bit-tech.net

ATI Radeon HD 6870 Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 160

Reply
SlowMotionSuicide 22nd October 2010, 05:20 Quote
Nice.

Also nice, it didn't made my GTX480 obsolete overnight;)
HourBeforeDawn 22nd October 2010, 05:29 Quote
well its a mid range card so no it wouldnt take out the GTX480.

Going to pick up one of these for kicks to play with and then later get the 69XX series when it comes out.
Fractal 22nd October 2010, 05:36 Quote
Good to get some more competition in the graphics market, been a bit lacking for the last year.
cameron stokes 22nd October 2010, 05:47 Quote
anyone know when the 6900 series are supposed to hit? i want one so that my vmware snow leopard can run properly. damn gtx 460 isn't supported =(
Mentai 22nd October 2010, 05:54 Quote
BUT DOES IT PLAY CRYSIS?

No really, I hope the 6900 reviews include Crysis. I still want to see benchmarks of that game running at 1920*1080 4x AA with 60fps. It hasn't happened yet, and when it does, I will buy that card and finally play a game from 2007.
knuck 22nd October 2010, 05:56 Quote
for that price ? Very interesting !

240$ is a heal of a bargain
g3n3tiX 22nd October 2010, 06:13 Quote
It's AMD now, ATI is dead. (sadly)
Sorry, had to point that out, ATI is used everywhere in the article...

Interesting card, will wait to see how the 6900 performs.
I think launching mid-range first is dangerous as all the early adopters (who often havve deep pockets) will get these instead of the higher priced 69xx, thus making less money to AMD.
Or is it to gain traction before launching the actual behemoth ?
leexgx 22nd October 2010, 06:16 Quote
ATI is fine some mite think we are talking about CPUs here if AMD is used :)
Adnoctum 22nd October 2010, 06:39 Quote
Most large performance increases generation to generation have been due to process shrinks allowing more transistors and lower power consumption for a given die size. As these are on the same 40nm process as the HD5xxx series, I think huge performance increases were unrealistic.

I'll be waiting for the HD69xx reviews for the generation performance increase though. It will put the HD6850/HD6870 performance into perspective.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 22nd October 2010, 07:15 Quote
I'm very very impressed with these benchmarks as AMD GPU division has so far done a fine job.

The HD 6870 and 6850 are cooler, quieter, and use less Juice than the GTX 470 and GTX 460 and are +/- two FPS better or worse than the Nvidia cards at the same price point ($250 $199).

Sure the Nvidia cards still hold the lead when FULL tessellation is applied but the AMD cards pull their weight but in reality only the GTX 480 can muster 30 FPS during Unigine Heaven Extreme Tessellation.

Crossfire was a HUGE surprise to me as I saw 85 to 95% scaling as the the HD 6870 CF beat the GTX 470 Sli in Far Cry 2 which is a Nvidia stronghold game while the HD 6850 CF beat the HD 5870 CF and was 7 FPS slower than the GTX 470 sli.

I'm very impressed with these mid range cards and can't wait to see AMD's HD6900 series with it's 384 bit (it's about time) interface. Bravo AMD.
Ph4ZeD 22nd October 2010, 07:55 Quote
eBuyer has this card for £176. So launch day pricing considerably cheaper.
azrael- 22nd October 2010, 07:56 Quote
So... how quiet is the stock cooler?
xaser04 22nd October 2010, 07:57 Quote
Hmmm that is suprising. I was expecting (following all the rumours) the newer 4D shader design rather than the 5D design of the 58xx series.

I have a couple of constructive criticisms about this review if I may:

- Perhaps a stock overclocked GTX460 1GB could have been included, given how well they overclock and the fact so many can be bought (for not much more than the stock versions) pre overclocked it would be a useful addition.
- Either run a proper FRAPS run through in Just Cause 2 (in game) or use the Dark Tower in game benchmark. Concrete Jungle is not representative of in game performance at all.

I suppose how well these cards do will all come down to price and quality of drivers.
rainbowbridge 22nd October 2010, 08:00 Quote
very impressed bit tech have added arma 2 to the benchmarks, keep it up, good job.

rb
Xtrafresh 22nd October 2010, 08:05 Quote
I find your justification for the naming scheme shift very disagreeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Calling the new GPUs the HD 6700 series would have killed HD 5700 sales, so Barts therefore had to be called a HD 6800 GPU – it was the most logically choice and we think the best option given the awkward situation.
We are talking about cards that are 110 dollars apart! If the marketing guys arent able to explain to customers that the 5770 is a great deal (it is), that's their problem, and i don't think that upsetting their entire naming scheme will do them much good.

Besides, the 'awkward position' you describe is largely based on pricing, and right now that's as volatile as ... well i'll leave the funny similaires to you.

On top of all that, there is just no way that any of this can be explained in a meaningful way to the average Joe that walks into a shop and wants to buy a graphics card for his kid. The rules are complicated enough already, but now that AMD has decided not to follow them, the card's name just became meaningless.

How on earth should anybody know that a 5870 is faster then a 6870?
Elton 22nd October 2010, 08:28 Quote
Well, they also had to make the transition i believe.

Using the x9xx name just for Dual GPUs seems kind of a waste no? Plus in the long run, it's MUCH more logical now.
Xtrafresh 22nd October 2010, 08:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Well, they also had to make the transition i believe.

Using the x9xx name just for Dual GPUs seems kind of a waste no? Plus in the long run, it's MUCH more logical now.
A waste? No, it isn't it's a very logical reservation should they ever want to upgrade an existing architecture, exactly like they are very wise to call the fastest card of a family the xx70 and not the xx90: it left a perfect place for the 4890 when market and technology circumstances required the card to be slotted in there.
IMO, they should also have stuck with the X2 moniker for the dual-GPU cards. It leaves great opportunity for future 6870 x2 cards, or even 5770 x2 cards.

And as for the long run... Market prices and technology are continually shifting. That's why i think the name of the card should say what it really IS, and calling these things 6870s is just wrong.

It may not be as bad as reVidia's endless G92 shenanigans or counterIntel's hyper-confusing i3-i5-i7 scheme, but it's definately a step in the same direction, and as somebody who has to explain this to customers on a day-to-day basis, i do NOT approve.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 22nd October 2010, 08:40 Quote
HD 6870 = GTX 470
HD 6850 < GTX 460
HD 6990 = Dual GPU
X2 = 2 existing GPU's with the same clocks slapped on one card


plus leaves room for a HD 6890 to take on a GTX 475 or a HD 6980 vs. GTX 485 the numbering system makes sense to me and leaves room for future refreshes.

or maybe the Nvida CEo and the AMD CEo get drunk together and just name their cards after their receipt totals, who knows?
GravitySmacked 22nd October 2010, 08:50 Quote
Nice looking card and some decent performance.
leveller 22nd October 2010, 09:10 Quote
Bring on the high end GFX card war.
Niftyrat 22nd October 2010, 09:22 Quote
I also don't like the new naming scheme as I was expecing the 6870 to match the 5870 at least.
Xtrafresh 22nd October 2010, 09:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
HD 6870 = GTX 470
HD 6850 < GTX 460
HD 6990 = Dual GPU
X2 = 2 existing GPU's with the same clocks slapped on one card


plus leaves room for a HD 6890 to take on a GTX 475 or a HD 6980 vs. GTX 485 the numbering system makes sense to me and leaves room for future refreshes.

or maybe the Nvida CEo and the AMD CEo get drunk together and just name their cards after their receipt totals, who knows?
That would explain a lot!
Senilex 22nd October 2010, 10:03 Quote
AMD Radeon guys, not ATI Radeon, how can you make such a poor mistake?
Domestic_ginger 22nd October 2010, 10:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senilex
AMD Radeon guys, not ATI Radeon, how can you make such a poor mistake?

My thoughts exactly.

Otherwise good review; any chance of some OCing and voltage tweaking?
Hawkest 22nd October 2010, 10:24 Quote
i'm dissapointed that there are now tests done on crysis.

as most graphics cards still struggle to render this game, surley it should still be used as a comparison until all mid to high-end graphics cards are playing it with a minimum of 25fps at 1920x1200 and at least 4xAA.

This gives the consumer more information and comparison to their current equipment. Espically if we're unable to purchase the hottest peice of equipment due to tighter budgets and drop in economy.

Personally i've been using and old GTX260 (v1) for the last 2 years and would only consider buying a new card if the frame rate on crysis wud be acceptable.

I understand that the game is 3 years old and doesn't have dx 11 support. but surely it is still a great challenge for GPU's.

Any comments Bit-tech/Custom PC
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums