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

[informal]

Not according to the article.

Thanks,I couldn't read the article since it was down. Well AMD"s approach is clearly still inferior to NV's native 3D support for games so they have to work on that part more.It's a start though.

[zalbard]

Thanks,I couldn't read the article since it was down. Well AMD"s approach is clearly still inferior to NV's native 3D support for games so they have to work on that part more.It's a start though.

They just need a decent driver implementation, really (AMD and drivers...), and some sort of standard for 3D glasses (I think they have one already, but not sure) and it should be about as good!

[Sn0wm@n]

They just need a decent driver implementation, really (AMD and drivers...), and some sort of standard for 3D glasses (I think they have one already, but not sure) and it should be about as good!

what's wrong with amd and drivers ????


maybe they will figure it out maybe not ....

[Kaboka]

wtb more crossfire reviews :o looking at the 2x6850 scaling shown at guru3d i dunno if it will be worth selling my 5850 or get a 2nd one used. But the cards looks great so far

[DilTech]

Can't say I'm all that impressed...

It looks to be great bang-for-buck, but honestly I've been sitting, watching, and waiting for the next KO gpu. Also, the fact that the GTX 460 still beats it in tessellation according to that chart makes me a little worried.

As for them using the GTX 460 launch numbers, correct me if I'm wrong but the GTX 460 performance has gone up pretty nicely since launch. My question for the review is, was that a reference GTX 460 or one of the high clock ones. No, I'm not saying they should pit it up against one of the 800mhz monsters, but that is very good information to know, because if the 6850 is beating THOSE cards that solidly then it is, indeed, a very fast card if the $200 price point remains true.

Either way it'll be a nice card for people with $200'ish to spend. I just hope those over-clocking numbers are a fluke, or that they used an overclocked 460 and not a stock one. If that's a reference one, then I'm not nearly as impressed, as even the 800mhz+ GTX460's are pretty cheap these days.

At any rate, Cayman should be a monster if these specs vs performance numbers are anything to go by. It's about time AMD listened to everyone saying 5D was NOT the way to go. When it comes to unified design, the simpler it is, the more efficient it probably will be too.

[xdan]

GTX 460 at 840/4200( 24/7 stock voltage) scores 16k on Vantage Gpu scores, 1k more than 6870 stock

[Hey Zeus]

Can't say I'm all that impressed...

It looks to be great bang-for-buck, but honestly I've been sitting, watching, and waiting for the next KO gpu. Also, the fact that the GTX 460 still beats it in tessellation according to that chart makes me a little worried.

As for them using the GTX 460 launch numbers, correct me if I'm wrong but the GTX 460 performance has gone up pretty nicely since launch. My question for the review is, was that a reference GTX 460 or one of the high clock ones. No, I'm not saying they should pit it up against one of the 800mhz monsters, but that is very good information to know, because if the 6850 is beating THOSE cards that solidly then it is, indeed, a very fast card if the $200 price point remains true.

Either way it'll be a nice card for people with $200'ish to spend. I just hope those over-clocking numbers are a fluke, or that they used an overclocked 460 and not a stock one. If that's a reference one, then I'm not nearly as impressed, as even the 800mhz+ GTX460's are pretty cheap these days.

At any rate, Cayman should be a monster if these specs vs performance numbers are anything to go by. It's about time AMD listened to everyone saying 5D was NOT the way to go. When it comes to unified design, the simpler it is, the more efficient it probably will be too.

460's have gotten a decent amount better since launch drivers.

As much as i want a pair of 475''s the 580 intrigues me.

[Sn0wm@n]

460's have gotten a decent amount better since launch drivers.

As much as i want a pair of 475''s the 580 intrigues me.

the 580's are urban legend at this point for now ... so they intrigue everyone

[Motiv]

Can't say I'm all that impressed...

It looks to be great bang-for-buck, but honestly I've been sitting, watching, and waiting for the next KO gpu. Also, the fact that the GTX 460 still beats it in tessellation according to that chart makes me a little worried.

As for them using the GTX 460 launch numbers, correct me if I'm wrong but the GTX 460 performance has gone up pretty nicely since launch. My question for the review is, was that a reference GTX 460 or one of the high clock ones. No, I'm not saying they should pit it up against one of the 800mhz monsters, but that is very good information to know, because if the 6850 is beating THOSE cards that solidly then it is, indeed, a very fast card if the $200 price point remains true.

Either way it'll be a nice card for people with $200'ish to spend. I just hope those over-clocking numbers are a fluke, or that they used an overclocked 460 and not a stock one. If that's a reference one, then I'm not nearly as impressed, as even the 800mhz+ GTX460's are pretty cheap these days.

At any rate, Cayman should be a monster if these specs vs performance numbers are anything to go by. It's about time AMD listened to everyone saying 5D was NOT the way to go. When it comes to unified design, the simpler it is, the more efficient it probably will be too.

I have to admit the tesselation numbers seem weak, but then again these cards are amazing considering how cut down they are. The power consumption and noise levels are very impressive, I must say though.

As you say Cayman is going to be a real handful. I would be a little worried if I were Nvidia, it looks like next month AMD will have a range of cards that will be cheap to make, low power, quiet running and extremely powerful.

[Motiv]

Thanks,I couldn't read the article since it was down. Well AMD"s approach is clearly still inferior to NV's native 3D support for games so they have to work on that part more.It's a start though.

It's shockingly bad unless one of the resellers starts selling the gear, with their cards. Until that point, it's rubbish.

While I don't care for 3D or Physx, I do realise that people in the near future will start thinking of 3D gaming more and more. AMD need to get their partners to sort something out, physx is purely a fanboi thing.

[zalbard]

While I don't care for 3D or Physx, I do realise that people in the near future will start thinking of 3D gaming more and more.

Me neither right now. Then again all people are different, and there is very little sense in alienating [perhaps a very small] part of the market.
These are not must have features for most right now, but they are nice to have, and this "nice" can [potentially] sell quite a lot of cards.
Gogo OpenCL! I'm still waiting for AMD to start supporting and promoting one of OpenCL engines...

[generics_user]

Thanks,I couldn't read the article since it was down. Well AMD"s approach is clearly still inferior to NV's native 3D support for games so they have to work on that part more.It's a start though.

true; they need to aquire one of the 3rd party providers OR release a bundle with 3rd party software + 3d glasses together with their board partners

[RPGWiZaRD]

What I care about with 3D support is that they support 120Hz LCDs running properly in 120Hz then I'm fine, couldn't care less about gaming in 3D. IMO 120Hz/FPS gaming >>> 3D 60Hz per eye/FPS gaming.

[xdan]

What about their HD5850 and HD5870 results though? Are those outdated as well cuz that's the first comparision I made how they stand to HD5850 and HD5870 not NVIDIA and for me they suprised me a bit positively, I had been happy seeing HD6870 being just tiny bit in avg front of HD5850 and many times around the same.

Guys with all respect i think this is an unprofessional review, not to be trusted...It's a crap, they are f***ing liyng
So today with Catalyst 10.10 or whatsoever, i don't care, in Crysis Warhead 5850 scores 38 FPS( 1920*1200, 2AA)....
Good...

On 30 september with Catalist 8.66(more than a year ago)
5850 in the same game, same settings score just , that 38FPS
Se here http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...w-crossfire/15

Far Cry 2 today 50 FSP, check the rar archive...
Than , on 30 september, Catalyst 8.66 , 5850 scored even 1 FPS, more ,51 FPS
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...w-crossfire/11