Poll: What’s the world’s fastest graphics card?

As you may have heard, there’s somewhat of a controversy brewing over whether AMD or Nvidia has a legitimate claim to offering the "world’s fastest graphics card." Both companies are fresh from launching new dual-GPU flagships in the Radeon HD 6990 and GeForce GTX 590. The Radeon is faster in some games, while the GeForce comes out on top in others. AMD clearly thinks it has this one in the bag, and the company has gone so far as to challenge Nvidia to prove that the GTX 590 is faster. While we await Nvidia’s response, let’s see if we can settle this little spat in the court of gerbil opinion. For this week’s poll, we’re asking you to pick the world’s fastest graphics card.

In last week’s poll, we asked which of the latest browsers you think is best. Firefox 4 came out ahead of the rest of the pack with 41% of the vote. Chrome 10 wasn’t too far behind with 32%—more than double the 13% who think Internet Explorer 9 is the best browser out there. Surprisingly, Opera slotted into fourth place with 9% of the vote. Safari and other browsers only managed 1% each, while 4% still cling to the steaming pile that is IE 6.

Those results loosely line up with the browsers folks are actually using to read TR. Over the last month, 41% of readers have been on Firefox, 26% on Chrome, and 20% on Internet Explorer. I suspect those IE numbers are inflated by folks who are forced to use the browser while at work. Interestingly, we have more Safari users (7%) than Opera users (5%).

Comments closed
    • sluggo
    • 9 years ago

    An S3 Virge sitting in the passenger seat of a Ferrari 599 GTB.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 9 years ago

    3dfx Voodoo 590

    [url<]http://www.geforce.com/#/News/articles/voodoo-revived[/url<]

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 9 years ago

    Clearly the Radeon 6990. It achieves this by having unreasonable noise levels. If I had to choose between them, I’d fork over the extra money and buy two 580’s or three 6970’s.

    Probably the latter. The complete lack of anything PhysX for long spaces of time indicates to me that it’s plateaued in where it was going to go AND the fact that nVidia continues to be behind on the amount of memory provided with their cards makes them just not as future friendly.

    Having that extra video memory just helps more than having PhysX or CUDA. Especially when CUDA’s only big attraction has been upstaged by a dedicated hardware design inside Sandy Bridge.

    • RagingDragon
    • 9 years ago

    Tests here and elsewhere make it clear that the HD6990 is faster. And the HD6990 (or for that matter HD6970 crossfire vs. GTX580 SLI) has more memory and is thus better suited for multi-monitor setups. However, if I had a single 30″ monitor and wanted something faster than a GTX580 the GTX590 (*), being smaller and quieter than the HD6990, would be awfully tempting. Both the HD6990 and GTX590 are niche products, and I think they serve slightly different niches. As always: choose the best product for the job at hand.

    * I don’t have a 30″ monitor (yet…), and I think my overclocked GTX570, or an overclocked GTX580 or HD6970 would be plenty fast enough for me if I did. I’d rather avoid the driver hassels that come with SLI and crossfire.

    • entropy13
    • 9 years ago

    [url<]http://promotions.newegg.com/AMD/063011/index.html?cm_sp=cat_Video-Cards-Video-Devices-_-AMD/063011-_-http%3a%2f%2fpromotions.newegg.com%2fAMD%2f063011%2f160x350.jpg[/url<]

      • darryl
      • 9 years ago

      Oh! I see… 🙂

    • darryl
    • 9 years ago

    hey folks, please check out the link, and tell me which tech spec you think makes either card a winner. Honestly I would not know which GPU to pick! 🙂
    [url<]http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=648&card2=646[/url<] Which specs are best for overall gaming? darryl

      • ImSpartacus
      • 9 years ago

      Neither.

      If you want the good performance without breaking the bank, get two 6950 2GBs and unlock them to 6970s.

      [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125356[/url<] $264.99 with a $20 rebate and free shipping. So that's $529.98 - $20 = $509.98. Unlock them to 6970s and prepare to rape the 6990 and 590 for less money.

      • bittermann
      • 9 years ago

      Their both about the same, just depends on the game, resolution, AA, etc….

      I picked the 6990 cuz I’m sick of Nvidia’s bullsh*t Marketing and biz practices the last few years.

