Graphics Cards: Choose the Best Board for Your Budget
The Mainstream Gamer ($350):
AMD Radeon HD 6970 vs. Nvidia GeForce GTX 570
Farther up the line are AMD’s Radeon HD 6970 and Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 570. Each card costs from $300 to $350. Although they’re a little pricier than budget offerings, your investment will pay off in the long run: Neither card will be obsolete anytime soon, and both will tackle the latest and greatest games with all the bells and whistles cranked up.
| SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Test | Setting | AMD Radeon HD 6970 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 570 |
| 3DMark 11 | Performance | 5326 | 5603 |
| Extreme | 1736 | 1813 | |
| Unigine Heaven 2.5 | 1920 by 1200 | 39.7 fps | 42.0 fps |
| 1920 by 1200, 4xAA | 34.5 fps | 34.5 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600 | 24.4 fps | 25.1 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600, 4xAA | 21.6 fps | 20.8 fps | |
| REAL-WORLD GAMES | |||
| Test | Setting | AMD Radeon HD 6970 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 570 |
| Crysis 2 | 1920 by 1200 | 39.3 fps | 46.0 fps |
| 1920 by 1200, 4xAA | 34.8 fps | 42.6 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600 | 22.9 fps | 26.7 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600, 4xAA | 20.6 fps | 24.6 fps | |
| Dirt 3 | 1920 by 1200 | 64.2 fps | 69.1 fps |
| 1920 by 1200, 4xAA | 60.9 fps | 62.1 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600 | 42.6 fps | 44.9 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600, 4xAA | 40.5 fps | 41.0 fps | |
CHART NOTES: 4xAA = 4x antialiasing; fps = frames per second. For all scores, higher (shown in red) is better. For more information about interpreting 3DMark 11 scores, visit 3DMark.com.
On real-world games the results were a little more noticeable: At 2560 by 1600 with antialiasing, the HD 6970 ran Dirt 3 at 40.5 fps, whereas the GTX 570 chugged along at 41.0 fps. In Crysis 2 at the same settings, the gap was a bit more pronounced, with AMD’s card managing 20.6 fps and Nvidia’s card achieving 24.6 fps. Keep in mind that we got these results at the maximum available settings on 30-inch monitors. Mere mortals equipped with 24-inch panels set at 1920 by 1200 (or a lower resolution) can enjoy these games in all their glory on either card, without compromises.
Winner: AMD Radeon HD 6970
After you’ve spent $350 (or less) on this card, you should have enough left in your wallet to grab a third monitor; Eyefinity will serve you well. And even if you stick with two screens (or just one), you’ll save money without suffering many drawbacks--feel free to buy extra RAM, or that nice keyboard you’ve been eyeing.
The Well-Heeled Gamer ($700):
AMD Radeon HD 6990 vs. Nvidia GeForce GTX 590
These are the graphics cards that legends are made of: You won’t find AMD's Radeon HD 6990 or Nvidia's GeForce GTX 590 for less than $700. In fact, you’ll be hard-pressed to find them at all, owing to seriously limited supply.
| SYNTHETIC BENCHMARKS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Test | Setting | AMD Radeon HD 6990 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 |
| 3DMark 11 | Performance | 9230 | 9096 |
| Extreme | 3315 | 3206 | |
| Unigine Heaven 2.5 | 1920 by 1200 | 74.6 fps | 80.0 fps |
| 1920 by 1200, 4xAA | 65.6 fps | 66.5 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600 | 46.2 fps | 49.0 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600, 4xAA | 40.9 fps | 40.3 fps | |
| REAL-WORLD GAMES | |||
| Test | Setting | AMD Radeon HD 6990 | Nvidia GeForce GTX 590 |
| Crysis 2 | 1920 by 1200 | 69.8 fps | 76.3 fps |
| 1920 by 1200, 4xAA | 64.8 fps | 72.3 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600 | 43.4 fps | 46.2 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600, 4xAA | 39.6 fps | 43.1 fps | |
| Dirt 3 | 1920 by 1200 | 115.3 fps | 117.8 fps |
| 1920 by 1200, 4xAA | 125.9 fps | 128.7 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600 | 77.6 fps | 77.8 fps | |
| 2560 by 1600, 4xAA | 73.6 fps | 72.1 fps | |
CHART NOTES: 4xAA = 4x antialiasing; fps = frames per second. For all scores, higher (shown in red) is better. For more information about interpreting 3DMark 11 scores, visit 3DMark.com.
So which one deserves the title of the world’s fastest graphics card? It depends. On our synthetic-benchmark tests, the HD 6990 edged out ahead. In Unigine Heaven at 2560 by 1600 with antialiasing, it ran at 40.9 frames per second, versus the GTX 590’s rate of 40.3 fps. In 3DMark 11, AMD’s card maintained the lead, with a score that was 3.4 percent higher than the Nvidia card’s result.
The difference in power consumption between these two titans is par for the course: The HD 6990 pulled 371 watts of power under load, while the GTX 590 consumed 470 watts. That’s a dramatic difference--and one that’s sure to make you fast friends with your utilities provider, should you choose the Nvidia card.
Both cards sport dual GPUs; think SLI or CrossFire on a single card. AMD’s Eyefinity technology allows the HD 6990--which carries four mini-DisplayPort connectors and a DVI port--to drive five 24-inch displays. The GTX 590 can support four 24-inch displays, since it’s equipped with three DVI ports and one mini-DisplayPort connector. If you opt for Nvidia’s 3D Vision Surround, the card can support three 3D displays.
Winner: A draw
The testing results are tight, and will only muddle further as driver improvements optimize each card’s performance. If you’re in the market for a $700 graphics card, working a few 30-inch monitors into the mix might not be out of the realm of possibility--the HD 6990 will let you run three at once. But if you’re into 3D, nothing can beat Nvidia’s 3D Vision Surround.
Add Your Comment