Better option: HD 6950 + 12 GB ram OR GTX 570?

J

jonesad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
185
Hello -
I currently have a Radeon 4870x2 video card and I am looking to upgrade to a DirectX 11 compatible card. My budget is right around $300, so it appears my best options are:

1. Get a Radeon 6950 (His OC'd card) + 12GB Corsair ram (total cost: ~$340)
2. Get the EVGA OC'd GTX 570 (total cost: ~$350)

My monitor is 24" and all games are played at 1900x1200 and I may upgrade my monitor to one that does 1920x1080, but won't be going much higher than that for resolution in games. Any thoughts?
 
6950, skip the RAM, unless you just HAVE to spend $340.
 
Thanks for the input - so you don't think the 12GB isn't worth it? I was so impressed with the price tag ($75-ish) for to move to 12GB of ram I figured it is a worthwhile upgrade.

From the benchmarks I've seen, it does appear the 6950 will give me the settings I need in most games so I think I agree with you. Seems like the only thing I'm missing out on is PhysX stuff, which I'm not really sure is that important to me anyway.
 
If you just game on your machine I don't see the need for more than 6GB. I never go above 12GB even with a bunch of VMs running + games alt-tabbed + the usual apps.
 
I just built a new comp and was doing a lot of research as well. Chose 6950 as in most benches, it matches the 570. Also, you don't really need more than 4GB of ram but 8 is so cheap that you might as well get it. 12 is overkill unless you're running a server...

Note - consider what resolution you want to play at. I was looking at 1920x1200, even though I only have a 19" LCD now. At 1920x1200, 6950 will serve you well.
 
You've already got 6GB of memory. For a gaming machine, you're not going to see any advantage by going 12GB.
 
At that resolution a 1gb 6950 would be fine. Around 200-220 gets you a new one.
 
1900x1200 is higher than 1080..... AND I don't recommend any card under 2GB, when buying new.

I still remember everyone saying my 2GB 4870 was a waste of money over the 4870 1GB. As it turns out, Skyrim, and other new games play decent on the card, even when the 4890 1GB we have is struggling somewhat.

Buying "just enough" video memory has always been for the short term upgraders. *I don't do cheap video cards, or cards that obsolesce quickly. I game. My kids game. we upgrade every 2 years per rig in terms of video cards.
 
Solomutt said:
1900x1200 is higher than 1080..... AND I don't recommend any card under 2GB, when buying new.

I still remember everyone saying my 2GB 4870 was a waste of money over the 4870 1GB. As it turns out, Skyrim, and other new games play decent on the card, even when the 4890 1GB we have is struggling somewhat.

Buying "just enough" video memory has always been for the short term upgraders. *I don't do cheap video cards, or cards that obsolesce quickly. I game. My kids game. we upgrade every 2 years per rig in terms of video cards.
Click to expand...

Skyrim is probably a bad example. If you look at benchmarks, the game is VERY CPU dependent. Most of the time more than 1.5GB of vram is not necessary unless you are gaming at 1440p or higher.
 
Solomutt said:
1900x1200 is higher than 1080..... AND I don't recommend any card under 2GB, when buying new.

I still remember everyone saying my 2GB 4870 was a waste of money over the 4870 1GB. As it turns out, Skyrim, and other new games play decent on the card, even when the 4890 1GB we have is struggling somewhat.

Buying "just enough" video memory has always been for the short term upgraders. *I don't do cheap video cards, or cards that obsolesce quickly. I game. My kids game. we upgrade every 2 years per rig in terms of video cards.
Click to expand...

I know this is a little older but....
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/02/24/amd_radeon_hd_6950_1gb_performance_review/2
 
I agree that I definitely want a 2GB card. Even if that extra GB goes unused, I think it makes sense to have 2 (especially if I go with the 6950, the 2GB cards are just a tad more $$$).

I keep going back and fourth on the GTX 570 vs. 6950 - I've had ATI cards for awhile but I'm not happy they just laid off a bunch of folks.

