First retail 6870 photo; now includes full Chinese leaks and Guru3D review discussion

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,734
514
126
www.facebook.com
If I'm reading that correct, the 6870 scored P16270 in Vantage with a 900mhz clock speed. That might just beat a gtx 460@810.
I did a lot of runs myself, saved a pic of a test with gtx 460@920 and I scored P17100 without PPU.

Thanks for that. I don't pay attention to 3dvantage or most other synthetic benchmarks (so I don't know how those scores compare), but if this is accurate then based on what the translations are saying in that thread, it sounds like it is also slower than a 5870 in synthetic benchmarks.
 
Last edited:

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
Thanks for that. I don't pay attention to 3dvantage or most other synthetic benchmarks (so I don't know how those scores compare), but if this is accurate then based on what the translations are saying in that thread, it sounds like it is also slower than a 5870 in synthetic benchmarks.

Yeah, a 5870 does about 19K, its seems like it equaled a 470. They did say it would be between 5850 and 5870. We just need to see the DX11 performance.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
If these numbers are true then new shaders are much more efficient than the evergreen ones if a 960 6870 beats a 1440SP 5850.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,361
136
If these numbers are true then new shaders are much more efficient than the evergreen ones if a 960 6870 beats a 1440SP 5850

Well I don’t know, HD5850 has 1440 shaders at 725MHz core and HD6870 has 960 shaders at 900MHz.

The same could be said for GTX470 and GTX460. 448 shaders at 700MHz vs 336 shaders at 800-900MHz.

In order to know we have to test the same amount of shaders at the same frequency but we cant do that.

If HD6850 has 800 shaders then we could test it against a HD5770 at the shame frequency, but we have to lower HD6850s memory bandwidth in order to be the same as HD5770s 128bit memory.
 
Last edited:

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
Well I don’t know, HD5850 has 1440 shaders at 725MHz core and HD6870 has 960 shaders at 900MHz.

The same could be said for GTX470 and GTX460. 448 shaders at 700MHz vs 336 shaders at 800-900MHz.

In order to know we have to test the same amount of shaders at the same frequency but we cant do that.

Yeah, but the 5830 has more than both but is slower than both. Then again it only has 16rops. We also don't know how many the 6870 has.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,548
10,171
126
Right now, 2 gigs is pretty useless unless you are doing multi monitors, 25x16, or maybe about 4 games that use that much memory. Id be pretty disappointed if Barts had 2 gigs, it would be a waste of money. 2 gig 6970's might be stock, or they might be a lot more common this time around. And i dont think the renaming makes the former leaks fakes. Its very possible that AMD had just recently opted for a name change...

Would you say the same thing about 512MB versus 1GB HD4850s? That the extra memory is pretty useless ?
Compare the usefulness of the 512MB cards versus the 1GB cards. Would you advise someone who is buying a HD4850 to buy a 1GB card now? If so, why wouldn't you also recommend someone to buy a 2GB 6870? It would definately ensure longevity.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,110
1,260
126
Would you say the same thing about 512MB versus 1GB HD4850s? That the extra memory is pretty useless ?
Compare the usefulness of the 512MB cards versus the 1GB cards. Would you advise someone who is buying a HD4850 to buy a 1GB card now? If so, why wouldn't you also recommend someone to buy a 2GB 6870? It would definately ensure longevity.

More than 1GB of VRAM is really necessary at 2560x1600. While I have not used any eyefinity resolutions, I'm sure it will also hold true for those resolutions.

I see no reason for the 6870 to have more than 1GB as it is a mid-range card, but if the 6970 does not come out with 2GB of VRAM, it will be disappointing. No sense in putting out a single gpu monster without a large memory pool.
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
If these numbers are true then new shaders are much more efficient than the evergreen ones if a 960 6870 beats a 1440SP 5850.

This is my thinking as well. I just don't see AMD/ATI releasing a 6870 that is suppose to replace the 5770 but still not be faster than the 5870. It just doesn't make any sense. Hell...For all we know, the shader's or whatever it is could be a lot more efficient. I have no proof that they are...but still, no one has no proof that they aren't either.

If it is on the "same" level....then maybe they are calling it a 6870 just to get consumers to purchase the cards over the 5 Series because they think a higher number is usually better. But "imo" I really don't think this is it.

When these are finally released, I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be really surprised. Because as we all know...the shader's are supposed to be "tweaked" ?

Or maybe the performance is so "good"....maybe that is why a 6870 replacing a 5770 will be "midrange" ? So if a 6870 would be midrange....its either A) The performance is sub-par or B) The performance is high.

We will see I guess.

Has there been "any" rumor towards pricing ? I have read almost the entire thread, But I have skipped a lot of posts because I refuse to read flame/fanboy posts.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Rollo, Wreckage, and Chizow were like diseases that plagued the forum and nothing more.

So Wreckage is permanently banned?:confused:

If these are the new 'midrange' cards, I suppose they are not meant to run games at high enough resolutions where the 1GB is a limiting factor? Or perhaps, only in very few games, is 1GB a limiting factor?

Ares1214 is right. There are "practically" no games where 1GB is the limiting factor (even on a single 2560x1600 monitor), aside form GTAIV, Metro 2033 at 2560x1600 or some modded texture packs for certain games. Most modern stock games with Core i7s are GPU limited nowdays. When you notice that you need more than 1GB of videocard ram, your 5870/GTX480 GPU has already wet its pants :cool: So putting more than 1GB of ram on Barts XT is just wasting $$$ at this point.
 
Last edited:

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
There are "practically" no games where 1GB is the limiting factor (even on a single 2560x1600 monitor), aside form GTAIV, Metro 2033 at 2560x1600 or some modded texture packs for certain games. Most modern stock games with Core i7s are GPU limited nowdays. When you notice that you need more than 1GB of videocard ram, your 5870/GTX480 GPU has already wet its pants :cool: So putting more than 1GB of ram on Barts XT is just wasting $$$ at this point.

AA eats up a lot of VRAM. But I agree that if you are playing at 8xAA then your video card has other problems to deal with by that point. On the other hand, I would prefer more than 1GB for my Eyefinity Lite setup (5040x1040) for obvious reasons. Maybe 1536MB RAM?

As for performance discussions, Barts is supposed to be 2/3 of Cayman's size. Things won't scale perfectly and clocks may not match, but roughly speaking, I'd expect Barts XT to be 2/3 of the speed of Cayman XT.
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
Semi Accurate
A reference 5850 with voltage adjustment is the only comparable card (stock)performance/oc ability wise to the gtx 460.
Now many 5850's were made without that ability, and they cost more than the gtx 460.

gtx470. Enough said. Keeping it cool is a problem, though.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
As for performance discussions, Barts is supposed to be 2/3 of Cayman's size. Things won't scale perfectly and clocks may not match, but roughly speaking, I'd expect Barts XT to be 2/3 of the speed of Cayman XT.

Barts XT is looking like an 800mhz GTX460/GTX470 right now. I honestly am not interested in Barts XT since for 5850/5870/GTX470/480 owners this card will not even be a consideration to upgrade to.

I want Cayman XT to be at least 50-60% faster than Barts XT. Deep down I hope that Cayman XT destroys the GTX480. I need to look forward to upgrading in 12 months to something worthwhile! :p Plus, it gives NV a high bar to reach, which will make them work that much harder too. If Cayman XT is only 20% faster than GTX480 I will be mad. :twisted:

Also, I am much more interested in comparing 3dMark11 results. 3DMark 11 uses a native DirectX 11 engine designed to make extensive use of all the new features in DirectX 11, including tessellation, compute shaders and multi-threading. Vantage seems old hehe.
 
Last edited:

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,274
41
91
I hope not!!! Barts XT is looking like an 800mhz GTX460/GTX470 right now. I want Cayman XT to be at least 50-60% faster than Barts XT. I need to look forward to upgrading in 12 months to something worthwhile! :p

LOL.

If Barts XT is 2/3 (66%) of Cayman XT, then Cayman XT will be 50% (3/2) faster than Barts XT.

You guys just said the same thing.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
I hope not!!! Barts XT is looking like an 800mhz GTX460/GTX470 right now. I want Cayman XT to be at least 50-60% faster than Barts XT. I need to look forward to upgrading in 12 months to something worthwhile! :p

Also, I am much more interested in comparing 3dMark11 results. 3DMark 11 uses a native DirectX 11 engine designed to make extensive use of all the new features in DirectX 11, including tessellation, compute shaders and multi-threading. Vantage seems old hehe.

Cayman XT at 50-60% faster than a card that is allegedly ~Cypress XT in performance, at the same 40nm process, without a huge increase in die space, is asking a lot. IIRC, Cayman XT is rumored to be ~30-40% faster than Cypress XT, perhaps due to VRAM limitations as things don't scale perfectly, and they only make VRAM so fast, and AMD seems unwilling to go past 256-bit bus. But you are right, I forgot about other things that could change, including VRAM speed.. supposedly they are using the highest-end stuff for Cayman.

Abe--yeah, except he wants better than perfect scaling (anything above 50% faster than Barts XT would be better-than-perfect scaling, all else equal--though they are NOT equal hence some fudge factor room) and I think that's unrealistic. :)
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
LOL.

If Barts XT is 2/3 (66%) of Cayman XT, then Cayman XT will be 50% (3/2) faster than Barts XT.

You guys just said the same thing.

haha you are right. I just failed math. (1/0.66 = 50% faster!)

Cayman XT at 50-60% faster than a card that is allegedly ~Cypress XT in performance, at the same 40nm process, without a huge increase in die space, is asking a lot.

WRT DX9/10 I agree, but not in regard to DX11 performance. HD5000 series wasn't strong in DX11 (DOF, Tessellation effects, etc.). So I expect it to be 60%+ faster in modern DX11 games over 5870 (Metro 2033, Civ5, STALKER:Cop, Lost Planet 2, BattleForge).
 
Last edited:

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
WRT DX9/10 I agree, but not in regard to DX11 performance. HD5000 series wasn't strong in DX11 (DOF, Tessellation effects, etc.). So I expect it to easily be 60% faster in modern DX11 games (Metro 2033, Civ5, STALKER:Cop, Lost Planet 2, BattleForge).

Good point, I hear that they buffed up the tessellation so it's 3-4x more capable.
 

Davidh373

Platinum Member
Jun 20, 2009
2,428
0
71
Is it just what I've read everywhere or hasn't fermi beaten down ATI's 58xx series with it's graphics cards? People in here speculate far too much. Will this be better than Fermi? Likely. Will NVidia get dominated... probably not. NVidia will do the same dance Graphics card companies have done for years, reduce prices while ATI gets to have ridiculous prices on their cards, then NVidia will release new cards and ATI will lower prices. I don't think I've noticed a single year where they haven't only traded places in the market. Why fight and brag about which company is "The Best" when the pattern they've woven over the years is simply that of trading places within the market?
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Is it just what I've read everywhere or hasn't fermi beaten down ATI's 58xx series with it's graphics cards? People in here speculate far too much. Will this be better than Fermi? Likely. Will NVidia get dominated... probably not. NVidia will do the same dance Graphics card companies have done for years, reduce prices while ATI gets to have ridiculous prices on their cards, then NVidia will release new cards and ATI will lower prices. I don't think I've noticed a single year where they haven't only traded places in the market. Why fight and brag about which company is "The Best" when the pattern they've woven over the years is simply that of trading places within the market?

This thread is not intended to be yet another NV-vs-AMD thread. Personally I like NV's approach in the long run more than AMD's, with regard to Fermi-style architecture. I think it's more scalable and will outlive AMD's current design.

I am excited about HD6xxx because it is supposedly faster and more cost-effective than HD5xxx, and has single-GPU Eyefinity, which is important to me for obvious reasons. I refuse to go multi-GPU unless absolutely necessary. (If you want reasons why, google "microstutter" and also read this: http://hardocp.com/article/2010/10/08/ati_crossfirex_vs_nvidia_sli_new_games_performance I would also have to upgrade my mobo and likely my PSU as well.)

If NV ever comes out with a GPU that can do 3-way Surround natively and it's competitively priced, sign me up. I suspect Kepler and/or Maxwell will have that feature, but that's a long time from now.

P.S. If AMD overprices HD6xxx I am thinking about abandoning Eyefinity and picking up a $130AR GTX460-768MB instead. I won't tolerate two straight years of price-gouging.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Hey guys... I know this is off topic... but I've been compulsively searching for good deals on GPUs and the price drops have been great! is this a good deal for at ATI 5870 for $299.99 after $50 mail in rebate? Or should I wait for the Barts? Or wait for an even better deaL?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-316-_-Product

IMO, you should upgrade when the games you play no longer run to what you consider satisfactory. If you have the itch to ugprade for fun, might as well wait for HD6000 series. 5870 should fall even more once they start clearing inventory.

So this is what we have then?

5750 replaced by 6850
5770 replaced by 6870
5850 replaced by 6950
5870 replaced by 6970
5970 replaced by 6990?
 
Last edited:
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Since its so close to release anyway..

I've got Barts XT to OC by 200mhz on the core with no vcore mod and it was still running cool and quiet, it can be pushed further easily. As for the 6800 naming, marketing felt that since its close to the 5870 in dx9/10 but faster in dx11, the name is fine.

Edit: What this means for Barts Pro is that it truly is a monster OC gpu, for low prices, if you don't mind OC it will be the best bang for buck.
 
Last edited: