This is the reason why 6870 was so much more efficient, Cypress isn't bound by shader performance, and the same applies to Cayman, the bottlenecks are elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Printable View
This is the reason why 6870 was so much more efficient, Cypress isn't bound by shader performance, and the same applies to Cayman, the bottlenecks are elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
I'm looking at the review from xbitlabs.
Well the mathematical difference there is better since the power consumption of the overclocked 5850 is very close to the 5870 an not 80W lower for same performance.
So what would you recomend, 6970 or 570? Im VERY confused...
That's exactly the way it is. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBull78
If your res is above 1920x1080 then I'd definitely get 6970, if it's below then it's your call, both perform about the same in current games... Although, if you want to future proof some with extra VRAM and/or are hoping for performance increases via drivers then AMD is the way to go. If you like PhysX then Nvidia is. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
Given that they are priced similarly, I'd go with the GTX 570 anyday since it performs better in pretty much every test.Quote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
Hmm u cant buy a gtx 580 so cayman is the fastest gpu in the world :p
6950 :) clearlyQuote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
consumes alot less then the ones you mention. performs only a tad slower.
(5% on high resolution and everything enabled against the 570gtx).
Oced is still consumes less power and performs simulary with the 6970. If there will ever be a driver optimization/improvement, the 6950 will enjoy it also.
and ofcourse the price which is also lower.
And if you later on add another 6950 you increase performance by 80-99%.
Both together in Msi Hydra :shocked::shocked: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
Thank you all, whell I did consider the 6950 too, but Id want to jump to the 70, no matter the power supply really since im getting a TX850. And instead of 6950 i would get a 5870 cuz some shops are selling it for 250 euro.
I dont like 3D since I have an almost lazzy eye, and I cant handle that extra finely if it uses glasses so not a choice for me :(
Despite the physx, the MLAA is more atractive for me.
So I decided Im getting the 6970! Hope with my new Megahalems and the couple of Nidec GT I can raise the q9450 up to 3,6!
I hope this winning trend AMD making gpus.
For the few of us running games at 2560x1600, these cards in crossfire are a win (most of the time). If I hadn't bought a 470 in September, I'd be looking at the 6970 now. :up:
Will a 6970 be able to run on my psu?
It's a corsair 520hx I think it has 19x3 12v amps
IMHO the question is between 6950 and 570, cause they offer the best price/performance. I'm not sure wich one I'll buy, though, but I'm sure I'm choosing between those two.Quote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
Sure, it will.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
LOL What?Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
"If we have to recommend a graphics card today, they would be the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580, GeForce GTX 570 and the AMD Radeon HD 6950."Quote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
"When the 5870 is done and gone the 6950 will be a reasonable successor, but for the time being the 5870 at $250 currently is a steal of a deal if you don’t need the extra performance or new features like DP1.2."
the less expensive the card, the better the deal. so get a cheap 5850 or 5870 or new 6950 or 570
and if you have the money for a 570................ get a 570
Remember when w1zzard came to conclusion that lower temps = lower power draw on 480gtx?
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Zotac/GeFo...owervstemp.gif
(Source: TPU)
I would be interested to see same testing done on 6970.
If you game @ 1080p, then the 700 currently looks a better deal. If you game at higher resolutions, then the 6870 looks pretty good value.Quote:
Originally Posted by WintersSC
The only unknown at this point is the driver maturity. It is a relatively new architecture for AMD, so there could yet be more performance to come. If that's the case, then get the one you can afford, as they're all good cards.
i would say that the biggest unknown is solid OCing of the 6970/6950 so far there seems to be a brutal limit on ocing in CCC. the GTX 570 Oc's like a champ and can gain 10-20% after ocing which puts it above the GTX 580 constantly. until the 6970 and 6950 get true app support for OCing we will never know how high they can go... because 950mhz on the core of a 6970 just plain sucks and makes only a minimal performance difference...Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
i would love to see HWC do a CrossFire and SLI comparison on the 6970 and 6950 compared to the GTX 480, 570 and 580 on both standard resolutions and triple monitor surround setups. that would be really great! the 69XX's seem to be very strong as the res get cranked up so it would be interesting to see how the Nvidia cards hold up...
I'd say go with GTX 570 if you play on 1080p or lower. Performance is better, OC is better, noise is lower, price is lower (at least the msrp). Otherwise if you plan on SLI/CrossFire or triple monitor setup go with the Radeon. Or just take a look at the performance in games you play and pick the one that's better. Or available to buy, since at least in here 570 availability is near zero.
This is something that's become increasingly apparent as time goes on. I have a feeling it'll only get worse. How someone can have that much of an alliance to a hardware company who literally wouldn't even let them walk past the front desk will forever remain a mystery to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by VoodooProphetII
You know.... I remember when hardocp's reviews pretty much always showed NVidia winning, and in fact showed quite a bit of bad light on ATi. This site was ready to boycott them entirely, automatically dismissing anything [H] had to post.... My, how peoples minds change when a website pumps up their side instead. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
Yep, 10.12 was sure the miracle driver, wasn't it guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Anyway the driver argument is an argument I will never understand. People... Have we NOT learned our lesson here about "potential increases via driver performance?" Better yet, ask those people with HD 2900XT's if they ever saw that potential unleashed. Yes, drivers will increase performance somewhat, but increases occur for both sides.
Looking at what we are presented with today, things become pretty clear. NVidia surprised AMD with the GTX580 and GTX570, there's really no arguing against that when you look at the last minute price cuts of the 69xx series.
Now, what I really want to know is...how will AMD manage a dual gpu out of cayman? That's going to take a rather strong feat to pull off. :shrug: If they manage it without stripping it down too much, I will surely tip my hat to them.
p.s. SkyMTL, can we expect a overclocked vs overclocked review of the 6970 vs GTX 570 from you in the near future?
Crossfire / SLI scaling article first in the new year. I need a break until then since I've been pushing myself way too hard. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
I'll admit I feel a little letdown. But that's just a feeling. I was hoping for something that beats the card I have had for a year and neither company has been able to deliver so far. But the reality is that these cards are inline with their strategy for the past few years. They could use a price drop, and that's about it. They never promised us 580/5970 beating performance. It was all in our minds.
Send me the cards, i will do the test for you, you will just have to fill the text between the graphs .. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
would that article happen to include Eyefity vs Surround testing? at say 5670x1080? because if it did, I might just make the 10 hour drive to Vancouver to shake your hand in person.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
rest well man excellent review, I really appreciated how you took the time to explain every change that was made to the core compared to Barts and the 58XX's looking forward to the CrossFire review:)
oh and to the people supporting [H] take one look at their testing methods, I don't mind if they want to do a few benches at the max settings for each GPU as a bonus but you can't use that as a basis for card performance, overall comparison must be done in an Apples to Apples approach with each GPU running identical settings they have started to add in Apples to Apples testing but they need to use it as their primary test (not just some last minute add on) if they want to be taken seriously
so the question is is it worth upgrading from a 5870 to 6970? ( i am starting to read the reviews now lol )
Depends on the resolution you play at.
for $370 absolutely not IMO, in certain games MAYBE but for the most part it is only a faction ahead in older games... if you got one for free well then of course. if you could sell your 5870 for a decent price then sure, but i doubt you will get much over $200 for it now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio[pt]
I would never recommend the 5870 over 6950 simply because AF is broken on the former and apparently fixed on the later.
No matter how much people say, AMD could have done a lot better with Cayman. They chose not to because of one simple assumption: That Antilles will be the only dual gpu in the market like 5970 was previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
If they assumed nvidia would have a faster counter to antilles I garantee you AMD would have put more shaders into Cayman so not to lose on every front.
Things are very different this time and AMD is losing on both its high end cards from day one. There is no six month grace and the reality is that nvidia is simply better right now. There is not even a significant power consumption difference. Count on it that in the next six months nvidia will take back most of the dx11 market share it lost in 2010.
Those new cards make it so tempting to switch to multiple gpus for high resolutions... I know many will.
Playing at 2560x1600, I will have difficulties not to click on the 'order' button for two 6950s (or 6970s if I go mad ;) not sure it's worth the extra $ and not sure about noise differences as I would prefer not to use water-blocks this time).
i have an eyefinity setup 3 monitors 5760*1080
You can't underplay the fact that AMD was able to keep their cards at the same price and even higher than release for like 9 months. If you've been watching these 2 duke it out over the past 10 years I can tell you that pricepoint determines who wins marketshare. The midrange is where they make their cash not the battle over the high end. Vast majority of users love to talk up their companies high end cards but their pocketbooks let them settle elsewhere. So all in all I like seeing these high end cards cause its a look into the near future but in reality eh, who cares when you can get a very good experience with a $160 card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
valid point and I will give credit to Amd on the mid range for the 6800 is a much more competitive product in its segment than Cayman is in its.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Are the 69xx capped at 5% overclock? More importantly how do the 69xx and GTX 5x0 scale with overclocking?
It seems that the 6870 and GTX 570 are pretty damn similar. To that end, it seems that if the AMD offering is capped at 5% OC then nVidia has a huge chance to be the 'better choice' (at least in these parts).
/anxiously waits for watercooled overclocking results in a few weeks!
Also, am I making things up or did AMD say 'no more ub3r cards, scale instead' a few years ago?
$180 6850
$220 6870
*$260 6950 1gb
$300 6950 2gb
$370 6970
$440 CFX 6870
*$520 CFX 6950 1gb
$600 CFX 6950 2gb
$740 CFX 6970 2gb
seems to scale along the price & performance range pretty well...
Guru3D has proper OC in its review. IIRC the OC results were about +10% for both, so nothing special. Hopefully we'll see some voltage OC reviews soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkangyl
quick question. Why does the 6970 do so bad at lower resolutions, compared to higher (when compared to the 570). Just seems odd, as I wouldn't expect memory limitations to come into affect until very high resolutions. It's late here, so I'm probably just missing the obvious.
Also, there seems to be some weird fluctuations between AA and no AA. Would these be driver issues?
Nah, it's just GTX570 that does considerably worse with resolution increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
it's always possible that some bad algorithm in the rush would have drawn back performance...Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
but i agree it will not be the miracle we were waiting for about this card...
such a disapointment compared to the promises the 6800 series brought to us...
// Made decent-looking update. Hope u will like it :) Feel free to send new review links in PM.
If they can get their :banana::banana::banana::banana: right with tsmc and global foundaries and actually make a 28nm chip then we might be talking... Thats what the long delay was because of tmsc joke if u ask me..Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Man diltech. Me and you are thinking on exactly the same wavelength. I remember those times too, when Hardocp was considered biased against ATI. How the time and attitude has changed on this board.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
a surprise?Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
like this one?
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/844/wtfs.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
oh man u made my day lol, beeeeeeeaannn
TPU has the 5870 up the most BY FAR on the 480/580. Look at HWC and other reviews - 5870 isn't as fast as TPU saysQuote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
And as I wrote elsewhere, games where the 5870 will be close to the 69xx's are where they're heavily shader based and where there isnt much tesselation/compute/DX11. 69xx's pull ahead in the DX11 heavy titles like Stalker COP and Metro
And you know this assumption... how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
More shaders != more performance all the time. Look at how Barts does compared to Cypress with far lower shader count.
You keep posting this ridiculous BS over and over. Doom and gloom oh no's.Quote:
Things are very different this time and AMD is losing on both its high end cards from day one. There is no six month grace and the reality is that nvidia is simply better right now. There is not even a significant power consumption difference. Count on it that in the next six months nvidia will take back most of the dx11 market share it lost in 2010.
Why don't you read what I wrote in reply earlier:
God people have such a short term memoryQuote:
If this card were on 32nm with all the features Anand hinted at, would people still complain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
The most likely issue is that 32nm was cancelled and AMD wanted to recuperate its R&D cost, so the best thing to do is sell it at 40nm (which they're quite familiar with) and hope for the best until TSMC gets its act together for 28nm. The fact this supposedly all happened in less than a year's time clearly caught AMD by surprise so it's amazing they even managed to get cards out that fast, given that most cards are planned out far earlier
10% faster than Barts? What reviews are you looking at? The vast majority has the 6950 awfully close if not right at the 570 - the card that's dissapointing is the 6970, which is just 10% faster than the 6950Quote:
These cards are shader starved and thing are worst off this round then they were last round. At least the 5870 had clear performance and power advantage over the 470.
Also I am not too pleased with the 6950, its basically 10%% faster than Barts in most cases and that is barely relevant. They could just as well given 6870 2gb and more clock and called it a day.
Of course, that's just proof that the 69xx's are a forward looking architecture - in older games they don't beat the 5870 by much, but in newer engines they do by a good amount - look at Stalker and Metro.
More ridiculous-ness. When the:Quote:
Amd should be praying there won't be a dual fermi in the works cause that will destroy their strategy on all levels then.
GTX 295 > 4870 X2
GTX 285 > 4890
GTX 275 > 4870
GTX 260-216 > 4850
Did AMD's destruction across every single card matter? Of course not, the 4800's brought AMD back in market share and everything.
Now that Cayman is closer but not quite that the performer of the 580, its doom and gloom? Seriously?
How's this also for perspective:
Look at where the 5870 performed at release - it lost to the 4870X2 in a lot of things and the GTX 295 as well. Look at where AMD's drivers and game optimizations + game development has gone - the 5870 is clearly ahead, and it's even creeping up on the GTX 480 in performance (at release, the GTX 480 was a good 15-20% faster, now we have situations where the 5870 can close within 10%).
Let me ask this: who's more likely to get a boost over the next year, the 580 based on the 480 or the 69xx based on nothing prior?
And to say nothing of the fact that if 28nm really did get delayed by TSMC to 2012, as some rumors are swirling now, who will be in the better position to deliver another 40nm card? The company with a 530mm^2 GPU flagship or the one with a 389mm^2 GPU flagship?
Sheesh, some people need to seriously calm down and look at perspective here outside of JUST raw performance #'s
Great stuff, Dezmen. A very worthy review thread. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezmen
Awesome work mate. Don't think this means you can sleep now. I or should i say 'we' expect a further 3 sleepless nights.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezmen
The problem is the price.
Seeing 6850s at $190 and 5870s and $220, there's no effing way a 6970 should be above $300
A 6970 at 300 would absolutely dominate.Quote:
Originally Posted by KoHaN69
nah not gonna happen prices of amd cards are much more competitive especially where the majority ms is aka 68xx series, currently nvidia isn't that competitve in that front with only 460 on their hand all they can do is to lower prices, and 6950 doesn't have competitor either which also looks like a decent card to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Agreed. But at current price is too close to a used 5970.Quote:
Originally Posted by CedricFP
When i agree with you, sadly AMD have not aim enough high.. but..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Do you really think Nvidia will sell so much GTX580 at 450+ $ ? .even against the GTX570, AMD can decrease his price, don't forget it's a GTX580 with one SIMD cut ( or same as a GTX480 ), killing the price of thoses cards will be a financial suicide 2 years in follow ... ( untill they don't sell them enough ) ( just for gain market share ).
Ofc GTX560 is another story to come... And there AMD can push a 6930 ... for the GF104 > GF114, we can estimate it wil be same, an half GF110 with more TU/SIMD (completely unlocked ). Or.... it can be a GF110 with 2SIMD disabled, close to the 470 spec.
first of all, there is no need to be so insulting towards my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
secondly let me just ask you this: were you so positive thinking about nvidias architecture when the first fermi came out? did you take every point of view and look at it with a bright light like you are doing with cayman? after all, fermi is a very foward looking architecture that will really shine at 28nm...
I might sound doom and gloom but you just seem to be making excuse after excuse for Amds failure to deliver a product that is more than 20% faster than its one year old last gen. it took one year of development to barely reach the 480 but everything is positive about cayman in your argument isnt it?
Im a big amd fan especially of their radeons, but I dont lie to myself mate, I give credit where credit is due and critque where critique is due. And this round Amd needs some of the latter. Thats the reality, except for those who refuse to accept it.
just because its priced competitive doesnt make it a perfect success.
you dont see amd dominating the processor world just because it sells six core for 200$.
Both CFX reviews with <4Ghz CPUs...booooo.
--Matt
I don't really see how AMD could introduce a new VGA between HD6870 and HD6950. I don't think an HD6930 will ever happen... there is no such gap between the two to justify a new product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
HD6870 is just a bit faster than a GTX460, and very near HD5870 performance, while HD6950 y just a bit faster tha HD5870... so an overclocked and full spec'ed GTX460 (aka GTX560) will be in HD6950 territory.
I think the only choice to fight a GTX560 is in a price war with Cypress PRO. IMO
Intel's cash-cow is still the C2D. Look at the percentage of shipments, a lot of them in OEM PC + contracts for universities, government, banks, offices, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Nvidia will not regain market share with the 580 and AMD is not gaining ms with the 5970 either.
Nvidia still lag at the sub $140 where all the money come from (5500/5600/5700) they recently released the 450 and seems they need another rebrand for the 6600 launch.
Are there any eyefinity reviews comparing to 5xxx/68xx in eyefinity?
[H] should have a 59xx eyefinity review coming soon .....Not sure if they will have any comparisons in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
It's not insulting at all, it's stating the same thing over and over again and ignoring other people's answers - and my comment was directed at general people who rehash the same tired old arguments again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Sure. The big issues with Fermi were its extreme heat and noise output for the performance. The 5xx's show that when fixed, they're damn fine cards, though I'm sure expensive to produceQuote:
secondly let me just ask you this: were you so positive thinking about nvidias architecture when the first fermi came out? did you take every point of view and look at it with a bright light like you are doing with cayman? after all, fermi is a very foward looking architecture that will really shine at 28nm...
I'm keeping people's perspective in check. The card is 15% larger than its predecessor on the SAME process node - getting 20% faster is better perf/mm^2 for sure and roughly in line with perf/W when compared to the 1GB version, better perf/W than the 2GB 5870.Quote:
I might sound doom and gloom but you just seem to be making excuse after excuse for Amds failure to deliver a product that is more than 20% faster than its one year old last gen. it took one year of development to barely reach the 480 but everything is positive about cayman in your argument isnt it?
Your argument would be valid if they had jumped to 32nm and produced this, but they didn't, so it's in line with what Nvidia had to do on the same 40nm process - squeeze out what performance they can on the same node. My bet is that over the lifetime of the card, with more DX11 titles and other optimizations, the card is closer to the 30-35% range over the 5870 than just 20%, much like the 480 is closer to the 60% over the GTX 285 range than the 40-50 it started out at.
You're not lying to yourself - but you're also disregarding the actual reality of the GPU market.Quote:
Im a big amd fan especially of their radeons, but I dont lie to myself mate, I give credit where credit is due and critque where critique is due. And this round Amd needs some of the latter. Thats the reality, except for those who refuse to accept it.
just because its priced competitive doesnt make it a perfect success.
you dont see amd dominating the processor world just because it sells six core for 200$.
Intel dominates for many reasons other than just price - the fact that Intel has immense support and sales power against OEMs is why they dominate. Name a single OEM that has AMD processors? Intel's market share is much bigger than AMD because of large OEM contracts AND laptop contracts.
And in the CPU realm, Intel is actually POWER competitive - that is, at 95W, it will provide the same CPU experience if not better as AMD. In the GPU realm, that isn't true - GPU power usage can range a HUGE amount. People often pick up cards 50% more power hungry to get 30% more performance for example. In the CPU world, that's just not possible and would never be accepted. Also, in the CPU world, CPUs do similar tasks far more than GPUs, where features such as multi-monitor support, 3D, physics, GPGPU, etc. vary far more greatly than features CPUs have.
GPU market share, on the other hand, show AMD and Nvidia more or less neck and neck - compare this to when AMD was 30-35% market share vs. Nvidia at 70-65% in 2008, just before the RV770 release. In fact, the latest results have AMD with a slight edge over Nvidia if you put discrete + integrated desktop & notebook GPUs together for both of them.
Discrete desktop GPU market is largely outside the OEM realm - its users like us who buy it from stores like Newegg. Thus pricing DOES matter because they aren't giving large juicy OEM contracts here, and it's card vs. card.
OEMs take into consideration: cost, performance, heat, noise, power usage, etc. - a whole slew more considerations AS A WHOLE (i.e., they look at the whole package) than a typical individual user would, who is mostly concerned with 2 main things: price and performance. Noise, heat, power, etc. are secondary considerations.
No one is calling it a perfect success - similarly, the 4800 wasn't a perfect success from a performance perspective, but it still sold great because it was priced where people wanted high performing cards.
The entire situation reminds me of the 4800 & 5800 card positioning, only this time people's hype blew the card way out of proportion, whereas the other cards were pleasant surprises
Good job :up::up::up::up::up: I'm impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezmen
I look forward to seeing this!!!! :D I hope you use a lot of games 15 sounds like a good number ;) and you better test 2560x1600 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I like the techpowerup 6950 crossfire review too bad they did not do one for the 6970.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
no and in most review a comparison like what anandtech has done is sadly missing. I would like to see more crossfire and SLI reviews comparing this gen to last gen.
All and all I would say anandtech won this round. Hopefully others would test crossfire and SLI and include more freaking game and test the source engine.
all of yours and ninendodork's previous arguments about the cpu realm are perfectly valid, my example was an attempt to ilustrate how competitive prices won't always garantee success. In short, Performance sells just as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Here is where I think are the bright sides to cayman:
1- tesselation has improved a lot and wont hold it back as it did the 5k series for newer games
2- this new march will give a much needed boost in performance in the professional segment where Amd needs to grab more market share.
3- eyefinity performance will be a lot better with 1 card
so its not all bad imo, I just think that the improvement in gaming performance over the 5870 was too small coming from so many changes and especially having seen the improvements with Barts. you claimed nvidia only improved 20% as well but we both already agreed fermi was much more constrained at 40nm than was cayman. At the same time I also dont consider the 580 next gen to the 480 but two wrongs dont make a right and Amd could have done more to capitalize on the closeness of the 580.
So all in all I think Amd has improved somethings while not impressing much with others.Its also true that while having lower prices makes the 6900s attractive, the fact that they fall in between nvidias offerings means well see less price drops over time than we would if they all had equal performance. gtx 580=6970 @ 399$ would have been a better situation than now imo.
anyway you dont need to rebuttle me about this Im sure this is a great product to many people and Amd wont be in any risk because of it, I am just one who thought this was a good moment to ceise but it did not happen. Good thing Im only buying another card at 28nm and that should be much more interesting to look at.
I have a single slot mobo. I was running a 7900GS, which was briefly replaced by a 4870, but then i was back at running a 7900GS, which is to be taken away soon and i was rather forced to buy right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
As a paying customer(very stingy when it comes to spending on/ for myself), would i have liked more performance? That's a no-brainer ain't it? I bought a 6970. Why? well, it offers more future proofing at that price than GTX570 which it clearly outpaces at a higher resolution. GTX 580? Well... sucks to be one who's paying for it! Especially if you're gaming at 2560 X 1600, at a resolution where there's not much difference between the two in DX11 games. From that point of view it is incredible value alright. However, both have their fair share of pro's and cons. Nvidia doesn't support HD audio pass-through. AMD/ ATI had always been better at audio tech and providing a simpler solution. I'm a geek alright, but it would piss me off to pay $300 odd and $500 odd for something and then have to muck about and have a workable solution than a working one. Then again, 6970 COULD use some more horsepower... It may be drivers which are immature from new shader tech-wise, but as of now where it stands is besides, but slightly behind the GTX580. Then there's a matter of about extra $120 :D
Yeah well, if someone gave me another video card for a while :P i would be waiting for 28nm too. However, i don't expect things to be much different. Nvidia will try again for making a behemoth of a chip, given how their CEO believes in the strategy of Big/ louder (marketing wise) better. AMD, expect the same, they'll be better at adapting to the node and would come out with new products which will give Nvidia more financial woes. In short, AMD will continue gaining market-share and Nvidia, it will bleed money as it keeps trying to hold onto its market-share. It may be different, but expect fireworks at 28nm from both. :up: On other hand, in most of India at room temperatures, Nvidia's current chippery would have promised fireworks alright. :shakes:
EDIT: Well, 8.5 TB of hdd's full of HD content (about 5 odd) made the choice rather easier XD
will i gain anything by upgrading from 4870x2 to 6970 ?
directx 11, less power, less heat, eye finity, more FPS, in other words, its a worthy upgrade, go for it!Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleRock
Given how crossfire is scaling now across all games (but a couple or so) and a pair of 6850's are :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:-slapping a single 580... i'll recommend a dual card set-up. Given, if you don't mind them so much... They'll be about the same money...Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleRock
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-353-_-Product
times 2, that will come to $380
and $370 is what you pay for a 6970.
Unless you're stuck on a mobo with single slot, like me, then 6970 may make sense...
Also, whatever drivers improve performance in 69xx cards, will improve 68xx cards as well... so i don't see the gap in performance of crossfire 6850's and a single 69xx changing much.
The problem is, peoples still want to treat AMD as an "underdog", they demand AMD create product that equally compete with Nvidia offering but sell it with a lot cheaper price. After the failure in HD 2xxx & HD 3xxx we can clearly saw AMD didn't have confidence against Nvidia, thus they selling their product cheaper than they've should do, and if this paradigm continue will going to hurt them in the long run. I've read the reviews, and 6970 is direct competitor to GTX 570, basically they're equal, in term performance 6970 lead by a hair margin, and they fall in the same price range, almost identical power consumption and temperature, so then why AMD should sell 6970 cheaper than 570?
Here are some more accurate numbers: http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-gpu-m...clining-again/Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Crazy how nVidia gained marketshare in Q3 of this year (july-sep) even though ATi had the dominant card in pretty much every price range.
Come on. You and everyone else who frequents these threads knows that if the tables were turned and this was nVidia's chance to STOMP on the competition with a massively powerful card over a year in the making after being recently trounced by a card all the critics said wouldn't be released till 2011 (GF110), you and the rest of the ATi peanut gallery would have flooded this thread with photoshoped images of houses burning down, and other crap.Quote:
No one is calling it a perfect success
I've commented on this phenomena many times over the years, on how incredibly different the ATi and nVidia crowds act when they either have a great success or an epic failure. Come to think of it, I have yet to see that type of behavior at all from the nVidia guys even though it is clear as day that ATi just spent almost a year and a half building a next gen graphics card that is actually slower than their previous generation. I believe that is historical in that of itself.
I was actually hoping for ATi to release a killer card in order to help bring the GTX580 within the purchasing range of my wallet. And as seen by the highly subdued response of the ATi fans here on this forum (and the crickets chirping)... this card was a dud.
oh... and please quit with the "power consumption" justification for this being a winner. Everyone knows global warming (now climate change. actually they recently changed it a third time) is a huge farce, and is looking to be largest financial scandal of modern history.
When I'm playing a game I want the most FPS , electric bill be damned. The last thing I'm' going to do when my framerate slows to a slide show is say to myself "wow!! look at all the electricity I'm saving!!!!".
It seems that currently most of the very vocal ATi crowd are still in the first stage of a 5 stage process typically associated with poor graphics card performance.
:DQuote:
The five stages of grief are:
1-Denial-"this can't be happening to me", looking for the former spouse in familia places, or if it is death, setting the table for the person or acting as if they are still in living there. No crying. Not accepting or even acknowledging the loss.
2-Anger-"why me?", feelings of wanting to fight back or get even with spouse of divorce, for death, anger at the deceased, blaming them for leaving.
3-Bargaining-bargaining often takes place before the loss. Attempting to make deals with the spouse who is leaving, or attempting to make deals with God to stop or change the loss. Begging, wishing, praying for them to come back.
4-Depression-overwhelming feelings of hopelessness, frustration, bitterness, self pity, mourning loss of person as well as the hopes, dreams and plans for the future. Feeling lack of control, feeling numb. Perhaps feeling suicidal.
5-Acceptance-there is a difference between resignation and acceptance. You have to accept the loss, not just try to bear it quietly. Realization that it takes two to make or break a marriage. Realization that the person is gone (in death) that it is not their fault, they didn't leave you on purpose. (even in cases of suicide, often the deceased person, was not in their right frame of mind) Finding the good that can come out of the pain of loss, finding comfort and healing. Our goals turn toward personal growth. Stay with fond memories of person.
Get help. You will survive. You will heal, even if you cannot believe that now, just know that it is true. To feel pain after loss is normal. It proves that we are alive, human. But we can't stop living. We have to become stronger, while not shutting off our feelings for the hope of one day being healed and finding love and/or happiness again. Helping others through something we have experienced is a wonderful way to fascilitate our healing and bring good out of something tragic.
Well, there's the problem right there. Just because it doesn't make your beloved GTX580 any cheaper doesn't make the card any better or worse for that matter. The fact is, if you look at a review done with latest drivers (hardocp) at 2560 x 1600, 6970 is awfully/ ominously close to GTX580 (especially in DX11 games) and still costs about $120-$170(for accelero cooler fitted one) less. So it is your pick really, HD6870 is all you need at lower resolutions. HD6950 & GTX570 at 1920 x 1080/ 1200 and that leaves the big boys to do their own bidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
:ROTF::rofl::ROTF:Yes, fully agree with that one :up:... i have a competent PSU (HX750) and well there are times i wouldn't mind if the GPU sucks a little more juice... The only issue is that the ambient temperatures where i live, in India (well 70% of it), hover slightly above 40 Degrees Celsius, which can be a bit of a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: with the Nvidia cards from last generation and the current ones as well. Most of us here, will be recommending HD68xx and HD69xx (in limited scenarios) where crossfire HD68xx would not be possible, that is...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
I agree they aimed too low, but that's hindsight - there's a ton of factors that go into what a GPU will end up doing. For instance, if Cypress wasn't making enough money for whatever reason - e.g. yields weren't up to par compared to a newly designed chip with new production redundancies built in, it might financially make sense to take out the product and put in a new one. That's what happened with the 580 - same size as the 480, but vastly improved for production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
And that's only part of the story - if 40nm is around for another year, who's to say that in 6 months AMD doesn't have a 6980 or 6975 or whatever. 32nm's cancellation fubared a lot of plans for people, and given that AMD was always a half generation ahead of Nvidia in process acceptance, it hurt AMD a lot more this refresh-generation than Nvidia. Remember when within a generation of GPUs, you could count on a refresh to happen eventually on a new process? A'la G70->G71, G80->G92, etc. Not anymore it appears.
You do realize that Intel also gained in the market share right? In fact, INTEL gained A LOT more than Nvidia did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
The biggest reason: AMD lost major OEM contracts in the notebook sector to Nvidia's 4xxM cards and Intel's i3/i5 w/ integrated GPU.
And since Intel doesn't do discrete GPUs, it's pretty clear where most of AMD's loss came from - NOT discrete GPUs
So please, spare me the following part of your post with your little self-righteous ego-stroking trolling blurb when you can't even interpret the data objectively :down:
Ok so somehow I'm part of this peanut gallery? :rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Come on. You and everyone else who frequents these threads knows that if the tables were turned and this was nVidia's chance to STOMP on the competition with a massively powerful card over a year in the making after being recently trounced by a card all the critics said wouldn't be released till 2011 (GF110), you and the rest of the ATi peanut gallery would have flooded this thread with photoshoped images of houses burning down, and other crap.
I've commented on this phenomena many times over the years, on how incredibly different the ATi and nVidia crowds act when they either have a great success or an epic failure. Come to think of it, I have yet to see that type of behavior at all from the nVidia guys even though it is clear as day that ATi just spent almost a year and a half building a next gen graphics card that is actually slower than their previous generation. I believe that is historical in that of itself.
I was actually hoping for ATi to release a killer card in order to help bring the GTX580 within the purchasing range of my wallet. And as seen by the highly subdued response of the ATi fans here on this forum (and the crickets chirping)... this card was a dud.
oh... and please quit with the "power consumption" justification for this being a winner. Everyone knows global warming (now climate change. actually they recently changed it a third time) is a huge farce, and is looking to be largest financial scandal of modern history.
When I'm playing a game I want the most FPS , electric bill be damned. The last thing I'm' going to do when my framerate slows to a slide show is say to myself "wow!! look at all the electricity I'm saving!!!!".
It seems that currently most of the very vocal ATi crowd are still in the first stage of a 5 stage process typically associated with poor graphics card performance.
I'm the one who's giving those facts of the actual market, and how the GPU business goes, but go ahead and don't let facts get in the way :rolleyes::rolleyes:
P.S. Want a reason why you don't see those Nvidia fans around anymore? Cause most of them all got banned in the last two years :ROTF: there's quite a few names there too people will remember, and the bans ought to tell you what it was like
I don't think thats accurate, AMD had like ~62% mobile discrete while Nvidia lost down to ~38% in mobile discrete while the numbers where nearly the same for desktop discrete but with Nvidia getting the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
AMD actually performed very strong in mobile discrete against Nvidia but lost a chunk of mobile marketshare volume to Intel.
Nvidia took the biggest hit in the mobile sector really.
The ram definitely comes into play. Just for reference, monitoring vram usage on my GTX 460 during metro 2033, the VRam usage LITERALLY hit 933mb and stays around that level. Did I mention this was maxed out at a mere 1280x720?(when I say maxed, I mean WITH DOF and Tessellation + 4xMSAA, not the BS they run in reviews with DOF off)Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Yeah, memory likely has a bit to do with things. :D
Not like we can really test though, no one's been smart enough to release a 570/580 with double the ram....yet.
SkyMTL explained the delay with tsmc. It was actually due to AMD cancelling using 32nm on some of it's products that TSMC decided to skip 32nm altogether over. Basically, it's a two-way street, and both of them are to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny87au
You made waking up this early TOTALLY worth it with that picture. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by migunani
I should clarify my previous statement though....
AMD Definitely didn't expect the 570 to be what it is. Either performance wise, or price wise. I'm leaning towards price wise(I think they expected it to be at the $399 mark and NOT the $349 mark), and possibly somewhat on the performance segment as well. This caused AMD to have to under-cut what they expected to make off it, which I'm sure has upset them as well as their AIBs.
AMD was hoping to be able to get away with $449 on the 6970, they definitely didn't want to go lower than that. I think if the 6970 was priced at $349 a lot of the complaints would fall out of line. $300 at launch is asking for way too much. I don't think AMD would be making much profit at all if that was the case. While the GTX570 is a larger chip, it also uses less memory, and slower memory chips. Thus negating some of that price differential.Quote:
Originally Posted by KoHaN69
I strongly believe at $349 this chip would have it's place, but presently AMD know they have enough faithfuls to sell them even at this price. If just 20% of the people who posted in the cayman rumor thread bought the card, the card can be considered a success. That said, I DO think the 6950 looks like a very attractive card, and it very well may end up in my system when I build my friends christmas rig later this week.
I'm talking about that recent gain in marketshare. Nvidia's GT 3xxM and 4xxM series GPUs are everywhere now. AMD is still on their 5-series and has been for some timeQuote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
I'm surprised noone has posted this yet.
Kanter has done an analysis of Cayman.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...WT121410213827
imo not a review at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantmagnet
I guess ASUS is late with their 6970 because of this:
Quote from ASUS.com
Quote:
Full Aluminum Cover
Aluminum label on the cover dissipates surface heat much more evenly than reference. Simply cooler!
http://www.asus.com/websites/global/...7H9aL1h/01.jpg
:rofl::clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by migunani
Kudos man. That's the best thing what will appear in this thread. :up:
Haha wow, i've come back to a very thick atmosphere this morning.
Needless to say, i've got my 6950 sitting here right beside me ready to install :up: Just downloading the 10.12 CCC2 preview. Benchmarks and clocking results soon to follow.
Why has no one done crossfire at 2560x1600 with 2 6970s and compared them to the 580 GTX SLI other than anandtech?
here's another crossfire review from guru3d with the 6950s
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...irex-review/12
i really wish Adobe's Mercury Engine wasn't cuda only...I really would like to get a 2GB 6850..but noooo. Stupid adobe...Im sure got paid off. I have to wait for non-ref 570's to come out with hopefully 2GB+ VRAM..
AMD doesn't want to support CUDAQuote:
Originally Posted by Tenknics
Does adobe still use the gpu if you have it a secondary card (likea physx card) and not as the primary display card?
Crossfire scaling really seems to be superb as 6970s in CF take down the 580sli in alot of games while the single gpu struggles to keep up with nvidia
speculation: the new dual graphics engine really looks like on-chip crossfire with shared memory; amd may be able to use an off-chip command processor+pcie switch based on this change in the next gen to finally reach the holy grail of 100% scaling without driver issues :eek: (this statement does not imply any shared resources, memory still has to be doubled)
well anandtech hinted that the 6990 has some new features, so who knows what all this new stuff means...
Probably more hand polished parts this time. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
The features center on somehow reducing power consumption while holding rendering operations at near-HD6900 levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I would be surprised to see that. The high end is way over what's needed right now for games unless you use 30" or multimonitor setup. I do not see that change suddenly by the games of next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
So I think 560 and it's competitors will decide market share, but who knows.
Is that the 6950 territory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Seems really close ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
there has also been hint that fusion graphics will be synergistic somehow with 6900 graphics. obviously that means either power saving or performance combining.
It just seemed an odd comment he made. Almost like there wasn't anything in that segment yet. I would of thought the 6870 and 6950 filled it quite well currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Okay, my bad :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-38537-1-1.html
Quote:
The source said the new GF104 (in fact GF114) an initial release on January 20, frequency 820MHz/1640/4000MHz, 384SP, at this frequency under the high yield. The only regrettable, the public version of video memory is 1GB. I estimate that under this standard, easily get rid of HD 5870 is not a problem.
There's the possibility of a 1GB 6950(with price between 6870 & 6950 2GB) and still be faster than a 560 with 1GB also.
Any more than that at it will kill their "new gen" 570. Now, if they want a marketshare wars some sacrifices need to be made.
Actually, AMD has already announced it. Price ~$275.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
So we have a 560 out at the end of Jan. Looks like it will be competing with the 6870, which means the 6950 has it's own market sector for a while. Well that is unless the 560 with 384SP, isn't correct, and it has more shaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
To me it still looks like Nvidia is struggling a little. They certainly have the cards, they just seem like they are maybe a month or two behind where they would like to be. AMD are still pumping out newer cards, and having stock of them.
The 570 is still a beautiful card. I would say it and the 6950, are the two cards that will sell by the bucket load.
is that the 1GB version of the 6950?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Anyone spot any reviews which tested Eyefinity under crossfire? With the 5Ks, crossfire often worked but the stutteriness was such that it was not an effective help for EF users.
REVIEW 6950 CF by me,...............here :
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=263715
This whole thing is making it amazingly difficult to choose.
I was fairly confident I'd be going nVidia this generation, as I'd been predicting that the 69xx would disappoint compared to the 58xx series what with the unexpected transition back to the larger node. However, the performance of the 6970 at very high resolutions (2560 and Eyefinity res') is absolutely stellar and in many cases, as far as I've seen, at or above 580 performance, as is multi-card scaling. Further, "modern" games with heavy use of geometry, tesselation etc seem to favour the 6970 again (a la DiRT, Stalker COP, Metro), which suggests that the 6970 may well be a better future investment.
All this means that for me the 6970 is likely to outperform the 580 at the resolutions I play at, while costing about $250 less than the 580. Was not expecting this at all.
I noticed this as well. It's a little silly to say the nvidia cards are strictly better by comparing games where the min, avg, and max are well over 60.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
Only this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...cfx-review/22/
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...is-warhead.pnghttp://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...net-2-5760.png
6850 crossfire BC2 and lotro, 5760x1080 no issues what so ever, I play BC2 at low settings as I aim for max fps, best gaming experience ever for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
That's where the problems lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
At 1080p, the 6970 is a little bit under powered, once you start raising the resolution up, it becomes a bit of a monster. I'm trying to work out if it's good at DX11 or bad (same with AA). I can't fathom out the scores from the reviews, they seem everywhere.