    • holophrastic
    • 9 years ago

    It’s very simple. Any card can be better at one thing over all other cards. Specialization isn’t what computers are about. We’re not talking about one game today versus three games tomorrow. We’re talking about the fastest for someone else’s needs, not in the lab.

    So for me, the word “general graphics card” in 2011 doesn’t mean one particular game, and it doesn’t mean GPGPU at all. It means workstation, gaming, and what I do with my machine all day long.

    On my desk, I’m running as many 30″ 2560×1600 screens as I can. 60Hz is acceptable, 120Hz is better. Windows desktop certainly, games as much as I can, some weird applications, and some normal applications. Most importantly, my eyes, the colour, and the way it improves crappy web video.

    How many pixels can the 590 drive whil deinterlacing web video, playing modern games like the left 4 dead series, running engineering applications like solidworks, showing me correct colour in photoshop, and converting large videos at business-reasonable speeds? The 6970 can handle 4 such monitors concurrently, as a single eyefinity display — so every application can use them. I think the 6990 can handle 6. I’ve never played with fancy nvidia cards. Tell me it can handle 7, and I’ll say it wins.

    • Jahooba
    • 9 years ago

    My first thought was, “Why are you asking me?” Only 5 people in the world even own a 590.

    Actually, I don’t really care what is the fastest card, I always go with Nvidia. I’ve had about 5 or 6 Nvidia cards over the years, and I just feel more comfortable with their drivers/ Control Panel.

    • PRIME1
    • 9 years ago

    Sadly AMD makes neither the fastest GPU or CPU.

    They do have the fastest exit by a CEO though.

    “Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” ~ Homer J Simpson

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      they make the fastest cpu at a lower power draw. they win on efficiency with both cpu’s and gpu’s.

      • clone
      • 9 years ago

      what AMD does make though is the worlds fastest video card hands down something Nvidia cannot do even with the fastest GPU’s which is the really sad part for Nvidia, that AMD does it while consuming considerably less power is all the more salt rubbed into the gaping festering wound that is the GTX 590.

      and finally GTX 590’s are exploding faster than AMD CEO’s are leaving although the race is close Nvidia does have the edge even when running stock clock and voltage.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      95% of the customer market doesn’t care. The majority of the remaining 5% can’t justify spending the big $$$$ on high-end hardware that rapidly depreciates. They shoot for more sensitive options where the competition is at a all-time high.

      2Megapxiel gaming is very affordable and you cannot go wrong with either camp.

        • clone
        • 9 years ago

        a friend of mine stopped me at work to talk about how he just purchased a GTX 280 for his triple SLI setup.

        I didn’t note that he was smiling at the time because my first reaction was “why did you do that” my mind thinking how terrible a choice it would be for triple SLI and how terrible triple SLI really is all things considered.

        after I got past the shock of what a bad idea it was I tried to gloss over it with “oh yeah what powersupply”, “sure Corsair makes some fine 800 watt powersupply’s”, “you are likely cpu bound now any consideration on an upgrade?” and “sure since you already had 2 the third for $170 seems like a good idea” but afterwards I just walked away thinking how silly a build, his build really was.

        oh yeah and I asked “what have you played with it?”

        his response “3dMark”.

    • Kharnellius
    • 9 years ago

    My 3DFX Voodoo3 3500 will trounce both of those….

    …combined.

      • Rakhmaninov3
      • 9 years ago

      Easily! Put a 6990 and a 590 in a dual-card config in the same machine and watch them eat the 3500’s dust!

    • mrksha
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]As you may have heard, there's somewhat of a controversy brewing over whether AMD or Nvidia has a legitimate claim to offering the "world's fastest graphics card."[/quote<] There's no controversy, just some websites can't hide nvidia bias. 6990 is faster no matter how you sliced it.

    • jackbomb
    • 9 years ago

    The GeForce GTX 695 that the dude in the alley sold me is supposed to take things to a ho’ nuva levo.

    I just wonder why it says G92 on the chip beneath the heatsink.

      • bthylafh
      • 9 years ago

      Did he try to bundle it with a Pentium 5?

        • Palek
        • 9 years ago

        He was probably offered the 686 prototype, with the artificial intelligence RISC chip.

          • stdRaichu
          • 9 years ago

          RISC architecture is going to change everything. RISC is goooood.

