AMD Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 confirmed to be launched on 22.10.2010

[bamtan2]

Over at B3d, they calculated out the SP's are likely to be 800/960 for Pro/XT Barts respectively... impressive if 800/960 can get the card to close to the 1440/1600 Cypress parts.

I can't even imagine what Cayman can do..

I can. One Cayman chip beats 5970 and peers dual gtx 480 / SLI.

[jimbo75]

It low power for a next generation 68xx series from AMD. I can easily suspect the 5850 pricing being true. E.g 259 for a 5870, I kind of predicted it. Way too high for a 6770 series, so it understandable why AMD shifted it as a higher product.

I meant the gtx 460 isn't really "low power". It's nothing special in perf/watt, yeah it's better than GF100 but that doesn't make it good.

[Eagleclaw]

Yeah all you whiners listen to the man!! Get it through yer thick skulls!!

Add all the crybaby card naming posts and delete them and 1/2 the posts would be gone.

frankly i dont care about the naming of the card, i care about price and performance....and i get why there doing it, their just moving it up a number basically so they can charge more for the whole series.

people need to stop complaining about the naming, its all Ive heard in these threads. waaaaah

the 6870 looks sexy and for $250 its an awesome deal with the improved efficiency and smaller die. just wait for cayman XT its gonna be a sweet card which will be much deserved of the 9 series naming.

[Metroid]

Not sure if this was already posted around here, but just in case.

An pair of early listings by a Dutch online store indicates what prices of some Radeon HD 6800 series products could look like, in that part of the world. The Sapphire Radeon HD 6850 (part number 11180-00-20R), is listed at €158.82 without taxes (€189 with it); and Sapphire Radeon HD 6870 (part number 21179-00-40R) at €214.29 w/o taxes (€255 with it). We conservatively estimate the USD pricing to look like $199 for the HD 6850, and $249 for the HD 6870, on the basis of this listing.

[BeepBeep2]

frankly i dont care about the naming of the card, i care about price and performance....and i get why there doing it, their just moving it up a number basically so they can charge more for the whole series.

people need to stop complaining about the naming, its all Ive heard in these threads. waaaaah

the 6870 looks sexy and for $250 its an awesome deal with the improved efficiency and smaller die. just wait for cayman XT its gonna be a sweet card which will be much deserved of the 9 series naming.

Maybe you just dont understand that the 6870's performance may be slightly less than a 5870. (The original 6770, which is not 6870 was considerably slower than the 5870)... Unless they overclock like there's no tomorrow, the naming scheme is TOTALLY wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not correct. It's misleading, same with 6700. People will be confused and buy 6700 thinking it's something special over 5700 or competing nvidia cards. (Just like nvidias former renaming)

That said, I'm waiting for Cayman XT since my 5770's both do 1040/1445 each and are fast enough to hold me over till then.

[Baron_Davis]

Yeah all you whiners listen to the man!! Get it through yer thick skulls!!

Add all the crybaby card naming posts and delete them and 1/2 the posts would be gone.

Yeah let's all be tools and suck it up and just accept their messed up naming scheme which is obv designed to mislead ppl!!!

Yeah guys let's do it!!! Complaining about things that don't make sense is stupid!!! Just accept whatever ATI says and deal with it you crybabies!!!

GO ATI!!!

[spursindonesia]

US$ 249 for Bart XT and US$ 199 for Bart Pro are a bit too high for my comfort, US$ 229 & US$ 179 will make me a happy camper, perhaps really tempting me to upgrade from my current HD 4870 1 GB which has been serving me very well in combo with my 1680*1050 22" LCD.

[Manicdan]

US$ 249 for Bart XT and US$ 199 for Bart Pro are a bit too high for my comfort, US$ 229 & US$ 179 will make me a happy camper, perhaps really tempting me to upgrade from my current HD 4870 1 GB which has been serving me very well in combo with my 1680*1050 22" LCD.

ditto

250$ for something like a 5850 sounds like crap too me. take your numbers and drop 10$ more and i would be happier

[BeepBeep2]

Basically:

6870 = 5850 + ~5-10% (In fifty frames per second that means a 2.5 fps increase. 50, to 52.5 or 55 for dumping $250. Astonishing.)
6850 = 5830 - 2 to 5% (Specs just plain suck IMO, it's not worth $199.)

Still, some of you are wondering why people are complaining about it.

Because they are most likely slower than the 5850 and 5870. Of course, if they aren't, it's because they hiked up the clocks.

[Manicdan]

^i dont care about the comparison between model A and model B, i care about price to perf of old and new.

[slaveondope]

People expecting double the performance on the same 40nm node
If youve got a 5series and are tight on cash lay out this round simple enough.
Got a 4series and been thinking of upgrading the 6series will prove to be a great bang for the buck upgrade.
Its that simple folks, in the mean time I will keep at folks bent out of shape over it.

[[XC] hipno650]

First of all.... new architecture. None of the numbers you read for specs matter, because its their first new architecture since R600

Second, naming wise, things change... when the 7 series comes out, few might even remember what things were once named. It appears AMD/ATI is going back to making powerful single GPU solutions with the Cayman / 6900 series... had AMD never named the 5870X2 the 5970, people wouldnt think as much about it

well it very well may be a new design or arranging the shadders and whatnot but the compute cores in themselves are relatively the same, yes they will be a tad more efficient but that can only make up so much. also if you look at the marketing slides from AMD themselves they show it just above the GTX 460 and below the GTX 470 AMD has always claimed that the 5870 is faster than the GTX 470 so to show the new card below the GTX 470 on a marketing slide points to it being slower than the GTX 470 AND the 5870, which is totally backed up by the specs.

and yes of course naming changes but the move from 4870x2 to the 5970 made perfect sense considering the 5970 is faster than the 5870. this new scheme makes no sense on any level of performance at all.

and to all those who like to beat the crap out of Fermi all day about power usage you know your right it sucks back the power. but it's also a performance animal. and if you think about all the time in a year your gaming at load (because the differences at idle are small) you spend how much more a year on power? maybe like $50 max if you game lots (granted F@H is a different story) the performance difference however from a GTX 480 of the 5870 is well worth it. I own both a 5870 and a GTX 480 and the jump in performance going to the 480 was pretty outrageous even on my CPU bottle neck.

the 6870 will be a strong card don't get me wrong and im sure it will sell well but its nothing special like the move from 4000's to 5000's and the naming is just plain bad...

[zanzabar]

Basically:

6870 = 5850 + ~5-10% (In fifty frames per second that means a 2.5 fps increase. 50, to 52.5 or 55 for dumping $250. Astonishing.)
6850 = 5830 - 2 to 5% (Specs just plain suck IMO, it's not worth $199.)

Still, some of you are wondering why people are complaining about it.

Because they are most likely slower than the 5850 and 5870. Of course, if they aren't, it's because they hiked up the clocks.

im going to guess that they would be about the same in dx9/10.x but i doubt that they will oc by the same giant % as the 5850. and if that spec rumor that they were the same physical shader count but with 4 scaller units instead of 5 it should be about the same if not better with the higher clocks

[tajoh111]

People expecting double the performance on the same 40nm node
If youve got a 5series and are tight on cash lay out this round simple enough.
Got a 4series and been thinking of upgrading the 6series will prove to be a great bang for the buck upgrade.
Its that simple folks, in the mean time I will keep at folks bent out of shape over it.

This is terrible bang for you buck considering how much AMD is saving, they are reducing the size of their chip by 100mm2 and they are basically giving you a 10 dollar discount off of a 5850 when considering performance.

When a company is able to reduce the cost of their product, I expect them to pass some of the savings on to the consumer.

This is a double wammy also because of the product naming. The naming makes the chip a better deal than it really is. The likely performance numbers for barts xt. x7500 is much more in range of a 5850 at x7300, than a 5870 at x9000.

Considering what older 4770 and 5770 have brought over their generation and the priced they have charged(well under 200 dollars), the 6870 is nothing spectactular and very expensive for a 230mm chip in this day and age. This card is the card to get if the price is around 219, but at 250 or so, it just not that great a deal.

[Manicdan]

Considering what older 4770 have brought over their generation and the priced they have charged(well under 200 dollars), the 6870 is nothing spectactular and very expensive for a 230mm chip in this day and age.

i remember the 4770 being about the same perf as a 4850, but costing 10-20$ more.

[zerazax]

Basically:

6870 = 5850 + ~5-10% (In fifty frames per second that means a 2.5 fps increase. 50, to 52.5 or 55 for dumping $250. Astonishing.)
6850 = 5830 - 2 to 5% (Specs just plain suck IMO, it's not worth $199.)

Still, some of you are wondering why people are complaining about it.

Because they are most likely slower than the 5850 and 5870. Of course, if they aren't, it's because they hiked up the clocks.

I'm glad you have the actual performance numbers

[thatdude90210]

I'm glad you have the actual performance numbers

Reviewed by butt.

[Baron_Davis]

and to all those who like to beat the crap out of Fermi all day about power usage you know your right it sucks back the power. but it's also a performance animal. and if you think about all the time in a year your gaming at load (because the differences at idle are small) you spend how much more a year on power? maybe like $50 max if you game lots (granted F@H is a different story) the performance difference however from a GTX 480 of the 5870 is well worth it. I own both a 5870 and a GTX 480 and the jump in performance going to the 480 was pretty outrageous even on my CPU bottle neck.

Although I've dissed Nvidia in the past, I wanna agree with this. At first, ppl hated on the 480, but I gotta admit it's a friggin beast. Not to mention its younger brother the 470 is the best card for the money out now.

I think ATI is turning into Nvidia Junior and is trying to scam ppl with messed up naming conventions and piss poor power:price ratios.

Perhaps the pessimists will be proved wrong when the 68xx cards come out in a few days, I'm sorta 50/50 right now. I think if the cards are weak, ATI will lower prices, and if they're strong, they may offer good value for the money. Also, there's a decent chance Nvidia will answer with a price cut, so that's good, too.

[BeepBeep2]

I'm glad you have the actual performance numbers

Now you tell me if that 6770 (now 6870) is worth $250 or even being named a 6870. Unless it clocks up to 1200 Mhz on air, I don't see it.

[hurleybird]

well it very well may be a new design or arranging the shadders and whatnot but the compute cores in themselves are relatively the same, yes they will be a tad more efficient but that can only make up so much. also if you look at the marketing slides from AMD themselves they show it just above the GTX 460 and below the GTX 470 AMD has always claimed that the 5870 is faster than the GTX 470 so to show the new card below the GTX 470 on a marketing slide points to it being slower than the GTX 470 AND the 5870, which is totally backed up by the specs.

This is the same AMD who advertised 4850 as slightly above 8800GT and 4870 slightly above 9800GTX, so I wouldn't go about drawing too many conclusions from that one slide.

[kuroikenshi]

US$ 249 for Bart XT and US$ 199 for Bart Pro are a bit too high for my comfort, US$ 229 & US$ 179 will make me a happy camper, perhaps really tempting me to upgrade from my current HD 4870 1 GB which has been serving me very well in combo with my 1680*1050 22" LCD.

not likely to see that since the value of the US$ is through the floor right now...

[kuroikenshi]

Now you tell me if that 6770 (now 6870) is worth $250 or even being named a 6870. Unless it clocks up to 1200 Mhz on air, I don't see it.

ahhh... core speed has nothing to do with perf.... look I have a 9600GT stacked in a draw, it can do 850Mhz.... so two of these on sli should beat my 5970 which only runs at a measly 750Mhz stock clock.

FAILSAUCE

[zdzislawek]

If those slides are AMD genuine then BARTS performance is below 5870 (between 460 and 5850) and at the same time it has more than 150W when 5850 has 151W. I don’t see where BARTS has much lower power consumption than Evergreen.

As I remember AMD’s official numbers on 5850 power draw are:



and for 5870:




So >150W looks like decent improvement to me, considering the same node.

[tajoh111]

i remember the 4770 being about the same perf as a 4850, but costing 10-20$ more.

Your wrong about that. The 4770 was only 100 dollars and soon reached 80-90 street price. Until the 4850 was EOL, it was never that cheap. Basically AMD is doing a repeat of what it did that generation for performance but not saving you really that much money. The msrp of the 4850 was 200 dollars, the msrp of the 4770 was 100 dollars. Now look at this generation, the msrp of the 5850 is 259 dollars, the likely msrp of the 6770/6870 is 250 dollars(and bart should be cheap to make as it is alot smaller 100mm2 less and the yields should be fantastic compared to cypress). This should be obvious why they had to use the shady name if you look at this a 6770 at 250 is a damn tough sell and honestly, if you look at the performance jump of earlier x770(both the 4770 and the 5770) series, naming bart xt as a 6770 makes way more sense.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-ra...d-4770-review/

AMD is not close to offering the value it once did. It taking advantage of no competition which sucks for us and even worse for Nvidia.

[Xoulz]

Now you tell me if that 6770 (now 6870) is worth $250 or even being named a 6870. Unless it clocks up to 1200 Mhz on air, I don't see it.

Please stop, you're being ignorant!

The 5850 is currently going for $259 bucks. Now look at that chart and compare the 5850 to the 6770 (now 6870)...

If indeed, the Barts XT comes in @ the same price as the Cypress Pro, who is going to complain about that? It's an all-around better solution, for basically the same price. Obviously, many would even pay more for it, since I am sure the Barts XT is more efficient and more refined.

What they call it, is moot.