AMD HD 6990m vs Nvidia 580m GTX - Discussion Thread

I saw that one it was +/-2% on a 580m but was an engineering sample as was shown by the GPU-z shots. im still waiting on the actual numbers from production units but cant see them slower especially after a proper driver and not an old one from Clevo for test purposes

 

It's a good possibility that the 6990m could be just on par with the 580m, because obviously AMD's graphs are biased, and also altered to make the difference seem huge. But like I said I'll be sure to do lots of benchmarks once I get my hands on my laptop.

 

I've heard that the Dell drivers for the 580m SLI in the M18x are pretty lousy, and that there's really no way to install NVIDIA drivers without disabling SLI.

Is it likewise impossible to replace the Dell drivers on a 6990m CF M18x with AMD drivers without disabling crossfire?

More importantly, perhaps, is this a temporary issue, or something permanent, and just how bad are the Dell drivers in the first place?

 

Actually I'm almost certain you can install AMD's drivers over the Dell ones, as long as you just don't completely uninstall Dell's drivers. There should be no issue, but for anyone wanting to, I'd suggest to contact AMD just to make sure.

They'd be glad to help.

 

Graphs aren't "altered". That would be illegal. They just take advantage of the less cautious.

The graphs are the one part I can't quite wrap my head around.

 

I onno, but they have always started off from like 60-80% and then go up to 120%. What I meant by alter is simply not do 0-100% like a normal company.

Either way, they did the same thing with the 5870 vs the older gen 4870. It's just marketing, I however want to see some real results.

 

No company advertises that way. Non-biased reviews might, but if you want to show off your latest multi-million dollar investment, you don't make it visible only to those with magnifying glasses.

Those ARE real results though. They do show a 10-20% difference in some pretty notable games. And if those graphs are accurate, which they should be, that does mean the 6990m is a legitimate step above the 580m, something that current technical specifications [in comparison to the much benched 6970m] ISN'T consistent with.

Explanations could be difference in physical architecture (highly unlikely), or unreleased drivers (very likely). Could be a customized mobo that handicaps Nvidia chips? I don't think they could sink that low.

 

It's a corporation. Most all of them sink that low, whether we like them or not.

 

Meh... Nvidia has been pulling such 'punches' at AMD for some time now.

Even if the AMD is 10% slower than the Nvidia offering (which is something I am skeptical of - though it's not impossible), it's still cheaper and runs cooler.

So unless you have a need for Nvidia's Cuda (AMD are able to match them in this regard if not surpass them - from a hardware POV/capability, but software support from game/software developers is virtually non-existent due to NVidia's meddling), then go for AMD.

 

My laptop shipped from Dell today, and I should have it by at least Thursday if not tomorrow.

Pretty pumped to test out this 6990m.

 

How much did you pay for your laptop, I take it $1500? Do you know if the price on the cart is the price you pay or is there still tax involve?

Thanks

 

I thought Nvidia card run cooler than AMD? Am I wrong, hasn't Nvidia card always been cooler?

 

I really want to lol on the carpet right now...

In all serious no. nVidia produces the hottest temperature cards for laptops and they are notorious for it too. Remember the GeForce 8M controversy? That was all due to inefficient cooling and poor soldering joints that literally caused the GPU to melt and fry. nVidia is terrible at cooling and as a result of the controversy, many laptop makers tend to swap to ATI for the next few generations. It was only two years ago that nVidia tried to make a comeback in getting more commissioned contracts from OEM's to use their Fermi-based GeForce mobile cards. However, ATI is winning the laptop GPU segment by miles because of nVidia's incompetence to price and cooling on their GPU's.

 

Well Said Star Forge, perfectly actually

 

No, my laptop cost me 1,837 after taxes and configuration.

Also, it is pretty much a given that a nVidia card with = performance to a AMD card will run hotter, much hotter, than that AMD card.

I don't know if that is necessarily true with desktop cards though.

 

Oh man, please do! Send it to my youtube help when I'm bore or something, send it to me, cheesy . Are you saying that the hottest factor has to do with TDP cause that my main concern is whether the power supply on the NP8150 can handle the 6990m.

Yea Tax, so crappy. I have no problem with my HD 5850 desktop ati gpu but maybe it cause i have a HAF 922 with is the best mid-case and has like 5 fan that make your leg super cold if the computer is anywhere near you. So I wouldn't know, I really didn't know this. I mostly use Ati cause everytime they are cheaper.

 

It should. As long as you got over 180W your AC should handle the 6990M. That being said, the nVidia's are notorious for the heat is not really on their TDP but on how much energy is dispensed from the architecture. The pre-Fermi and some Fermi's in a sense are not designed well for laptops. nVidia's GPU's are usually accustomed to be used in a desktop environment where you have space for cooling and dispensing heat and also where you can slab on a massive HSF. However, laptops don't give much breathing room and also the HSF's aren't always sufficient to dispense heat fast enough. Therefore, nVidia's GPU for laptops are just not good for laptops. The only way you can control the temperatures on a nVidia card is to have a laptop that is huge and have enough vents and copper pipes be solely dedicated to cooling the GPU.

ATI's architecture is often more forgiving and is designed with cooling efficiency in mind. Therefore, their temperatures are usually manageable even in a laptop setting. Don't get me wrong, nVidia's cards are very powerful, but sometimes they are too powerful for their own good in the expense of an architecture that is terrible at cooling itself.

 

Then I am not completely wrong, Nvidia GPU is better on desktop just like I believe. Are you saying that the 485m run hotter than the new 6990m?

 

Depends. They have gotten better since the GeForce 4xxM series in cooling but the price tag might not be worth it though. It is all down to how good the cooling system instated in the laptop of question. Most of the time a good gaming laptop can easily control the heat dispersion from the GeForce.

nVidia is just a good desktop GPU maker, but they still got to learn more on making a cool and efficient mobile GPU. ATI is the jack-of-all-trades in my honest opinion.

 

Yes I will stick with Ati, at these price point I can justify paying a premium for Nvidia card even though i must rather have Nvidia card mainly for driver support and game support.

 

How much was it pretax?

 

I beg to differ. Here is proof: Test AMD Radeon HD 6990M Grafikkarte - Notebookcheck.com Tests

580m win in most games and is overall 8% faster.

 

And for more fun... the fanbois on both sides should take note:

-The 6990m is indeed slower than the 580m overall.
-The 6990m runs 10 degrees C hotter at stock than the 580m runs when fairly well OC'd.
-Despite the above, at the high-end, the 6990m wins the $1800+ field due to delivering more bang for the buck.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Hey Guys.. I have no idea what to do.. I am completely confused.. Im planning on buying an alienware m18x in the next month or so.. I was all sold on the AMD radeon 6990m because of the price and the fact that the lower prices allows me to get an SSD card, more ram etc etc.. But since Arkham City made it's announcement on going full fledged 3-d im back to being and confused and the above two posts showing the 580m as the clear winner haven't help my cause either... What id like to say is..
1)IF anyone had a choice between the two AMD Radeon 6990m crossfire vs nvidia 580m SLI ??
2) and How good is AMD's HD3D technology ??
3) Is this the start of true 3d gaming pleasures with arkham city starting in stereoscopic 3d or do we still have another couple of years till 3 d gaming realizes it's potential?
- Thanks

 

As far as I know 3D gaming is still a 'testing field' and given the overall industry of 3D we may never reach to the point of its full potential.

 

1. Go with the 6990m CF because 580m SLI has micro stutter problems.
2. AMD's HD3D technology is not good at all. The bottom line is if you want 3D, you have to go with Nvidia, at least for now.
3. I am not too sure about that question myself, but from other people, who have 3D they enjoy it. 3D tend to give me a headache after prolong use, but that just me.

Hope that answer your question.

 

Thanks man.. ok..3d out of the equation..

1) 6990m CF better than 580m SLI hands down?
2) which is the fastest between the two ?

 

Ok... 3-d Outta da equation.

1) 6990m CF vs 580m SLi> who da bigger winner?
2) Which is the faster of the two and can both support insane resolutions ??

Thanks guys Really appreciate the help..

 

1. 6990m CF is better than 580m SLi only because of the micro stutter issue. Otherwise 580m (by itself) is better than 6990m without CF.
2. 580m support 120 hertz screen so it refresh faster (I think that what it is) and both support 1080p solution. 580m is faster than 6990m according to benchmark but AMD is using an outdated driver while Nvidia is more up to date, but do understand that even Nvidia does not have proper driver yet. Speaking to a Malibal agent, he believe that the 580m is still better than the 6990m and will even have better driver than AMD. I believe this to be true because I have had experience with Nvidia in the past. Also the 580m has better game support so it more of a plug and play experience (hassle free) versus countless driver update with AMD. However, get the 6990m cause it a lot cheaper and with dual GPU it is about $600 or more.

 

Cheesy, what temps do you get on your 580M while idle and while gaming? Deciding whether or not I should upgrade to the 580M for $99.

 

People need to remember the 5870 in CF is STILL an outstanding performer that games amazingly well. I went to the 6970 in CF and while it should be a huge bump..its hardly noticable because the games all run smooth with 5870 in CF. I don't know if it's just impulse, disposable income, both, or just a benching enthusiast. If you aren't a bench enthusiast go for the bang for the buck 6990. You can't tell a difference in game with 5-10FPS when games are maxed to begin with. At worse, in the future, you may have to drop AA or a setting or two (shaders, etc) that will not really change the overall look of the game. I have been impressed with driver support for AMD lately and I think their suite is a good package. Now Nvidia seems to run better on some games but not all. The 6990 is a beast (as is the 6970). When games CAN'T run a 5870CF, likely the 6970/6990/580 will likely barely run the max or not at all (max that is). For laptops, unless you are rich (which some are) it makes little sense to spend 4k vs 2.5k. Especially if you upgrade every 2 to 3 years. I tend to go for a good bargain and bang for buck (on a high end system) to enjoy for a few years.

I play Metro2033 and Crysis warhead at native fully maxed. While the 580 SLI will beat my framerates, they are unnoticeable due to the game already maxing (minus the opening scene). The biggest "no no" for non benchers is to go for an extreme CPU or even the 2820. The SB processors are all SUPER powerful and trump stock clock i7 940xms and even "moderately" OC'd 940XMs.

The "sweet spot" for high end laptop gaming is i7 2720, 6990CF. If you can afford and want the BEST, go for the 580 SLI as it is BETTER. Just from a price to performance ratio it is hard to justify; as is the same with the 2920. Something is ALWAYS better around the corner and in the laptop world, it should make you want to pay less up front with more room to sell and upgrade every few years instead of spending 5k up front every few years. That's just my philosophy as I moved from desktop gaming. I am happy with upgrading when I need to and when a game or a few games are not played the way I want them to. Even 5870 CF is still a great mobile solution that OC's very well for modern games. you CAN'T go wrong with either choice.

 

If money is not an option.. would you still say the same thing?

 

Yes of course I would did you read my post. I said if you are rich, go for the best. Just offered my input on the subject and have an opinion.

 

Ok ya im thinking the 580m SLI would be good for 3-d but it isnt THE 3D card as of yet as 3D gaming is still in it's initial stages.. I ll go with the crossfire.. I would in the future be opting for a desktop gaming pc maybe in the next 1 or 2 years then ill look at the 3d aspect.. for now i think im going to stick with the AMD Radeon crossfire.. It's been recommended by way too many people.. I think it's this Nvidia is the best mind block that causes this uncertainty ...

Regarding the processor speed, i read you were recommending not to go for higher processors like even the 2820, just a 2720 would do fine .. is that right? isn't there a difference.. or rather considerable difference?

2) im going for ram Kingston HyperX 12 GB at 1866MHZ would that help give me optimum performance ?

3) Crucial M4 6gb/s 128 GB SSD .. any comments?


Thanks man..

 

if all that you do is game, you wont see any difference between processors. benchmarking on the other hand makes all the difference. to be honest id only go with the 2720qm processor.

2.) that will give you optimum performance, and i say go for it.

3.) IMO, i always go with Intel SSD's simply because they are reliable, especially the Intel 510 series. Intel bumped up their game and made their read/write speeds much faster with the 510's.

 

While gaming you won't see any difference between 6gb 1333mhz and 12gb 1866mhz. Even in benching there's minimal difference (maybe 100 points in 3d11). It doesn't impact the graphics score at all. If you don't care about having a 1% better benchmark, then it's not worth the extra $.

 

but there is less of a latency when using the higher mhz RAM, albeit there may be a very small difference, but some people do see one. once i save up some money i'll probably get the same thing he is.

 

Could you or anyone else explain this part a little more in depth for me? I'm currently trying to decide if I want to swap to the 580 before my laptop ships.. Basically am I going to be constantly updating my drivers or having to switch them around to play different games with the 6990? Also what do you mean better game support? Thanks!

 

basically, for some reason Nvidia cards (in the past) usually always got higher FPS rates in games when comparing it to AMD. im not sure how else to describe it other than Nvidia being more "game-friendly". usually, it always took AMD some time to fix driver issues with games (E.G. 5870 when it first came out).

i forget where i saw on youtube, but a guy tried a couple of different games with both Nvidia cards and the AMD power-equivalent cards, and in most games, Nvidia had the higher FPS. ill still try to find that vid and post it up.

hope this helps.

edit: but in this case, i still say to go with AMD and get the 6990's. (IMO)

 

Ok, thanks for the help.. it clears up some confusion a little. Just a hard choice.. 99$ for a better card with probably better support and (may) cause less issues in the long run while gaming. Or just take my chance with 6990... If it were still the original 250$ upgrade I wouldn't even consider it, but 99$ is so tempting lol.

 

What are you talking about? It is hardly a better card for 99 bucks. The difference in performance is so little, and any issue you might be imagining you get will most probably either not happen at all, or happen with both.

I don't think you are "taking chances" using an AMD card.

 

If the 6990M and the 580M were the same price I'd still pick the 6990M, but that's just me.

 

I am curious as to why?

The 580m outperforms the 6990m and runs cooler. (which makes OC'ing easier and less risky as well)

If the price was the same, then the 580m would be the best overall card.

The 6990m's price is what makes it worth it to ignore the additional heat and slight performance hit.

Not that I wouldn't buy a 6990m (currently considering it actually), but I will take into account not just performance, but features of the laptop overall.

Competition is good for all of the consumers and the industry itself.

 

also curious as to why.

 

Sorry Lizard, I'm still waiting for mine, should ship around Tuesday to Thursday this week. But from what I read and heard so far, no one seem to have any issue with the 580 temperature. It is higher than the 485m but still lower than 90c.

Hope that help. I would recommend that you switch over to the 580m Lizard.

 

Don't take the my above quote too much for your purchasing decision, because AMD and Ati are still very good GPU overall.

There are little things (hiccup) that bother me with AMD card vs Nvidia.

Here are a few example that I experience.

When I bought Mass Effect 2 with my current AMD card on my desktop, I could not force AA for several months. Whereas my friends who had an Nvidia card, go to play it with AA straight off the bad cause Nvidia is more game friendly (what I mean by plug and play). Can you imagine buying a pc game (ported) and not being able to play on AA/AF? That defeat the whole point of playing PC games.

The exact same thing happen with Batman AA, and these two things are major killer for me.

Now little hiccup including playing the Sim City 4 (a long time ago) when you drag the mouse to fast, the texture is super blurry until you stop moving your mouse to view your city. However with my Nvidia 7600gt, there was no such problems. This make me no longer want to play Sim City 4.

Now on a more recent issue, with AMD, Battlefield Bad Company 2 lag for me when I check my score and stop lagging when I stop checking my score. This never happen on my Nvidia card in the gaming desktop that I build for my friends. While it not a major grip, it does take away from the experience.

There are more things like bugs/glitches and Nvidia buying the gaming market that if you have the extra cast (don't buy the 580m for anything more than $100) then you go for it!

I hope I can shed some light on why Nvidia is the way to go. The whole slogan "The way is meant to be play" is very true. If you want less hassle, then you go with Nvidia. There driver game support is amazing. To clarify to your question is that Nvidia usually have patches faster and usually fixes all the problem you experience in games whereas AMD patches are slower and is not as well supported as Nvidia.

When Crysis 2 came out, AMD had flickering problems whereas Nvidia ran the game easily.

When you go with Nvidia, your not paying $100 more for slighty better performance than AMD. Your paying for less hassle, physx, and better driver and game support. In the end it doesn't matter if AMD has superior hardware, if that power is not used at all (think of PS3) to it full potential, there is no point because it the end, it doesn't really benefit.

Also AMD catalysis is extremely annoying and not user friendly. I am also very tire of having to force AA in a lot of the port games I buy.

Lastly not all games have difficultly with AMD, it just that both Mass Effect 2 and Batman AA (both are AAA titles) did and that alone is too very popular games.

Conclusion: AMD has more problems with games than Nvidia but majority of the time they work just as well. But for me 1 or 2 AAA titles I want to play and not being able to play with AA/AF until months later is too much hassle for me. Crysis 2 having flickering issue was the last straw.

I will still be buying AMD in the future due to cost and performance but for a laptop, I really want an Nvidia gpu.

I type this really quick so there are grammar issue.

 

Sweet thank you so much for that Cheesy. I think I've decided I'm going to just bite the bullet and go with the 580.. if just for the sake of it running cooler and having better driver support. Like you said.. less hassle in the long run. Thanks again for your insight!

 

The 6990m could possibly run cooler with the 204 chipset but it really doesn't matter since you will not have any problems with the 580m either. The 580m is the breaking point for Nvidia GPU, anything more than that, the laptop can't handle it without the Ivy bridge chipset sometime next year in march. But for this current generation notebook, the 580m is a beast best not to reckon with

I am not biases to either AMD or Nvidia, I buy what I feel is the best bang for the bucks. I have own a total of 6 AMD gpu and 3 Nvidia gpu and used countless Nvidia/AMD gpu that I have builds for neighbors and friends. I do not understand the whole concept of "fanboyism" so this is really an unbiased opinion.

Do let me know how you like your laptop once you get it, and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I will with mine.

And you welcome mate, if you have anything else to ask just pm me or reply back on this thread.

 

@Cheesy what you are spreading is misinformation. So much misinformation it's unbelievable. It's sad and it's pretty much immoral. And it can be borderline illegal for defamation of a company. Blaming a company wrongfully and spreading lies and rumors is something AMD can take you to court for.

The reason why people could apply AA on games with Nvidia was due to a DRIVER BUG. Nvidia openly admitted that was a BUG and wasn't something they wanted, or intended. This was not due to better game support from Nvidia. It was a bug that users discovered with Nvidia's Super-Sampling AA. Stop spreading lies about how Nvidia has better game support in relation to AA because they don't.

As for AMD? They have MLAA and have had it for over a year now. Can apply AA to any game out there.

And now with FXAA injectors and seems most games are using FXAA now anyway, that's a complete non-issue. Deus-Ex, Crysis 2 for example were just released with FXAA. Battlefield 3 will also be released with FXAA.

ME2 is a UE3 game and in DX9 it has NO AA support in game to begin with. Blaming AMD for that is just stupid, no other way to say it.

BC2 does not lag for me on AMD and it doesn't lag for anyone I know with AMD. Maybe you should fix your computer before blaming AMD for it.

Crysis 2 did not run perfect on SLI for Nvidia users. That's a huge lie, unbelievable lie. SLI flickering was present as well. Get your facts straight. Just doing a simple google search shows it, and it's pathetic since it's a Nvidia paid game, supposedly over a million: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C...eid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=SLI+flickering+Crysis+2

Batman AA is a UE3 game in DX9 with no native AA support. Again, MLAA works with Batman AA and frankly it looks better with MLAA than with forced Nvidia AA. Also again blaming AMD for that is just stupid. Unbelievably stupid. Batman AA is also the game where it was PROVEN that Nvidia ensured that AA wouldn't work with AMD and Epic Games made a public apology and fixed the game afterwards. AA works with Batman AA now, same copy on Steam.

If you're going to make complaints, at least be truthful about it instead of painting Nvidia is such a glorious light and trashing AMD for things that aren't their fault to begin with. And in one instance among your examples, the fault was because of Nidia who decided to sabotage over 50% of gamers who are running AMD hardware.