-
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.
*****OcUK Benchmark Results from ATI HD 69xx Series*****
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Something isn't right about 6800 being so close to 6900. Why did AMD release two series of cards that are so close together in performance terms? Stick 2GB of fast GDDR5 on the 6800's and they will be within spitting distance of 6900, apart from within games which demand high levels of tessellation. Why did 6800 exceed expectations by so much and why did 6900 not reach the same heights? Is it purely a case of AMD ****ing up and choosing 1536 shaders instead of 1920?
Last edited:
Dude, choosing one game at super high res and settings is not representative of overall performance. I can pick individual benchmarks where there are single figure differences but that would also be misleading. Try to be balanced.
Last edited:
I don't get what's wrong with it? I'm trying to choose between the 570 and 6970, and at the moment I'm thinking of going with a 6970. 6970 will cost me about £26 more. Performance is very similar, but I will either go for 3 screens or (more likely) a hi-res 27" which gives the edge to the 6970. And in the future when I want to add a second card, the 6970 scales better, and runs a couple of degrees cooler etc.
I will refrain from insults, but I am tempted
. Below are the results from some very extensive and accumulated testing by TPU. I am sure everyone here will agree that they know more than you or I.
The simple fact is that 6800 is only 20% slower than 6900 at resolutions most people game at. This is a pitifull differential between AMD's top card and the next series down.
edit: Here is the direct link to this very thorough review and analysis.
I have added the Super High resolution chart below. 6800 still offers three quarters of the performce of the 6900. M
Last edited:
lol look at the games hes benched to get his relative performance figures, that's not relevant to my point at all which is the 69** cards are true DX11 beasts that own the 68** cards in true next generation games like the ones I posted, is it sinking in yet. And that site benched Dirt 2 in DX9, lol.
Part of growing up is knowing when to admit you are wrong. As with the 30-40% rubbish, you have not reached this point yet.
Please show a more thorough comparison, which uses a broader spectrum of games if you can find one.
How am I wrong, I've posted up results showing the 6970 hugely faster than the 6870, we know you are protective over your 580 but come on.
I can't show more games because there are not that many demanding DX11 titles out there to challenge the 6970.
I can't show more games because there are not that many demanding DX11 titles out there to challenge the 6970.
I have quite obviously been talking about overall performance terms. Overall includes everything. Why do you attempt to narrow the field?
edit: I was discussing the relative performance between the 6800 and 6900 being so close together. This has nothing to do with GTX580's.
Last edited:
i think what we have to remember is
580 is fastest on planet but very expensive
69xx are cheaper and 2 are cheaper than 1 580 and much faster !
end of, so all of you with single 580s stop crying and get on with it, and when people with cheaper yet faster xfire cards come along, respect them and their purchase,
its getting very boring the stuff going on within this forum, and tbh i think its the 580 guys trying to justify their uber expensive cards
yeah i had one, sold it in anticipation for 69xx, it wasnt how i would have liked it, but, its not that bad either, infact in some ways it could be better than what i was expecting for the £££
for me 69xx isnt an option without xfire, 580 isnt an option because their is none
580 is fastest on planet but very expensive
69xx are cheaper and 2 are cheaper than 1 580 and much faster !
end of, so all of you with single 580s stop crying and get on with it, and when people with cheaper yet faster xfire cards come along, respect them and their purchase,
its getting very boring the stuff going on within this forum, and tbh i think its the 580 guys trying to justify their uber expensive cards
yeah i had one, sold it in anticipation for 69xx, it wasnt how i would have liked it, but, its not that bad either, infact in some ways it could be better than what i was expecting for the £££
for me 69xx isnt an option without xfire, 580 isnt an option because their is none
Last edited:
Hi,
i think people have got this all out of hand, the 6970 is a great card depending where your coming from, if your on a 480 or the 5870 then its a tough sell.
However many of us are not on those cards I was on a 4890, so a 6970 out doing a 5870 matching a 570 in the main at around the same price with the tess too boot is a good buy, thinking ahead with multi screen and the extra ram it also makes sense.
People got so wrapped thinking it would kill off the 580 they have lost sight of what this card can do and are focused on what it did not do.
In a way, we only have ourselves to blame, but don't dismiss what is in fact a good card and if your in the right bracket for an upgrade then its a sound buy, yes the 6950 with a bit of overclocking can go as fast, but and i cannot belive im about to say this!! As raven posted the other day not everyone wants to overclock every part of their system.
I for one got one today and i'm well pleased, yes its not the 580 killer but by good its a massive step up on a 4890,
i think people have got this all out of hand, the 6970 is a great card depending where your coming from, if your on a 480 or the 5870 then its a tough sell.
However many of us are not on those cards I was on a 4890, so a 6970 out doing a 5870 matching a 570 in the main at around the same price with the tess too boot is a good buy, thinking ahead with multi screen and the extra ram it also makes sense.
People got so wrapped thinking it would kill off the 580 they have lost sight of what this card can do and are focused on what it did not do.
In a way, we only have ourselves to blame, but don't dismiss what is in fact a good card and if your in the right bracket for an upgrade then its a sound buy, yes the 6950 with a bit of overclocking can go as fast, but and i cannot belive im about to say this!! As raven posted the other day not everyone wants to overclock every part of their system.
I for one got one today and i'm well pleased, yes its not the 580 killer but by good its a massive step up on a 4890,
Still not sank in then. You're making the point the 69** are not much faster, in some games this is true, I'm making the point that AMD have gone all out for fast DX11 performance as shown by the three DX11 titles I have posted showing the 6970 way faster than the 6870. Below is the the third, 6970 50% faster.
Is he saying that the 69xx series are a lot faster than the 68xx series across the board? I thought he was just saying that they're a lot faster in DX11 games, which is quite relevant because a lot of new games (which are the ones needing performance) will be DX11. The 68xx series should be better value for money than the 69xx series, cheaper cards generally are better value.
RAVEN, read my original post #562.
I posed the question why 6800 and 6900 were so close in relative performance terms. You proceeded to post individual benchmarks, attempting to prove the opposite.
My point was that overall the 6800 is only ~20% slower than 6900, even though 6800 replaced a mid-range card (5700) and 6900 replaced AMD's top end.
You quoted two individual benchmarks and I listed a combination of 20 games and benchmarks taken from a very respected review site.
Please read here for full details of games benched.
Once again, 6800 is only 20% slower OVERALL than 6900, according to independent tests (not individual tests selected to prove a point)
I posed the question why 6800 and 6900 were so close in relative performance terms. You proceeded to post individual benchmarks, attempting to prove the opposite.
My point was that overall the 6800 is only ~20% slower than 6900, even though 6800 replaced a mid-range card (5700) and 6900 replaced AMD's top end.
You quoted two individual benchmarks and I listed a combination of 20 games and benchmarks taken from a very respected review site.
Please read here for full details of games benched.
Once again, 6800 is only 20% slower OVERALL than 6900, according to independent tests (not individual tests selected to prove a point)
Last edited:
Then why reply to my posts if your comments are not relevent or in context to mine?
edit: Conversation over.
Hi,
Just to make a small point 2 x 6870 can be bought for sub £340 which when compared to a 6970 for £280+ isn't that bad considering the performance in crossfire. But i agree the 6970 will start to leap ahead of the 6870 when more demanding DX11 games are released but until then the 6870 is good value for money.
Thanks
Chris
Just to make a small point 2 x 6870 can be bought for sub £340 which when compared to a 6970 for £280+ isn't that bad considering the performance in crossfire. But i agree the 6970 will start to leap ahead of the 6870 when more demanding DX11 games are released but until then the 6870 is good value for money.
Thanks
Chris