You don't have to get the Toxic version to have the same outcome. I got my 6950 when it was released and unlocked/overclocked it and through benchmarks and comparisons I can safely say that it is about equal to a GTX 580 at stock settings. The GTX 580 however can be overclocked as well and the gains from overclocking Fermi are better than AMD counter parts so ultimatly the GTX 580 is still supreme but the value proposition of the AMD 6950 is amazing. If I had more money I would have bought a GTX 580 but I simply can't justify the added cost for the given performance increase.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
6950 2GB Sapphire Toxic OC Review [H]
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
I like how they did something similiar to the EVGA high flow bracket so that more of the heat can be exhausted out the back.
happy medium
Lifer
That was my point but some took it as a AMD vs Nvidia thing.
Its a cost vs performance thing.
WHy buy a 289$ 6950?
A expensive 6950 is not better than a gtx570 at the same price.
As many have said before gtx570's overclock too, but I guess Hardocp forgot that.
Silverforce11
Lifer
Some factors why the 6950 is a better deal:
Power use. An unlocked and heavily OC 6950 uses ~less power than a stock 570. At those speeds its ~580. Efficiency matters.
570 are known for shoddy OCs as the ref PCB is poor, not as bad as 590.
In recent dx11 games, 6950 > 570.
In a lot of games, 2x 6950 > 2x 570.
The toxic runs at 880 core, but it can go beyond 950, so theres room for more OC.
Ultimately, a reference 6950 is cheaper, and most will OC just fine. So i wouldnt pay extra for the toxic since i prefer to OC on my own, its half the fun. But a lot of users dont want the hassle and grab OC models paying a slight premium.
happy medium
Lifer
yea ok...............gtx570 stock is 732 core, 850 core = gtx580.
Guru 3d
"This is a reference card, without voltage tweaking your limit will roughly be 800~825 MHz on the core (1600~1700 on the shader processors). Memory can be clocked at 4400~4500 MHz (effective)."
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-570-review/20
Techspot
842 core with no voltage another reference model.
http://www.techspot.com/review/346-gigabyte-geforce-gtx-570/page12.html
Legit reviews
825 core with no voltage reference card
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1482/17/
Techpowerup ASUS reference gtx570 review
822 core with no voltage
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_570/30.html
overclock .net forum...............
http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/891918-gtx-570-overclocking-thread.html
STABLE OVERCLOCKS:
semlethe3rd - 950/2050 1.088v water
b0sse 950/2000 1.1v water
maledragger - 924/2000 1.063
Capwn - 920/2080 1.088v
go4life - 910/2000 1.1v
CountChoculitis - 900/2200 1.1v
MerkSession - 900/2000 1.05v PROOF
LBear - 900/2200 1.073v
kidaquarius - 900/2020 1.075v
mariusvt - 900/2100 1.063v
zefs - 900/2000 1.1v
brandontaz2k2 - 900/2100 1.1v
turrican9 - 880/2200 1.1v
bl1nk - 875/2000 1.1v
Xylian - 875/2050 1.05v
jNSK - 870/2000 1.1v
Gojeran - 850/2050 1.025v PROOF
pewpewlazer - 850/2300 1.05v
kidaquarius - 850/2100 1.063v
saiyanzzrage - 850/2000 1.063v
Seann - 850/2000 1.063v
Chris Ihao - 850/2000 1.063v
CloudCR - 810/1980
kerkk - 800/1975 1.013v
Here is dozens more at Extreme systems forum..........
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?263492-***-NVIDIA-GTX-570-Overclocking-Thread-***
Keep the gtx570 card at or below the 1.1 voltage and there fine.
Just because some morons were bios flashing and were giving them too much volts , that makes them shoddy overclockers? No way!
They have a normal failure rate, just like any other card.
Edit: oh, and one more thing, the Toxic card was loud when overclocking/unlocking compared to a gtx570 @ stock.
Read the review...........
"The air that the fan was pushing became audible at 48% fan speeds. At 55% the motor in the fan became audible over the systems normal operating hum"
"After overclocked, fans were much more noticeable, but we had them set to 50% or higher at all times, which was necessary to match the performance of a Radeon HD 6970"
So the Toxic card cost as much as a gtx570, needs to be overclocked and unlocked to match its performance @ 1080p, uses about the same power as a gtx570, and will be louder because of the overclock.
And would lose in 90% of benchmarks @ 1080p if you just overclocked the 269$ gtx570 without voltage.
I'm impressed! 🙂
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
Except that without any overclocking, the factory Toxic 6950 trades blows with a GTX570:
Also, it consumes slightly less power at load (although I admit it's pretty small <and I personally don't really care about this, but some ppl may>):
But then you also get 2GB of VRAM for "free" so to speak, which actually helps in Shogun 2 for example, and makes it a better option should you want to go CF down the road when in 1-2 years more games need 2GB VRAM. On top of that, it runs a little quieter than a reference GTX570, also comes with a Dirt 3.
