p and up with any AA it is a slower card. The 3GB of ram holds it back there. AND if you look at the stock 6690 not the OC it is about 40-50w less power not a big deal but if your PSU is border line that could make a diff. Also the numbers show that the 6990 with no OC is still faster than the stock 590 and it also seems the 590 is less of an OCer than other Nvidia cards. And well the noise sucks on the 6990 true however not everybody will care. On my 6950 I turn the fan up to keep it cool and its most likely louder than the posted DBA of the 6950 in this article. If im gaming and turn the TV up past a whisper I dont even notice that noise. But bottom line should be get 2 580/6970 lol :)
 
Great review. The 580 and 6970 additions make it a bit hard to follow but more information is better than not enough. Look as tho the 6990 retains the crown but the 590 gets a honorable mention for quietness.

I loved the triple monitor benchmarks. I would use portrait because landscape causes me to want see past the top of my monitors. Could the benchmarks have been done at 3240X1920? I request this setting for next video card review. Looks as tho both cards makers have a few driver bugs to work out for a future review. With this review gamers know which card works with their games.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]bubbet[/nom]Im pretty sure people spending $700 on a GPU do not give a SH!T how quiet it is. Also note that most people buying a waterblock ALREADY HAVE A LIQUID COOLING LOOP.[/citation]Well then the GTX 590 wins, right? After all, it's massively underclocked to allow it to run quieter. So, you buy the GTX 590 and overclock the crap out of it, on water, because you know its GPU has far more room to be overclocked.

I think you painted yourself into a corner on that response.
 

professorprofessorson

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2011
184
0
18,710
@ jprahman
Supposedly on multiple sites and forums there are reports of the card going up in smoke, etc, some due to overclocking, some due to overvolting, , driver issues, etc. Due to that, I don't think the 590 is going to be a OC champ here, at least on the initial release batches.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]professorprofessorson[/nom]@ jprahman Supposedly on multiple sites and forums there are reports of the card going up in smoke, etc, some due to overclocking, some due to overvolting, , driver issues, etc. Due to that, I don't think the 590 is going to be a OC champ here, at least on the initial release batches.[/citation]I'm going to take a wild guess that some companies will release cards with modified voltage regulator designs.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]professorprofessorson[/nom]Sorry if this link was posted in the comments prior, but I just got a kick out of the title of this review about Nvidia firing back, with a gpu that goes up in flames so to speak.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRo-1VFMcbc[/citation]

Anything goes up in flames if you're an idiot and overvolt it past the point of reason. Would it be so surprising if I blew up a Phenom II using 2V and then posted a video of it on the Internet? Is it really a coincidence that these guys were filming their benchmarks at the moment their card died? Don't fall for sensationalism.

Best,
Chris
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]spentshells[/nom]Maybe it was mentionedwhy were the massive resolutions not tested with two cards (4xGPU's)[/citation]

They were. :)
 
Anyone notice how all the review sites have gone back to using the X58 platform rather than the P67 platform?

Same thing as last year with the P55. Much like the P55, we were told the P67 was the best thing since sliced bread for about three months...
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795


But your example was ;-)
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795


If it's any reassurance, I did quad-GPU testing on both cards using P67 (that's four GPUs on 16 total lanes of PCIe) and saw no issues!
 
I have to disagree with the findings of this review.

After looking at the other sites the AMD 6990 is the better card for a number of reasons ... yes it is a bit noisier ... but that is it.

If you simply want the best single card money can buy then the AMD Radeon 6990 is the card to buy ... period.

As of next Monday it will also be cheaper than the 590 ... just to rub it in.

To flat out recommend the 590 over the 6990 just on the basis on a slightly higher noise result is simply not enough in my book.

But hey ... I am slightly deaf and getting old.

/shuffles off to look for slippers and a glass for my teeth.
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]If it's any reassurance, I did quad-GPU testing on both cards using P67 (that's four GPUs on 16 total lanes of PCIe) and saw no issues![/citation]
Same performance? Did you use a 2600K? OC'd to what? Which motherboard?

Please let me know. I'm seriously considering building one if it's not going to be another flash-in-the-pan architecture.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]If it's any reassurance, I did quad-GPU testing on both cards using P67 (that's four GPUs on 16 total lanes of PCIe) and saw no issues![/citation]Oh Chris, I hate to call you out in public...but not even I can unring that bell.

Lets not confuse the poor Neophytes into thinking those GPUs were only getting four lanes of bandwidth. With an LGA 1155 platform, the eight lanes per slot (two cards) also make eight lanes per GPU since the card's built-in hub has a repeater function.

And if the NF200 was also on the motherboard, the CPUs sixteen lanes would be repeated to two sixteen lane slots and sixteen lanes per GPU, thanks to the repeater function added to both the motherboard and each card.

Someone not fearful of confusing newbies might even say it's 48 lanes of performance :p

 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]ubercake[/nom]Same performance? Did you use a 2600K? OC'd to what? Which motherboard?Please let me know. I'm seriously considering building one if it's not going to be another flash-in-the-pan architecture.[/citation]

The system came from Maingear, so I called to ask why they used P67 instead of X58. They let me know that they had tried both, and the performance loss attributable to PCI Express is negligible. So, it turns out that the architecture of the processor is more of a win than the loss of PCIe connectivity is a loss. This is according to those folks; I still haven't run comparison numbers. But, you should be OK uber!

Have a good weekend,
Chris
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Oh Chris, I hate to call you out in public...but not even I can unring that bell. Lets not confuse the poor Neophytes into thinking those GPUs were only getting four lanes of bandwidth. With an LGA 1155 platform, the eight lanes per slot (two cards) also make eight lanes per GPU since the card's built-in hub has a repeater function. And if the NF200 was also on the motherboard, the CPUs sixteen lanes would be repeated to two sixteen lane slots and sixteen lanes per GPU, thanks to the repeater function added to both the motherboard and each card.Someone not fearful of confusing newbies might even say it's 48 lanes of performance[/citation]

16-> 8 + 8. From there, 8 lanes multiplexed into 16 +16 per slot. Each GPU has a x16 link, sure, but then the data gets crammed down an 8-lane pipe :p
 

brucethemoose

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2011
1
0
18,510
I agree, both cards are good and bad in some ways. But if I were in the market for such a card, the LAST thing I would do is buy one of those cards right now.

If there was ever a card than needed a waterblock so badly, it is the GTX 590. Put a water block on that thing, you can run all those CUDA cores at GTX 580 frequencies and higher, giving you 2 gtx 580s in a single slot. And don't forget the 3gb version of the GTX580 lurking around on the market. The inevitable watercooled 6gb GTX 590 is bound to surface eventually, and it will be the fastest single card around by far.

But for those of us who don't want the expense or hassle of watercooling, we should probably wait for a better non-reference 6990. All it needs is a quieter cooler.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]16-> 8 + 8. From there, 8 lanes multiplexed into 16 +16 per slot. Each GPU has a x16 link, sure, but then the data gets crammed down an 8-lane pipe :p[/citation]That's why I lead with "lanes of bandwidth" (equivalence) rather than just "lanes" :) I probably could have been more clear, but I have an editor who normally checks these things :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.