Originally Posted by slaWter
Yeah and that's not really a high resolution. Even the more/most common 3x 1080p setups require more VRAM.
2GB really is the sweetspot these days.
So you keep saying, even though I keep posting reviews that show it's not necessarily true.
Bulletstorm 57X10 4X AA GTX590 40fps min/45fps ave HD6990 33fps min/49fps ave The 590 will be smoother at this game.
Crysis 2 57X10 0X AA GTX590 26fps min/36fps ave HD6990 16fps min/20fps ave The GX590 wins, another AAA title launches without CF support.
Deadspace2 57X10 Max AA GTX590 65fps min/105fps ave HD6990 39fps min/75fps ave The GTX590 is much faster.
F1 2010 57X10 4XAA GTX590 25fps min/26fps ave HD6990 24fps min/26fps ave The GX590 has tiny edge in this functional tie.
Hawx 2 57X10 4X AA GTX590 87fps min/152 ave HD6990 50fps min/96fps ave The GTX590 walks away with this.
Mafia 2 57X16 AA on GTX590 61fps min/83fps ave HD6990 40fps min/53 fps ave The GTX590 walks away on this game as well.
So the GTX590 provided a better gaming experience at six of the eight games tested at 57X10, even though you keep saying the 1.5GB per card is a limitation to for it.
I'd note that 57X10 is nowhere close to mainstream, and that calling something less than 1% of gamers are using (as evidenced by the STEAM survey) "common" is misleading at best.
I've just posted fourteen games where the GTX590 is faster than the 6990 at 25X16, and a review where it's the better solution at 6/8 games at 57X10. This is pretty good evidence the GTX590 isn't struggling with high resolutions as some people like to post with nowhere near as much backing evidence as I just posted.