AMD releases Radeon HD 6900 series GPUs

Nick Mertes 14 Dec, 2010 at 11:54pm ET Article published in Tech

Just in time for that last-minute Christmas shopping, the latest and greatest video cards from AMD have been released. Codenamed Cayman Pro and Cayman XT, the AMD Radeon 6950 and 6970 (respectively) are positioned at the high-performance gaming market segment.

Detailed specs for both new cards are as follows:

	Radeon 6970	Radeon 6950
Compute Power (single-precision)	2.7 TFLOPs	2.25 TFLOPs
Compute Power (double-precision)	675 GFLOPs	563 GFLOPs
Core Clock Speed	880MHz	800MHz
Primitive Rate	2 prim/clk	2 prim/clk
Shader Architecture	VLIW4	VLIW4
Stream Processors	24 SIMD/1536 ALU	22 SIMD/1408 ALU
Texture Units	96	88
ROPs/Z-Stencil	32/128	32/128
Frame Buffer	2GB GDDR5	2GB GDDR5
Memory Bus Width	256bit	256bit
Memory Speed	5.5Gbps	5.0Gbps
Load Board Power	<300W	<225W
Power Connectors	8-pin + 6-pin	6-pin + 6-pin
Display Outputs	2x DVI, 2x mDP, HDMI	2x DVI, 2x mDP, HDMI

The Radeon HD 6970 will be the top end single-GPU part in the Northern Islands family. It is clocked at 880MHz and comes equipped with 2GB of GDDR5 running at 1375MHz for an effective rate of 5500MHz. The 8+6 pin power connectors indicates a maximum draw of 300W under load. Street prices seem to be around $370-380.

The Radeon HD 6950 is a slightly lesser version of the 6970. It is clocked at 800MHz, and its 2GB of GDDR5 runs at 1250MHz for an effective rate of 5000MHz. Dual 6-pin power connectors mean a maximum draw of 225W under load. Street prices look to be right at the $300 mark.

While exact performance data isn’t available, it can be reasonably assumed that the Radeon 6970 will outperform the Radeon 5870, and an semi-educated guess says that the 6950 should at least be on par with the same 5870. We don’t have either Cayman card on hand, so it’s just speculation on our end for now. Results should be pouring in around the internet soon providing a look at whether AMD has regained the GPU “halo” from NVIDIA and just how well it’ll run Crysis.

The only high-end Northern Islands part that remains unreleased is the dual-GPU Radeon HD 6990 (code named Antilles) which is believed to be slated for a Q1 2011 release.

Dear Santa…

Comments

15 Dec 2010 ~ 12:13am fatcat want

now the question becomes, is the 6970 worth the $80 more, and, how close to the 6970's performance can I get the 6950...
15 Dec 2010 ~ 12:19am Bandrik Excellent writeup, Nick. This looks like a fantastic next step in AMD's already excellent progress in gaming cards. The prices, while high "in today's economy", are still very reasonable in my opinion. If I were in the market for a new GPU, I would certainly be checking into one of these right about now.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 9:06am Cliff_Forster I'm pleased that they managed to keep the high end parts well below $400. The 5950 at $309 seems fairly reasonable.

I'm afraid allot of the review media will miss the point here. Its not simply a brute performance part across the board. Its architecture was improved for DX11 specific processing, tessellation, direct compute and such. If your going to compare it to a GTX580 that costs $150 more, your not really going to get the performance numbers in all applications, but its hitting the mark really close in DX11 specific benches while it costs about 30% less, running cooler and more efficiently handling idle and load states. Its a better overall balance in comparison.

But you know the review biz, it will be, card X gets 200 more points in 3D mark so that will essentially be all they will talk about is how disappointing it is that AMD did not win the brute force battle this time out. You got to position a product that people will want. $529 is just too damn much for a graphics card ($369 is kinda pushing it actually)
15 Dec 2010 ~ 9:48am mirage

Cliff_Forster wrote:

I'm afraid allot of the review media will miss the point here.