So you get more VRAM, free game, slightly more efficient/quieter card for the same price.
Still, both the GTX570/HD6950 2GB are a tough sell around $270-300 when HD6870 CF has fallen to nearly $300 in recent months. 😀
The only saving grace of the GTX570 is its overclocking.
Last edited:
Honestly, though, if I was looking for a solution in that price range I'd just jump for one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125385
at 870 Mhz you shouldn't even feel the difference between this, the Toxic 6950 or the GTX 570.
The only thing you'd be sacrificing is VRAM but you still come out $50 ahead of the other options.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125385
at 870 Mhz you shouldn't even feel the difference between this, the Toxic 6950 or the GTX 570.
The only thing you'd be sacrificing is VRAM but you still come out $50 ahead of the other options.
3DVagabond
Lifer
Maybe someone should start a GTX-570 thread? 🙄
happy medium
Lifer
Why the review uses a gtx570?
happy medium
Lifer
Last edited:
3DVagabond
Lifer
I think, by now, everyone knows your position. Repeating yourself ad nauseam isn't going to change anything. We know you like nVidia. We know you don't like [H]. How many times do you have to post virtually the same thing? Get a new schtick.
The context of post #33 was acceptable given its open-ended nature in the form of a question.
Your post here, however, is nothing short of inflammatory harassment that really has no business nor serves any purpose by being posted in this thread.
It is off-topic and needlessly personal/inflammatory.
Please stop this anti-whatever campaign that is going on here. If you can't stand happy medium's posts then put him on your ignore list.
Idontcare
Super Mod
Last edited by a moderator:
happy medium
Lifer
I don't know if it's fair to compare 1080p vs 1920x1200. It also doesn't look like they're applying AA or AF at Tweaktown.
What I can conclude from those benches is that te 6950 does well while running AA and AF at 1080p and the GTX 570 is faster at 1920x1200 running without either of those options enabled.
What I can conclude from those benches is that te 6950 does well while running AA and AF at 1080p and the GTX 570 is faster at 1920x1200 running without either of those options enabled.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
Thats normal, HD6950 at 880MHz will have 95-97% the performance of HD6970 (880MHz).
Silverforce11
Lifer
Yep, and still using a lot less power. Or you can OC it further to 950 and get gtx580 performance.. still using less power then.
If you don't need physx (some ppl do..), 6950 > 570 perf/price and overall package.
News is pretty slow these days no the 28nm front.. we're still talking bout 40nm stuff!
96Firebird
Diamond Member
God forbid we talk about a card that is comparable to the card the thread is about. Its not like the benchmark uses the card in its comparison, or they are at the same price points or anything...
Seriosuly? 🙄
SirPauly
Diamond Member
A very strong product and great to see differentiation from AIB's. For a modest premium for a 6950, and some modest tweaking one can garner performance attributes with Sku's that cost more.
But, the key is, the other product sku's also have AIB differentiation and have abilities for OC's, too.
For me, it's good to see AIB differentiation.
But, the key is, the other product sku's also have AIB differentiation and have abilities for OC's, too.
For me, it's good to see AIB differentiation.
AtenRa
Lifer
Depends on the game but generally GTX570 is faster, but i will give HD6950 1G the best price/perf as of now for 1080p.
SlowSpyder
Lifer
Happy, I think there are some differences. In this case the reviewer is testing a single non-reference card. With the EVGA GTX460 that was reviewed I think some felt like Nvidia was trying to distort things a bit by asking reviewers to test the newly launching Radeon cards against a non-reference GTX460. I don't think there would have been any objections if AT (or whoever) was doing a review of the non-reference card, but it was a review of new Radeon cards.
Also, that factory overclocked GTX460 was on par with the Radeon they tested it against as far as performance is concerned, but it was clearly pushed to it's limits and out of it's comfort zone. This 6950 still has plenty of room if one wanted to tweak it more, and it's still more efficient as far as power and heat are concerned than the GTX570.
For the record I didn't necessarily have a problem with that GTX460 being reviewed, though I can see why people felt Nvidia was trying to distort things a bit. But I think this situation isn't the same as that one, primarily because of what the reviewers were actually reviewing.
Also, that factory overclocked GTX460 was on par with the Radeon they tested it against as far as performance is concerned, but it was clearly pushed to it's limits and out of it's comfort zone. This 6950 still has plenty of room if one wanted to tweak it more, and it's still more efficient as far as power and heat are concerned than the GTX570.
For the record I didn't necessarily have a problem with that GTX460 being reviewed, though I can see why people felt Nvidia was trying to distort things a bit. But I think this situation isn't the same as that one, primarily because of what the reviewers were actually reviewing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
