• 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.

ATI cuts 6950 allocation

IF this performance is correct where does this leave the 6950, that could be the card to get and overclock if it comes in well cheaper than the 6970. Still does not make sense the small jump in performance we are seeing here, I mean the 5870 was on the 480's heels performance wise and the 6970 is basically on par with a 480 if these results are correct.
 
computemark_hd5870_1920x1080_extreme.jpg


just compare it to the 6970
6970computemarkxmc9.jpg
 
Last edited:
surely though a card should run ok with the supplied drivers, newer drivers shouldn't make that much difference. maybe <5% certainly not 15-20%, i mean what about those poor souls that are not connected so they cant get the latest driver.
 
bru said:
surely though a card should run ok with the supplied drivers, newer drivers shouldn't make that much difference. maybe <5% certainly not 15-20%, i mean what about those poor souls that are not connected so they cant get the latest driver.
Click to expand...

I have seen some big jumps (20-25%) in performance from drivers in certain games, and 10-15% overall on occasions. But not often, and not for a very long time.

Some of the results people are posting are raising a lot of unanswered questions, and I think we are seeing a lot of BS being thrown about TBH.
 
yes i agree that drivers 6 months down the line might give a bit of a boost but if they can give out drivers that give that sort of boost to reviewers then there is no excuse, they should have bundled those drivers with the cards,
 
bru said:
yes i agree that drivers 6 months down the line might give a bit of a boost but if they can give out drivers that give that sort of boost to reviewers then there is no excuse, they should have bundled those drivers with the cards,
Click to expand...

The cards haven't hit retail yet, and the results we are getting are more than a little suspect, but I agree if the numbers are down to the shipped driver its a **** up from ATI. Its not such a major issue as 99% of people will never even use the installation disk, never mind run the driver, but its something that would niggle me too.
 
jigger said:
I have seen some big jumps (20-25%) in performance from drivers in certain games, and 10-15% overall on occasions. But not often, and not for a very long time.

Some of the results people are posting are raising a lot of unanswered questions, and I think we are seeing a lot of BS being thrown about TBH.
Click to expand...

That is often true of same architectures, theres a reason the 480gtx gained almost smeg all from launch to now, look at even the biased TPU results, the 480gtx is almost identical in games from launch to now with only 1-2 noticeable increases.

A new architecture leaves HUGE room for improvement, but as said, the numbers just don't really add up at all so far, we'll have to see.

Basically he can be using drivers that, well the drivers support dx11, the card can translate dx11 instructions, but that doesn't mean the driver is in any way optimised for that architecture.

The numbers are ALL over the place, and that suggest drivers that just aren't optimised.

Has he said where he got the drivers from, a disc or is he just using the latest from AMD's site?


Anyway, as I hinted at, if he did get it from a friend(or if he works at powercolor himself) and not at retail, you'd lie about it to cover your friend. So we can't really say for sure where he got it, if its a shipping model, if Powercolor have the right bios/drivers, anything really.
 
I'd love to think that was really the 6950 and the 6970 had say 1920 SP... but as I said before I have a good source who says the 6970 is 1536 SP.

EDIT: Or maybe I "made that all up" like I "normally" do and just happened to get a fairly arbitary number correct? :confused:
 
Rroff said:
I'd love to think that was really the 6950 and the 6970 had say 1920 SP... but as I said before I have a good source who says the 6970 is 1536 SP.
Click to expand...

Both you and Raven have great sources :D

I mean Raven's source said 40% faster than a 580GTX:p

Funny how he fails to mention it:p
 
We can't count it out yet... if that did turn out to be the 6950 (which seems unlikely) then the 6970 would quite feasibly be in the 30+% faster than 580 ball park.

As I said before tho, my source is the same as my info on the 58xx cards - which anyone can look back and find I was correct about.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
IF this performance is correct where does this leave the 6950, that could be the card to get and overclock if it comes in well cheaper than the 6970. Still does not make sense the small jump in performance we are seeing here, I mean the 5870 was on the 480's heels performance wise and the 6970 is basically on par with a 480 if these results are correct.
Click to expand...

And with so fewer shaders there's no reason why it should be using so much power. All very odd. How did he measure the power usage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom