6850(BARTS pro) performance &price information

more information( in Chinese):
41596157.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's pretty terrible. I got 13k GPU score with a pair of 4850s two years ago.


That is 2 HD4850s in Xfire vs. a single HD6850. Doesn't sound too bad. I would expect the HD6870 to be better. Then with some overclocking on GPU/CPU/System and things will be looking much better.


Here are 2 of my single HD5770s Vantage scores for comparison. My system is overclocked but it is something to think about.

Vantage3dMarksingleHD5770DFIX57JRRIG.jpg



The link and information provide by OP could be wrong as well.
 
Last edited:
single GTX 480 can pull 68509 GPU score..

the score doesn't mean anything, 6870 is mean to be replacing 5850...and 5850 is mean to be replacing something lower..
 
So days until the release and the rumors still say they will redo the naming scheme.

68xx will replace the 57xx series. 69xx will replace the 58xx/5970

At this price the gpu looks good but I would be lying if I didn't say I expected more. I guess the GPU has been overhyped here and elsewhere that at this point I'm expecting too much. Can't say I didn't expect it to fall short of the uber high expectations and hype. Who knows we still have more to see. The true cinderella story about these GPU's may be their overclocking prowess. So from what i see is the below accurate as per current rumors?

6850 <--- Replaces 5770 performs around 5830
6870 <--- Replaced 5830 performs around 5850
6950 <--- Replaces 5850 performs between 5850/5870
6970 <--- Replaces 5870 performance ???
6990 <--- Replaces 5970 performance ???
 
single GTX 480 can pull 68509 GPU score..

LOL no.

Maybe you're confusing GPU score with the artificially inflated PhysX CPU score? That is why people more often use GPU scores rather than even talking about the overall scores in Vantage anymore because it essentially eliminates that massive and irrelevant variable.
 
Wow it looks like AMD is that stupid after all. Releasing a next gen product 6870 that is slower than the previous gen 5870... Sad.

Maybe they are also going to re-brand the 5770 as the 6770 to compete with NVidia for the lame re-brander title as well.
 
Wow it looks like AMD is that stupid after all. Releasing a next gen product 6870 that is slower than the previous gen 5870... Sad.

Maybe they are also going to re-brand the 5770 as the 6770 to compete with NVidia for the lame re-brander title as well.

While I haven't head anything to that effect yet, that's also my fear. If they want to keep selling Juniper, fine, but don't make an arbitrary name change to confuse people. But then again, I'm thinking as a consumer and not as a business entity. Ignorance sell quite well.
 
It's not the first time they gave a slower new part a higher number than a previously releases faster part.

Anyone remember the 9500 PRO (standard without unlocking) versus the 9600 PRO?
 
It's not the first time they gave a slower new part a higher number than a previously releases faster part.

Anyone remember the 9500 PRO (standard without unlocking) versus the 9600 PRO?

Those were same generation and a mid line hiccup.

This would be more like if the 9500 was slower that the 8500. It is even worse because this x8xx parts have been flagship parts for many generations. It's a screwup.
 
6950 <--- Replaces 5850 performs between 5850/5870

Agree with most of what you wrote except for that. I have a feeling the whole "minor improvement over the 5xxx generation" rumor was aimed literally at the model number replacement, ie- 6870 will only be 10-20% faster than the 5870. That rumor also didn't take any consideration into what price the 58xx replacement would be sold at. This should mean a return to "cheap" x8xx series cards which everyone was clamoring for with the 58xx cards but didn't get since there was a lack of competition.

If the whole 5D -> 4D shader cluster re-arrangement part is true and assuming the 4D arrangement offers on average 90%+ of the 5D performance, this is very simple to achieve with a die not much larger than Juniper. Let's say that the Barts XT has 1280 shaders, 1280/4 = 320, same number of shader clusters as the 5870 (320*5=1600). Clocked right and with the supposed other arch. improvements involved you can easily eek out a 10-20% improvement in a lot of situations over the 5870. All that with reduced power consumption compared to the 5870. The 5850->6850 is a bit more tricky, clocks might become more of a player there depending on how many shaders get fused off from the 6870 variant. Anyway, if they can price a 6870 card at the <=$300 and the 6850 near the $230 point similar to the 48xx launch that's a huge win for AMD. The die size will likely come in smaller than the 460 but will beat it handily in benchmarks.

