6870 is here! for £170, WTF?? HELP!!

NathWraith · 26 Oct 2010 at 13:01

easyrider said:
Only in their transitory phase all will become clear when the 69XX hits

Exactly, I said this in my first post.

jigger · 26 Oct 2010 at 13:14

I think the naming system might work if you look at it like the 6800 cards are low-mid end gaming and the 6900 high end.

HD6750 - HD6770

HD6850 - HD6870

HD6950 - HD6970

HD6990

With a move to the 7000 28nm cards in spring.

Azz_Lub · 26 Oct 2010 at 13:28

Mr Krugga said:
Where did you bring it to?

Bought

no excuse for bad english?

slim01 · 26 Oct 2010 at 16:35

So no.... you were right my mate thank you. Only difference these guys saw was at stupid high resolutions i didnt even know exised, like 6000x2500 or something? Wtf i thought 1080p was quite high. People running games at that res would spend the extra £40 or so anyway, to go with their £800 worth of gpus?
>
From the test....
"It seems that at 2560x1600, even with 4X AA, there was absolutely no difference between x16/x16 and x8/x8. This is good news if you game at x8/x8 on a single display configuration at 2560x1600 and below. You simply are not missing anything, and moving up to x16/x8 or x16/x16 will yield no performance improvements or gameplay differences, even on the fastest GTX 480 SLI."

shaffaaf27 · 26 Oct 2010 at 17:15

wow. utter rape!

got screenies of DX11/tessilation VS dx10/9?+

bhavv · 26 Oct 2010 at 17:42

shaffaaf27 said:
wow. utter rape!

got screenies of DX11/tessilation VS dx10/9?+

I remember making a comparison screenie, but I cant find it in my imageshack account atm so will probably have to make another. Just about everyone playing the game have said that once they've played it at max settings in DX11 mode, they couldnt go back to playing without it.

slim01 · 27 Oct 2010 at 00:43

shaffaaf27 said:
wow. utter rape!

got screenies of DX11/tessilation VS dx10/9?+

whats being raped? did i miss something? unless your talking about the older cards raping the new ones

bhavv · 27 Oct 2010 at 16:36

Ejizz said:
p.s. SLI scaling doesn't look so hot in this games, Nvidia really need to fix their drivers!

Oh, yay!

New in Release 260.99

* Increases performance vs. v260.89 drivers in the following PC games: Civilization V (SLI), Fallout 3, Final Fantasy XIV and F1 2010 (DX11).

slim01 said:
whats being raped? did i miss something? unless your talking about the older cards raping the new ones

I think he meant how low the FPS are on all the various setups (only 50 FPS on crossfire 5870s / 6870s).

Civ V is very demanding when maxed out.

MoodyB · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:05

Bhavv, any particular reason you chose to post the Anand image & not the other 2 results from Pc Perspective & TechGage that show the 6870 ahead of the 1gb 460 ?

The 6870's even marginally ahead of the Gtx 470 at 1680x1050, never mind the 460.

Stanners · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:19

Instead of trying to be smart, why did you not post the other graphs. It is fine knocking someone who has taken the time to post the tables, yet you obviously can not be bothered to back your wise cracks up with a bit of effort.

TheRealDeal · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:27

Anand seems to be the only site that has the nvidia cards well ahead in civ 5 all the others i have seen put the 6870 close with the gtx470 or ahead of the gtx460.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/C/M/266134/original/civ5%20leader.png

http://techgage.com/reviews/amd/radeon/hd_6800_series/extra_games_01.png

http://techgage.com/reviews/amd/radeon/hd_6800_series/extra_games_02.png

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI4NzY3NjAyMFZEMnhHeWRQNGZfM181X2wuZ2lm

RavenXXX2 · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:32

Don't know how these sites are benchmarking it, the difference in FPS between some sites is considerable. I guess anandtech are up good and close in the action making tessellation hard work for the cards.

Gerard · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:36

RavenXXX2 said:
Don't know how these sites are benchmarking it, the difference in FPS between some sites is considerable. I guess anandtech are up good and close in the action making tessellation hard work for the cards.

Or theyre using timedemo styled benchmarks instead of actually playing the game through, which have been proven to give different results.

TheRealDeal · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:37

This site does a good few benchmarks on civ 5 including crossfire seems to be no problem with any card they use in this game. They are also using high tesselation and the 6870 is beating a gtx460 clocked at 850.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1022&type=expert&pid=7

MoodyB · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:46

Stanners said:
Instead of trying to be smart, why did you not post the other graphs. It is fine knocking someone who has taken the time to post the tables, yet you obviously can not be bothered to back your wise cracks up with a bit of effort.

Excuse me ? Who's trying to be smart ?

And what wise cracks ?

Skyrocket · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:51

anandtech reviews are about as accurate as weather forecast.
That review is utter fail, evga £250 460 GTX *** overclocked card in there as baseline vs a £175 factory 6870. utter fail.
I wouldnt put too much credit on those CIV5 results.

bhavv · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:52

MoodyB said:
Excuse me ? Who's trying to be smart ?

And what wise cracks ?

He was implying that maybe you could post them yourself?

I havnt read any other review including Civ V as a benchmark yet, the anand review is the first and only one I've looked where I saw Civ V results.

No one is stopping you from posting reviews from other sources if you think the one I posted is wrong in anyway.

You also have to upload every image you post here onto imageshack first as hotlinking is against the rules, it takes quite a bit of bother to go through several different reviews and taking a bench from each one.

TheRealDeal said:
This site does a good few benchmarks on civ 5 including crossfire seems to be no problem with any card they use in this game. They are also using high tesselation and the 6870 is beating a gtx460 clocked at 850.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1022&type=expert&pid=7

Sorry, but no way does Civ V run at 150 FPS+ with all the details set to max. I've been playing it myself since release, and those results are far more bogus. I turn AA up to 8x, and I definitely get massive lag with framerates dropping below 25 later on into each game. Everyone on the Civ forums are complaining about how bad the game slows down at max settings on both ATI and Nvidia setups.

crackerbear · 27 Oct 2010 at 17:55

Skyrocket said:
anandtech reviews are about as accurate as weather forecast.
That review is utter fail, evga £250 460 GTX *** overclocked card in there as baseline vs a £175 factory 6870. utter fail.

That EVGA wasn't really baseline, that did include a stock 460 as well and Nvidia themselves pushed out to reviewers to include the EVGA, Anandtech just complied.

How accurate the results are however a different matter, if you don't believe what you see there's a whole load of other reviews

TheRealDeal · 27 Oct 2010 at 18:00

bhavv said:
He was implying that maybe you could post them yourself?

I havnt read any other review including Civ V as a benchmark yet, the anand review is the first and only one I've looked where I saw Civ V results.

No one is stopping you from posting reviews from other sources if you think the one I posted is wrong in anyway.

You also have to upload every image you post here onto imageshack first as hotlinking is against the rules, it takes quite a bit of bother to go through several different reviews and taking a bench from each one.

Sorry, but no way does Civ V run at 150 FPS+ with all the details set to max. I've been playing it myself since release, and those results are far more bogus. I turn AA up to 8x, and I definitely get massive lag with framerates dropping below 25 later on into each game. Everyone on the Civ forums are complaining about how bad the game slows down at max settings on both ATI and Nvidia setups.

The main problem with the anand review is all the other sites disagree with there results. They show ati cards to be much slower than nv cards but all the other review sites show this is not the case whether some of the tables are flawed or not. In that pcper review all tables show averages under 100 except for crossfire results and the minimums on all cards are very low.

Heres another review that backs up most of the other reviews bar anand.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1053/pg13/amd-radeon-6870-and-6850-graphics-card-review-civilization-v.html

bhavv · 27 Oct 2010 at 18:07

TheRealDeal said:
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1053/pg13/amd-radeon-6870-and-6850-graphics-card-review-civilization-v.html

91 max FPS on the Geforce GTX 460? Really?

Play the game yourself. Anands review is 100% spot on with the GTX 460 SLI results, because mine are identically the same to it.

All the Civ V graphs except for the anand one are far too bogus, they are definitely doing something very wrong.

Hmmm, well it seems my SLI wasnt working when I tested, Ill try that again. Even so, the result from hardware heaven showing 91 max FPS seems like it was on a single GTX 460.