Good to know that I should be happy with the 6950 (at least for a month or 2 until the 7000 series hits)
 
Eickst said:
I know this is a little older but....
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/02/24/amd_radeon_hd_6950_1gb_performance_review/2
Click to expand...



It is indeed older. Textures get larger over time. Swapping textures can have varying effects from longer level/area loads, to jerkiness when new textures come in. Higher resolution on screen is not going to have an effect until you need a larger frame buffer than ~ 512MB aggregate. It is the amount of texture detail and texture size that is submitted for processing by the game that is forever moving forward.

You either reduce texture detail and amount, or deal with varying degrees of swapping.
I bought 1 GB cards when 512MB was supposed to be more than sufficient. Those same 512 cards are now largely obsolete. My 1GB card I have left is not yet. It will make a good guest PC card until I get another 2GB one.

Or are you going to tell me that 512MB is enough?

Hint: I can play Skyrim at real low resolution, and the texture will destroy my loaner 3870x2 cards.
There is a bigger picture than how big the picture is.....
 
I ended up getting the Sapphire 2GB 6950 Dirt3 edition. both cards unlocked to 6970 with a simple movement of a dip switch on the cards.
 
Unless you dieing for the performance now in something you play I'd just wait. There are no big game releases until the next gen cards hit. At this point last gen cards are at the end of their cycle with next gens already launching, this isn't the same as saying to wait at the beginning or mid product cycle.
 
Solomutt said:
It is indeed older. Textures get larger over time. Swapping textures can have varying effects from longer level/area loads, to jerkiness when new textures come in. Higher resolution on screen is not going to have an effect until you need a larger frame buffer than ~ 512MB aggregate. It is the amount of texture detail and texture size that is submitted for processing by the game that is forever moving forward.

You either reduce texture detail and amount, or deal with varying degrees of swapping.
I bought 1 GB cards when 512MB was supposed to be more than sufficient. Those same 512 cards are now largely obsolete. My 1GB card I have left is not yet. It will make a good guest PC card until I get another 2GB one.

Or are you going to tell me that 512MB is enough?

Hint: I can play Skyrim at real low resolution, and the texture will destroy my loaner 3870x2 cards.
There is a bigger picture than how big the picture is.....
Click to expand...

I'm really not interested in arguing anecdotal evidence. I can pull up benchmark after benchmark of the 2GB 6950 not helping much against a 1GB 6950 even in newer games, and even at 1920x1200 (and most games at 2560x1440).

The whole argument over needing 2GB in the future is pointless. At some point in the future, we will need 1800GB of VRAM. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a 2GB card?

By the time games come along that 1GB VRAM won't be enough for at those lower resolutions, chances are that the GPU itself won't have the horsepower to run it at any decent frame rate so you'll have to upgrade anyway, regardless of whether it's 1GB or 2GB.

If you feel so strongly about it, send the OP the $30/40 difference between the 1GB and 2GB cards.
 
Eickst said:
I'm really not interested in arguing anecdotal evidence. I can pull up benchmark after benchmark of the 2GB 6950 not helping much against a 1GB 6950 even in newer games, and even at 1920x1200 (and most games at 2560x1440).

The whole argument over needing 2GB in the future is pointless. At some point in the future, we will need 1800GB of VRAM. Does that mean I shouldn't buy a 2GB card?

By the time games come along that 1GB VRAM won't be enough for at those lower resolutions, chances are that the GPU itself won't have the horsepower to run it at any decent frame rate so you'll have to upgrade anyway, regardless of whether it's 1GB or 2GB.

If you feel so strongly about it, send the OP the $30/40 difference between the 1GB and 2GB cards.
Click to expand...
please stop being ridiculous. there are SOME games NOW that can already use over 1gb at settings a 6950 can run. and since I am pretty sure he wants to play ALL current and upcoming games at the best possible settings at 1920x1200 then it makes sense to pass on the 1gb version. we saw the same stupid arguments about 512mb and 768mb cards and now those already limit the heck out of settings people can run.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top