Just watch, there's going to be warranty tape over a 3rd 8 pin power plug! :biggrin:
Even if GTX590 doesn't outperform the 6990, the 6990 is more or less unusable in reference design form. It really doesn't matter if the 6990 is 10-20% faster. Who would subject themselves to 70 DB+ of noise levels? At the end of the day if the 590 comes in at 10% slower but is FAR quieter, it's the winner imo. When comparing such videocards, +/-10% performance isn't much at all. If I had a $700+ graphics card, I may also want to try 3D, where NV wins again. Also, the card would be fast enough to run AA+PhysX. So I don't necessarily agree that this card has to be faster to be better.
That's impossible since both cards are using the same type of cooler and Fermi is more power hungry than Cayman.Even if GTX590 doesn't outperform the 6990, the 6990 is more or less unusable in reference design form. It really doesn't matter if the 6990 is 10-20% faster. Who would subject themselves to 70 DB+ of noise levels? At the end of the day if the 590 comes in at 10% slower but is FAR quieter, it's the winner imo. When comparing such videocards, +/-10% performance isn't much at all. If I had a $700+ graphics card, I may also want to try 3D, where NV wins again. Also, the card would be fast enough to run AA+PhysX. So I don't necessarily agree that this card has to be faster to be better.
Even if GTX590 doesn't outperform the 6990, the 6990 is more or less unusable in reference design form. It really doesn't matter if the 6990 is 10-20% faster. Who would subject themselves to 70 DB+ of noise levels? At the end of the day if the 590 comes in at 10% slower but is FAR quieter, it's the winner imo. When comparing such videocards, +/-10% performance isn't much at all. If I had a $700+ graphics card, I may also want to try 3D, where NV wins again. Also, the card would be fast enough to run AA+PhysX. So I don't necessarily agree that this card has to be faster to be better.
That's impossible since both cards are using the same type of cooler and Fermi is more power hungry than Cayman.
Since we are on the topic of features, will this card be Surround capable? Or would we need 2 cards to run 3 monitors?
Unless it's a triple-slot cooler I think the coolers are going to be on par in terms of cooling. The shroud on the GTX 590 is removable so I assume you can remove the shroud and have a fan blowing air right on the heatsinks that would give the GTX 590 an edge but that's about it.Nvidia does have a history of building better coolers than AMD though.
That's impossible since both cards are using the same type of cooler and Fermi is more power hungry than Cayman.
Unless it's a triple-slot cooler I think the coolers are going to be on par in terms of cooling. The shroud on the GTX 590 is removable so I assume you can remove the shroud and have a fan blowing air right on the heatsinks that would give the GTX 590 an edge but that's about it.
The same type of cooler != the same quality and capabilities.
That's impossible since both cards are using the same type of cooler and Fermi is more power hungry than Cayman.
Enthusiast doesn't care much about noise as everything is about efficient performance without reaching astronomical levels of power consumption. If you care about noise, I think that you would like better the GTX 560 Ti or the HD 6870.
Doesn't matter which card is faster....They both need full water blocks!
Full water blocks would tame both of these beasts! Would make a nice review with both of them going toe to toe in single and cross-fire/sli. Would be nice to see how much overclocking headroom these cards would have under water!
Well if it runs well below the specs of a full-bledged 580, the fan may not need to spin as hard.
You would think that wouldn't you but according to these guys who ran 2 GTX 580s at 600 core, the GTX 590 would still be producing more heat than a HD 6990.Well if it runs well below the specs of a full-bledged 580, the fan may not need to spin as hard.
Even if GTX590 doesn't outperform the 6990, the 6990 is more or less unusable in reference design form. It really doesn't matter if the 6990 is 10-20% faster. Who would subject themselves to 70 DB+ of noise levels? At the end of the day if the 590 comes in at 10% slower but is FAR quieter, it's the winner imo. When comparing such videocards, +/-10% performance isn't much at all. If I had a $700+ graphics card, I may also want to try 3D, where NV wins again. Also, the card would be fast enough to run AA+PhysX. So I don't necessarily agree that this card has to be faster to be better.
Fan noise of the Radeon HD 6970 is ok. When compared with NVIDIA's latest GTX 580 that was optimized for low noise, we see about the same numbers. But GTX 580 is over 10% faster!
Except it needs to cool 2 580s with one fan.
You would think that wouldn't you but according to these guys who ran 2 GTX 580s at 600 core, the GTX 590 would still be producing more heat than a HD 6990.
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/artikkelit/naytonohjaimet/ennakkokatsaus-nvidia-geforce-gtx-590
Even if GTX590 doesn't outperform the 6990, the 6990 is more or less unusable in reference design form. It really doesn't matter if the 6990 is 10-20% faster. Who would subject themselves to 70 DB+ of noise levels? At the end of the day if the 590 comes in at 10% slower but is FAR quieter, it's the winner imo. When comparing such videocards, +/-10% performance isn't much at all. If I had a $700+ graphics card, I may also want to try 3D, where NV wins again. Also, the card would be fast enough to run AA+PhysX. So I don't necessarily agree that this card has to be faster to be better.
All of your points are valid. One consideration though. because there is no standard means of measurement for either power consumption or noise, we need to be careful just listing either spec from one review as the spec for the card. For example 70db+. It's not hard at all to find reviews from respected sources, TechPowerUp, for example http://208.43.3.154/reviews/ASUS/Radeon_HD_6990/21.html that give noise levels far, far, lower.