Don't worry. As I read the reviews so far, nobody is missing the point. These are very good GPUs "for the price". The highlight of this release to me is the improvement of computing performance over 5800 GPUs and that seems to be the main focus in this release. The gaming performance benefited from computing improvements tremendously, but more importantly, AMD will now be able to market their GPUs in the HPC market emphasizing the lower power usage. I hope this brings some much needed profit to them.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 11:28am Tim This 6970 better be a clear margin better than the 5870 and at least as good at the GTX 480, is not slightly better. ATI also should have named it the 6969, this would have been the opportunity to do so. At least the price isn't too bad, cheaper than the 5870s were when they were new.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 11:33am Thrax You could, you know, read a review...
15 Dec 2010 ~ 11:34am primesuspect The "Technology Entitlement" syndrome strikes in full force.

Tim wrote:

"...better be a clear margin better than the 5870."

What gives consumers the right to make demands like this? Are you an engineer? If you want to make something better, then by all means go ahead and make it.

It's simple: If you don't like a product, DON'T BUY IT. People who are spoiled rotten by technology have no right to sit there and demand things be this or that. All you do is play WoW, SC2, and IE6 anyway Tim. What the hell do you care?

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but I just get sick of hearing these kinds of haughty, imperious statements by people who have not the first fucking clue of how to make an integrated circuit do anything.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 1:28pm mertesn

Tim wrote:

DERP DERP DERP

Fixed.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 1:39pm mirage

primesuspect wrote:

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but I just get sick of hearing these kinds of haughty, imperious statements by people who have not the first fucking clue of how to make an integrated circuit do anything.

Memory refresher

This is exactly what Anand had quoted from Nvidia.

"I asked two people at NVIDIA why Fermi is late; NVIDIA's VP of Product Marketing, Ujesh Desai and NVIDIA's VP of GPU Engineering, Jonah Alben. Ujesh responded: because designing GPUs this big is "fucking hard"."
15 Dec 2010 ~ 5:06pm Cliff_Forster Mirage,

Looking at the reviews, I have to agree, the major outlets get the point. Its not just about brute force, its about balance in design, and it is a major improvement in DX11 performance from the last gen. I'm actually really pleased for the most part the 69xx seems to be getting a fair shake.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 10:54pm Sledgehammer70 It good to see AMD bringing cards to play with the High End of Nvidia. With the 6970 on par with the GTX 570 makes me wonder what AMD has in the wings to perform against the GTX580? My guess is nothing as they will most likely go to a new Dual GPU card.

To Cliffs point, not everyone is always after the high end, but both AMD & Nvidia are playing in the same playground with this refresh.

But I am not sure what you are going after in Balance and design... chalk it up how you want to make it seem better than it is I guess?
15 Dec 2010 ~ 11:35pm Thrax I think he's pointing out that the 6900 Series has more features and technologies that users can take advantage of than the GTX 580 at a price that's at least $150 lower.
15 Dec 2010 ~ 11:41pm fatcat 3 monitors. one video card. $150 cheaper. WINNAR!

imo. which don't count for much
15 Dec 2010 ~ 11:59pm Thrax And of course there's the matter of 6950s in CrossFire absolutely destroying the GTX 580, "by over 25%," with significantly better scaling than SLI offers. And the price premium? $100 bucks. 100 more dollars for performance that's untouchable at that pricepoint.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 1:10am fatcat

Thrax wrote:

And of course there's the matter of 6950s in CrossFire absolutely destroying the GTX 580, "by over 25%," with significantly better scaling than SLI offers. And the price premium? $100 bucks. 100 more dollars for performance that's untouchable at that pricepoint.

hmmm, will my PSU handle 6950 Crossfire? I see HardOCP shows 6950 load as 381w.

and...do I want to spend $600 just for epeen
16 Dec 2010 ~ 1:42am Sledgehammer70

fatcat wrote:

3 monitors. one video card. $150 cheaper. WINNAR!

imo. which don't count for much

Problem is performance. Yes it can run up to 3 or even 6 monitors but gaming at those ultra high resolutions with one card is pointless. but for the casual guy yes its a cheap option.

High end cards are just that, and not many true enthusiasts are going to splash cash on 2 mid range cards to match or slightly exceed the performance of one high end card. They will buy 2 high end cards...
16 Dec 2010 ~ 1:53am fatcat Sledge, I spend maybe 25-35% of my computer time "gaming". I don't want 3 monitors for gaming until they eliminate bezels at a fair price point. I like running 20 applications all over the place (why you think I got 24GB), and the ability to run 3 monitors on one video card is a huge plus factor. Now if that video card can also push 1920x1080 with all the eye candy, and doesn't cost as much as a kidney, well shit we have a winner.

I'm not a fanboy of either. I have a GTX 260 right now, and it's been one hell of a nice card to me. I still consider the GTX 460's pretty sweet cards, especially when you can get two of them for SLI for $300.

But for the part-time-gamer-multitasker-running-three-24"-monitors, the 69XX wins at the price point it is offered.

now if someone wants to send me a free GTX 580, I'll gladly just use two monitors
16 Dec 2010 ~ 4:38am Sledgehammer70 I'm just saying running multi monitors and gaming across all 3 screens will not work very well with one card.

I understand the other points being made... And agree with them, but gamers will want the 6970 and if they want great performance they will get 2 of them.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 8:58am Cliff_Forster

Sledgehammer70 wrote:

It good to see AMD bringing cards to play with the High End of Nvidia. With the 6970 on par with the GTX 570 makes me wonder what AMD has in the wings to perform against the GTX580? My guess is nothing as they will most likely go to a new Dual GPU card.

To Cliffs point, not everyone is always after the high end, but both AMD & Nvidia are playing in the same playground with this refresh.

But I am not sure what you are going after in Balance and design... chalk it up how you want to make it seem better than it is I guess?

What I mean is this. If it were the world according to Nvidia, reviewers would only discuss top performance in a few "Way its meant to be played" titles, they would never discuss price, TDP, or power efficiency specs, and various other features. I am actually really pleased with the reviewers though, a few really hit the mark and focussed on the complete picture.

When I started reading about the 69xx a while back it was pretty clear to me looking at the leaked specs that the guys in AMD's engineering dept said that the core architecture could play everything fast enough, that this time out it was about how you improve performance in DX11's advanced feature set, and getting that without blowing the efficiency and TDP straight to hell (the Fermi launch showed everybody that those things do kinda matter in modern GPU design).

Anyhow, lets just say this.

If the GTX 580 plays a game at 85 FPS, and the 6970 plays it at 78 FPS, well they are both past monitors refresh, the 6970 is more efficient and costs $150 less, so yeah, it wins. You can't draw a single graph anymore and say look at how we perform in this optimized title and just leave it at that. The reviewers are to savvy these days, now lets see if the gaming graphics consumer has a clue.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 9:36am mirage Cliff, HD6970 is comparable to GTX570 which is almost at the same price. GTX580 is at the top and it is priced accordingly. Hypothetically, if I wanted to buy the fastest card without any price concern, I would buy GTX580, two of them. Yeah feels good but this will never happen

Even AMD itself compares GTX580 with HD5970 (not HD6970) see here
16 Dec 2010 ~ 2:02pm Sledgehammer70

Cliff_Forster wrote:

If the GTX 580 plays a game at 85 FPS, and the 6970 plays it at 78 FPS, well they are both past monitors refresh, the 6970 is more efficient and costs $150 less, so yeah, it wins. You can't draw a single graph anymore and say look at how we perform in this optimized title and just leave it at that. The reviewers are to savvy these days, now lets see if the gaming graphics consumer has a clue.

You obviously are not a graphic enthusiast and that is fine. But powder coat the slower single GPU flag ship card from AMD how you would like. Just 6 months ago your argument was AMD was 10-15% slower than the GTX480 and the next generation / refresh would catch up and destroy Nvidia. Now that it hasn't happened you focus on the TDP?

You can't say Nvidia sat back and did nothing... the GTX 460, 570 & 580 use considerably less power & are very quite over the first wave of Fermi cards & they still hold the crown in performance for single GPU setup. I guess you can say for dual GPU (SLI) setup as well. While yes AMD has the most energy friendly card on the market, it isn't by much these days. But hey I don't buy cards on the merit they use 20w less than the other card & I know many others do not look at those specs either when purchasing a card. You obviously care about that aspect and that is fine, but the average consumer is not looking at those specs.

Also I should mention while a game can hit a max of 85-60 FPS its all about the lowest FPS/ Average. I know when I look at benchmarks or run them, the highest number is pretty to look at, but its about the minimum frame rate the card runs into. Not many review sites focus on Min frame rate, but I would much rather have the card than drops to 45 FPS min frame rate than the one that drops to 22 FPS.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 2:28pm _k A GTX 460 SLi setup gives equal performance to the 6950 for a few dollars less.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 3:25pm Cliff_Forster

Sledgehammer70 wrote:

You obviously are not a graphic enthusiast and that is fine. But powder coat the slower single GPU flag ship card from AMD how you would like. Just 6 months ago your argument was AMD was 10-15% slower than the GTX480 and the next generation / refresh would catch up and destroy Nvidia. Now that it hasn't happened you focus on the TDP?

You can't say Nvidia sat back and did nothing... the GTX 460, 570 & 580 use considerably less power & are very quite over the first wave of Fermi cards & they still hold the crown in performance for single GPU setup. I guess you can say for dual GPU (SLI) setup as well. While yes AMD has the most energy friendly card on the market, it isn't by much these days. But hey I don't buy cards on the merit they use 20w less than the other card & I know many others do not look at those specs either when purchasing a card. You obviously care about that aspect and that is fine, but the average consumer is not looking at those specs.

Also I should mention while a game can hit a max of 85-60 FPS its all about the lowest FPS/ Average. I know when I look at benchmarks or run them, the highest number is pretty to look at, but its about the minimum frame rate the card runs into. Not many review sites focus on Min frame rate, but I would much rather have the card than drops to 45 FPS min frame rate than the one that drops to 22 FPS.

I agree that minimum frame-rate should be a consideration in modern GPU reviews. You are right, more focus should be given there. It really is the number that can most often impact the users real world experience.

The dig to say, someone is more enthusiast than another, that is just silly. I purchased a 1055t recently to get a six core at a 95 watt TDP because the balance in performance appealed to me. I think its a nicely balanced part. If my 3D mark score suffers 100 points because of it, so what? I made a conscienceless and informed decision based on all the variables. Its fast, multi tasks like a champ, its cool, and it cost less than $200. Spending 1K on the fastest CPU does not make anyones.... well, you know where I am going with that. There are all kinds of computer enthusiasts. It means different things to different people.

On the GPU side, all I am saying, is there have been times where reviewers take the two company's fastest parts and say, this one is ahead and this one is behind and its as simple as that. Both you and I know its far more complicated than that. Comparing a $529 part to a $369 part, makes little sense. Of course there is a performance gap. Okay, you say, well, we have the GTX570 for $349, cool, they are neck and neck performance wise, but AMD's card has eyefinity multi monitor support, dual bios, variable TDP settings through software voltage control (come on, thats an enthusiast feature if there ever was one), the industry's best drivers (yeah, I went there), better power efficiency in both idle and load states.

I'm just saying, the typical Intel and Nvidia fanboy will yell from the rafters when they have a faster part as if absolutely nothing else matters, so I am here to restore balance and sane rational discussion
16 Dec 2010 ~ 4:24pm mirage I think the performance of the HD6900 GPUs will improve when the Catalyst drivers are better optimized for the new Cayman architecture. Anandtech has very good coverage on the transition of Cayman from VLIW5 to VLIW4. I had posted earlier when Fermi was released that AMD had to to improve the computing capabilities of their GPUs. Here we go.

Semiaccurate anyone?
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:09pm Garg The Anandtech review is very good in general. They included minimum frame rates in their benches, as well. I just wish they included SLI/CF benches of all the cards. Sure, I'm especially interested since I'm going to be putting my 5770s in CF when I get a better mobo, but why include a mid-range card to drag up the rear in all the benchmarks without CFing it?
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:35pm Sledgehammer70

Cliff_Forster wrote:

but AMD's card has eyefinity multi monitor support, dual bios, variable TDP settings through software voltage control (come on, thats an enthusiast feature if there ever was one), the industry's best drivers (yeah, I went there), better power efficiency in both idle and load states.

I guess 3D Vision & PhysX isn't all that spiffy? To your point Dual Bios? what is the point of this? I have flashed/ updated my driver to my GPU once maybe 2 times. Did ATI have issues with Bios failing that they needed to add a backup?

Nvidia also offers Voltage and PWN frequency in real time & allows you set up Fan, & power profiles. So again ATI isn't bring anything new Nvidia fans haven't had access to.

In regards to drivers both companies have had their fair share of borked drivers. And while AMD is leading the power efficiency race they do not maintain the lead they once had. but again my stance on power can be seen above.

Eye Infinity is a cool tech if you plan to game on only one of those monitors. Playing games maxed out on 3 screens at 5760x1080 or 5760x1200 is flat out unplayable with 1 card you must have Crossfire or SLI to make this work at playable frame rates.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:41pm Thrax 1. Dual BIOS allows overclockers to flash their own custom ROMs without compromising the stock BIOS.

2. PowerTune offers much more fine-grain power management than any competing solution.

3. Plenty of games are perfectly playable at Eyefinity resolutions. Not everyone busts their balls on Crysis.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:50pm Sledgehammer70 Who plays Crysis these days? Try playing BFBC2 on a 6950 or 6970 at 5760x1080 with high settings... you will have frame rates in the Teens... = Not playable.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:50pm mirage

Thrax wrote:

3. Plenty of games are perfectly playable at Eyefinity resolutions. Not everyone busts their balls on Crysis.

Bejeweled for example!
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:51pm Sledgehammer70

mirage wrote:

Bejeweled for example!

LOL! In all honesty that would be cool across 6 screens.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:53pm Cliff_Forster 3D Vision makes my head ache, and PhysX is a proprietary standard designed to forward Nvidias business agenda while stifling innovation for open standards in Physics processing.

Seriously? Why would you not want a back up bios? You have only flashed a graphics card once or twice in your life, and I am not the graphics enthusiast? Come on man! Get real with me Brotha! You know dual BIOS is cool. Can you imagine the possibility's from the home brew ROMS now that we don't have to fear bricking our card, you know, enthusiast stuff.....

I won't argue against gaming on multiple monitors generally works better as you add cards to scale. Its definitely an enthusiast luxury item, still, if ya got it, its freakin cool!
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:55pm Ryder

Sledgehammer70 wrote:

Who plays Crysis these days? Try playing BFBC2 on a 6950 or 6970 at 5760x1080 with high settings... you will have frame rates in the Teens... = Not playable.

Try doing it on an Nvidia card and it is even more unplayable because it is impossible. (1 card)
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:56pm mirage Can someone post any hard data about the ratio of gamers with multiple monitors?
16 Dec 2010 ~ 5:58pm Sledgehammer70

Cliff_Foster wrote:

3D Vision makes my head ache, and PhysX is a proprietary standard designed to forward Nvidias business agenda while stifling innovation for open standards in Physics processing.

Seriously? Why would you not want a back up bios? You have only flashed a graphics card once or twice in your life, and I am not the graphics enthusiast? Come on man! Get real with me Brotha! You know dual BIOS is cool. Can you imagine the possibility's from the home brew ROMS now that we don't have to fear bricking our card, you know, enthusiast stuff..... ?

I am not a huge fan of 3D myself, but the technology is fairly cool & works well overall. I am not going to start the PhysX war discussion that lioves between AMD & Nvidia fans... but the tech is amazing within games that support it.

I haven't had the need to mess with my BIOS to overclock or push my card to the limits. Most Bios adjustmenrts for Nvidia can be done on the desktop in Nvidia custom profiles. No need to reflash or update the Bios the old fashioned way.

RyderOCZ wrote:

Try doing it on an Nvidia card and it is even more unplayable because it is impossible. (1 card)

I'd rather not be athe guy to spend the cash on 6 monitors and 1 GPU to play a new game like BFBC2 MoH or Black Ops and be shocked when my precious card can't run things at max setting across all the screens.

But than again for non gamers this is a awesome tech and one Nvidia should take notes on.

mirage wrote:

Can someone post any hard data about the ratio of gamers with multiple monitors?

Probably less than 1% play games on multi screens.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 6:06pm Sledgehammer70 I should note I like AMD CPU's and GPU's. I just think it is funny that most people here bash on Nvidia for many reasons and when Nvidia still has a upper hand in performance you guys try to make performance obsolete and turn the table to small items that the common user will never look at or use.

No matter how you put it, We will always want to see big numbers and always want to see those min frame rates to be above 60FPS. Both Nvidia & AMD do not have a product that will run all games at 60FPS at its min frame rates even in SLI and CF. So until that day comes... (which it never will as long as technology keeps advancing) we are stuck in this divide.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 6:16pm mirage

RyderOCZ wrote:

Try doing it on an Nvidia card and it is even more unplayable because it is impossible. (1 card)

Before the card, a suitable desk, a room to put that large desk, multiple suitable monitors, and most importantly enough funds required. I would not mind buying two cards after all these trouble. Otherwise, Eyefinity is just a euphoria for great majority. Nvidia will probably add the feature sometime later. The same goes for them, just like their 3D drivers..
16 Dec 2010 ~ 6:45pm Cliff_Forster Have I ever told you all that arguing about graphics makes me all warm and fuzzy inside? I'm so happy!

Side note, there are 5970's on Newegg right now for under $500. That single card will play eyefinity titles adequately across three monitors. Just sayin.....
16 Dec 2010 ~ 6:49pm Sledgehammer70

Cliff_Forster wrote:

Have I ever told you all that arguing about graphics makes me all warm and fuzzy inside? I'm so happy!

Side note, there are 5970's on Newegg right now for under $500. That single card will play eyefinity titles adequately across three monitors. Just sayin.....

Cliff you know as well as I do that is a Dual GPU card.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 7:37pm mirage

Cliff_Forster wrote:

Side note, there are 5970's on Newegg right now for under $500. That single card will play eyefinity titles adequately across three monitors. Just sayin.....

Instead of buying a 5970, I would upgrade my motherboard (if necessary) and go with two 6850s.
16 Dec 2010 ~ 10:42pm NullenVoyd Seriously considering one of these, but how much improvement would I see doing one 6970 over my current 4870x2 2gb card?

Also, performance number aside, I think the temps I'm seeing in a number of reviews are pretty impressive from these cards.
17 Dec 2010 ~ 6:41am mertesn

NullenVoyd wrote:

Seriously considering one of these, but how much improvement would I see doing one 6970 over my current 4870x2 2gb card?

Also, performance number aside, I think the temps I'm seeing in a number of reviews are pretty impressive from these cards.

I would start here (Anandtech's GPU Bench comparison of 4870x2 vs 5970) and compare these numbers to their results of the 6970. On a quick glance, it appears the 6970 would be an improvement.
17 Dec 2010 ~ 11:08am Garg It would certainly draw a lot less power.
17 Dec 2010 ~ 5:36pm Cliff_Forster And another great side effect stemming from new GPU releases is the ever falling price of last years model. $169 5850!!!
22 Dec 2010 ~ 10:58pm NullenVoyd Well, I did it.
Actually slightly bigger than my 4870x2 and I've been able to up settings and still see a slight improvement in framerates but nothing I'd go OMG over. The temps are much nicer though - seems to idle at about 40C and get up to 66C while gaming.

I'll hold out major judgment till I see some updated drivers. The most recent took away disabling Catalyst AI, which means GTA4 is unplayable for me till that comes back (not like it took much to have GTA4 flake out though).
22 Dec 2010 ~ 11:07pm Thrax You should be able to disable Catalyst AI in Catalyst 10.12. All three AMD GPUs I have can disable it.
23 Dec 2010 ~ 12:41am NullenVoyd I know, right?
Like 10.12 had it when I had the 4870 in, but with the 6970 and 10.12, it will not let you make it go away. Some folks were saying "High Quality" was what replaced the disable button (the thinking being that AI optimized textures for faster handling, and "High Quality" theoretically disabling those optimizations, but that's just speculation).
23 Dec 2010 ~ 12:50am Thrax Oh, that. Yes, setting to "high quality" is AI disabled.