MMM
Page 10 of 34 FirstFirst ... 7891011121320 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 828

Thread: AMD Radeon HD6950/6970(Cayman) Reviews

  1. #226
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by zerazax View Post
    Nope, only in states they have a physical presence in that also has a sales tax.
    Well, NY does.
    Case: HAF-X
    CPU: AMD phenom II X6 1090T@4GHz
    Motherboard: Asus CHIV formula
    GPU: 2x 6870
    RAM: Patriot Sector 5 2x4GB
    HDD: Crucial M4 256GB

    Can you? On AIR
    Better? -- On AIR

  2. #227
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    409
    While Nvidia's 500 series might be just a bug fix for Fermi, Cayman is simply a letdown in terms of raw performance increase. The new architecture obviously isn't all that effiecient yet. It does fix the problems with tessellation and AA-performance, though it still doesn't beat fermi in either area. There might be some promise for the next gen and with future driver updates, but that's just speculation.

    In the end this release means Nvidia doesn't have to lower prices at all, but on the other hand they do have to compete with 6970 vs. GTX 570. It's just sad to see 5870 being so close to these cards, there's been hardly any improvement since last year. In my books the whole fermi fiasco and these new slightly updated cards are about on the same level as the GeForce 9000-series update:

    "No, you'll warrant no villain's exposition from me."

  3. #228
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    192.168.1.1
    Posts
    221
    Graphics power increase relies heavily upon shrinking nodes. Considering these are still at 40nm, I wouldn't say that this year's increases have been very disappointing.

  4. #229
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by flyck View Post
    It is mentionned countless of times, but go read a review that uses the 10.11 drivers which are available.... Anandtech used the 10.10. Hardocp for example, the 6950 NEVER looses to a 570GTX.. the 6970 trade some blows with the GTX580 but is overall slightly slower. Still blows the 570GTX by a significant margin (e.g.10%).
    My friend, Did you notice that Hardocp was using different settings when they compared GTX570/580 to 6950/6970 ? Did you ?

    Example, Look here they are using 8x AA for GTX 570, but only 4x AA for HD6950 in Civilization




    Thats not a fair comparison. If they were using the same settings, then GTX 570 would win easily
    Last edited by dartaz; 12-15-2010 at 03:48 AM.

  5. #230
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrono Detector View Post
    The 6970 card runs slower than the GTX 580 and runs hotter than the GTX 580? WTF?

    ATI really messed up here.
    Not according to this site.

    Last edited by Kristers Bensin; 12-15-2010 at 04:08 AM.
    CPU: Intel i5 2500K + Antec Khuler 620 Memory: 4GB DDR3 Corsair DHX @ 1600MHz CL7 GPU: Nvidia GTX 560Ti + Antec Khuler 620
    Motherboard: Zotac Z68ITX-A-E HDD: Crucial M4 128GB + 2TB Samsung F4EG Chassi: Lian Li Q11B PSU: Cooler Master Silent Pro 850W OS: Windows 7 x64
    Welcome to my home theater! | mattBLACK Gallery | Minima "H20" Gallery

  6. #231
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin View Post
    Not according to this site.
    Looks like it may be running 'hotter' but using that as a benchmark is struggling to justify your point (almost a strawman argument).

    It looks like it does run 'hotter' but it is quieter and has less of a power draw. 'Hotter' is a bit of a sham argument really, as other factors are in effect, and the temp difference seems to be within a few degrees C.

  7. #232
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrdurr View Post
    Graphics power increase relies heavily upon shrinking nodes. Considering these are still at 40nm, I wouldn't say that this year's increases have been very disappointing.
    Ultimately the fault for the current situation lies with TSMC for epicly failing 40nm, and skipping 32nm. Also Nvidia failed to see that coming and the result was Fermi half a year late and neutered. If Nvidia had managed to release a full Fermi at the same time as 5800-series, the current situation would be much much better for the consumer. The performance would be better and the prices would be lower.

    So better pray TSMC knows what it's doing with 28 nm.
    "No, you'll warrant no villain's exposition from me."

  8. #233
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by dartaz View Post
    My friend, Did you notice that Hardocp was using different settings when they compared GTX570/580 to 6950/6970 ? Did you ?