And that's for the upper range performance cards. For the enthusiast segment I'm hoping for 1920 or more shaders for the 6970 or whatever it winds up as, ~ equivalent to a 2400 shader count evergreen part. A 6950 would still be > 5870 performance wise if it's cut down to use 1600 NI shaders. Those will probably replace the 58xx series price-wise but would offer quite a theoretical upgrade. The price/performance ratio is really what AMD has been aiming for lately and NI looks like a winner there again. I'm thinking 35%+ real-world benchmark improvement for a similar price at the performance segment.

NI shader progression here would go:
320 - 640 - 960 - 1280 - 1600 - 1920
Evergreen equivalents would go:
400 - 800 - 1200 - 1600 - 2000 - 2400

Who cares what chip lies beneath the 6870 moniker as long as the price is right. The 2900->38xx transition showed you don't necessarily need huge performance boosts between generations to be successful. I'm still baffled as to what the dual GPU cards will consist of tho. Even if they just use Barts XT chips for that part instead of Cayman they will be pretty monstrous performers. I'm hoping for a dual Cayman Pro with 2x1600 NI shaders but time will tell.
 
I have a feeling the whole "minor improvement over the 5xxx generation" rumor was aimed literally at the model number replacement, ie- 6870 will only be 10-20% faster than the 5870.

If that rumor is correct we're in for a treat. Come 10/19
 
Who cares what chip lies beneath the 6870 moniker as long as the price is right. The 2900->38xx transition showed you don't necessarily need huge performance boosts between generations to be successful. I'm still baffled as to what the dual GPU cards will consist of tho. Even if they just use Barts XT chips for that part instead of Cayman they will be pretty monstrous performers. I'm hoping for a dual Cayman Pro with 2x1600 NI shaders but time will tell.

It matters if the 6870 is actually slower than the 5870 which seems like a distinct possibility.
 
IF the renaming is true (and I hope it isn't), AMD might be trying to bring it back in line with the 3xxx and 4xxx name vs. price. And by that, I mean the 4850 essentially launched at $150 (MSRP was $200, but it dropped to $150 within a week), and the 4870 launched at $300 and also quickly dropped. Perhaps AMD wants to position the 6xxx series similarly, with the 68xx being cheaper than the 58xx series price points.

So 6850 = $150, etc...

I don't know, if true, still seems stupid to me.
 
Not impressive so far even if this is Barts Pro. My 1gb 460 gets a 13462 GPU score at stock. P14164 overall.
 
It matters if the 6870 is actually slower than the 5870 which seems like a distinct possibility.

I really don't see that happening given my reasons above, and even if it is who really cares? A 6870 that is cheaper and consumes less power than a 5870 but is about the same or slightly lower (unlikely) performance is a loss how? If you're an enthusiast who has a 5870 now and wants to upgrade to the next gen you will always have the option to go with the 6970 for about the same $ (hopefully) as what you bought the 5870 for.

If you feel like an upgrade from your 5870 is a 6870 without ever looking at reviews or analysis...well you deserve what you buy considering the nature of computer hardware, nothing is ever a given. There's also the fact that there are not likely as many 5870 owners itching to upgrade as <=4870 owners who want to upgrade for which a 6870 would be a big step up and who could care less how the 5xxx series performed vs 6xxx of the same model number. Even then, if you want to upgrade you should be doing your research before hand so this really becomes a non issue for anyone who posts here.

Some more rumor mill slides leaked out today about the Juniper chips being reused as 6770 parts which would throw a wrench in my whole shader count theories but that's a whole other barrel of monkeys. Hoping that's not the case but I guess we'll find out soon. There's also the chance that AMD is reusing evergreen based cores for some of the 6xxx series for now and will save those NI/SI series chips for pipecleaning on the 28nm node like the 4770 was for 40nm. Damn AMD for making speculation so complicated...
 
