Itching to upgrade that Ati 5870 to a shiny new 6 series card ?:rolleyes:

OpenToSuggestions · 7 Jan 2011 at 13:48

easyrider said:
That review is running 840/1325 too. Noobs!

Considering my 6950 clocks over 900/1450 is a bit of a pants article tbh.

My thoughts exactly. What a poor review to only overclock using CCC maximums.

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 16:54

mglover070588 said:
My thoughts exactly. What a poor review to only overclock using CCC maximums.

Reason for that is most people only know how to overclock via the CCC.. I think it's a fair review and extreme overclocks are only done by people intrested in computers and understand how they work. Remember average Joe has no idea what overclocking even is and what it can do for performance.

I liked the review I think it was fair and even when I checked via other respected sites their data seemed to add up... Yes they could have had overclocks over the CCC limits too to compare.. but they are aiming that review at the average Joe.

CraigN · 7 Jan 2011 at 16:58

I don't ever bother over clocking my graphics card as there is simply no need.

There are no games that ive bought that my 5870 doesn't play well.

I paid £290 for my 5870 over 15 months ago and its still fine for games. For those who didn't bother with a 5xxx series or a Fermi alternative im sure the 6950 is a great deal but for those who did upgrade from these cards its an extra £200 you've spent.

easyrider · 7 Jan 2011 at 16:59

Purgatory said:
Reason for that is most people only know how to overclock via the CCC...

Do they?

Where are you getting this data from?

easyrider · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:03

CraigN said:
I don't ever bother over clocking my graphics card as there is simply no need.

There are no games that ive bought that my 5870 doesn't play well.

I paid £290 for my 5870 over 15 months ago and its still fine for games. For those who didn't bother with a 5xxx series or a Fermi alternative im sure the 6950 is a great deal but for those who did upgrade from these cards its an extra £200 you've spent.

People who sold their 5870 for £175 and upgraded to a 6950 are the happy ones too.

I had a 6870 which I bought for 175 on release day and it was on par with a 5870 in some games.

Makes £290 for a 5870 overpriced if you look at it from this point of view.

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:06

easyrider said:
Do they?

Where are you getting this data from?

easyrider I have worked in the I.T Trade for 20+ years now and I have built many systems for people and to this day you mention overclocking to "average Joe or Jodie" they look at me with a blank expression on their face.. Us folk here are in our own little world when it comes to computers, thats why we are on an overclocking forum... Maybe if you spend less time infront of the PC and more outside you will know what I mean :rolleyes:

Sorry to be sarcastic.. but that was a silly reply from you...

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:12

easyrider said:
People who sold their 5870 for £175 and upgraded to a 6950 are the happy ones too.

I had a 6870 which I bought for 175 on release day and it was on par with a 5870 in some games.

Makes £290 for a 5870 overpriced if you look at it from this point of view.

I paid £280 for my Asus 5870 reference the 1st day they came out.. I know I would not sell it for £175 and then have to spend another £50 min for a 6950 (without 6970 unlocking) that in most cases is slower then the 5870 in games... I'm not a benchmark junkie, I just want my games to work and play at decent frame rates without any headaches. The best buy I made on this PC was the 5870 it's the only card I have not had to update every year so far for a good while. I wouldn't even sell it for £175 if the 6970 was same price as the 6950 now.. It's a pointless upgrade for me.. I maybe will see 2-5 frames more in the average game on a 6970 that does not use tessellation ?... Still waiting for a game that actually makes good use of tessellation or even DX11... Most games so far have not even used DX10 to it's potential...

easyrider · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:13

Purgatory said:
easyrider I have worked in the I.T Trade for 20+ years now and I have built many systems for people and to this day you mention overclocking to "average Joe or Jodie" they look at me with a blank expression on their face.. Us folk here are in our own little world when it comes to computers, thats why we are on an overclocking forum... Maybe if you spend less time infront of the PC and more outside you will know what I mean Sorry to be sarcastic.. but that was a silly reply from you...

I don't think it was silly. It was a genuine question.

Your statement is based on conjecture not fact.

I would argue that anyone who has £300 to spend on a gfx card has a pretty good idea what overclocking is. And what GFX hardware is about.

Average Joe: Does not spend £300 on a GFX card either.

easyrider · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:14

Purgatory said:
for a 6950 that in most cases is slower then the 5870 in games...

This is quite frankly FUD

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:33

easyrider said:
This is quite frankly FUD

Well I game at 1920 x 1200 techpowerups says it's 2% slower the 5870 compared to a 6950 on average with useless benchmark tools added into that average.. so you saying to me spending more money on a 2% average is a wise choice ? :rolleyes:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/29.html

now coming back to games and comparing some results...

Games I play...

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 ......5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is faster then 6950...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/8.html

Call of Duty 4.....5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is faster then 6950...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/10.html

Crysis....5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is faster then 6950...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/12.html

DiRT 2.....5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is faster then 6950...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/14.html

Formula One 2010 .....5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is faster then 6950...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/15.html

Unreal Tournament 3....5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is slower then 6950.. by under 5 frames... in a game hitting 170+ frames almost.. useful 5 frames that I will not miss..

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/22.html

Tom Clancy's HAWX....5870 at my res 1920 x1200 is slower then 6950.. by under 2.7 frames... in a game hitting 100+ frames almost.. useful 2.7 frames that I will not miss..

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/17.html

See my point ? it only ever shows up in benchmarks the difference... I don't play benchmarks lol :rolleyes:

FUD ? or not to FUD ?

Barzini · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:35

I think upgrading to a 6900 card from a 5870 was never going to be worthwhile, unless you could get lucky and sell on your 5870 for a good amount. The performance gains of 10-20% simply don't justify the outlay, but getting more gains was simply never going to be viable when they were still on the 40nm process. Look for the 28nm cards coming late 2011/early 2012, that is the real next generation.

