I think CUDA is great too but it's not the only tech around. From Guru3d's 6850/6870 review they mentioned this:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-review/7
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD Radeon HD 6870 & HD 6850 Video Card Review @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
TheBlueChanell
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 4,658
6900~
Beat me to it.
I have to disagree with Kyle about the HD6870 being an upgrade to someone with a HD5850 .. even within the limit AMD placed on the 5850 in overclocking it's not that far behind and someone owning the ref card owns the best of the 5850's which with some work has no issue running at 850 to 900Mhz core and should match the 6870 in gaming performance if it can also run those clock speeds..
PooprScooper
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 66
Obviously I already have. 215 vs 150 TDP is not double the power draw. One card is slightly cheaper at the moment and has more features: CUDA/PhysX and better Tessellation for the life of the card. It's a no brainer, unless of course you don't have a brain in the first place.
Electricity is cheap, I'm not concerned with an extra dollar or two a month for a much better gaming experience and overall usability when I've already saved $19 when buying the product.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I don't think they are bad overclockers either.Here's an overclocking review. They got 1180 core with 1200mhz mem. Pretty good OC on air. :
[/url]
That's the highest OC I seen. 30% over stock. If I can hit 20%+ this would make the 6870 a very quick card, maybe close to 5870 speed.
yeaa the 68xx review just tells 5870 / 480 owners, they have 1 month left of enjoying their card as top class
- there is a s...load of serious shaders comming delsydsoftware
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 97
I picked up a couple 5770s last year for $179 each, since they were cheap and scaled incredibly well in Crossfire. It's insane to think that the 6850 is almost twice as fast as the 5770, scales just as well in CF (according to other sites), and costs exactly the same. I think these 5770s aren't long for this world.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
nice and easy wasn't it?
More features? What about AMD's ability to support more than one monitor on a single card, the recent additions of AA morphology (or whatever) and Eyespeed? I think it's subjective to say which has better features.
Regardless, the GTX 470 does better in Unigine tessellation tests; but then again, it's an enthusiast card that has been forced to compete with a mainstream card that it's only 3-5% slower in most gaming tests.
Also, you should've included a crossfire comparison.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-crossfirex-review/
Last edited:
Indeed. PCGH (German) measured power consumption of the cards, and arrived at 189 W for the GTX 470 vs. 117 W for the 6870 (about 60% more) in Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
The TDP is dishonest though. GTX 470 exceeds TDP quite a bit, 235 W is what it consumes in Furmark.
I am still rocking and loving my venerable 4870x2, which still allows me to run almost everything near-max at 1920x1080 with 4xAA/16xAF.
These new videocards are nice, but until games start stressing my > 2-year-old card past its limits I see no point to upgrading.
These new videocards are nice, but until games start stressing my > 2-year-old card past its limits I see no point to upgrading.
robble
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,493
Kyle/Brent (not sure who I'm quoting here), you said the 6870 is an upgrade to the 5850. I don't see that from the review.
I'm also seeing inconsistencies. Take Mafia II where in the opening parapgraphs:
yet:
What gives?! This graph appears to be 2560x1600 with AA enabled... The 5850 STOMPS the 6870 in the exact same settings you said only the 6870 could run.
Then
I saw the a LOT throughout the review in the apples to apples where the 5850 beat the 6870 and you didn't even mention it. You just talked about how the 6870 beat the nvidia card.
I'm also seeing inconsistencies. Take Mafia II where in the opening parapgraphs:
yet:
What gives?! This graph appears to be 2560x1600 with AA enabled... The 5850 STOMPS the 6870 in the exact same settings you said only the 6870 could run.
Then
while completely disregarding the 6870 got its butt handed to it by the 5850.
I saw the a LOT throughout the review in the apples to apples where the 5850 beat the 6870 and you didn't even mention it. You just talked about how the 6870 beat the nvidia card.
Last edited:
Flyinfinni
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,300
You do realize that TDP is not the be-all-end-all of actual real world power usage right? TDP does not equal reality since both companies tend to have different ways of calculating/rating TDP. I didn't notice that it was an OCed 470 in the Toms review- my bad. However, still a valid point with it being a massive 18mhz OC. Also-
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/...enewing-competition-in-the-midrange-market/18
Not double, but the 470 is closer to 6870 xfire than a single 6870. They are both good cards, just saying you were aren't taking everything into consideration when you say its a no-brainer. It may be a no-brainer for you, but others like to look at EVERYTHING before they make a decision.
Isn't that the 6850 in that graph? With AA enabled the, the 6870 is 2 FPS faster.
Damn you!
Clearly you didn't do any homework and you're trying to justify your purchase.
Here's a review comparing overclocked cards: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_6800series/7.htm
The 6850 @ $180 makes anything from the GTX 460 768MB up to the GTX 470 irrelevant. AMD completely wasted NVIDIA's lineup with one card.
What was that about having brains again?
Flyinfinni
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,300
Kyle/Brent (not sure who I'm quoting here), you said the 6870 is an upgrade to the 5850. I don't see that from the review.
I'm also seeing inconsistencies. Take Mafia II where in the opening parapgraphs:
yet:
What gives?! This graph appears to be 2560x1600 with AA enabled... The 5850 STOMPS the 6870 in the exact same settings you said only the 6870 could run.
Then while completely disregarding the 6870 got its butt handed to it by the 5850.
I saw the a LOT throughout the review in the apples to apples where the 5850 beat the 6870 and you didn't even mention it. You just talked about how the 6870 beat the nvidia card.
You are looking at the wrong graphs- those are the 6850 graphs- the 6870 is in the graph ABOVE that.
robble
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,493
doh! Excuse me while i go insert both my feet in my mouth and pull my head outta my ass.
SylarPowers
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,263
Is there any difference between the XFX 6870, the Sapphire 6870 or the Asus 6870, in build parts like capacitors, overclocking voltage, quality, ETC?
I THINK that those are all reference cards right this minute. the 6850 have one or two AM coolers. The difference with the XFX is the warranty and brand name (I think newegg jacked up the price on that account)
PooprScooper
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 66
I'm not sure what you thought you were trying to say but, your own link shows a 470 smashing a 6870...
Lower temps on the chip doesn't necessarily mean lower temps in your office. If you want lower office temps ignore the GPU die temp and look only at wattage, since that's a direct indicator of how much heat is being generated by the card. You could slap a peltier cooling solution on a card and get lower GPU temps than with simple air cooler, but you'd actually be generating more heat.
Based on the [H]ard review, your room from hottest to coolest (Watts are total system draw under load).
399W - 460 1Gig
379W - 5850
373W - 6870
334W - 6850
Last edited:
Mechcommander
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 58
I was never too comfortable with upgrading to a Radeon 5000 series card, but I think I'm ready to replace my 4850 with a 6870. I bet that'll be a pretty slick upgrade, there.
PooprScooper
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 66
First off, if the only reason someone can justify spending more money on a 6870 than a 470 is that it uses $1-$2 less electricity a month then we're not talking about which card gives better gaming performance anymore. If the card actually did use twice the power it might be of some concern, but when one card is cheaper, gives better FPS and has more features like PhysX + better Tessellation(making the gaming experience even better), I can't see why anyone would spend more for less.
If AMD's 6900 smokes a 480 out of the water and costs less, then sure, buy it. But it seems like the only people saying go for a 6870 are people that don't overclock and might possibly be fanboys of a certain brand.
Flyinfinni
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,300
I'm not sure what you thought you were trying to say but, your own link shows a 470 smashing a 6870...
I don't think I'd call 3 FPS "smashing". Thats is less than the "10% OC advantage" you were talking about earlier.
EDIT:
Also- checking newegg, the cheapest 470 I could find was actually the same price as the 6870, so I don't know where you are pulling "cheaper" from.
Tessellation on the Radeons has shown to be perfectly acceptable in ALL REAL gaming scenarios- the only place it makes a difference thus far is canned benchmarks like Ungine heaven, which doesn't have ANY effect on actual gaming performance. PhysX is a gimmick and adds virtually nothing to the gaming experience.
The 2 cards perform very similarly, and in no case that I've seen has the 470 been able to actually IMPROVE the experience- they are capable of the same settings with the 470 in some cases a few fps ahead, and in some cases, a few fps behind. On the whole, even if the 470 averaged 5% faster fps without adding any playable settings, while costing THE SAME $$, why would I go for the hot, loud, power hogging card? Not to mention eyefinity on a single card, HDMI 1.4a, Morphological AA, etc.
Overall I see the cards as being very similar right now, and were I buying one, it comes down to basically the same performance for the same price, using less power, with the option of 3+ displays off a single card. I'll reserve my final judgment between the two cards until I see the [H] review though.
Last edited:
Hmm....I wouldn't call a 3-5 FPS difference "smashing," but that's just me.
Comparing the quality of Kyles review to the others out there, its simply in another league and so superior. Damn. I wonder why no one does the same quality review - with the same real world methology?
This is the only site on this planet to give solid buying knowledge from my view. Thank you. One could hope for some compettion here
This is the only site on this planet to give solid buying knowledge from my view. Thank you. One could hope for some compettion here
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
only about 30%. not much progress is it?
What I posted proves my point well, you either didn't do your homework again or this discussion is above you. To break it down:
1) The GTX 470 is running at 852MHz (heavily volt modded), the 6870 is only at 1000MHz max, without any voltage adjustments.
2) That said, the GTX 470 maxed, with all it's insane power consumption (side note: a GTX 470 @ 852MHz core will consume more power than a GTX 480 and approach doubling that of the 6870) and noise, is only 9% faster than the modestly overclocked 6870 @ 1920x1200. I'm not considering the 2560x1600 results because no one plays games at 17FPS, that's ludicrous.
3) This is in Metro 2033, which is a NVIDIA sponsored game, which we can consider a "best case scenario" for the GTX 470. So, volt modded with an ~42% overclock, the GTX 470 is only 9% faster than a lightly overclocked 6870 without any volt mods. What do you think a 6870 @ 1200MHz on air will do to a GTX 470?