    Example, Look here they are using 8x AA for GTX 570, but only 4x AA for HD6950 in Civilization




    Thats not a fair comparison. If they were using the same settings, then GTX 570 would win easily
    Look at "apples to apples"



    Tried to look at the other games of that review?
    Athlon II X4 620 2.6Ghz @1.1125v | Foxconn A7DA-S (790GX) | 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 1066
    | Gigabyte HD4770 | Seagate 7200.12 3x1TB | Samsung F4 HD204UI 2x2TB | LG H10N | OCZ StealthXStream 500w| Coolermaster Hyper 212+ | Compaq MV740 17"

    Stock HSF: 18°C idle / 37°C load (15°C ambient)
    Hyper 212+: 16°C idle / 29°C load (15°C ambient)

    Why AMD Radeon rumors/leaks "are not always accurate"
    Reality check

  9. #234
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    466
    Not bad cards but looks like Nvidia really snuck one up on ATI and us with the new 500 series. Had they not been released (which i think we can safely say wasn't expected) ATI would have been sitting pretty. As it stands performance wise the 500 series is better and runs cooler, less power. WTF how did the roles reverse in the space of 1 month???

  10. #235
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    France - Bx
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBreezyBB View Post
    Someone please explain?!!

    WTF AMAZON 6970=483$
    Amazon 6950=372$
    AMD sent new prices at last time so several shops don't have the good price.

    HD6X00 series is a disappointment IMHO.

    I expected many more from AMD

  11. #236
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    9,060
    The performance is all over the place.
    It performs much better than 5870 in some titles; in some titles it's barely faster. Why? Most likely drivers.
    Some of the numbers are quite promising.
    But yeah, I agree, quite a raw product so far.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  12. #237
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Santos(São Paulo), Brasil.
    Posts
    202
    good cards, performon well, nice features (dual bios, power tune, mlaa), not very hot or loudy and have a good price.
    but, I think almost everybody expected more, it really looks like AMD didn`t expected GTX580 and GTX570.
    People got too much hype over those cards, and now it looks disappointing. But in anyway they are bad cards, AMD did a nice work.

    Now lets hope newer drivers brings at least 5~7% improvement and fix some games where those cards performs strangely slow.

    Oh, and HD6950 in crossfire looks like a very good deal.
    AMD Phenom II X6 1055T @ 4009MHz
    NB @ 2673MHz
    Corsair H50 + Scythe Ultra Kaze 3k
    Gigabyte GA-MA790X-UD4P
    2X2GB DDR2 OCZ Gold
    XFX Radeon HD5850 XXX @ 900MHz Core
    OCZ Agility2 60GB
    2x500GB HDD WD Blue
    250GB Samsung
    SevenTeam 620W PAF
    CoolerMaster CM690

  13. #238
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    192.168.1.1
    Posts
    221
    It would be very stupid to buy a card ASSUMING that it's going to get much better with drivers. For one thing, remember X2900XT. Second, if you're relying on drivers because you think the performance varying wildly means "lack of driver compatibility," you have to take into account that there has been a lot of architectural changes in Cayman which would favor some games and dislike other games. Much like Fermi - its performance varied a lot from game to game compared to other cards.

  14. #239
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by dartaz View Post
    My friend, Did you notice that Hardocp was using different settings when they compared GTX570/580 to 6950/6970 ? Did you ?

    Example, Look here they are using 8x AA for GTX 570, but only 4x AA for HD6950 in Civilization

    Thats not a fair comparison. If they were using the same settings, then GTX 570 would win easily
    see comment Nintendork..

    and i was wrong about anandtech, they either changed the text or i remembered it wrong.

    Altough bothered by anantech showing all the cards and crossfire setups when the resolution is 25.... and for resolutions 16xxx they show only the single cards. So if you look closely the 25 the 6970 is between the 570 and 580 and the 6950 is continously around the 570. for 1920 the 570-580 takes the advantage and 16xx the difference is completely in nvidia favour.

    HardOcp tested the best image quality settings possible while still playable and did an apples to apples which were alway high res and qualitity settings.

    Anand showed that only the first graph and afterwards they lower the settings and quality and show them single card vs single card. making the clearest chart about performance also the bottom one and the one with the lowest quality settings (settings you won't use when you buy a card of >300euro)

  15. #240
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    253
    I'm not sure if hardocp is trustworthy

    I mean techpowerup did use Catalyst 10.11, and results was so different. GTX 570 was clear winner against HD6950 in techpowerup review

  16. #241
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,207
    Quote Originally Posted by flyck View Post
    It is mentionned countless of times, but go read a review that uses the 10.11 drivers which are available.... Anandtech used the 10.10. Hardocp for example, the 6950 NEVER looses to a 570GTX.. the 6970 trade some blows with the GTX580 but is overall slightly slower. Still blows the 570GTX by a significant margin (e.g.10%).

