Hardware ATI Radeon HD 6950 Review

You'd have to be insane to buy a 480 over a 6970 or 570. Furthermore, just so you know, the 6970 out performs the 570 at higher resolutions, supports multiple monitors and demands marginally less power than the 570. However, either of theme is a good choice.
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6970/29.html


BTW, why would you claim that AMD failed, or be glad about that? You enjoy paying premium prices?

 

Why refer to another sites review? Was it more favourable than this one towards AMD?

Damien C, I don't think you will get that much demand for resale value on a pair of 480's in march when you come to upgrade to the far superior 580's. I'd stick with just your current card and then make you intended purchase in march. AMD have now alledgedly said they don't intend to compete with a single card solution to the 580, so your original idea for march is sound.

 

Huh!? That performance chart, which is one of the few presented on the web, was intended to add credence to my claims that the 6970 is better at higher resolutions. This claim has been made my a number of sites, since the 6970 has 2gb of memory.

Furthermore, the chart even says the 570 is better overall (by 1%) at most resolutions; so how could it be favorable to AMD? Did you even click the link?

I'm not sure what your overall "beef" is.....But, meh.

 

I am not going to sell the GTX 480 or 2 of them if I buy a 2nd, I will just give them to my dad instead as I don't like selling the old bit's unless I put them in a full pc which mean's then I have to add a warranty etc and then, have to deal with people calling me because something may have broke.

When I upgrade my pc my dad get's all my old bit's, I upgraded from a i7 920 to a i7 950 for the extra multiplier and higher stock speed, so managed to overclock my 950 to 4.6ghz but my 920 would only just manage 4.0ghz.

I also upgraded my mobo at the same time and ram so gave my dad my old bit's which he is happy with and even happier with my 2 GTX 280's, which he now run's both were watercooled as they were both from the 1st batch so were running very hot.

 

I would rather buy a GTX 480 as I already have one and would go to sli, instead of spending more money and getting less performance, yes it may be cheaper to run a 6970 but I prefer being able to play game's at my max resolution of 1920x1080 with max detail's not have to drop detail's just because I opted for a cheap card that can't handle the detail's.

The GTX 570 is not worth it due to it not really being much better than the GTX 480 well not worth the money for a extra possible 5 - 10%.

The GTX 580 is worth it when I plan to upgrade to 1 or 2 of them simply because by then I will be doing a full rebuild so my dad, will get my whole pc and my grandad will get my dad's pc.

As for the last part of you post I am not glad for the fact that AMD/ATI failed to compete with the GTX 580, because if it had of done then it would have dropped the price of the GTX 580 but instead it has meant that the GTX 480 has gone cheaper.

My choice of which card to upgrade to next year would have been more difficult if AMD/ATI, had actually released a card that was worth even considering for more than 5 minutes but as they have not then I will, stick with Nvidia until they do release a card even worth considering.

People may think I am a Nvidia fanboy and can say it all they want but the fact is when I am, spending in the region of £2000 for a pc I want the best and if that mean's ever since the 8800's that is Nvidia then so be it but, next year when I upgrade be it march or when the real sandy bridge get's released if ATI/AMD are better then I will use them.

It's the same with cpu's I want the best performance and overclocking which mean's I use Intel and not AMD, and will continue to do so untill AMD can compete with Intel I mean a 6 core AMD cpu struggle's to compete when overclocked to a Intel Quad core when overclocked.

Sorry but AMD have killed of the competition for high end graphic's card's I feel when they bought ATI, simply because AMD seem to be in the frame of mind of "we cannot compete at the high end so we will stick to the cheap and cheerfull and leave the high end and enthusiast's to use Intel and Nvidia" for a while, now gone are the day's of when the ATI card's use to leave the Nvidia card's standing and when AMD cpu's were faster and cheaper than the Intel.

I do hope though that AMD come out next year with some amazing stuff that leave Intel and Nvidia standing, as it will mean cheaper kit and better performance for the cheap price but I cannot see it happening.

Back on topic the price for the AMD/ATI 6970 of £280 - £410 is to high I would only pay £240 for it, considering how it perform's compared to the GTX 480 and GTX 570 one thing, ATI/AMD have always been good at it performing maybe 10% less than Nvidia but being anything up to 50% cheaper but not anymore.

The 6970 may have more ram than the GTX 570 and GTX 580 but how many game's do you know that use more than 1.5gb, personnaly I don't know any as Crysis was never really played by me untill I got the GTX 480.

Folding is faster on Nvidia cards, and video work also appear's to be faster on Nvidia thank's to Cuda so not only are they good at game's but they are also good at other thing's unlike AMD/ATI.

 

How many games use more than 1.5gb? You do realize that none of the games specifically rely on high ram, but it benefits at higher resolutions, right? That's why the 6970 distances itself (slightly) at higher res from the 570. Furthermore, not everyone is inclined to fold. Claiming that someone is "insane" for purchasing a 6970 is laughable to me. Nvidia may be better for you, but that's purely subjective; not a fact. In other words, I disagree with you, but it's your opinion.

I wonder why people claim this? It's silly. Unless you're playing at the lowest resolutions with the graphics set to bare minimum, you won't notice a real advantage with Intel cpus. Hell, I explained this to someone here already. It's the GPU that factors more so into gaming performance. Now, if you're doing some sort of video work, or relying extensively on the CPU, then it's a different story.

Here's where I discussed the matter:

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2506830&postcount=36

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2506845&postcount=37

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2506863&postcount=41

 

Have to agree. There seem to be a lot of people (especially online) making the mistake of throwing around opinions as though they are fact.

From what I can see, while the Intel cpus are better all round especially once you overclock them, that the amd chips are actually pretty good for gaming. Especially if you are on a budget.

 

Why does every thread about CPUs/GPUs turn into a fan boy battle?

GTX 480 = too hot, too loud, too much power consumption
GTX 570 = cooler, quieter, a tad more performance, a tiny tad more power consumed
6950 = cool, quiet, not as fast as a 570, cheap
6970 = cool, quiet, around the same speed as a 570 (depending on game & settings), a little more expensive than 570

 

Because like I said before, people throw around their opinions as truth. Anyone who disagrees with any opposing opinion is therefore labelled as stupid.

Personally the only thing I get fanboy-ish over is Bioware. Hardware generally changes from one generation to the next. For me though I prefer Intel over Amd as far as cpus go. And as far as gpus go, hmm tricky one. I've had both but generally had more joy with ATI than Nvidia.

 

1 month later and still nothing from nvidia on the horizon.
I've just ordered a couple 6950 which seemed like the best bang for the buck for 3 monitor gaming. At those high resolutions it's a great match for 570 SLI and even manages to get ahead of 580 SLI in some occasions.

I'm pretty confident with my choice, I just hope the GTX560 won't be available in a 2.5 or 3GB version anytime soon or I may regret it as I'd have been happier with nvidia drivers.