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.
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)
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.
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.
"...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.
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.
"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"."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
mertesn
I am Bobby MillerYukon, OK Icrontian
Comments
now the question becomes, is the 6970 worth the $80 more, and, how close to the 6970's performance can I get the 6950...
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)
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.
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.
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"."
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.
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?
imo. which don't count for much
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
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...
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
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.
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.
Even AMD itself compares GTX580 with HD5970 (not HD6970) see here
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
Semiaccurate anyone?
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.
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.
Bejeweled for example!
LOL! In all honesty that would be cool across 6 screens.