As I said, AMD's new series makes NVIDIA's card's irrelevant. NVIDIA's cards are much hotter, louder, and now slower, so even their price/performance ratio isn't competitive. The GTX 470 needs to be <$220 to be competitive against the 6870. To be honest though, I'd just grab a 6850 and overclock the hell out of it. The 6850 is hitting similar clocks and nets most of the performance for $60 less.
No, not at all. They're a lot faster than a 4890, probably 175%+ of the 4890's performance, especially where it counts.
Amen. No other site comes close to giving you real world knowledge.Comparing the quality of Kyles review to the others out there, its simply in another league and so superior. Damn. I wonder why no one does the same quality review - with the same real world methology?
This is the only site on this planet to give solid buying knowledge from my view. Thank you. One could hope for some compettion here
Last edited:
As a qualifier, I'm no fanboy...I have owned several red and green cards in the past.
Talk about a fanboy....you keep saying the 470 is cheaper than the 6870. On Newegg, there are several models of 6870 at $239. The cheapest 470 is $259 and they go up from there. The 6870 is pretty much comparable to a 470 but generates less heat and noise (important to some, apparently not you) and right now, is $20 cheaper. Should we point out that Nvidia is pretty much taking it up the ass at this price point for the 470 while AMD is making a profit. Let's compare the REAL costs, shall we?
To say this is a no-brainer decision comes across as pure fanboyism.
Oh really? How much did the 4890 cost when it was new?
I honestly don't understand why so many people don't get that these are mainstream cards? 30% greater performance (it's actually more than that) than the former top-of-the-line that used much more power, ran hotter, and was much louder, all for 1/2 the price? That isn't progress?
Talk about a fanboy....you keep saying the 470 is cheaper than the 6870. On Newegg, there are several models of 6870 at $239. The cheapest 470 is $259 and they go up from there. The 6870 is pretty much comparable to a 470 but generates less heat and noise (important to some, apparently not you) and right now, is $20 cheaper. Should we point out that Nvidia is pretty much taking it up the ass at this price point for the 470 while AMD is making a profit. Let's compare the REAL costs, shall we?
To say this is a no-brainer decision comes across as pure fanboyism.
Oh really? How much did the 4890 cost when it was new?
I honestly don't understand why so many people don't get that these are mainstream cards? 30% greater performance (it's actually more than that) than the former top-of-the-line that used much more power, ran hotter, and was much louder, all for 1/2 the price? That isn't progress?
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
175% of the 4890? what are you a politician that likes to twist numbers to make them sound better? 100% of would mean the same performance so just say 75% faster. sure it may be that much faster in some cases but on average it is 30-35% faster.
Flyinfinni
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,300
Honestly, the OCed comparison is also somewhat subjective as every card will have a different limit. THAT is why I prefer to compare stock clocked cards and view any overclock I can get as bonus performance. Who knows- maybe I'll get a 6870 that will OC to 1100 Mhz without voltage tweaks, and you'll get a 470 that even WITH voltage tweaks will only go to 775Mhz... what then? Its just impossible to guarantee that extra performance.
QuiteSufficient
Sufficiently [H]ard
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2001
- Messages
- 5,152
One thing I really don't like about this review, and others, is that the tests are done with an overclocked i7. The same really goes for most hardware reviews, so consider this a general rant.
This makes the results skewed. It is very hard for people with AMD processors, older intel dual and quad cores, i3s, heck anything short of really a similarly overclocked i5 or i7 to tell if these cards will offer much of an upgrade for their platform.
In some games (say SC2 which is not included here but is in other reviews), I remember seeing that a similarly clocked i5/i7 would pull TWICE the frames of a phenom II. So is it also safe to say a video card upgrade for this game would be roughly twice the upgrade when paired with one of these processors?
Kyle, I believe you mention the performance you saw was greater than what AMD anticipated in their testing. Perhaps they used a stock clock processor, which did not allow the cards to stretch their legs as much.
This makes the results skewed. It is very hard for people with AMD processors, older intel dual and quad cores, i3s, heck anything short of really a similarly overclocked i5 or i7 to tell if these cards will offer much of an upgrade for their platform.
In some games (say SC2 which is not included here but is in other reviews), I remember seeing that a similarly clocked i5/i7 would pull TWICE the frames of a phenom II. So is it also safe to say a video card upgrade for this game would be roughly twice the upgrade when paired with one of these processors?
Kyle, I believe you mention the performance you saw was greater than what AMD anticipated in their testing. Perhaps they used a stock clock processor, which did not allow the cards to stretch their legs as much.
PooprScooper
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 66
That's because the Galaxy 470 GC used in this comparison is only a 18Mhz OC...
Try bumping the GTX 470 @ 812 / 1025 and wonder why you paid $19 more for a slower performing 6870.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
half the price? 4890 was only 10 bucks more than the 6870 and quickly dropped in price. so nearly 2 years later you can buy a card for the same price that gives 30-35% more performance on average. wow that is really progress.
PooprScooper
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 66
Oh, really?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/05/10/galaxy_geforce_gtx_470_gc_sli_review/
Never go full retard...