    Correction

    Anand used 10.11

    AMD Catalyst 8.79.6.2RC2 = 10.11 RC2

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4061/a...eon-hd-6950/12

    HARDOCP is the only website showing such results out of all the website. Hardocp has never been the most credible website.
    Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
    6gb OCZ platinum
    4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
    2*640 WD Blacks
    750GB Seagate.

  17. #242
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    France - Bx
    Posts
    2,601

  18. #243
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Inside a floppy drive
    Posts
    366
    IMHO this new cards are a

  19. #244
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    Correction

    Anand used 10.11

    AMD Catalyst 8.79.6.2RC2 = 10.11 RC2

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4061/a...eon-hd-6950/12

    HARDOCP is the only website showing such results out of all the website. Hardocp has never been the most credible website.
    I already corrected my statement, see previous comment of mine, two posts before yours. and no, anandtech shows the same thing, again read my previous comment. The difference is an nvidia advantage for low resolutions, but if you turn those up, see first graph for anand viewers, after some searching in there graph you will see 6970> 570 and 6950~570

  20. #245
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    Correction

    Anand used 10.11

    AMD Catalyst 8.79.6.2RC2 = 10.11 RC2

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4061/a...eon-hd-6950/12

    HARDOCP is the only website showing such results out of all the website. Hardocp has never been the most credible website.
    Strange, I always like HardOCP, and find they give very good reviews. They show what settings, give equal types of performance. It's a different way of doing things, but still gives a fair comparison.

  21. #246
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    131
    If I could sum up the 6970 in one word it would be "disappointing". And I do not understand the marketing logic of producing what is for the moment the "top" AMD card when it can only perform around the level of Nvidia's number two card, the GTX 570. OK, so it is priced at a similar level to the GTX 570. But this only confirms the reality, that GTX 580 levels of performance, from a single GPU at least, are no longer within AMD's capabilities.

  22. #247
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokinhow View Post
    good cards, performon well, nice features (dual bios, power tune, mlaa), not very hot or loudy and have a good price.
    but, I think almost everybody expected more, it really looks like AMD didn`t expected GTX580 and GTX570.
    People got too much hype over those cards, and now it looks disappointing. But in anyway they are bad cards, AMD did a nice work.

    Now lets hope newer drivers brings at least 5~7% improvement and fix some games where those cards performs strangely slow.

    Oh, and HD6950 in crossfire looks like a very good deal.
    Those games share similarities with the VLIW5/4 thing in 3dmark. That games actually don't seem to adress the total capabilities of the gpu.

    For example barts vs cypress is a very constant comparison without surprises.


    11.1 is supposed to be made from the scratch right?
    Last edited by Nintendork; 12-15-2010 at 05:25 AM.
    Athlon II X4 620 2.6Ghz @1.1125v | Foxconn A7DA-S (790GX) | 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 1066
    | Gigabyte HD4770 | Seagate 7200.12 3x1TB | Samsung F4 HD204UI 2x2TB | LG H10N | OCZ StealthXStream 500w| Coolermaster Hyper 212+ | Compaq MV740 17"

    Stock HSF: 18°C idle / 37°C load (15°C ambient)
    Hyper 212+: 16°C idle / 29°C load (15°C ambient)

    Why AMD Radeon rumors/leaks "are not always accurate"
    Reality check

  23. #248
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    PHX
    Posts
    1,494
    I just figured 3870 to 4870...big jump...4870 to 5870...big jump...5870 to 6870...wait, huh?

    /reboot

    5870 to 6970...wait, huh?

    So performance's less than what we'd all come to expect from a Radeon. But price doesn't line up either.
    Last edited by Jodiuh; 12-15-2010 at 05:34 AM.

  24. #249
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,250
    Hardocp (Kyle the bar bouncer) has a no bull approach.
    if he approves, you know its good stuff.
    4670k 4.6ghz 1.22v watercooled CPU/GPU - Asus Z87-A - 290 1155mhz/1250mhz - Kingston Hyper Blu 8gb -crucial 128gb ssd - EyeFunity 5040x1050 120hz - CM atcs840 - Corsair 750w -sennheiser hd600 headphones - Asus essence stx - G400 and steelseries 6v2 -windows 8 Pro 64bit Best OS used - - 9500p 3dmark11 (one of the 26% that isnt confused on xtreme forums)

  25. #250
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post
    I just figured 3870 to 4870...big jump...4870 to 5870...big jump...5870 to 6870...wait, huh? reboot 5870 to 6970...wait, huh?
    yeah only 30% on the same node. How terrible!

Page 10 of 34 FirstFirst ... 7891011121320 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •