bit-tech.net

Rumour control: ATI Radeon HD 6970 benchmarked

Rumour control: ATI Radeon HD 6970 benchmarked

ATI's Radeon HD 6800-series has only just gone on sale, but already figures for the Radeon HD 6970 have leaked.

ATI might have only just launched its Radeon HD 6870 1GB and Radeon HD 6850 1GBcards, but enthusiasts are already looking to the next big thing: the company's Cayman-based Radeon HD 6970.

Chinese-language site Zol.com claims to have got its hands on benchmarks for the ATI Radeon HD 6970, although it's not revealing where the figures have come from.

The site is reporting, however, that the Cayman XT-based AMD Radeon HD 6970, believed to be the 1GB GDDR5 model, has performed admirably in the 3DMark Vantage test suite, scoring 23,499 3DMarks in Performance mode. In the Unigine Heaven benchmark, the card managed 36.6fps at a resolution of 1,920 x 1,200 with 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering.

Those scores, which represent a pre-release version of the card with unoptimised drivers, are certainly a boost over the company's Radeon HD 5870 1GB card, which managed 19,337 3DMarks and 17.3 fps in Unigine Heaven at the same settings.

Impressively, the figures also beat Nvidia's current high-end card, the GeForce GTX 480 1.5GB, quite considerably: at the same settings, the GTX 480 1.5GB scored 21,106 in 3DMark Vantage and 29.5fps in Unigine Heaven.

Further details of the as-yet unannounced card aren't available, but it is rumoured to feature a TDP of 255W or higher, and require a six- and an eight-pin power supply connection.

Do you think that ATI's next-generation card will beat out Nvidia's up-coming Fermi refresh? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

45 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
proxess 25th October 2010, 15:48 Quote
I already have enough trouble fueling my car, I don't want to fuel my PC too...
wuyanxu 25th October 2010, 15:49 Quote
but 1GB isn't enough. nVidia's 1.5GB or rumoured 2GB gtx580 makes more sense.

at least for the resolution i will need it to run: 2560x1440.
Snips 25th October 2010, 15:54 Quote
As always, I feel it best to wait for the Bit-Tech benchtests and not rely on third or fourth party reporting.
Unknownsock 25th October 2010, 15:56 Quote
But isn't the 6970 a dual gpu card?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
but 1GB isn't enough. nVidia's 1.5GB or rumoured 2GB gtx580 makes more sense.

at least for the resolution i will need it to run: 2560x1440.

Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.
digitaldunc 25th October 2010, 15:58 Quote
This more like it.

If this is true I'm potentially sold...

Going to rival GF100 for heat, then?
wuyanxu 25th October 2010, 16:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock

Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.

can you run BFBC2 at that resolution with 4xAA? can you run Crysis max with any level of AA?

im not sure if it's GPU underpowered or not enough memory, but fact is my 5870 struggles.
nightblade628 25th October 2010, 16:01 Quote
This is the card I've been waiting for, but not until the GTX 580 is released to see which is faster and how fast the competition brings the prices down.
Unknownsock 25th October 2010, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock

Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.

can you run BFBC2 at that resolution with 4xAA? can you run Crysis max with any level of AA?

im not sure if it's GPU underpowered or not enough memory, but fact is my 5870 struggles.

I don't use AA for obvious reasons. But i can't say too much as I'm currently bottlenecked by my cpu.
I've yet to see a benchmark were more than 1gb actually makes a difference with top end resolution.

And i would have thought it would be the gpu underpowered in general.
Goty 25th October 2010, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock

Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.

can you run BFBC2 at that resolution with 4xAA? can you run Crysis max with any level of AA?

im not sure if it's GPU underpowered or not enough memory, but fact is my 5870 struggles.

AA performance is bandwidth limited, usually, whereas memory capacity has more to do with resolution scaling.
Fizzban 25th October 2010, 16:47 Quote
I find it unlikely AMD would release new top end cards that didn't beat the 480. So the results might be legit. But they don't really mean anything. It's all about the official benchmarks!
Hakuren 25th October 2010, 16:49 Quote
6xxx series need to succeed fast. GTX580 and/or other Fermi-refresh could wipe the floor with 6xxx. Unfortunately for AMD, people will wait for GTX580.

nVidia did it before when initial chip was in general rushed/badly designed and refresh outperformed competition. It is not a secret that Fermi was rushed like mad. And while GTX480 is noisy and power hungry there is plenty of potential in this chip. nVidia just need to clean-up mess they created. If these numbers for 6970 are anything to go by, then I'm absolutely certain that Fermi refresh will beat them easily in synthetic benchmarks.
StoneyMahoney 25th October 2010, 16:58 Quote
"the 1GB GDDR5 model, has performed admirably in the 3DMark Vantage test suite, scoring 23,499 3DMarks in Performance mode."

It's those last three words that detract from those results.
rickysio 25th October 2010, 17:10 Quote
GTX580 has been rumoured to be merely 20% faster than the GTX480, so...
Paradigm Shifter 25th October 2010, 17:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
But isn't the 6970 a dual gpu card?


Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.

Try 6064x1200 or higher... and try turning details up. :) I found that frequently on 1GB cards pushing settings one notch too high resulted in large framerate drops as the cards ran out of VRAM. 2GB cards make a big, big difference between playable and unplayable at the more extreme Surround/EyeFinity resolutions. At least on GTX460 cards. I've not had the chance to play with ATi cards... and they're supposedly better at VRAM management so it might not have quite such the same impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goty
AA performance is bandwidth limited, usually, whereas memory capacity has more to do with resolution scaling.
Only partially. Use Afterburner and a Logitech G15 to watch VRAM usage on cards with enough VRAM, and you'll see 4xAA push VRAM usage up tremendously.

edit: For those interested in 1GB vs. 2GB in Surround...

http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/801683-surround-gaming-nvidia-gtx460-mainstream-card.html
fingerbob69 25th October 2010, 17:12 Quote
"can you run BFBC2 at that resolution with 4xAA? can you run Crysis max with any level of AA?

im not sure if it's GPU underpowered or not enough memory, but fact is my 5870 struggles."

Now, now ...naughty, naughty! The "but can it play Crysis?" question is one deemed nolonger relevant by Bit-tech and so is no longer asked nor answered!
mi1ez 25th October 2010, 17:27 Quote
Looking forward to seeing proper figures. As has been said, it would be nice if they release a version with more VRAM, especially with AMD pushing Eyefinity.
faugusztin 25th October 2010, 17:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
But isn't the 6970 a dual gpu card?

No. That will be HD6990.
HD6990 = high end dual chip
HD6970/HD6950 = high end single chip
HD6870/HD6850 = high mainstream single chip
HD6770/HD6750 = mainstream single chip
HD66xx = high lowend/low mainstream single chip
The rest is lowend.
exceededgoku 25th October 2010, 17:36 Quote
As above HD6990 (Antilles) will be the high end dual gpu card (not sure if it will be dual chip or dual card)...
HourBeforeDawn 25th October 2010, 17:44 Quote
hmm ya I think I will go with two 6870 then since it will be more then enough for the current market of games and most likely for a while with the norm being ported console games to PC.
play_boy_2000 25th October 2010, 17:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
GTX580 and/or other Fermi-refresh could wipe the floor with 6xxx......
I'm absolutely certain that Fermi refresh will beat them easily in synthetic benchmarks.

Ah, the eternal optimisim of the fanboi can never be crushed.
Reports indicate that although Nvidia is planning a paper launch to conicide with the 6970, cards won't be seen till the end of January and even then it isn't looking like it will beat the 6970 by a worthwile amount.

As usual though, only the benchmarks will tell for certin.
Nexxo 25th October 2010, 17:59 Quote
TDP of 255W? I think I'll pass...
dangerman1337 25th October 2010, 17:59 Quote
I'm not sure if the 6970 is going to consume that much power yet still have a 256 mem bit bus and have a far more different arch compared to the 6800/barts as it is reported to, so i call bull unless/untill i see more results around the web or release.

I also doubt that the GTX 580 will have 512 mem bit bus, 128 TMUs and 768 shaders, thats twice the GF104 core specs (aside from clocks) though i expect it to be 50% more spec wise compared to the GF104 (576 shaders, 384 bit bus and 96 Tmus for my prediction) and tweaked futher with maybe some kepler additions to its arch.
Floyd 25th October 2010, 18:33 Quote
Untill someone puts out a game that I cant play at my current res with my 275s ill be keeping those.
I can play every game I own maxxed out fully so I see no reason for a new GPU yet. Res is 1920x1080 btw so nothing crazy.
CharlO 25th October 2010, 19:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock

Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.

Have you seen metro on 2560*1440? It takes a lot. I don't like nVidia, and think that extra ram will make the card more expensive, but you have to have one in range so you won't need to CF...
Tangster 25th October 2010, 20:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
but 1GB isn't enough. nVidia's 1.5GB or rumoured 2GB gtx580 makes more sense.

at least for the resolution i will need it to run: 2560x1440.

There will probably be a 2GB eyefinity version. ;)
Kovoet 25th October 2010, 20:16 Quote
anyone want to buy two 5870's as when these 6990's hit the shelves its mine
Er-El 25th October 2010, 20:58 Quote
Hopefully it will have a lower TDP than the 5870 when AMD officially reveal it.
feedayeen 25th October 2010, 21:11 Quote
Looks at newegg:

VGA SAPPHIRE|100314SR HD6870 R - "Estimated delivery 10/27/2010

Status In Transit"


****!
bobwya 25th October 2010, 21:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock

Every benchmark I've seen that show the 2gb results etc seem not to make a difference, so i beg to differ.
I run perfectly fine at 5040x1050 with a single 5870.

can you run BFBC2 at that resolution with 4xAA? can you run Crysis max with any level of AA?

im not sure if it's GPU underpowered or not enough memory, but fact is my 5870 struggles.

Uhhmm then you want something like the EVGA Precision ap to tell you how much GPU VRAM is being utilised (in an OSD) - whilst actually gaming. Anything else is idle speculation...
SNiiPE_DoGG 25th October 2010, 21:51 Quote
huh, so far my 4890 CFX @ 950mhz runs literally everything I have tried to play since I bought it with no lag at ultra settings 1920x1080.... Faster cards are overkill nowadays for the normal gamer. ****ing consoles.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 25th October 2010, 21:53 Quote
Nice benchmarks if true but the specs are sketchy. The HD 6950 and 6970 are supposed to have 1536MB of GDDR5 and a 384bit interface with an Eyefininity model having 3072MB of GDDR5.

So those benchmarks may be of the HD 6950 variety. If it is the HD6970 then it's still very impressive.
wuyanxu 25th October 2010, 22:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobwya
Uhhmm then you want something like the EVGA Precision ap to tell you how much GPU VRAM is being utilised (in an OSD) - whilst actually gaming. Anything else is idle speculation...
MSI Afterbuner wasn't any help with vRAM, doesn't seem to work with ATI cards.

still, a bit of option doesn't hurt, much like 4870 512MB vs 1GB, gtx460 768MB vs 1GB.
Fractal 25th October 2010, 22:24 Quote
ITT: A lot of speculation.

Will wait on 1st hand benchmarks from a reliable source.
cgthomas 25th October 2010, 22:34 Quote
I'm quite surprised that nvidia is suddenly jumping to the 500's instead of going the xx5 way.

Anyway they're moving way too fast for game developers. If games run brilliant on a 5-year old Xbox 360 then surely they should run smoothly on 2-year old GPU's. I think developers are paid to slow games down / or they're simply rushing code conversion on the PC.
A GTX 480 has already cured cancer, but still struggles to run 40 fps on Crysis max.
earlydoors 25th October 2010, 23:52 Quote
How accurate were the last batch of Chinese early/sneek-peek benchmarks?
zulu9812 26th October 2010, 00:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
I'm quite surprised that nvidia is suddenly jumping to the 500's instead of going the xx5 way.

Anyway they're moving way too fast for game developers. If games run brilliant on a 5-year old Xbox 360 then surely they should run smoothly on 2-year old GPU's. I think developers are paid to slow games down / or they're simply rushing code conversion on the PC.
A GTX 480 has already cured cancer, but still struggles to run 40 fps on Crysis max.

That's a good point. I've yet to find a game that my Sapphire 4890/2GB doesn't laugh at.
Star*Dagger 26th October 2010, 01:06 Quote
ATI trumps nVidia, again.

Same story since the 8800GTX lost the performance crown.

ATI has been coming up all aces, nvidia not so much.
Mentai 26th October 2010, 01:47 Quote
I think I'll update my 2x 4870 1gb with the 7 series. And even then, not because it'll necessary, but because it feels good to buy new stuff haha. Funny that I don't consider what nvidia will be offering at that point.
DragunovHUN 26th October 2010, 03:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
I'm quite surprised that nvidia is suddenly jumping to the 500's instead of going the xx5 way.

Anyway they're moving way too fast for game developers. If games run brilliant on a 5-year old Xbox 360 then surely they should run smoothly on 2-year old GPU's. I think developers are paid to slow games down / or they're simply rushing code conversion on the PC.
A GTX 480 has already cured cancer, but still struggles to run 40 fps on Crysis max.

Console games run on graphics settings that we would consider low on a PC. Have you seen GTA IV on both platforms?
JooEffOh 26th October 2010, 04:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulu9812
That's a good point. I've yet to find a game that my Sapphire 4890/2GB doesn't laugh at.
crysis warhead laughs at it when it does 19 frames per second in at 1920x1200 enthusiast settings and 2x AA.Or bump the res to 2560 x 1600 and it chuckles at the 12fps.:D
.
Monkfish 26th October 2010, 15:15 Quote
A score of P23499 in Vantage? I get a score of P23033 on my OC/d GTX 295 system, which is now almost 2 years old. Tessellation will be a bigger issue this time next year... at which point I might consider a GTX 590 card. That will be 2½ years with the same card. Never thought I'd see the day!
Gradius 28th October 2010, 17:53 Quote
I played Crysis very nicely on my old HD3870 at 1920x1080 w/o ANY problem, no apparent delay at all !

That "but can run crysis?" is just a very crappy rumor.
TiazaK 29th October 2010, 16:21 Quote
Correction it should be 24499 in P mode.
dangerman1337 29th October 2010, 22:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
I'm quite surprised that nvidia is suddenly jumping to the 500's instead of going the xx5 way.

Anyway they're moving way too fast for game developers. If games run brilliant on a 5-year old Xbox 360 then surely they should run smoothly on 2-year old GPU's. I think developers are paid to slow games down / or they're simply rushing code conversion on the PC.

One thing is that i wouldn't be surprised if on console versions they make sacrifices, say example in most FPS on a console i woudln't be surprised they intentionally gimp on the backgrounds to save resources or other stuff and tweak the engine alot to run it better which i say is increasing costs, but i'm not sure though.
pnjunction 1st November 2010, 08:26 Quote
Mmm can't wait to see the price/performance on the 6950. Looking at the specs on the wikipedia page (which seem to be changing day to day LOL), it seems that similar to the 5850/5870 the some of the 'handicap' of the 6950 compared to the 6970 will be shader cores but most will be clock rates.

It will be interesting to see the reviews and how far the 6950 and 6970 can be OC'd. If the 6950 will approach stock 5970 speeds or beyond it will offer a huge amount of performance for ~$400.

It is definitely upgrade time for me as my 4870 512MB is starting to show its age and also I'm sick of the all the idle power it burns while my desktop is sitting (almost) idle most of the time.
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