AMD Challenges NVIDIA: World's Fastest Graphics Card? Prove it!

[caveman-jim]

Dave Erskine, Senior Public Relations Manager for Graphics Desktop at AMD, takes issue with NVIDIA's press release of their new dual-GPU GeForce GTX 590 graphics card - proclaimed by NVIDIA as the world's fastest graphics card:

At AMD we pride ourselves on both the excellence of our products, and in the integrity of our messaging. Let me give you a perfect example. Two weeks ago we launched our flagship GPU, the AMD Radeon™ HD 6990. We had designed it to be a game-changer and we hit the bull’s eye. The result: The AMD Radeon™ HD 6990 achieved the highest default single graphics card score of X3303 using the industry standard 3DMark11 benchmark. And when we launched it, we issued a press release in which we proudly called it the “World’s Fastest Graphics Card” and fully disclosed the basis upon which we made that claim.

Yesterday our competitor also issued a press release, announcing the launch of what they claim to be the “World’s Fastest Graphics Card”– the Nvidia GTX 590. We combed through their announcement to understand how it was that such a claim could be made and why there was no substantiation based on industry-standard benchmarks, similar to what AMD did with industry benchmark 3DMark 11, the latest DirectX® 11 benchmark from FutureMark.

So now I issue a challenge to our competitor: prove it, don’t just say it. Show us the substantiation. Because as it stands today, leading reviewers agree with us here, here, here, and here that the AMD Radeon HD 6990 sits on the top as the world’s fastest graphics card.

Source - [email protected] Blog

What are your thoughts? Do results from the HD 6990's BIOS OC mode count? Does overclocked warranty support matter? Is noise under load a primary purchase factor when selecting a $700+ graphics card? Will reports of dying cards persuade you one way or another? Are both cards irrelevant thanks to cheaper dual-card alternatives?

[sandorski]

Seems like Newegg has pulled the 590 off the shelves or at least that's the rumour/buzz right now. Wait a couple days, AMD might just win by default.

[kakarot]

In all honesty I was expecting the 590 to be the clear winner but that is not the case. Its a tough choice as it seems to depend on the games one enjoys but I'm impressed that amd comes out on top in most of the more demanding ones. Still the 590 seems to run quieter and little cooler overall so one has to keep that in mind too.
It's great to see amd on the right path in both hardware and software -the 11.4 cats marked a turning point for me. Either way tight competition is great and can only mean cheaper hardware and better drivers for us all

[Ristogod]

I agree with AMD on this one. I hate that nVidia cards often claim to be the world's fastest. Often when they claim that, they are. But I was never convinced they weren't just saying it from nothing more than assuming it. They like to pretend that they don't have competition at times. So they'll come out with a new card faster than their old fastest card and base their world's fastest claim solely on that.

[WhAt3v3r]

Even as a fanboy the 590 just doesn't do anything for me. I'd rather spend another $500 and get a second 580 that I can overclock the crap out of.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by ronerik

Even as a fanboy the 590 just doesn't do anything for me. I'd rather spend another $500 and get a second 580 that I can overclock the crap out of.

While I'm not a fanboy and regularly switch brands back and forth, I do agree with the bulk of your statement. Neither the 590 not the 6990 really are worth it this round unless you HAVE to have quad GPUs and you're fully intending a 1400 dollar graphics purchase, but only have 2 PCIe x16 slots to accomplish it with. Caveman Jim said it best I think, both cards are rendered irrelevant by cheaper and faster multi-card solutions EXCEPT in the scenario I outlined above.

Not to mention the yucky downsides of both dual chip solutions. And there's quite a few. Not only is the Radeon 6990 noisey and FAR too big for what it delivers, but the cooler shape on it almost FORCES a VERY tight selection of motherboards if you ever intend to use more then one 6990 in your system. AMD still hasn't learned the lesson that Nvidia has totally had under control since the GT200 series. It's SO simple, that AMD's ignoring of it has disgusted me to the point of refusing to purchase them ever again for multi card use until they fix their stupidity on the issue. Making coolers perfectly squared off like they do kills airflow. There's no gap for air in a tight PCIe slot config, which since socket 1155 came out became VERY common and was already pretty common on socket 1156 boards.

[SIrPauly]

This sku's make some sense if one doesn't like clutter or has one slot I guess.

I like the choice for someone if it fits their needs though and appreciate the engineering it takes to create this choice from both parties.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by moshpit

Not to mention the yucky downsides of both dual chip solutions. And there's quite a few. Not only is the Radeon 6990 noisey and FAR too big for what it delivers, but the cooler shape on it almost FORCES a VERY tight selection of motherboards if you ever intend to use more then one 6990 in your system. AMD still hasn't learned the lesson that Nvidia has totally had under control since the GT200 series. It's SO simple, that AMD's ignoring of it has disgusted me to the point of refusing to purchase them ever again for multi card use until they fix their stupidity on the issue. Making coolers perfectly squared off like they do kills airflow. There's no gap for air in a tight PCIe slot config, which since socket 1155 came out became VERY common and was already pretty common on socket 1156 boards.

Both AMD and NVIDIA recommend a slot between cards for these products.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

Both AMD and NVIDIA recommend a slot between cards for these products.

Yet Nvidia made provision for when there's not, and AMD didn't. Which one has the most realistic approach? Say "Don't do it" then ignore it assuming nobody will buy a motherboard that violates that advise in the face of the reality that there's MANY boards with that issue out there, or to say "Don't do it", then assume some people will not have any choice so make a few MINOR changes that allow for that? I'd say the later gets my vote for logical approach while the former gets my vote for "cheap ass way of getting out of it".

Can you point out why AMD has ignored it? A logical reason? Other then assuming their word negates the reality of MANY boards not having an extra slot between the first 2 PCIe x16 slots?

[moshpit]

Keep in mind, I'm discussing boards from Asus, EVGA and even Gigabyte that exhibit this symptom. A serious problem with AMD's cooling solutions because AMD insists that you have an extra slot while Nvidia only advises it, but gives room for in case you don't - properly acknowledging the reality of EXCELLENT multi-GPU capable boards without needing to waste space on an extra space between the first 2 GPU slots when we're already coughing up 2 slots for each card as it is!!!

This is a major sticking issue for me with AMD right now. I totally disrespect AMD's choice on this matter and think it's ridiculous. I'm not the first or only person bitten by AMD's short sighted approach to this issue.

[The Voodoo]

Originally Posted by moshpit

While I'm not a fanboy and regularly switch brands back and forth, I do agree with the bulk of your statement. Neither the 590 not the 6990 really are worth it this round unless you HAVE to have quad GPUs and you're fully intending a 1400 dollar graphics purchase, but only have 2 PCIe x16 slots to accomplish it with. Caveman Jim said it best I think, both cards are rendered irrelevant by cheaper and faster multi-card solutions EXCEPT in the scenario I outlined above.

Not to mention the yucky downsides of both dual chip solutions. And there's quite a few. Not only is the Radeon 6990 noisey and FAR too big for what it delivers, but the cooler shape on it almost FORCES a VERY tight selection of motherboards if you ever intend to use more then one 6990 in your system. AMD still hasn't learned the lesson that Nvidia has totally had under control since the GT200 series. It's SO simple, that AMD's ignoring of it has disgusted me to the point of refusing to purchase them ever again for multi card use until they fix their stupidity on the issue. Making coolers perfectly squared off like they do kills airflow. There's no gap for air in a tight PCIe slot config, which since socket 1155 came out became VERY common and was already pretty common on socket 1156 boards.

I beg to differ on a couple points. The cooler on the 6990 is not noisy in a good cooling case. On a scale of 1 to 10(loudest) I'd say it was a 4. The cooler on my old 4870x2 was about an 8 and regularly allowed the gpu's to get above 100C. AMD has improved it to an acceptable level. Any more and there would be no market for Artic Cooling heatsink stuff.

Also, this card is only slightly longer than the 4870x2 and apparently a bit shorter than the 5970. Maybe you're referring the the Geforce 590 and I'm no engineer so I can't comment on that.

In Canada right now the cheapest 6990 is only $5 more than the cheapest 6970. The 6950 hardly compares imo. The 1gb in crossfire would be decent, but there would definitely be times when you'd want more ram and it would barely suffice for 1920x1200 and definitely not above that. The 2gb overclocked to 6970 specs would be slighty better than the 6990, however then you are running the risk of shortening the life of your card...not to mention the other issues with having 2 video cards.

Now if you are referring to the Geforce 570. Then yes I can agree. AMD can't touch the price point or the cooling point of the 570. I'd still rather have ATI though.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by moshpit

A serious problem with AMD's cooling solutions because AMD insists that you have an extra slot while Nvidia only advises it,

AMD doesn't insist on it, they recommend it. I was referring to the 590 and 6990 only, btw.

In my testing the 6-series have not had issues with spacing in adjacent slots, but it feels to me like since the X1900/7800 days we've been telling people to design their systems to have more space between graphics cards - pick mobo's that triple space their graphics slots, for the high end.

[Crisler]

Since I am not a big fan of multicard solutions the differences does not matter to me at all.

Personally I think people buying this cards are NUTS! I am perfectly content on the games I play running at or near max detail at 1080 on my 24". The games look awesome and run great on a $250 card or even a $200 card for that matter.

I have better uses for my money, like my morgage or food.

[taz291819]

Originally Posted by Crisler

Since I am not a big fan of multicard solutions the differences does not matter to me at all.

Personally I think people buying this cards are NUTS! I am perfectly content on the games I play running at or near max detail at 1080 on my 24". The games look awesome and run great on a $250 card or even a $200 card for that matter.

I have better uses for my money, like my morgage or food.

I agree. I got out of the $500+ video card game a long time ago (think I paid $550 for the X800XT PE). $250 is about the most I'd pay now, as I have other uses for said money.

[caveman-jim]

The fact that you don't have money for these cards doesn't make them irrelevant

[dmanna]

I was debating on the 590 but not paying 800 bucks for that. Not even sure a dual gpu single card would even fix the multi screen issues that come with crossfire/sli.

Or should I say my issues. Everyone seems to have a different issue with crossfire sli in surround mode.

[Progression]

Last round I bashed AMD for being conservative on their cards instead of offering cutting edge performance like the 470/480 did, which were noisy and power hungry.

This round it's the other way around, I have to give it to AMD because they are giving the best performance out of the two, even if they are noisier.

I don't care about noise when I am buying a 700+ card. It's like buying a fancy car only to complain about the engine noise/fuel usage when accelerating to their top speed. Props to AMD, and hopefully nVidia can back up their claims .

[SIrPauly]

If anything it is wondrous that the IHV's try to out do each other. Extremism is tough to handle in forums but wouldn't have it any other way because it means two talented IHV's are fighting and offering compelling choices.

[demo]

Interesting that I just read a review titled "The GTX 590 vs. the HD 6990 – only One is “the World’s Fastest video card”

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx_590_review


Interesting conclusion.. Note that they tested over 30 games

"Nvidia’s GTX 590 is much faster than the GTX 580 and it wins more benches than it loses to the HD 6990. Nvidia has brought good performance into a $700 package"


hrmm

[Sound_Card]

alienbabeltech. lol.

[Riou]

This is what TechPowerUP had to say about the GTX 590:

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Sound_Card

alienbabeltech. lol.

I assume you have some reason to LOL at them? Seems the ONLY site that's done 30 games in test of 590 versus 6990. Making it even more credible, the same games that 6990 generally wins in most other reviews, it still wins here. It's just when you take a broader sample, the conclusion isn't cut and dried in 6990's favor anymore. I find that VERY interesting.

Also of note, I'd like to see more site's include Stalker CoP as this one did. There's no doubt about how much it stresses a GPU or two.

Still, even if the overall trend was in favor of 590, it still wouldn't tempt me. I love Nvidia's single GPU performance for 580, but AMD got the multi-GPU scaling crown this time undoubtedly for modern games, the most important selling point of these kinds of cards.

[demo]

Not the most impressive card released thats for sure, power requirments seem to kill what could have been a monster.. but It's still a powerfull piece of hardware.

[Crisler]

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

The fact that you don't have money for these cards doesn't make them irrelevant

The fact they represent a small fraction of the overall card sales does not make them relevant either.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by Crisler

The fact they represent a small fraction of the overall card sales does not make them relevant either.

Actually, it does.

[SIrPauly]

Originally Posted by Sound_Card

alienbabeltech. lol.

You may disagree with his conclusion but to LOL a site that offers around 30 titles and 37 pages of information and still continuing is not very fair. He is also going to examine in-depth multi-monitor and over-clocking, too, in the future.

I disagreed with his( AlienBabelTech)over-all view at Anands -- he posts there( apoppin/Mark)

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...0&postcount=59

[Crisler]

BTW correct me if I am wrong here but it just dawned on me. AMD is making their fastest card claim based off a single bencmark. Got to love marketting spin...

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Crisler

BTW correct me if I am wrong here but it just dawned on me. AMD is making their fastest card claim based off a single bencmark. Got to love marketting spin...

Sadly, AMD significantly LOST my most important game in the list, Stalker CoP. AMD has always had issues with the Stalker series though. Also on the Nvidia victories list of modern games, Lost Planet 2 and HAWX 2, both of which I've recently started playing.

I think Alienbabeltech is actually doing a good job to get known. 30 benchmarks is a significant investment of time and effort. That, on it's own, got my respect.

[SIrPauly]

It's one of my favorite sites and really like Mark's and BFG's passion.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by demowhc

Interesting that I just read a review titled "The GTX 590 vs. the HD 6990 – only One is “the World’s Fastest video card”

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx_590_review


Interesting conclusion.. Note that they tested over 30 games

"Nvidia’s GTX 590 is much faster than the GTX 580 and it wins more benches than it loses to the HD 6990. Nvidia has brought good performance into a $700 package"


hrmm

The only problem I have with the review is with a bunch of older games clocking in at 300 FPS even on older graphics cards.

How is that in anyway relevant to the shader pushing capabilities of these cards? I'd rather see a selection of 10-15 newer games which push pixels in ways the old ones didn't than a bunch of tests showing that Quake 3 has broken the 2000 FPS mark (no, Q3 wasn't tested, just making a point). It's absolutely irrelevant.

Both cards are quite powerful and both trade punches but it's difficult to make a decision about wins and losses when the tested games include games with frame-rates in the several hundreds.