    • PRIME1
    • 9 years ago

    [url<]http://media.photobucket.com/image/bitchin+fast+3d+/eod_punk/fast3d.jpg[/url<]

      • RickyTick
      • 9 years ago

      “Ugly mutha heatsinks sold separately, WOW” Who could ask for anything more? 🙂

      • KeillRandor
      • 9 years ago

      Someone (with far more talent than I have for such things) should really make an upgraded version of that poster… (While there are still, (technically) enough graphics chips left around to use in doing so).

    • ShadowEyez
    • 9 years ago

    Fastest card? Depends on a lot of things, only one of which is the AMD or Nvidia architecture.
    For instance:
    –what app/game is being run
    –what configuration the OS/app/game is in, ie; aa in use, registry tweaks, resolution, etc…
    –what driver is in use
    –what opengl/direct x config/version the OS/app are using
    –what firmware the card is running
    –how many GPUs does the card itself have
    –what clock speeds the GPUs and memory are running at, ie overclocking/underclocking
    –what other CPU/chipset/hardware is in use
    –probably many other factors

    BTW, who’s going to run the test? They should use an impartial 3rd party (like TechReport 🙂

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 9 years ago

    I’d rather have a quad-GPU ROG video card with built-in Killer NIC, X-Fi Fatal1ty sound, and Ageia PhysX.

    If you’re gonna spring for a ridiculously expensive card that mostly gets you surplus frames, do it in style!

    In a few years I’ll laugh when my brand new $250 card can do more coolly, quietly, and draw less power.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 9 years ago

      NVidia killed support for Ageia PhysX.

    • bthylafh
    • 9 years ago

    How ’bout the other way around? I don’t remember what chip it used, exactly, but it was in the World’s Slowest Pentium Pro. Sat on the ISA bus and didn’t have a Win95 driver at all, yet this box ran that OS. I’m morally certain that /any/ chip with a native Win95 driver would have made this box run at a normal speed.

    How’d it work, you ask? Win95 could use Win3.1 drivers in a pinch. I don’t think this card was the original which came with the computer, which was a Gateway that had VLB slots.

    edit: How slow was it? I’ve known 486es to run Win95 faster than that thing did.

      • jackbomb
      • 9 years ago

      A little bird just told me that because the PPro’s 16-bit performance wasn’t great, you should’ve run Windows NT on that machine.

        • bthylafh
        • 9 years ago

        It was a client’s home computer, back then, and apparently Gateway was selling them with Win95.

        I have a hard time crediting that the P6’s 16-bit speed was /that/ bad. You should have seen this thing.

    • phez
    • 9 years ago

    Its a good thing you people don’t vote for things that matter.

    • ronch
    • 9 years ago

    Why don’t we just take this outside??

    • Prospero424
    • 9 years ago

    I couldn’t care less about who has the fastest “card” when all they’re doing is repackaging SLI/Crossfire setups. I care about who has the fastest GPU, and I care about who has the most efficient GPU.

    These duallies are boutique products. For that reason, I just tend to ignore them. But that’s me…

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    It is too close to call a decisive victory.

    6990 and 590 edge out each other in games that take advantage of their architectures.

    Overall, both behemoths can effortlessly handle 4Megapixel gaming with AA/AF thrown in the mix. What more could you possibly want? Besides doing it with less thermal/power consumption = smaller card/HSF? 😉

    If GPGPU is your business, Nvidia still has the ball in the count. It owes that advantage to its technically superior architecture for GPGPU related-tasks with better support on its standards/tools.

    (PS: I can see that the fanboys from both camps are downvoting this post)

      • internetsandman
      • 9 years ago

      Yawn. wake me when I can play Crysis with maxed out graphical settings on 6 30 inch monitors in Eyefinity on an IGP with no active cooling solution needed

        • Krogoth
        • 9 years ago

        Touche’.

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 9 years ago

        By then we’ll have Crysis-zillas for games and that card won’t be the one we’re all arguing about.

        • willyolio
        • 9 years ago

        by that criteria, AMD will win, because nVidia will never step up to more than 2 monitors per video card. =P

          • internetsandman
          • 9 years ago

          Per GPU, I think you mean. They were bold enough to step up to three monitors with the 590, as it contains two GPU’s on it. But considering AMD’s dual GPU solution offers five-monitor gaming, I’m certainly not inclined to say the green team has it this time around

    • Zorb
    • 9 years ago

    I’m still oc’in my Tseng Labs ET4000/W32P and it will smoke any Matrox……. wait….. where am i?

      • bhtooefr
      • 9 years ago

      Pretty sure my Millenium II will smoke your ancient Tseng Labs card. PCI, none of this old VLB crap.

        • KeillRandor
        • 9 years ago

        Sure has my ISA Olivetti GO481 Paradise ’88 beat 🙁

    • CheetoPet
    • 9 years ago

    Bitboys Glaze 3D fo sho. Oy!!! Oy!!! Oy!!!

      • slash3
      • 9 years ago

      Pyramid 3D!

    • Xylker
    • 9 years ago

    C’mon man, where’s Parhelia?

    • rika13
    • 9 years ago

    LONG LIVE THE KYRO 4500!!

    ALL SHALL BOW TO YOUR DEFERRED POWER! (pun intended)

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 9 years ago

    I saw a single-slot, water-cooled 590 advertised the other day by some company I haven’t heard about, but that one looked pretty damn awesome. Quiet, cold, and fast.

    If I were to spend the cost of a pretty capable entire system on a graphics board, that would be the one I’d get.

      • voodootronix
      • 9 years ago

      Link?

        • Deanjo
        • 9 years ago

        [url<]http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/item/22236-point-of-view-tgt-gtx-590-ships-with-691mhz-clock[/url<]

      • internetsandman
      • 9 years ago

      I think EVGA has one on NCIX actually. It’s either a 580 or 590 but either way it’s single slot and stupidly overclocked lol

    • cavedog
    • 9 years ago

    I am only interested in what PRIME1 thinks about this.

    • Prion
    • 9 years ago

    Like GPUs haven’t been “fast enough” for several generations now. What I’m more interested in:

    What’s the fastest graphics card that doesn’t require any extra power connectors?

    What’s the fastest passively-cooled/silent graphics card available?

      • Stargazer
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]What's the fastest passively-cooled/silent graphics card available?[/quote<] I'd really like to see graphics cards with fans, but that are passively cooled (turns the fan off) *when idle*. Having a fan really raises the ceiling on what the card can do, but the GPUs are becoming pretty power efficient at idle, so it would be really nice if they could become entirely noise-less in these situations. After all, I don't care as much about some noise when I'm playing a game (I'm likely to have some sound playing anyway), but when I'm just working in Windows (or have the computer on when I'm nearby), I'd really like my computer to be quiet. Maybe the next ("double") die shrink will help...

      • HyperFire
      • 9 years ago

      Current GPUs are not fast enough for stable-120fps gameplay in 1920×1080 resolution with 4x AA.

      • ShadowTiger
      • 9 years ago

      Which GPU can make the kessel run in less than 12 parasecs?

        • Laykun
        • 9 years ago

        Definitely not that bucket of bolts.

      • Zorb
      • 9 years ago

      and…. how ’bout fits in a Single Slot….

    • ShadowTiger
    • 9 years ago

    I voted other because:

    2x GTX 580 is the fastest in the consumer space and I consider dual gpu cards to be in the same class as 2 separate cards in xfire/sli

    Surely there are either some custom gfx cards or professional class quadro etc cards that are faster than either of these.

    In any case, I have a suspicion that with liquid nitrogen you could probably crank the most performance out of the nvidia card, but its hard to say for sure without testing!

      • MaxTheLimit
      • 9 years ago

      2 GPUs on 1 PCB = 1 card

      2 GPUs on 2 PCBs = 2 cards.

      The question asked what the fastest card was, not what configuration of GPUs was the fastest.

    • jcw122
    • 9 years ago

    Stupidest poll ever? Run a damn benchmark.

      • internetsandman
      • 9 years ago

      Depending on the benchmark you run you get different results. You’d know this had you read the review which subjected these two cards to the same tests and benchmarks

    • Richie_G
    • 9 years ago

    I haven’t used either of them, isn’t that your job?!

    • libradude
    • 9 years ago

    The 6990 is faster based on benchmarks, but for the same price I’d sacrifice a few FPS to get that lighted GeForce logo on the 590. The point is moot for me though; neither will fit in my mini-ITX system. I knew the 4870 was faster at the time, but I went with a GTS 250 because it was quieter and ran cooler (and fit in my case!) Not everyone buys cards simply because they’re “the fastest”.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    The true answer is both as it is dependent on what your criteria that is being bench marked. Neither one of them should lay claim to the title without a huge asterdisk behind the claim.

      • dpaus
      • 9 years ago

      Huge Astro Dick? Isn’t that the gay hentai series that sweatshopking is always talking about?

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 9 years ago

    It doesn’t really matter. They both offer about the same bang for your buck. In this case it’s not really much of a comparison of performance as much as a comparison of what nvidia offers in its range of cards as opposed to what ati offers, gimmicks and such.

    So yeah…CHEESE!

      • potatochobit
      • 9 years ago

      Physx is not a gimmick

        • gbcrush
        • 9 years ago

        Neither is yellow cheddar. Wait, the yellow -kinda- is, but cheddar in general….mmmmmmMmmm

        • DeadOfKnight
        • 9 years ago

        Neither are other physics engines that don’t require it.
        But the exclusivity and branding is pretty gimmicky.
        I’m no fanboy though, ATI has their gimmicks as well.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    WHICH EVER BOX/CARD HAS THE HOTTEST BABE ON IT IS THE FASTEST!!! DUH!!!

    • Fragnificent
    • 9 years ago

    The world’s fastest graphics processing unit is the human brain. Period. End of Story.

      • Chrispy_
      • 9 years ago

      Nah, birds of prey are faster than us at spotting things by a long shot.

      Also, the brain works on electrochemical changes. Given that the speed those travel is fixed, a smaller (less capable) brain is quicker than something awesome like the thing us humans have between our ears.

    • odizzido
    • 9 years ago

    I voted other because I don’t really consider the 590/6990 to be a single card. It may be on the same PCB but the two GPUs work very independently. It’s like a card and a half.

    If there were 0 compatibility/scaling issues with these products I would think differently.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      the 6990 has almost 100% scaling in many cases. that’s your 0 scaling issue.

        • tejas84
        • 9 years ago

        This

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    Does it even matter with zero games to push this hardware? Unless you have yourself trapped in a high-end video card corner rendering ultra-high resolutions, what’s the point of dropping the cash on high end PC hardware anymore? We seem to have reached the point of maximum lowest-common-denominator-ism in hardware. At least the LCD isn’t the Intel GMA!

    • AlvinTheNerd
    • 9 years ago

    The best chipset is the GTX 590. The only reason it doesn’t handily beat the 6990 is the clock rate.

    Get better power systems on the card, a even bigger cooler, and enough wattage to the GTX 590, those two chips will clock to 800Mhz without miscalculation and give a 25% increase in performance.

    But while Nvidia made the better chip logic, AMD has been doing a better job making the chips. Their chips are clocked up to where they should be and within the thermals they should be. And at this point, considering what cards are available, I would have to say the best CARD is the Radeon.

    I just wish AMD would start putting more into OpenCL or better yet, a OpenCL addition to C that would let the GPGPU cability be released without completely rewriting code.

      • tejas84
      • 9 years ago

      I respectfully and utterly disagree with you. What metric are you basing that on?

      I will admit that for OpenCL and CUDA that Nvidia are miles ahead. But you don’t need a GTX 590 for CUDA programming. Gaming, the metric that matters for Geforces shows the GTX 590 slower than the AMD 6990

      Sorry buddy but the reviews clearly show this.

        • AlvinTheNerd
        • 9 years ago

        That is why I said the better card is the 6990 at this point

        I based my opinion of how far a 590 can go from SLI’ed 580’s. The 590 doesn’t perform as well because the clock rate is too low. And you can’t push the card to where the chip can go because of power and cooling issues.

        But with non reference designs, the 590 should be able to push ahead.

    • potatochobit
    • 9 years ago

    the fastest card to me is the one that gives the best value at high settings
    both of those cards fail

    • tejas84
    • 9 years ago

    Like I said after the GTX 590 review…

    How can these so called called tech sites (TR included) label the GTX 590 the winner???

    Why?? just because it is a quiet dually? Lame excuse.

    Seriously if quietness is the new metric to replace Frames Per Second then the GTX 480 was a crappy entry level IGP…

    TR and Anandtech among others should stand up and back what their findings show…. that the AMD 6990 is SUPERIOR in having lower TDP and higher gameplay performance to the Nvidia GTX 590.

      • Kamisaki
      • 9 years ago

      Reading comprehension fail. TR never said the GTX 590 was the “winner.” Scott said quite clearly that the 6990 is faster on average in the tests they ran. He also said it was quite a bit louder, and if [i<]he, personally[/i<] were to buy one of these two cards, having a quieter card would be more important [i<]to him[/i<] than having the higher performance and better power draw of the 6990. Just because his priorities are different than yours is no reason to get your panties in a bunch.

        • tejas84
        • 9 years ago

        Tell that to AMD and Nvidia please

          • Meadows
          • 9 years ago

          Why? I thought he was talking to you.

        • can-a-tuna
        • 9 years ago

        If the reviewer says that he’d pick one over another, it’s clear indicator that the picked one is considered as a “winner”. Reviewer should keep his preferences to himself and let the readers decide based on the facts presented.

          • tejas84
          • 9 years ago

          Precisely. Scott made his decision and AMD rightly took umbrage with his review as well as Anandtech’s among others.

          Kyle at [H]ardOCP made no such attempt to curry Nvidia’s favor. He rightly proclaims the AMD 6990 as the king…which it is.

          You cannot show the 6990 beating the GTX 590 and then say that the other is better because it is quiet. (We are talking only about duallies here) What difference does how quiet a GPU card make on FPS pray tell?

          I still love TR and always will but I am disappointed with the GTX 590 review. Something just seems up with the bias of the review.

            • gbcrush
            • 9 years ago

            With most due respect:

            <i>What difference does how quiet a GPU card make on FPS pray tell?</i>

            I stop playing games sooner when my ears bleed.

            I built my first PC back in college. It was a screaming AMD Athlon (Thunderbird). Either I had the stock cooler, or something worse, but girls on the other end of the phone would ask me “what the hell is that noise” when I was trying to ask them out.

            I built the next one going for quieter, got a zalman CPU cooler, and a bunch of case fans spinning at 2000 + RPMs..

            Bit by bit, I made various builds, working my way to slightly undervolted fans on my current P183, and I love it. I love it so much that when I upgraded from my nVidia GTS8800 to my Radeon 5850, I smiled at the faster eye candy I got, and I frowned a little because I could hear more of a rush of air coming from the case during idle/low attention grabbing situations.

            Am I biased? Yep, I am biased in favor of quieter systems, it matters to me. Is Damage biased? I’d say yes, but neither the article, nor your arguments have convinced me that Scott is biased in favor of green over red, or that any of his personal preferences are getting in the way of the information I need to know to make a purchase. All it has done is convinced me that Scott is biased in favor of Performance + Quietness, while you favor FPS (and possibly TDP ratings) over everything

            • BlackStar
            • 9 years ago

            When we are talking about the top of the top dual GPU cards, loudness is simply not the point. It may be a consideration, but the deciding factor is performance.

            If you quietness is your thing, go for a passively cooled low- or mid-range card.

            • morphine
            • 9 years ago

            Ok, then: since when is performance the only measure by which a piece of hardware is “good”?

            Remember the Dustbuster?

            Plus, it’s not like Scott went to lengths to hide the fact that the 6990 is marginally faster on average. IMO, that was very clearly stated.

            • BlackStar
            • 9 years ago

            The dustbuster was both noisier *and* slower. Bad example.

            Way to downplay the fact that Nvidia has been completely obliterated by AMD these past two rounds.

            • morphine
            • 9 years ago

            “Completely obliterated”?

            Last time I checked, the 6990 was marginally faster than the GTX 590 while being nearly 10dB louder. That sounds (pun unintended) like a draw, at best. People with performance in mind will pick the 6990, people prefer quiet will pick the 590.

            Also, the rest of the lineup, w.r.t. price/performance/noise, is pretty evenly matched at this point in time. Which is good news for consumers.

            • PixelArmy
            • 9 years ago

            If you’re talking about absolute performance, the GTX 480 was generally considered 5%-10% faster overall at launch, yet it was not recommended due to TDP, fan noise, and price/performance.

            I’d say reviewers have been consistent. The 10 dB difference here (stock versions) on already loud cards seems to be egregious enough.

            • KikassAssassin
            • 9 years ago

            Scott and Anand never said the GTX 590 was the “winner”. In fact, they quite clearly stated that the 6990 is the faster card, and if you’re after the fastest single video card available, the 6990 is it. If that’s the only thing that matters to you, then you should buy the 6990, and why do you care what they have to say about noise or anything else?

            I read sites like TR and Anand because they give well-rounded, insightful reviews and go into more detail than posting a bunch of benchmarks and blindly declaring a winner based on which one has the most big bars on the charts (if that’s all that mattered, there’d be no point in writing an article at all, just put the benchmarks up in a database and be done with it). They would be doing their readers a disservice by not mentioning the 6990’s failings–that it’s more than twice as loud as any other video card they’ve ever tested and a full inch longer than the 590. If you don’t care about noise or size, then ignore that part and buy the 6990. There’s nothing wrong with that, everyone has different priorities. The rest of us who care more about building a well balanced system appreciate their commentary, and since they’ve used the cards and we haven’t yet, we appreciate hearing their opinions.

            • Kamisaki
            • 9 years ago

            Whatever. You’re obviously not going to change your opinion because of something as simple as logic, so I’m not going to bother arguing more.

            But Scott, just know that the rest of us do appreciate your personal insights on hardware in addition to the raw numbers, so please keep up the great work!

      • flip-mode
      • 9 years ago

      You better not read Hardware Cannucks. They picked the 590 over the 6990 and overall their reviews seem to be just a tiny bit kinder towards Nvidia. Or I could be seeing ghosts. Dunno.

      • FubbHead
      • 9 years ago

      I dunno, it depends…

      Since it’s a review of a chip, I have to agree with you; the cooling solution is up to the card manufacturers and can change, so it’s not very relevant in a chip review. But had it been a review of a specific card, then I’d have no problem with it.

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    Need to add poll option: “I don’t give a crap, pass the cheese”

    On the topic of browsers, I have to say that I am quite impressed with FF4. I’d say it ties with Chrome, which is an enormous improvement over the previous versions.

      • gbcrush
      • 9 years ago

      I’m so glad that with 20+ comments here, I didnt have to be the first one to say “CHEESE!”

      hooray for gerbils!

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 9 years ago

    Pepper Jack.

    • bthylafh
    • 9 years ago

    Intel IGP. Pretty sure that’s what’d be up in the International Space Station on their laptops.

    Mach 25.

      • dpaus
      • 9 years ago

      I’m pretty sure ‘Mach 25’ is a registered trademark of AMD (ATI) video cards.

      • Majiir Paktu
      • 9 years ago

      It would actually be the 12MHz Mongoose-V aboard the New Horizons probe.

        • bthylafh
        • 9 years ago

        That’s a CPU, not a graphics chip.

          • Majiir Paktu
          • 9 years ago

          It processes images. What more could you want?

            • bthylafh
            • 9 years ago

            Something tailored to do only graphics, or at least a vector CPU. The poll’s not about general-purpose processors.

            • Majiir Paktu
            • 9 years ago

            It’s not very general-purpose. It’s radiation-hardened, man. Besides, it’s [i<]way[/i<] faster than these AMD and Nvidia chumps.

            • bthylafh
            • 9 years ago

            Radiation-hardening means nothing. The Hubble’s got a rad-hardened 486, ferchrissakes.

            • Majiir Paktu
            • 9 years ago

            I was demonstrating that it’s specialized, which is the opposite of general-purpose. Surely the Hubble is a specialized piece of equipment!

            • bthylafh
            • 9 years ago

            Well, no. If someone grabbed the CPU from Hubble and soldered it into a 486 motherboard, it’d run Windows 3.1 just as well as a regular 486. That’s general purpose.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 9 years ago

    I voted “other” because the Radeon 7990 will be faster. But then the GTXSXT 7000 will be faster.

    In the end, who really cares? Buy the card that’s right for you.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    My vote still goes to the BitchinFast! 3D-2000.

    I have yet to see a card get higher than 425 BungholioMarks.

    • Stargazer
    • 9 years ago

    Where’s the “I don’t care, I’d rather have a 6970/580” option?

    • jackaroon
    • 9 years ago

    At $700 I imagine their average speeds are around 0 mph, sitting there in boxes on the shelf.

      • TaBoVilla
      • 9 years ago

      lol!

      • internetsandman
      • 9 years ago

      You sir, win one internets. Use it well

    • xeridea
    • 9 years ago

    My old Voodoo 5 5500 !!!!

      • DrCR
      • 9 years ago

      I still have on in PCI form, next to a AGP GF4 Ti4400. Great legacy gaming box material.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 9 years ago

      Still got my Obsidian X-24. Works great.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    Other – Depends on the game, if we are just taking an overall avg. then the 6990

      • Farting Bob
      • 9 years ago

      It wouldnt be other. Ive yet to see a game where one of them wasnt better than any other single graphics card. There should be an option for “they are pretty much equal”.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        As usual, it’s a loaded poll designed to create a flame war of comments. We’ve all been trolled again!

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 9 years ago

    The answer is obviously Larrabee. No one has caught up to the 45nm version of 2009 yet, and ever since the 32nm update to 48 cores in 2010, that lead has only increased. Just imagine how far ahead of everyone the second update in 2011 will be…

    • Wintermane
    • 9 years ago

    What no s3 virge!?

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 9 years ago

      s3 s2000 !

    • I.S.T.
    • 9 years ago

    Why are you posting a poll as to a matter of fact instead of opinion? Overall, the GTX 590 is slower than the HD 6990 because the GTX 590 had to be downclocked way too much. In some games, it’ll faster, true. However, in some DX9/10 games the HD4870 was faster than the GTX 280. Some games are just more friendly to Nvidia than AMD and vice versa.

      • Majiir Paktu
      • 9 years ago

      Agreed. Shouldn’t [i<]you[/i<] be telling us which one is faster, TR?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      I think this is a stellar question because to each fanboy, one or the other is faster. I see it as being pretty much a draw because it depends on what games you test.

        • I.S.T.
        • 9 years ago

        [i<]Fanboys don't count[/i<]. I prefer Nvidia overall, but even I can see the damn GTX 590 is an inferior product to the HD 6990. The fact that people who are not OCing/overvolting are seeing exploding VRMs(If you overvolt and have a card explode/overheat to the point of death on you, it's your fault) and that in most games the GTX 590 is slower than the HD 6990 just proves the card is worthless. SLI on a stick style cards suck anyway, but if I was going to buy one, it'd be an HD 6990 by far. It'd be faster, and it wouldn't have a chance of exploding.

          • swaaye
          • 9 years ago

          I like to own both a NV and a ATI card. Especially these days because one or the other tends to be able to get AA working with today’s annoying games.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 9 years ago

          SO you’re saying fanboys won’t vote in the poll? That’s the only way they can “not count”.

      • dpaus
      • 9 years ago

      [i<]"Why are you posting a poll as to a matter of fact instead of opinion?"[/i<] - I think Geoff's bored, so he posted this and made some popcorn...

        • Voldenuit
        • 9 years ago

        And he’s counting on the inevitable flames to cook his popcorn. 😛

      • can-a-tuna
      • 9 years ago

      Exactly, this is not a matter of opinion. Its clear fact and even you (Techreport) showed it. Go ahead and test some more new games with VERY high settings. GTX590 will run out of steam in highest resolutions and shader settings in clear majority of games. You know, HD4870x2 was also faster than GTX295 in some games. Why no uncertainty/poll then?

    • Silus
    • 9 years ago

    The HD 6990 is. The GTX 590 is does win in some games, but overall the HD 6990 has the performance advantage.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    The tribe has spoken….

      • mcnabney
      • 9 years ago

      The point was covered pretty well in the podcast. AMD is faster……and noisier.

        • Silus
        • 9 years ago

        And longer…oh wait this might sound a bit weird 🙂

        • DrCR
        • 9 years ago

        I would hope you have heard of aftermarket heatsinks and modding.

        Personally, how noisy a stock heatsink/fan is is completely irrelevant to me .. and I’m a SPCR-spec quiet nut. I’m going to be throwing it away anyway and modding in my own solution.

        The main issue for me with the AMD/ATI choice between the two is their woefully awful *nix drivers.

          • mcnabney
          • 9 years ago

          For that kind of money, I would expect a pretty decent cooling system. I think AMD kind of rushed that portion of the card.

            • DrCR
            • 9 years ago

            I’m running a 120x25mm fan on my 8800GT at the moment. Stock heatsink/fans are greatly limited by space constraints. And if you’re spending that kind of money, you don’t care if another $50 is required for aftermarket/modded cooling solution to get what you want.

            • BlackStar
            • 9 years ago

            Listen to the man.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This