bit-tech.net

AMD Radeon 6950 1GB Details Leak

AMD Radeon 6950 1GB Details Leak

The HIS Radeon 6950 1GB features the same specifications as the vanilla 6950, but half the RAM.

AMD's plans to launch a 1GB version of its existing Radeon HD 6950 2GB design appears to have been confirmed ahead of the official announcement, thanks to an over-eager hardware partner.

According to a product page on board partner HIS' website, the AMD Radeon HD 6950 1GB will feature exactly the same specifications as its 2GB sibling, but only half the RAM - with a corresponding drop in price.

The HIS Radeon HD 6950 1GB features a two-slot cooler, while its GPU has an 800MHz core clock. Meanwhile, the 1GB of GDDR5 memory is clocked at 5000MHz (effective) and is addressed via a 256-bit bus. As with the original 2GB model, the card also includes a pair of DVI connections, a pair of mini DisplayPorts and a single HDMI output wtih integrated 7.1 digital audio.

The new card keeps the 40nm GPU of its predecessor, meaning that power requirements and heat output are unchanged from the original design, with HIS recommending a 500W power supply as a bare minimum for both models.

The lowered memory of the AMD Radeon 6950 1GB will translate to an as-yet unknown saving at retail - a move the company is clearly hoping will stem the threat from Nvidia's latest entries to its GeForce 500-series of GPUs. The forthcoming GeForce GTX 560, for example, is also rumoured to come with 1GB of memory.

The big question, of course, is how the cut in RAM might impact gaming performance at higher-resolutions with lots of anti-aliasing enabled. If you're more interested in pushing up your game settings at lower resolutions, then 1GB cards such as this could be worth considering, especially if they're priced significantly cheaper than their 2GB brethren.

Do you applaud AMD's move to a 1GB board design, or will you wait for the price and performance figures before you declare it a good move? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

33 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
mi1ez 18th January 2011, 13:11 Quote
need to wait for performance figures, but I think that the power of such cards is overkill for smaller monitors and for bigger monitors the extra RAM will boost performance.
Hustler 18th January 2011, 13:17 Quote
Still wont tempt me away from the new 560.....after 5yrs, i've had enough of ATI's 'quirky' drivers.......and really just fancy going back to Nvidia for the first time since my old 6800GT....
javaman 18th January 2011, 13:25 Quote
Why?

Nvidia have already shown with the 580 and 570 that less than 2gb holds back these cards. Yea you'll get very high frames at low res but as soon as you apply AA and textures your frames will fall off a cliff. Worse case you'll have a fast game that looks ugly.
Snips 18th January 2011, 13:28 Quote
Is there any benefit at all for dropping the Ram to 1GB, other than cost?
Hustler 18th January 2011, 13:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Why?

Nvidia have already shown with the 580 and 570 that less than 2gb holds back these cards. Yea you'll get very high frames at low res but as soon as you apply AA and textures your frames will fall off a cliff. Worse case you'll have a fast game that looks ugly.

Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
Instagib 18th January 2011, 16:33 Quote
What's the reckoning that they've taken the opportunity to start lopping off the extra cores so that they don't unlock to 6970's?
Hakuren 18th January 2011, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Is there any benefit at all for dropping the Ram to 1GB, other than cost?

Power drain. Less memory, less power needed from PSU and less heat transfered to PCB.

All that scaremongering about memory. If you are superhuman with eyes capable of spotting over 30FPS then even quad GTX 580 won't be enough for you. But for overwhelming majority of gamers 1 GB is plenty. All you need is stable 40 FPS, to enjoy ANY game. I do have only one game which stutters [@2048x1152] on my ancient 8800 gts 640: X3:Terran Conflict with a lot, lot, lot of factories and ships in the system. Other than this I have no issues with only 640MB of VRAM, but I waiting for GTX 560 in breathless anticipation. I want to switch to SLI 560 or 570, just need some figures. Only 7-8 days to go for 560. Bring it on, I want to spend some money. Once every decade I can do that with VGA. LOL
wuyanxu 18th January 2011, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

it's just a move to combat gtx560, nothing to be surprised about. 1GB makes sense for those on a budget, similar group of people who also bought gtx460 768MB, some of those group of people even went SLi with only 768MB of memory, and claiming it can beat gtx580. :(
Snips 18th January 2011, 17:03 Quote
Hakuren

Is that why the 768mb GTX 460 was the preferred choice for folding and not the 1GB version?
jizwizard 18th January 2011, 17:13 Quote
1680x1080 for me have no reason to go bigger my old sammy 206bw does it for me. so yes there are plenty of people who still game at below that resolution.
Landy_Ed 18th January 2011, 17:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

it's just a move to combat gtx560, nothing to be surprised about. 1GB makes sense for those on a budget, similar group of people who also bought gtx460 768MB, some of those group of people even went SLi with only 768MB of memory, and claiming it can beat gtx580. :(

Um....<puts hand up>
SchizoFrog 18th January 2011, 18:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

it's just a move to combat gtx560, nothing to be surprised about. 1GB makes sense for those on a budget, similar group of people who also bought gtx460 768MB, some of those group of people even went SLi with only 768MB of memory, and claiming it can beat gtx580. :(

Considering the average PC specs that are released through steam I thin you'll still find that anything above 1680x1050 is by far in the minority. I agree that a higher percentage of those who have monitors with higher resolutions will be found in the forums of websites such as Bit-Tech but never under estimate those who hang on to older hardware, especially monitors.
Yslen 18th January 2011, 18:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Why?

Nvidia have already shown with the 580 and 570 that less than 2gb holds back these cards. Yea you'll get very high frames at low res but as soon as you apply AA and textures your frames will fall off a cliff. Worse case you'll have a fast game that looks ugly.

Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.

Yeah, but if you were doing that why would you want a 6950? A GTX 460, 6850 or 6870 can do the same.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 18th January 2011, 18:59 Quote
Preemptive strike on the GTX 560 price point and to remove the extra cores that allow bios flash to HD 6970. Also there are rumors of a HD 6970 1GB model in the works but no confirmation yet.

Hd 6950 is a solid performer and the 1GB model will have a slight drop off in performance at 2560 x 1600 but AMD wants to lower prices so gamers buy HD 6950 CF set-ups instead of GTX 560 SLI. A HD 6950 1gb CF set-up would cost $500 and out class a GTX 580 which is $500 by a very large margin in all benchmarks, Far Cry 2 and Unigine Heaven 2.0 included sure no Physx but your not missing much there.

Step your game up to 1920 x 1080 so then you won't need 8x AA as 4xAA will do. Please Stop with all the "I can run any game on my 8800 GTS" it's time to wake up and smell the DX11. Death to DX9!!!
frontline 18th January 2011, 19:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Why?

Nvidia have already shown with the 580 and 570 that less than 2gb holds back these cards. Yea you'll get very high frames at low res but as soon as you apply AA and textures your frames will fall off a cliff. Worse case you'll have a fast game that looks ugly.

Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.

Yeah, but if you were doing that why would you want a 6950? A GTX 460, 6850 or 6870 can do the same.

To gate crash the 560's price point presumably. If the 1GB 6950 has better performance than a 560 and a similar price point, it would probably force prices down on the 6850/6870 and below.

Will be interesting to compare the performance at 1920 x 1080 of this card and the 560.

*edit* according to rage 3d the suggested launch price is $279, so probably about £200 in the UK.
murraynt 18th January 2011, 19:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Hakuren

Is that why the 768mb GTX 460 was the preferred choice for folding and not the 1GB version?

No mate. It's because Folding relies alot more on the speed of the chip rather than bandwith or the amount of memory. A 1gb will preform nearly the exact same as the 768mb one.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/08/05/what-is-the-best-graphics-card-for-folding/3
Look at the two 460's about 1/3 of the way down.
murraynt 18th January 2011, 19:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
Power drain. Less memory, less power needed from PSU and less heat transfered to PCB.

All that scaremongering about memory. If you are superhuman with eyes capable of spotting over 30FPS then even quad GTX 580 won't be enough for you. But for overwhelming majority of gamers 1 GB is plenty. All you need is stable 40 FPS, to enjoy ANY game. I do have only one game which stutters [@2048x1152] on my ancient 8800 gts 640: X3:Terran Conflict with a lot, lot, lot of factories and ships in the system. Other than this I have no issues with only 640MB of VRAM, but I waiting for GTX 560 in breathless anticipation. I want to switch to SLI 560 or 570, just need some figures. Only 7-8 days to go for 560. Bring it on, I want to spend some money. Once every decade I can do that with VGA. LOL

I must be superhuman then ;) I can definitely tell the difference.
Bakes 18th January 2011, 19:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Hakuren

Is that why the 768mb GTX 460 was the preferred choice for folding and not the 1GB version?

Nope, memory is not necessary (in such large amounts) for folding and so the 768MB one is used more by the virtue of being cheaper.
beholder143 18th January 2011, 20:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraynt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
Power drain. Less memory, less power needed from PSU and less heat transfered to PCB.

All that scaremongering about memory. If you are superhuman with eyes capable of spotting over 30FPS then even quad GTX 580 won't be enough for you. But for overwhelming majority of gamers 1 GB is plenty. All you need is stable 40 FPS, to enjoy ANY game. I do have only one game which stutters [@2048x1152] on my ancient 8800 gts 640: X3:Terran Conflict with a lot, lot, lot of factories and ships in the system. Other than this I have no issues with only 640MB of VRAM, but I waiting for GTX 560 in breathless anticipation. I want to switch to SLI 560 or 570, just need some figures. Only 7-8 days to go for 560. Bring it on, I want to spend some money. Once every decade I can do that with VGA. LOL

I must be superhuman then ;) I can definitely tell the difference.

You can see in excess of 100fps(much more). I consider 30fps unplayable. Yes I consider console games unplayable.
The eye doesn't see relative to frame rate anyway. You see the difference in frames, which is dependent on speed on objects being displayed.
alpaca 18th January 2011, 21:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu

and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

i do. samsung 2233bw, 1680x1050 without trouble and very happy about it. i have no real want for going bigger. a second screen however...
Fordy 18th January 2011, 21:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

Um....<puts hand up>

Yup, me too.

Depends what I feel like playing, andwhat controller with. Got a 1920x1080 set, but that's a TV near my desk, not on. So I can't use KBM while gaming on it. Great for Dirt 2 or whatever though (occasionally CoD with a 360 controller, if I fancy a bigger screen and no keyboard).

But then I've got my 1440x900 monitors on desk, which I play on when using keyboard and mouse. Thinking of expanding to three, so that I could have a fiddle with Eyefinity/Vision Surround without spending loads of cash.
Pookie 18th January 2011, 21:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instagib
What's the reckoning that they've taken the opportunity to start lopping off the extra cores so that they don't unlock to 6970's?

Good point,i wonder if the dual BIOS switch will still be included
schmidtbag 18th January 2011, 23:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

Um....<puts hand up>

Yup, me too.

Depends what I feel like playing, andwhat controller with. Got a 1920x1080 set, but that's a TV near my desk, not on. So I can't use KBM while gaming on it. Great for Dirt 2 or whatever though (occasionally CoD with a 360 controller, if I fancy a bigger screen and no keyboard).

But then I've got my 1440x900 monitors on desk, which I play on when using keyboard and mouse. Thinking of expanding to three, so that I could have a fiddle with Eyefinity/Vision Surround without spending loads of cash.

i also do. its extremely ignorant to say that nobody uses a resolution under 1920x1080, not all monitors are physically big enough to do that, most laptops don't have that, and you'd be amazed how many people still use 1280x1024, or even 1024x768 (even on widescreen monitors). i assume you also think nobody these days uses 4gb or less of memory or dual core CPUs
Bakes 19th January 2011, 01:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instagib
What's the reckoning that they've taken the opportunity to start lopping off the extra cores so that they don't unlock to 6970's?

Zero.
Aragon Speed 19th January 2011, 08:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
I do have only one game which stutters [@2048x1152] on my ancient 8800 gts 640: X3:Terran Conflict with a lot, lot, lot of factories and ships in the system.
And that's down to the games engine only using one CPU core to plot all those meshes before they are sent to your GFX card for its texture and shader magic to be applied, and to track all the ships in the universe, rather than your GFX card having a problem.

The X3 GFX engine is extremely good and rarely pushes a GFX cards abilities unless it is a really old or an especially weak card, it is always the CPU that is the bottleneck due to it being old (a refined X2 engine really) and only using one core.

Which is probably why it is used in CPU benchmarks. ;)
perplekks45 19th January 2011, 09:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?
Considering the average PC specs that are released through steam I thin you'll still find that anything above 1680x1050 is by far in the minority...
I just love people thinking the BT forum members are anywhere near the average user when it comes to hardware. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Preemptive strike on the GTX 560 price point and to remove the extra cores that allow bios flash to HD 6970.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Please Stop with all the "I can run any game on my 8800 GTS" it's time to wake up and smell the DX11. Death to DX9!!!
Damnit, and all those years I thought G80 was the first DX10 chip...
B1GBUD 19th January 2011, 12:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Wrong.....with the exception of GTA4, you can max out any game out there with loads of AA, as long as you game at less than 1680x1050....with 1GB of Ram.
and today, who here still runs anything below 1920x1080?

Um....<puts hand up>

Yup, me too.

Depends what I feel like playing, andwhat controller with. Got a 1920x1080 set, but that's a TV near my desk, not on. So I can't use KBM while gaming on it. Great for Dirt 2 or whatever though (occasionally CoD with a 360 controller, if I fancy a bigger screen and no keyboard).

But then I've got my 1440x900 monitors on desk, which I play on when using keyboard and mouse. Thinking of expanding to three, so that I could have a fiddle with Eyefinity/Vision Surround without spending loads of cash.

i also do. its extremely ignorant to say that nobody uses a resolution under 1920x1080, not all monitors are physically big enough to do that, most laptops don't have that, and you'd be amazed how many people still use 1280x1024, or even 1024x768 (even on widescreen monitors). i assume you also think nobody these days uses 4gb or less of memory or dual core CPUs

Yep, same here... Although I'd love a second or third Samsung 215TW (if you're selling one, PM me!!), only then would the extra RAM come in userful
Landy_Ed 19th January 2011, 22:00 Quote
Well yeah, more or better would be nice, but I'm stuck with my Dell E207WFP @1680x1050, at least till I can sneak a go on the new telly!
timgrindall 19th January 2011, 23:51 Quote
More ram is always better
Farfalho 20th January 2011, 13:18 Quote
Just drop the stupid myth that above 30FPS is impossible to tell the difference! Grow up, open your eyes and learn something. When I play and the frames drop to 40 or 50, it gets laggy! Everyone should settle for an average of 75FPS, no less!

It is POSSIBLE to tell the difference and it's best to play at higher frame rates than 30... geez...

About the card... I would like them to see a project of a card that had 512bit to address that amount of memory fast enough. I've read why they've opted for 256bit ring bus but I would like some testing on ATi's behalf. 1GB for today's standard is the minimum and for higher res it needs a bit more
wuyanxu 20th January 2011, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfalho
Everyone should settle for an average of 75FPS, no less!

why 75?

at the end of the day, you want consistant FPS, as small difference between average and minimal as possible. it doesn't matter what FPS the game is running at, even if it's constant 30, it's still good enough.
javaman 21st January 2011, 17:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by beholder143
You can see in excess of 100fps(much more). I consider 30fps unplayable. Yes I consider console games unplayable.
The eye doesn't see relative to frame rate anyway. You see the difference in frames, which is dependent on speed on objects being displayed.

there are quite a few here who like 60fps min especially in racing games. Personally I can cope with 20fps in some games as long as the game looks well. WoW being the best example where lat is more of a problem than the low frames. each man to his own. Tho in shooting games i do like 30+ as long as its smooth rather than high frames. Half life 2 can get annoying as it jumps between 100+ to below 60. While not unplayable you do notice the change.


Either way i game on a 22" 1680 X 1050 using a 512mb 4870. Yes there has been times i've hit the memory wall like of fallout 3 and NV. Comfortable with 0 AA, 2 AA drops it to unplayable. If i had the 1gb version the game would still be playable.
Farfalho 8th February 2011, 03:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
why 75?

at the end of the day, you want consistant FPS, as small difference between average and minimal as possible. it doesn't matter what FPS the game is running at, even if it's constant 30, it's still good enough.

Because not everyone can have the top of the range graphics card and I meant 75fps average as 75fps consistant, as you said. Nothing like 30minimum and 120max.

I have been through a handful of configs to get the best out of Black Ops and 75 was the consistence that people should aim for at least. With a new one I get 100FPS average and 150max. constant 30 for a fast-paced or action-filled fps is no good. Since I tried the new config, the difference between 75 and 90-100 was clear right from the start.
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