Me neither.
More like a dual 570 at 480 clocks (or lower) is what I'd expect.
In any case, my question is this. According to hardware.fr's power consumption measurements of the 6970/50 review, the 6970 consumes as much as a GTX 570 in 3dmark06. Actually the 570 was a tad lower.
It seems very natural for everyone to expect a 6990 with two Cayman XTs but very impossible for a GTX 595 to feature two GF110s. Why?
It should be 2x GF114's:
Hey VIC.
I've been testing my 570 SLI the past couple of weeks. Upgraded from two 5850s.
I've been doing all tests on a 850Mhz clock on the 570s, since I found it to add no noise over the stock freq/voltage. That's all I ever wanted really, since a 570@850Mhz is around 50% faster than a stock 5850. At the end of the day, one 570 is more than enough for most games. Even with a single 570@850Mhz, my i7 860@4GHz found itself having a hard time keeping this beast fed with data, let alone both of them.
Truth be told, from a gameplay perspective, they are quite a good match.
I have uploaded a quadrillion benchmarks and gameplay videos in both single and SLI mode which you can find in my Youtube channel if you are interested.
For what's it worth, a 570@850Mhz is equal to a stock 580, so you'll get a pretty decent idea of what you get. I strongly advice against a 580 and save yourself the money, but that's your call really.
.I'd expect more like 2 Cayman Pro (well maybe with all simds enabled, not that it would help performance a lot). Don't forget that the HD 6950 has better perf/power as tHD 6970 - same is true for GTX 570 vs. GTX 580, because the top models operate above the ideal clock/voltage (from a perf/power perspective).
Wow that's a very comprehensive set you have there. Do you have Metro 2033? I'm getting it next week as it's only £10, though I may wait until I have my new card before playing it - currently I have a 4890.
Interesting point about the 570 which I was orginally was considering. Problem is, I've never overclocked a card before
Btw, nice wallpaper you have on your desktop!! (Crysis gameplay vid, bottom-left corner) Who is that?
Well, call it XT with PRO frequencies then. Who cares about name. Fact is, both for performance and power consumption it's way closer to 2xPRO than 2xXT (for the HD5970 - I don't expect HD6990 to be any different, if it will indeed have all simds enabled). Those additional 2 simds give you about 2% more performance, so it's no big deal either way if AMD would disable them.Probably I'm wrong, but has AMD ever used PRO chips for their top-of-the-line GPU product?
I mean that your statement contradicts itself. Cayman PRO but with XT shaders and probably lower frequencies. That doesn't make it Cayman PRO.
This particular name doesn't matter, more important is the actual performance and when, if , AMD will decide to release the product. Funny, isn't it? 
GF104b = 114. There won't be even as little changes as GF100 > 100b aka 110
And if it is an OCed part, then it might not look so imressive (let's use this word, although it's not accurate). Isn't it less than 30% faster, in fact?
! Didn't do exact calculations previously. 1/3 faster is not too far off.