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:39

Barzini said:
Look for the 28nm cards coming late 2011/early 2012, that is the real next generation.

Exactly my point

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 17:47

easyrider said:
Average Joe: Does not spend £300 on a GFX card either.

You reading these forums with your eyes open or using the force ?

Average Joe keeps buying a £300+ card because his buddy down the street has a cool pc and his xbox or ps3 sucks compared to it and comes here buys what he can afford and sticks it in his branded office Dell or HP or Gateway pc hoping to make it run all the games his buddy has... and blows up his cheap PSU or the thing wont even POST or beep and wonders why when the card said on the box it would work in his pc, but ofcourse average Joe has no idea what a Watt is and what it meant by min PSU xxx Watts.. :rolleyes:

Most of this forum is full of average Joes that come here asking us "the people that understand all the tech gobbledigook" and to explain it to them in Average Joe English.. It's like me going into a hospital and watching a brain surgeon work.. I would have no idea what he's talking about or doing...

buttkinz · 7 Jan 2011 at 18:00

yup, same applies to the 400 series up to the 500 series from nvidia, no point for the extra 10-20% although the new cards have made the slightly older ones great value

Purgatory · 7 Jan 2011 at 18:06

Very true... I know if today I still had my Sapphire 4870 toxic, I would be looking with a big grin on my face at the Ati 6950 or even the GTX 570. Even some of the new cards are great value now and the older gen are amazing value now if you look at how well they perform for your £.

Mojo · 7 Jan 2011 at 18:38

The jump from GTX4XX to GTX5XX and the jump from 5XXX to 6XXX has seemed rather... well... depressing.
It's usually the rule of thumb that the new generation's mainstream cards are the same speed as the previous generation's high end, but the performance jump has only really made half that. The 6950 = 5870 and the GTX570 = GTX480, and both of them are more expensive than their previous generation brethren.

Enhancements made in crossfire/SLi notwithstanding, the last few months have been rather anticlimactic =( Will certainly be holding on to my 5870 for the next few months at least.

Davedree · 7 Jan 2011 at 18:46

That was an interesting benchmark comparsion. Deja vu like.
I skipped the 5 series as I decided to keep my 4870 for another year.
If i had a 5 series I'd laugh at the 6 series for quite a few reasons.
However I've come from a 4870 to a 6950 that has unlocked to a 6970 and my opinion of this card is both over the moon and disappointed.

The performance I'm very happy with, the power requirements i'm ok with.
The fact it unlocked and comes with switchable bios !!! Genius and stonking value ,, the thermals not very pleased with though , and the driver support is always behind on schedule and then your left wondering if cat 11.1 will improve performance.

I still call them by ATI , like coco pops were renamed Choco Krispies, no ****ing way i called them that, and my last one Starburst, nope they are Opal Fruits.

Amd to me have lost their edge, the bite and my faith a little.
A long time has passed since the socket 939 days, and we all know what failures and disappointment the phenom brought. It was so bad It made me turn to intel for the first time in my life !!

The phenom II was a success but it was a bit too late, I'm not knocking the pII but the original phenom should have been as good the first time around.

Thats how I summarise these 69** cards
Amd/Ati (for me its ATI

have made a phenom 1 again on the basis that they are at thermal limits/power dissipation on the process and so have had to cut a lot of performance off to make the product marketable and functional.
I wish the 69 had been made on 32nm instead we have to wait for 28nm. It will be interesting for both amd and ati this year, as we are waiting upon Bulldozer and Antilles .

The 6950 still didn't stop me from buying it, massive gain from a 4870 512mb and I was lucky to unlock it and have it stable.
Now we just need some development in pc gaming to make use of our superior hardware to the console boys.

PrinzEugen · 7 Jan 2011 at 19:45

Mojo said:
The jump from GTX4XX to GTX5XX and the jump from 5XXX to 6XXX has seemed rather... well... depressing.
It's usually the rule of thumb that the new generation's mainstream cards are the same speed as the previous generation's high end, but the performance jump has only really made half that. The 6950 = 5870 and the GTX570 = GTX480, and both of them are more expensive than their previous generation brethren.

Enhancements made in crossfire/SLi notwithstanding, the last few months have been rather anticlimactic =( Will certainly be holding on to my 5870 for the next few months at least.

Yes the jumps when new cards launch certainly doesn't seem so much these days - which in a way is better for buyers because their purchase lasts longer - especially those who don't feel confident about upgrading something themselves.

^Andy^ · 7 Jan 2011 at 20:20

I had a pair of 4870's in crossfire, blagged a 6870 on release day for 175 quid to replace them with (I wanted a single card solution). It worked well enough in games and turned in benchies within spitting distance of a 5870 when overclocked but it didn't work in Mac OS X Snow Leopard (I dual boot).

Overclockers a few weeks ago did a promo on an XFX 5870 delivered (including vat) for £176.24 so I blagged one of those too. The 5870 is now in my main pc (works in Mac OS X Snow Leopard) and the 6870 relegated to my spare. Speed wise they are similar but the 5870 does slightly beat the overclocked 6870 (without the 5870 being overclocked).

Not sure where I'm going with this other than if you have a 58xx series card there is honestly no point in upgrading right now and I suspect the same goes for Nvidia 470 or 480 owners.

The new series cards from both camps are crap upgrades full stop but if you are a first time buyer then they make sense.

easyrider · 7 Jan 2011 at 23:05

^Andy^ said:
Not sure where I'm going with this other than if you have a 58xx series card there is honestly no point in upgrading right now

.

I disagree.

And really who cares about Macs?

They are ******************

Fact is people who are wise and ditched their 5870's are in a good place with a 6950/6970 under the hood