Originally Posted by 2010rig
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised if and when the 590 comes in looking slower than the 6990. Don't you think that having the 607 clocks vs the 772 stock clocks of the 580's has anything to do with it? That's a 21% downclock, and if all things are equal, the 590 SHOULD be 21% slower than 580 SLI.
Nvidia HAD to downclock this beast to get a 365W TDP, as those 580 chips are power hungry, everyone knows this.
But what if it's true that it overclocks really well, and can overclock to 840, even just 800 clocks? This will paint a very different picture.
I don't think anyone buying the 590 is going to run it at stock clocks, heck, a lot will likely put it under water, and will most likely go well beyond 800.
This is the same thing that happened with the 470, in all reviews it seems slow due to its 607 stock clocks, yet, most of them are easily capable of 800 clocks, and that is being conservative, as some can do up to 900 and beyond under water.
At the 800 clocks, it matches 570 stock performance, which most 470's can do.
I'm sure there will be reviews that have the 590 at stock and overclocked, which will paint a picture of what the 590 is TRULY capable of.
This. Unlike lower-end cards, nVidia knows
that from the 570 upwards, the majority of people buying these cards will over clock them. AMD the same. So shipping cards with GPUs which are underclocked compared to their single-GPU brethren is not something to make a song and dance about.
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa
Now we just need an OC review of the card. 1000Mhz 590 vs 1000Mhz 6990
No we don't. The respective GPU architectures are so different from each other that clock speeds are irrelevant as a direct comparison, otherwise every
GPU comparison ever done would be a fail.
This argument keeps popping up. I remember this from back in the 1990s with the RISC vs CISC CPU arguments, and it was as irrelevant then as it is now.