AMD 6900 reviews thread (UPDATED)

[Zargon]

Yes, that is true. But people shouldn't be blaiming Nvidia for charging what the market has always accepted is the accepted price of the top GPU. And if AMD could...I can assure they would too. They aren't pricing their cards the way they are out of the goodness of their hearts.

Ah, well I clearly misunderstood you then perhaps. My bad. Still, my point holds

yeah no I reread it, and it seemed more antinvidia than I am.

 

[Zargon]

Lets face it most people who have the money for a 400$ card have the money for a 500$ card. They buy the 500$ card because they can and, because its faster. I know I would.

at lower res :awe:

its all a trade off if I get a 6970 im not getting something else instead....so not really all that easy

 

[happy medium]

Really ? I have $700 remaining to finish the upcoming build. And if I can save an additional $100 for "other" hardware like a even faster CPU. I know I would.

So lets say I decide to go with a larger monitor than a 24". That is where that extra $100 comes into play at. And I would get equal to or better performance as I would with a GTX580.

So. Get the 6970. Save $100. Put the saved $100 towards a higher resolution monitor. Get a hair better performance.

I said "most people", not mentalilness.

 

[happy medium]

at lower res

Proof and links please. I took the bait, bring it.

I'll start it off.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...899-amd-radeon-hd-6970-hd-6950-review-28.html

 

[Teizo]

I guess no one is blaming Nvidia, its just that AMD made it really hard to choose between $100 and 10% increase in performance.

Yeah, given the performance of the 570, and especially the performance of the 570 OC, which no doubt affected the positioning of the 6970...the price of the 580 makes it less appealing now. One thing that is contributing to that is that PC Games these days aren't as demanding overall as they used to be, so a $500 card is not necessary to play at the usual resolution most people play with good framerates.

I have a feeling with performance the way it is now, and pc gaming how it is now, with the advent of apu's, and the 28nm process, there won't be much demand for really high priced gpu's in the future. They are going to have to find a way to make them more economically feasible for people to take the bait, and the 28nm process should help them lower prices (I hope).

 

[Attic]

This is exactly what I am saying. But still, being over $100 cheaper for the 6970....would someone still have to purchase a GTX580 since a 6970 at lower resolutions renders the game unplayable?

6970 is simply the better card at the highest settings/highest resolution. And going down in resolution, does not give a GTX580 an advantage what so ever being over $100 more.

Any of these cards will play anything at any resolution. But there is only one "better" card for the extreme high end.

GTX580 = $500 +
______

Awesome performance at all resolutions.

6970 = $369
____

Awesome performance at all resolutions. And better at extreme resolution with higher in game settings while being a $100/$130 cheaper.

That is the kicker and I think the high point for AMD with this card. It's wayyyy cheaper than a 580 and it's performance is solid-awsome everywhere.

 

[busydude]

Lets face it most people who have the money for a 400$ card have the money for a 500$ card. They buy the 500$ card because they can and, because its faster.

Its not that easy or straight forward. You are speaking as if its the norm..

 

[Zargon]

Proof and links please. I took the bait, bring it.

I'll start it off.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...899-amd-radeon-hd-6970-hd-6950-review-28.html

see the OP, 2560 or whatever the 6970 seems to eb ahead does it not?

I'd go digging but im posting from a training seminar, feel free to show me that I am confused though....


EDIT: you are faster than me, see reason above

 

[busydude]

Yeah, given the performance of the 570, and especially the performance of the 570 OC, which no doubt affected the positioning of the 6970...the price of the 580 makes it less appealing now. One thing that is contributing to that is that PC Games these days aren't as demanding overall as they used to be, so a $500 card is not necessary to play at the usual resolution most people play with good framerates.

Oh.. yeah the gap between 570 and 580 is pretty ridiculous, I must say. They both are very good cards, but 580 is really the outlier in terms of price/performance.

 

[happy medium]

That is the kicker and I think the high point for AMD with this card. It's wayyyy cheaper than a 580 and it's performance is solid-awsome everywhere.

369$ 6970 is to the 500$ gtx580 as the 300$ 4870 was to the 600$ gtx280.

Hold onto you wallets guys, prices will drop soon on the gtx5xx series if they don't sell well. And mabe just mabe the 6970 will follow.

 

[Wreckage]

Thats fairly irrelevant though, why they are cheap doesn't matter as long as they are cheap.

They are cheaper because they are slower and have less features. Like an economy car. If they were faster and had more features, they could and certainly would sell them for more money. It's not AMD.org

 

[nitromullet]

Thats fairly irrelevant though, why they are cheap doesn't matter as long as they are cheap.

I think if you buy a GTX 570 or 6970 you are getting what you pay for. They're competitively priced with each other. The GTX 570 is more consistent across the board, but the 6970 performs much better in a number of instances. If you believe that AMD will squeeze more out of the 6970 with drivers in areas where they are behind, go that way. If you are more inclined to more predicable performance at the cost of never hitting the top, the GTX 570 is probably the card for you.

You do pay a premium for the GTX 580. In this case, you are paying for consistent, predicable performance that generally beats every other single gpu card out. Whether that is worth the money or not probably comes down to individual preference and budget. It seems that a number of people seem to think it is worth it, the GTX 580 is almost completely sold out wherever you look.

The 6950 is clearly the best bang for the buck, but it suffers from inconsistent performance as well. Probably still worth it for the price for most people.

 

[busydude]

They are cheaper because they are slower and have less features.

Slower - check.
Less features - does not compute.

 

[Teizo]

Oh.. yeah the gap between 570 and 580 is pretty ridiculous, I must say. They both are very good cards, but 580 is really the outlier in terms of price.

They might have been expecting more from the 6970 than it turned out to be, so they prepared for the worst. Now, they got this really nice card at a really expensive price point the market may, or may not, demand.

When the 595 and 6990 come out, the 580 may drop in price some to jocky for a more competitive price point. Of course, one thing to also consider is this supposed price increase by AMD. I don't know if that is a farce to create a greater perceived need to get their cards now, but that is going to affect how Nvidia responds as well.

 

[Wreckage]

Slower - check.
Less features - does not compute.

-PhysX
-CUDA
-3D
-TWIMTBP
-Ambient Occlusion
-Transparency AA

And in many peoples/reviewers opinions, better drivers and image quality.

 

[MentalIlness]

They are cheaper because they are slower and have less features. Like an economy car. If they were faster and had more features, they could and certainly would sell them for more money. It's not AMD.org

Yea, you are "exactly" right. They "are" slower. At lower resolutions. And just about = at higher resolutions with higher settings.

Cheaper by almost $130 and that is how much money you save by purchasing a 6970. Although you lose a "whopping" 10% performance.

How do they have less features ? Nvidia doesn't have Powertune. And refresh my memory, for 3D, how many NV cards do you need ? One or two ?

For Eyefinity, you need "one" card.

Cuda and Physx isn't features. To me anyway. You barely hear anything about Physx now. And to me, Cuda is not important. And tessallation, in a few years when it matters, maybe. But not now.

These arguments can be spun around all day long. But in the end....the GTX580 is "green" with envy.

 

[Zargon]

-PhysX - crap
-CUDA - crap
-3D ATI does 3d too
-TWIMTBP -utter utter crap


And in many peoples/reviewers opinions, better drivers and image quality.

better drivers usually sure

 

[MentalIlness]

-PhysX = Barely spoken of anymore.
-CUDA = Not important to me. And probably the vast majority.
-3D = More than "one" card to make this happen.
-TWIMTBP = AMD cards are just perfectly fine with this at all resolutions.
-Ambient Occlusion
-Transparency AA = And ? AMD has MLAA. To "fans" its blurry though.

And in many peoples/reviewers opinions, better drivers and image quality.

Fixed.

And for better drivers and image quality. I cannot comment on because my last three cards has been NV. But to reviews I have seen....IQ is pretty much the same.

 

[busydude]

-PhysX
-CUDA
-3D
-TWIMTBP
-Ambient Occlusion
-Transparency AA

And in many peoples/reviewers opinions, better drivers and image quality.

- Gaming Evolved (Better line up of games when compared to TWIMTBP, IMO)
- Eyefinity(Single card)
- 3D
- MLAA and EQAA
- Can drive 6 monitors using a single card

Ambient Occlusion is incorporated into DX 11 IIRC.. correct me if I am wrong.

Drivers- I have had no issues with my setup.. but Nvidia is better I guess, I can't say for sure. IQ is debatable.

 

[Zargon]

not need 2 cards to triple monitor game is a huge ati ++++

 

[nitromullet]

- Gaming Evolved (Better line up of games when compared to TWIMTBP, IMO)

You certainly have a right to your opinion, but what exactly is the line up of Gaming Evolved games?

It's really not clear from their site: http://sites.amd.com/us/game/community/Pages/aboutgamingevolved.aspx

Between Black Ops, Cataclysm, and StarCraft II; NVIDIA has all the heavy hitters of 2010 covered.

http://in.nzone.com/object/nzone_twimtbp_gameslist_in.html

 

[Wreckage]

Well I won't draw this offtopic any further. I will just say that some people who drive economy cars also downplay features like air conditioning, cruise control, seats, etc. That's all I see here. The fact is that NVIDIA is able to sell their cards for more money and make a substantial profit, while AMD is not.

If you want to discuss it more feel free to send me a PM, otherwise.... So the 6970 reviews are out eh? I still have not read all of them, I may just check out a few more today.

 

[Burpy]

Big plus for 3 monitor on a single card for AMD cards. My brother has a 6870 powering 2 LCDs and a 42" HDTV.

Watching movies, surfing the net, and playing WoW. I will give Nvidia the nod for better drivers tho.

I planned on getting the 6950 for myself, but might hold off until I get a clearer picture of the Nvidia 560.

 

[busydude]

It's really not clear from their site:

http://sites.amd.com/us/game/games/Pages/games.aspx

I am more into racing games.. not a big fan of MMO's and BF:BC2>COD(Atleast on the PC)

 

[NIGELG]

Why try to argue with fanboys?PhysX is a rotting corpse as far as I see.The 6900 reviews have not blown me away except for the crossfire scaling.I'll hold on to my trusty 'economy' 5850 for the while even though the 570 and 6970/50 is slightly tempting.