AMD Radeon HD 6970 and 6950 Video Card Review @ [H]

Alaska Wolf said:
Bummer, I don't have the extra dough. The Sammy 52 works SWELL for web surfing and blue rays. Not so good for games though?

I wasn't planning on a video card upgrade but the PC Gods shat upon my parade.
Click to expand...

See, I would have thought it would be the other way around.

Video/Movies and games would be great on a 52" HDTV.

I would have thought that general desktop use would be a bit awkward on a 52" screen with a (relatively) low resolution of 1920x1080, considering normal computer viewing distances...
 
All of you poor folks that think you'll just load up a 2nd ATI 68xx or 69xx series card and gush away at the Crossfire capabilities need to wake up. Stepping to a multigpu environment is NOT just as slapasshappy as popping another GPU in and watching it go.

Microstutter is a bitch. Games properly supporting multi-gpu using ATI tech is a bitch. Trying to figure out which games benefit and do not benefit from using CAPs is a bitch. ATI's drivers are, in general, a bitch. Let me be very clear here: I am only speaking in regards to using a Crossfire setup.

Thank freaking god I have the abundance of time I do. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to test out various drivers (beta/final/modified/WHQL), configurations on the drivers and the plethora of games and various config files they contain that I have. I get a bit pissed off when I see people claim Crossfire or SLI is the cure-all, be-all answer to every solution that requires more graphical horsepower. Take a look at the forums of various established sites and see the outcry of "noobs" complaining about their shit not working right in crossfire.

...and no I'm not going to let Nvidia off the hook on multi-gpu, but they sure as shit have had less problems than ATI throughout the course of the 400 and now 500 series. At least from my experience testing various hardware and software from each respective company.

Just don't go into Crossfire blind people. Its not the Merry fuckin Poppins walk in the park its made out to be.
 
I just spent 30 damn minutes looking at the screen trying to justify $60 more for a 6970 over a 6950 ><

OR

2 6950s over 1 6970 ....

$600+tax = $678
$369+tax = $416

Maybe a single 6970 will keep me happy, so I clicked it.
 
I've never had any problems with my CFX setup, but then again I probably don't do as much PC gaming as many of you guys do since most of my gaming is on the Xbox 360. Ever since having my gaming rig built last Febuary, I have been pretty fortunate as it has been a simple plug and play affair. When updating drivers, I use the typical formula of uninstalling, booting into safe mode to run driver sweeper, and then rebooting in order to install the new drivers.

I have no clue what this micro stutter you guys talk about is, but it could be that none of my games are stressing the system enough since my maximum resolution is limited to 1366x768 due to it being plugged into my LCD HDTV. I'm hoping to have enough money to upgrade to a 1080p TV sometime next year, although I still havn't found a new job yet after losing mine a couple months ago.

My previous gaming rig before this was an nVidia SLI setup, and I didn't really have many problems with that either.

orthetic said:
All of you poor folks that think you'll just load up a 2nd ATI 68xx or 69xx series card and gush away at the Crossfire capabilities need to wake up. Stepping to a multigpu environment is NOT just as slapasshappy as popping another GPU in and watching it go.

Microstutter is a bitch. Games properly supporting multi-gpu using ATI tech is a bitch. Trying to figure out which games benefit and do not benefit from using CAPs is a bitch. ATI's drivers are, in general, a bitch. Let me be very clear here: I am only speaking in regards to using a Crossfire setup.

Thank freaking god I have the abundance of time I do. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to test out various drivers (beta/final/modified/WHQL), configurations on the drivers and the plethora of games and various config files they contain that I have. I get a bit pissed off when I see people claim Crossfire or SLI is the cure-all, be-all answer to every solution that requires more graphical horsepower. Take a look at the forums of various established sites and see the outcry of "noobs" complaining about their shit not working right in crossfire.

...and no I'm not going to let Nvidia off the hook on multi-gpu, but they sure as shit have had less problems than ATI throughout the course of the 400 and now 500 series. At least from my experience testing various hardware and software from each respective company.

Just don't go into Crossfire blind people. Its not the Merry fuckin Poppins walk in the park its made out to be.
Click to expand...
 
Zarathustra[H];1036570034 said:
See, I would have thought it would be the other way around.

Video/Movies and games would be great on a 52" HDTV.

I would have thought that general desktop use would be a bit awkward on a 52" screen with a (relatively) low resolution of 1920x1080, considering normal computer viewing distances...
Click to expand...


I gotta tell you, I LOVE using my computer while kicking back in my lazy boy with the illuminated Logitech keyboard on my lap and my Logitech wireless mouse on the table next to my chair. Works like a charm and it's nice to be able to switch to TV, then the WWW, or Word, and then play music or my ripped Blu Ray/DVD collection. I sit approximately 7 feet from the screen and it is NOT too large or too close! In fact I wish I'd gone with a 60"...

But are I missing something? I thought the consensus was a smaller monitor running at a MUCH higher resolution produced a better gaming experience?
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I just spent 30 damn minutes looking at the screen trying to justify $60 more for a 6970 over a 6950 ><

OR

2 6950s over 1 6970 ....

$600+tax = $678
$369+tax = $416

Maybe a single 6970 will keep me happy, so I clicked it.
Click to expand...

I wish I could make up MY mind as easily!!
 
TwistedAegis said:
And talk about scalability; for 150% of a GTX 580, you can have CFX 6970s, with a full 1 GB more memory.
Click to expand...


This is only partially correct in that yes there is physically 1 GB more available memory than if you had 2 GTX 580's vs. 2 6970's, however there is approximately only 500 more USABLE memory for the frame buffer.

Because you have 2, 2 GB cards physically totalling 4 GB, does not mean you get to use all that.

2x 1536 MB 580's vs. 2x 6970 2 GB's = closer on memory than you thought... and yes the 6970 has more.
 
too many coments to read but forgive me if someone already asked this question.

will 6970 be faster or slower under AMD CPU compare to Intel CPU? or it wouldn't make big difference?
 
I guess you guys missed my question... how does the 6950 stack up against 2 4870's in crossfirex? I have no clue to be honest, I hope it's enough of a performance boost to warrant $300
 
Krieger91 said:
I guess you guys missed my question... how does the 6950 stack up against 2 4870's in crossfirex? I have no clue to be honest, I hope it's enough of a performance boost to warrant $300
Click to expand...
Uhh, the 4870's might actually be faster.
Otherwise it's a dead tie.
 
NeonFlak said:
Maybe the varied results stem from various driver versions being used.

Anandtech Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2
Benchmark Review Catalyst 10.11 (8.790.6.2000)
Computer Base Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2
Guru3D Catalyst Beta 8.97.6.101206a
Hardware Canucks Catalyst 10.12 Beta RC2
Hardware.Fr Catalyst 10.10e
Hardware Heaven Catalyst 10.12 ??
Hardware.Info Pre-released Cat 10.12 (no version number provided)
HardOCP Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2
Hot Hardware Catalyst 10.11b
PC In Life Catalyst 10.11 (8.790.6.2000)
Rage3D Catalyst 8.890 + CAP 10.12. Also reviews the performance difference between MSAA, MLAA and EQAA
TPU 6970 Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2
TPU 6950 Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2
Toms Hardware (including CF results) Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2
TweakTown Catalyst 10.10 beta
vrzone Catalyst 10.11 (8.790.6.2000)
IXBT Catalyst 10.11 (8.790.6.2000)

*snagged from eastcoasthandle on tpu
Click to expand...

Interesting to note, I specifically asked if we should use the Cat 10.12 Preview driver press was given, to test 6900 series. The response was that the Cat 10.12 Preview driver did not support the 6900 series we were evaluating. So I don't know how other sites are claiming to use Cat 10.12 for the reviews. We used the driver provided by AMD for 6900 testing, which as you have pointed out, is posted on Page 2 of our review, and is based on Cat 10.11 code. We used this same driver also on the 6870 and 5870, so all cards are using the same driver.
 
Krieger91 said:
I guess you guys missed my question... how does the 6950 stack up against 2 4870's in crossfirex? I have no clue to be honest, I hope it's enough of a performance boost to warrant $300
Click to expand...

When the 5870 was released, the 4870 X2 showed similar performance.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/Radeon_HD_5870/30.html

The 5870 performance has gone up a bit, but it's still close. From the same website, and with a similar set of benchmarks, the difference between the 5870 and the new 6900 series is:

5870 -> 6950 = %4 faster
5870 -> 6970 = %15 faster

You'd probably be better-off with the 6970, unless you are planning on Crossfire 6950s in the future. The 6950 would be faster, but only a little - perhaps a %15 increase best-case.
 
SonDa5 said:
I am disappointed that AMD didn't beat out the GTX580 though.
Click to expand...

I knew this is exactly what people were going to say. That's why I made the first paragraph you see in the conclusion specifically address this topic.

I don't think the intention was to ever beat out the GTX 580. Certainly not at that price.

However, our testing has shown, that it can match, or beat GTX 580, depending on the game. It is entirely dependent on the game. Even when it doesn't beat GTX 580, its still within 20% of it, and for the price, that is incredible.

The gameplay experience delivered for the price is phenomenal. I've never seen so much performance at this price point before.
 
Lord_Exodia said:
Hard's review is Teh Awesome, however after reading several reviews some even using real world performance the 6950 vs GTX 570 results are different. Most other sites show the GTX 570 beating the 6950 most of the time even with the Cat 10.12 which does little to nothing for performance on Cayman. It is what it is though, sometimes real world results vary. Different systems, reviewers, run throughs etc..

What I would like to see is [H] mention in the review what setting for the filtering quality is used. It's known they use High Quality and the gang has even told me in the past via PM that they use High quality but new readers to the site may want to know too.
Click to expand...

We use default driver settings on both AMD and NVIDIA control panels. It is the only fair way to compare. We are looking for the out-of-box experience.
 
Nightbird said:
Question! :)

Why are the full load power numbers soo low?

If idle is 190W without a video card and full load is 428W including the 6970, that's a 238W difference... but what about the CPU power consumption? The spirit of the question is: is the video card consuming 190W and the CPU just 48W more at load? (that seems very very low)

Also, what happened to power consumption between 6970 and 580? An 88 watt difference is huge, but is it just controlled for the CPU consumption above? In other words, is the 580 really consuming 88 more watts?

That's a huge number, 6970 draws 32% less power than 580, or 580 draws 46% more power than 6970, based on 190W for 6970 and 278W for 580. The performance is arguably between 5-10% less.
Click to expand...

To clarify our testing procedure, we are relating the total system Watts to you, from the wall, of the whole system. We are using real gaming to see what the full load is. I use BC2 and run-through our testing procedure in that game, and leave it running for about 30 minutes as well, and find the peak Wattage usage while gaming in it. I use the same method on each card and look at the peak Wattage in the same places in the game that I know pull the most Wattages, so it is consistent, and the same on each card.

We used to use Furmark, but we cannot anymore with the power features on these cards capping the TDP.
 
benjdm said:
Are you trolling? Why do you have a 4870 1GB (according to your sig) if the last games you played were on an Atari 2600?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Is there some kind of Geek Council that decreed I had to game if I wanted to build computers for myself?
 
Parhel said:
Terrific review. Your real world benchmarks again show another side of the story.

Ideally, I'd like to see best possible settings at two given resolutions based on the tier of the card, such as 2560x1200 and 1920x1080 for top tier cards, lower for lesser cards. Just an idea . . . I suspect that it wouldn't be feasible with the amount of work involved and the time frames you're given.

I have a 30" HP, so this review was especially informative to me. In fact, it just saved me $140. Please, keep up the great work.
Click to expand...

We do often test at other resolutions, and I try to include some of that in the text. You are right it is hard with the time frames given to include charts or tables of other resolutions. Basically, if you can play at 2560x1600 2X AA on a card, you can rest assured it will play at 1920x1200 with a higher level of AA, maybe 4X maybe 8X at the lower resolution. That has been what I've discovered in all my testing of video cards.
 
avatar[djedi];1036568961 said:
Any insight into how well the 69x0 series of cards overclocks?
Click to expand...

Have not had the time to try it yet, I am interested to see how PowerTune affects it.
 
Great review, it looks like deciding what card to get next year will be an easy feat.
 
Brent_Justice said:
We do often test at other resolutions, and I try to include some of that in the text. You are right it is hard with the time frames given to include charts or tables of other resolutions. Basically, if you can play at 2560x1600 2X AA on a card, you can rest assured it will play at 1920x1200 with a higher level of AA, maybe 4X maybe 8X at the lower resolution. That has been what I've discovered in all my testing of video cards.
Click to expand...


Right.

But would you buy a 570 or a 6970 if you could only have one?

:D
 
defaultluser said:
When the 5870 was released, the 4870 X2 showed similar performance.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/Radeon_HD_5870/30.html

The 5870 performance has gone up a bit, but it's still close. From the same website, and with a similar set of benchmarks, the difference between the 5870 and the new 6900 series is:

5870 -> 6950 = %4 faster
5870 -> 6970 = %15 faster

You'd probably be better-off with the 6970, unless you are planning on Crossfire 6950s in the future. The 6950 would be faster, but only a little - perhaps a %15 increase best-case.
Click to expand...

awwww man :(
 
Alaska Wolf said:
Is there some kind of Geek Council that decreed I had to game if I wanted to build computers for myself?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, sort of, if you buy a top-end enthusiast gaming card to do your 2d browsing / HD video duties... a $30 5450 will do the same thing and uses far less power.
 
Physx = nvidia's physics solution, you can use a graphics card to process physics for you, which you will notice in games like Batman Arkham Asylum

I'm not sure what Cuda is, sorry, i do know Physx, what most people do is get a nice, but cheap nvidia card to use as a PhysX card.
 
Alaska Wolf said:
God help me. I don't know what those are.

Yet.

I haven't had to learn this much this fast since the hired girl took me upstairs to see a secret.
Click to expand...

As stated above, PhysX is a proprietary physics API that some games use to accelerate physics calculations. Cloth floating in the wind, things exploding, and so on. It can run on the CPU also but it's intentionally crippled by NVidia so people will buy their cards. Honestly shouldn't be a big factor in your decisions, very few games use it as there are other physics libraries available.

CUDA is another NV-specific feature. CUDA is a C (as in the programming language) extension that can be used to run programs on your video card if they are specially written for it. Some video encoding programs, for example, use CUDA because the massive parallel capabilities of a GPU work well with things like that.

CUDA is of limited use to the average user as there are not many applications for massively parallel hardware. Most things just need to be done sequentially.

Also, AMD and NV also support a CUDA-like standard called OpenCL that essentially does the same thing, but runs everywhere. IMO CUDA will die soon and OpenCL will take over. Open standards almost always win.
 
Sottilde said:
Well, yeah, sort of, if you buy a top-end enthusiast gaming card to do your 2d browsing / HD video duties... a $30 5450 will do the same thing and uses far less power.
Click to expand...

But won't a card like a 6950 or gtx 570 use about the same power idling or just web surfing, watching Blu Ray's? Won't it suck up the juice only when it's kicked into high gear?
 
Sottilde said:
As stated above, PhysX is a proprietary physics API that some games use to accelerate physics calculations. Cloth floating in the wind, things exploding, and so on. It can run on the CPU also but it's intentionally crippled by NVidia so people will buy their cards. Honestly shouldn't be a big factor in your decisions, very few games use it as there are other physics libraries available.

CUDA is another NV-specific feature. CUDA is a C (as in the programming language) extension that can be used to run programs on your video card if they are specially written for it. Some video encoding programs, for example, use CUDA because the massive parallel capabilities of a GPU work well with things like that.

CUDA is of limited use to the average user as there are not many applications for massively parallel hardware. Most things just need to be done sequentially.

Also, AMD and NV also support a CUDA-like standard called OpenCL that essentially does the same thing, but runs everywhere. IMO CUDA will die soon and OpenCL will take over. Open standards almost always win.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that reply! And Death to IE, Long Live The Fox.
 
Alaska Wolf said:
But won't a card like a 6950 or gtx 570 use about the same power idling or just web surfing, watching Blu Ray's? Won't it suck up the juice only when it's kicked into high gear?
Click to expand...

Not entirely. Power usage these days is much improved from back in the day but a tiny chip like the 5450 uses less power, period. There is much less logic in the chip and far less streaming processors, which means that there is far less leakage. Not to mention, most low-end cards run so cool that they don't even need heatsinks with fans. The 5450 is one of my favorite cards, if you can't tell... it's tiny, cheap, and does the job very, very well.

Also a smaller chip will have a narrow memory bus, etc... which has far less leakage.

See this chart - notice that the 5000 series has much improved idle power consumption on the high end, but it still can't beat a bare-bones chip:

21605.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top