IF the renaming is true (and I hope it isn't), AMD might be trying to bring it back in line with the 3xxx and 4xxx name vs. price. And by that, I mean the 4850 essentially launched at $150 (MSRP was $200, but it dropped to $150 within a week), and the 4870 launched at $300 and also quickly dropped. Perhaps AMD wants to position the 6xxx series similarly, with the 68xx being cheaper than the 58xx series price points.

So 6850 = $150, etc...

You are dreaming. 4850 dropped from competitive pressure, not because ATI only wanted $150. :rolleyes: When the 5xxx series released, it actually went UP more than MSRP, because of high demand and ZERO competition.

The real reason they are doing this is because they made ZERO advancements in a year because they are still stuck with the same process.

Instead of line revamp with boosted performance. They are going for cost reduction. The new 68xx series will be smaller/cheaper/slower than the old 58xx series. So when the cost reductions hit they will still make money. And they figure they can charge a higher price is they call it 68xx than if they call it 67xx.

When they 69xx hits it will likewise be slower than than the 59xx and cheaper. Only the 699x dual GPU card will be faster than the old card of similar number scheme (if it ever even exists).
 
Last edited:
I really don't see that happening given my reasons above, and even if it is who really cares? A 6870 that is cheaper and consumes less power than a 5870 but is about the same or slightly lower (unlikely) performance is a loss how?.

Reasons being, mere speculation? You seem to be assuming 1280 new SP is faster than 1600 old SPs? This seems like a pretty huge leap.

Also this leak was accompanied by very lackluster 3d Vantage GPU scores, that indicated it is slower.

If there is not much in a name, why not maintain the consistency they have built up?

x8xx has been top GPU for a while. Is AMD so unsure that they can deliver the rumored Cayman, that they are calling Barts the top GPU?

I think the main reason they are calling 68xx is because they want x8xx series type pricing. They will be in the ballpark of 5830-5850 pricing, not 5770 pricing. Overall there won't be much improvement in price/performance over today.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about it some more, is AMD actually planning to re-brand Juniper chips straight up, or are they just aiming for the same Juniper Pro/XT performance with 67xx? If true there is going to be confusion as 67xx chips will lack N.I's new features like EyeSpeed (whatever that is) and UVD3.
 
Reasons being, mere speculation? You seem to be assuming 1280 new SP is faster than 1600 old SPs? This seems like a pretty huge leap.

I don't think it's that big of a leap given architectural analysis at b3d and other forums. You can make up for the extra -mostly unused- shader in the cluster with a small bump in clocks. Then you have other improvements that will happen in conjunction with this and there should generally be an upward trend happening.

Also this leak was accompanied by very lackluster 3d Vantage GPU scores, that indicated it is slower.

People still care about this benchmark? Maybe if they had shown an actual game benchmark being slower I would care. Does anyone have shader usage statistics for 3DMark? That might actually be a corner case where the 5D clusters were being utilized to their fullest potential for at least part of it. A move to 4D would obviously hurt that score if 5D were being used to >80% efficiency. However, I seriously doubt that % would be reflected in most real games.

If there is not much in a name, why not maintain the consistency they have built up?

x8xx has been top GPU for a while. Is AMD so unsure that they can deliver the rumored Cayman, that they are calling Barts the top GPU?

What consistency? "Consistency" for the 48xx series was pegged at being a $200-300 card because the 38xx series was that price. People bitched and moaned about that change with the 58xx series but the performance was there. What happened to the consistency between pricing of the 4870 and 5870? 3 generations ago they didn't even use the same naming convention. It's hard to define a pattern with so few sample points.

It's all about money really, and that goes back to my first point that the new Barts architecture should offer equivalent or better performance in a much neater package that costs less to manufacture. That's the real key here.

For Cayman there is going to be a manufacturing price hike compared to the 58xx chips but the margins will still be better than what NV are seeing at their own top end. Yields, R&D costs, etc should also be in a much better place. I'm willing to bet my entire life savings* that there will be far more Caymans (Caymen?) produced than GTX480 512 editions.

Hell AMD wouldn't even have to release these chips to compete with NV until 28nm next year, but there is an opportunity for them to reduce manufacturing costs while keeping the users at a similar or better satisfaction level at the same price levels. That's win-win in my book. Do people really get angry that their video card has an 8 or 9 in the name instead of a 7 or 8?

AMD has a lot of room to play here since the competition isn't even showing up for the race. That situation is mostly always worse for the consumer and it will be interesting to see what MSRPs wind up being vs. sale prices.

* stands at $.84 and a warm halls cough drop that's been sitting in my pocket all day
 
What consistency? "Consistency" for the 48xx series was pegged at being a $200-300 card because the 38xx series was that price. People bitched and moaned about that change with the 58xx series but the performance was there. What happened to the consistency between pricing of the 4870 and 5870? 3 generations ago they didn't even use the same naming convention. It's hard to define a pattern with so few sample points.

Pricing consistency is impossible, it is driven by market conditions.

But the x8xx has consistently been AMDs top performing single GPU chip. You could just see the model number and understand what it meant.

Now they are changing that for marketing reasons.
 
Pricing consistency is impossible, it is driven by market conditions.

But the x8xx has consistently been AMDs top performing single GPU chip. You could just see the model number and understand what it meant.

Now they are changing that for marketing reasons.

For only three generations (well, two and a half)

It use to be that the 1900XT and 2900 were the top of the line, single GPU cards. Although this was before dual gpu single PCB cards were introduced for top tier performance.
 
Pricing consistency is impossible, it is driven by market conditions.

But the x8xx has consistently been AMDs top performing single GPU chip. You could just see the model number and understand what it meant.

Now they are changing that for marketing reasons.

For the last 3 generations I suppose. But it was also the top performing multi-gpu brand for 2 of those when they used an x2 in the name. And in the generations before that it switched between x85x and x9xx for the top end. Then again the 4770 outclassed the 4830 in most things and sometimes even the 4850, so even within the same family of cards you have inconsistencies with ordering...The number just seems superficial to me.

The only brand numbers that really sour my grapes are the mobile ones...just what the hell "hat" they pull those from I will never know. For the most part tho, numbers are consistent within the same family of GPUs even the mobile ones, 55xx < 56xx < 57xx etc. Once you start mixing the families it's anyone's guess.

I'd still like to see real benchmarks and specs and prices before I begin to think that the 68xx naming was a bad move.
 
If the 6870 ends up being slower than a 5870, AMD will get burned to the ground by just about everyone.

I just can't see them doing something that crazy stupid.

Maybe these rumors have the model numbers mixed up or something.
 
If the 6870 ends up being slower than a 5870, AMD will get burned to the ground by just about everyone.

I just can't see them doing something that crazy stupid.

Maybe these rumors have the model numbers mixed up or something.

Not if its priced @ or below GTX460. The 6870's price will pit it up against that card then, not the 5870. Chances are bigger that they will burn Nvidia to the ground if they don't reduce the prices of GTX460 accordingly then. :)

Price/Performance is more important I think then being confused over a name. Those who burn companies, usually resides in forums anyway and have learned how to read reviews. They will not get that confused.
 
Yup. The 5770 has been a huge success in e-tail/retail and is perceived as a value product. They don't want to change that perception in the market by having the 6770 outperform the 5870. Barts is considerably faster than 5770, so they moved all the names up. Also consider that they need to make room at the bottom for the upcoming Fusion products which will be the new low end products.
 
Not if its priced @ or below GTX460. The 6870's price will pit it up against that card then, not the 5870. Chances are bigger that they will burn Nvidia to the ground if they don't reduce the prices of GTX460 accordingly then. :)

Price/Performance is more important I think then being confused over a name. Those who burn companies, usually resides in forums anyway and have learned how to read reviews. They will not get that confused.

Well in reviews their latest greatest card will be slower than 4 or more other cards that are on the marker already. That will look both sad and pathetic to many people.

I think they will lose a lot of credibility in order to maintain some sort of marketing stance.
 
Back
Top