[Rumor] HD6970 1GB to debut at $280!?

Why would you pay 20 dollars for a version with a full gig less memory and probably locked against being flash modded?

I mean I know $279 is just the stock cost and Newegg will likely have it cheaper but isn't part of the main advantage of these cards is the ton of memory?
 
Makes sense to me. The 69xxx cards only shine when you run in CF mode or at Eyefinity or 30" monitor resolutions. Since that represents a small fraction of even those gamers who buy high-end cards, a pared down 6950 is entirely logical, particularly with the 560 is impending.
 
Why would you pay 20 dollars for a version with a full gig less memory and probably locked against being flash modded?

I mean I know $279 is just the stock cost and Newegg will likely have it cheaper but isn't part of the main advantage of these cards is the ton of memory?

I would go 2gb 6950 and flash it to 6970 myself, but just taking the devil's advocate here: We enthusiasts only make up a small minority vs the Frys, Bestbuy, newegg customers. 1gb vs 2gb is only noticeable on 2560 resolution/eyeinfinity in general. That applies for all current games out right now as well. I'm sure [H] will probably do a review on 1gb vs 2gb to highlight this.
 
I would go 2gb 6950 and flash it to 6970 myself, but just taking the devil's advocate here: We enthusiasts only make up a small minority vs the Frys, Bestbuy, newegg customers. 1gb vs 2gb is only noticeable on 2560 resolution/eyeinfinity in general. That applies for all current games out right now as well. I'm sure [H] will probably do a review on 1gb vs 2gb to highlight this.

2GB will be consume once you use some high-resolution texture pack in games.

or some other games like Crysis with AA/AF on..

Not mention other games like GTA4 does take advantage of it..

btw, I am talking about 1680*1050 to 1920*1200 resolution....

Try to run Crysis with high resolution pack with 2xAA, even on 1680*1050, a GTX 580 with 1.5GB of VRAM is going to stutter like mad since VRAM is maxed out completely...
 
2GB will be consume once you use some high-resolution texture pack in games.

or some other games like Crysis with AA/AF on..

Not mention other games like GTA4 does take advantage of it..

btw, I am talking about 1680*1050 to 1920*1200 resolution....

Try to run Crysis with high resolution pack with 2xAA, even on 1680*1050, a GTX 580 with 1.5GB of VRAM is going to stutter like mad since VRAM is maxed out completely...

There are always a couple outliers in everything. The min fps in real world still ends up being marginal at 1680/1920 on 1gb vs 2gb resolution.


Can't find anything on GTA but willing to bet its the same scenario = marginal improvement at 1650/1920 resolutions.
edit: here is a good example of Crysis no less with 4AA http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_5870_Matrix/10.html
 
Last edited:
some of you dont get the obvious maketing here. Not everyone games at 2560 res. and not everyone is running eyefinity. This is a good move by ati, if you want 2gb of memory grab youself the 2gb model. 1gb is more then enough for 1080p resolution. I dont see any problem with this model, its perfect for people who just wanna game at 1080p and dont have eyefinity.
 
I understand AMD's business motives, but I wish this wasn't release. Setting 2gb of VRAM as a standard provides game developers the capabilities to create higher quality graphics for future titles.
 
I understand AMD's business motives, but I wish this wasn't release. Setting 2gb of VRAM as a standard provides game developers the capabilities to create higher quality graphics for future titles.

I dont think it has anything to do with that. As long as game developers have a 2gb card in the market as a standard high end, they will continue to push graphics.
 
I dont think it has anything to do with that. As long as game developers have a 2gb card in the market as a standard high end, they will continue to push graphics.

Huh, a very good point. I'm just hoping that with so much graphics horsepower at consumer's disposal (at affordable prices), game developers will pick up PC exclusive development instead of all the shitty console ports they keep lashing out.
 
Huh, a very good point. I'm just hoping that with so much graphics horsepower at consumer's disposal (at affordable prices), game developers will pick up PC exclusive development instead of all the shitty console ports they keep lashing out.

Only thing that will light a fire under game dev's asses is going to be release of next gen consoles sadly.
 
There are always a couple outliers in everything. The min fps in real world still ends up being marginal at 1680/1920 on 1gb vs 2gb resolution.


Can't find anything on GTA but willing to bet its the same scenario = marginal improvement at 1650/1920 resolutions.
edit: here is a good example of Crysis no less with 4AA http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_5870_Matrix/10.html

those fps looks like they ran through benchmark program, such as fly through..etc

on Very High setting, that chart NEVER EXIST...

its not just min fps, its the stuttering that keep occur during the game play, its annoying as hell..
 
those fps looks like they ran through benchmark program, such as fly through..etc

on Very High setting, that chart NEVER EXIST...

its not just min fps, its the stuttering that keep occur during the game play, its annoying as hell..

real gaming time demo. Results all the same...Marginal at best. (disclaimer just in case you bring up the snow level, even GTX 580/6970 can be choppy)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/08/13/asus-radeon-hd-5870-g-v2-review/5

Turn off aa or get a real stronger single gpu card like 6970 at the minimum or GTX 580. (still get stuttering in those cards its Crysis lol)

"But can it play Crysis" needs to die and go away already. This old argument is not a deal breaker. Even if Crysis 2 comes out and still demanding it still wouldn't be real world beneficial at lower than 2560.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this will affect the street price of 2b 6950s, these are already available for 280-290 where I am (some without rebates), since the same chip is used for both.

Wanted to wait for the GTX 560 and see how that shapes up before making a purchase though, but will that mean higher 6950 prices now?
 
real gaming time demo. Results all the same...Marginal at best. (disclaimer just in case you bring up the snow level, even GTX 580/6970 can be choppy)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/08/13/asus-radeon-hd-5870-g-v2-review/5

Turn off aa or get a real stronger single gpu card like 6970 at the minimum or GTX 580. (still get stuttering in those cards its Crysis lol)

"But can it play Crysis" needs to die and go away already. This old argument is not a deal breaker. Even if Crysis 2 comes out and still demanding it still wouldn't be real world beneficial at lower than 2560.

"We used a custom timedemo"

Still another benchmark instead of real world gaming...

it does not reflect anything..

anyway, I understand some people just want to let the Crysis fade away itself, but for myself who still enjoy the game a lot... ;)
 
"We used a custom timedemo"

Still another benchmark instead of real world gaming...

it does not reflect anything..

anyway, I understand some people just want to let the Crysis fade away itself, but for myself who still enjoy the game a lot... ;)

this argument isn't going anywhere so I'll let you have the last word....
 
Ok so there are 2-3 games out of 100's that can use more than 1 gig of vram at 2560x1600 and under using extreme settings so we shouldn't buy these cards? Is that what the argument is? lol
 
Ok so there are 2-3 games out of 100's that can use more than 1 gig of vram at 2560x1600 and under using extreme settings so we shouldn't buy these cards? Is that what the argument is? lol

He claimed 2 games GTA and Crysis @1920 and 1650 resolution even with proof 1 game is a horrid console port...I'm embarrassed for even engaging in the argument.
 
Ok so there are 2-3 games out of 100's that can use more than 1 gig of vram at 2560x1600 and under using extreme settings so we shouldn't buy these cards? Is that what the argument is? lol

if you ever SLI or Crossfire 1GB card, even on 1680*1050 will stutter like mad when 4xAA is on.

Enough with Crysis, since its already known that it use more than 1.5GB VRAM.

Another example is AvP, if you turn up 4xMSAA, the game will stutter in some of the area.
(This is also on 1680*1050, higher will be even worse) with 1GB 5870CF, but problem eliminate with 2GB 5870CF

2GB card definitely take its advantage in most of the scenario, its really end up if you see it or not..

One reason why I still stick with 6970 due to 2GB VRAM, otherwise I already jump to GTX 580.
 
Only thing that will light a fire under game dev's asses is going to be release of next gen consoles sadly.

1gig cards aren't the problem. Its the 512 meg , 6xx meg , 768 and the like that are the problem. As those cards filter out we will see devs take advantage of the increased ram. Esp as the 512/6xx cards filter out since i doubt nvidia will stop with the less than 1gig amounts
 
A 1GB 6950 will definitely push prices down on the 6870 and 6850, and those cards are selling well - still near their introductory prices which is very good for AMD. I'm not sure why AMD would release this card to be honest.
 
<1gb made perfect sense when people weren't running widescreen monitors. But since large screens are now stupid cheap, more and more people are enjoying the benefits of 21"+ screens. A quick glance at the steam statistics shows that the most common screen resolution is now 1680x1050. I'm pretty sure the days of 512mb cards are over...

That said, 768mb cards still make decent sense for 20-24" screens. A card in that range won't likely be pushing all that much AA, so its unlikely to run out of memory at 1080p and under. Hell, it takes 5760x1080 + 4x AA to use a full 2gb of Vram.
 
1gig cards aren't the problem. Its the 512 meg , 6xx meg , 768 and the like that are the problem. As those cards filter out we will see devs take advantage of the increased ram. Esp as the 512/6xx cards filter out since i doubt nvidia will stop with the less than 1gig amounts
You're more optimistic than Iam towards the companies that run the show for games.
A 1GB 6950 will definitely push prices down on the 6870 and 6850, and those cards are selling well - still near their introductory prices which is very good for AMD. I'm not sure why AMD would release this card to be honest.


My guess: to make a non flash-able 6850 1gb that's cheaper to make and to compete against the GTX 560. Lesser of 2 evils as the GTX 560 can take sales away from 6950 if the rumored performance is true. AMD isn't stupid they got tons of accountants and finance geniuses that run these projected numbers.
 
Huh, a very good point. I'm just hoping that with so much graphics horsepower at consumer's disposal (at affordable prices), game developers will pick up PC exclusive development instead of all the shitty console ports they keep lashing out.

Hmph. I find that we need more cpu power than gpu in the latest shitty console ports.
 
I dont think it has anything to do with that. As long as game developers have a 2gb card in the market as a standard high end, they will continue to push graphics.

Gotta have Devs first that will use the Power instead of giving us crap ass console ports.
 
Back
Top