-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
6950 or GTX570
- Thread starter Kei
- Start date
) said that they are out of stock on the codes for deus ex and i'll get it when they come in. The box hasn't got anything about dirt 3 on it so i wasn't holding high hopes for that.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Not trying to prove anything, just saying like many others that the chart is total rubbish. Search the bf 3 threads and you will see it again and again. The AA is not really a 6950 weakness, I think it is a driver weakness. Until AMD release new drivers we won't know if it really is a weakness on the card itself.
Also I think you think I was taking a dig at you for posting it, not the case. I am saying that chart even with AA on is rubbish. None of the figures are correct according to people on this site with those exact same cards. But anyway my post was not a dig at you at all. Just the chart
But we have no idea what CPU those tests were run on, but I am guessing whatever it was it was at stock speeds to get such low FPS results.
Example, I have a 2gb 6950 non toxic it is the VTX version. With AA on and everything else like in that chart. I have not once seen it dip to 31, maybe 38. Now when doing charts like that 7 FPS is a lot to make up. But my CPU is an [email protected], which may well make up the extra FPS not in that chart.
Also I think you think I was taking a dig at you for posting it, not the case. I am saying that chart even with AA on is rubbish. None of the figures are correct according to people on this site with those exact same cards. But anyway my post was not a dig at you at all. Just the chart
But we have no idea what CPU those tests were run on, but I am guessing whatever it was it was at stock speeds to get such low FPS results.
Example, I have a 2gb 6950 non toxic it is the VTX version. With AA on and everything else like in that chart. I have not once seen it dip to 31, maybe 38. Now when doing charts like that 7 FPS is a lot to make up. But my CPU is an [email protected], which may well make up the extra FPS not in that chart.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
ok, I'll take your word of the graph is inaccurate, but the issue with AA application is something I noticed from reading various reviewers prior to even the BF3 results. You might want to believe it is driver issue, but I don't think that is the case. Just bare with me.
As I said if you actually read my post at #16 for the BFBC2 performance comparison, you will see that 6970 2GB take a much deeper dive in frame rate than the GTX570. If you don't want to believe bit-tech's result, here's one from techpowerup:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/6.html
6970 2GB's performance is actually on par with, if not faster than GTX570 in BFBC2 when it is on 0xAA...but when 4xAA is applied, its frame rate become lower than that of the GTX570, so the conclusion I drew is that 6970 2GB don't handle 4xAA as well as GTX570.
Don't get me wrong...I think it is actually something to do with Nvidia's Fermi's GF100/GF110 architecture (GTX470/GTX480/GTX570/GTX580) being able to hold up frame rate better with the application of 4xAA; cards like GTX560Ti, GTX460 that are base only on the GF104/GF114 also seem to not hold up frame rate as good as the GF100/GF110, just like the AMD 6950/6970 cards. For example, there's going to be a new GTX560Ti going to be out soon, which will have 64 more cores than the current GTX560Ti (384 vs 448 cores). I predict performance wise, it would probably be close to, or on par with the GTX570 at 0xAA...but with 4xAA applied, it would most likely be lower than the GTX570, due to it still being on the GF114 architecture.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Hey
Yeah I see what you mean now about AA and the cards. AMD does seem to take a big hit even on BC2. I always wondered why on BC2 with everything maxed I only get 60fps, I always thought it should be more. Not that it matters 60 is perfect. I will test with AA off later and see how much it increases for me on my own system. Thanks for explaining the AA part, I still think AMD can increase the perfromace a bit more with some drivers to what it is in it's current state with AA on.
Another thing, with bf3 if you max out the AA which I think is 4x? to be totally fair it is not a huge step forward graphics wise over AA off. Not for the amount of FPS you lose over having it off anyway. But I guess the difference is more when gaming on a higher res that 1920x1080, so I guess that could also factor into it not being that much different on my 1920x1080.
Yeah I see what you mean now about AA and the cards. AMD does seem to take a big hit even on BC2. I always wondered why on BC2 with everything maxed I only get 60fps, I always thought it should be more. Not that it matters 60 is perfect. I will test with AA off later and see how much it increases for me on my own system. Thanks for explaining the AA part, I still think AMD can increase the perfromace a bit more with some drivers to what it is in it's current state with AA on.
Another thing, with bf3 if you max out the AA which I think is 4x? to be totally fair it is not a huge step forward graphics wise over AA off. Not for the amount of FPS you lose over having it off anyway. But I guess the difference is more when gaming on a higher res that 1920x1080, so I guess that could also factor into it not being that much different on my 1920x1080.
