Originally Posted by slaWter
The 1.5GB per GPU on the 590s is still the biggest mistake on that product. One of the main features is "Surround with a single card" and the 1.5GB VRAM simply kills that right away.
Or it could be that no one solution is perfect, but the one that comes closest is two 3gb580s.
As far as the 590 goes, look at Dragon Age, they deem it plays fine at 4X AA and not at 8X AA like the 6970 CF. Would I rather have that extra 4X AA in that game, or PhysX and 3D Vision? For me that's a pretty easy choice.
Of course on Dirt3 the 1.5GB GTX580s could run 8X AA while the 6970s could only do 4X, so apparently this isn't uniform either.
On the F1 game it's a difference of 4X AA on the 1.5GB vs 8X AA on the higher ones, but on Battlefield the 1.5GB 580s could do 16X AA while the 6970s could only do 8X.
At Crysis it was 2X AA vs 4X, and at Metro AAA vs 4X.
So the results were all over the board, and in some cases, Dirt3 and Battlefield, the 1.5GB cards were better.
But day in day out you say "The Physx and 3d Vision don't matter, the games it wins don't matter, the only thing that really matters is there are some games where you can get a small increase in IQ by using 8X AA instead of 4X AA!"
All the while forgetting:
In all of our testing though, we did feel that SLI felt smoother to us than CFX at 5760x1200. DiRT 3 was the worse for CFX at this resolution, the performance driving did not feel like the framerate being shown.
that ATi has worse microstutter and multiGPU drivers.
What good is an extra 4X AA if you have to look at the game hitching and stuttering?