The Radeon HD 6950 Sweet Spot: Five 1 GB Cards Rounded-Up

[Crashman]

AMD’s 1 GB Radeon HD 6950s are certainly cheaper than their 2 GB predecessors. But are they really a better value? In theory, the Cayman GPU runs out of steam before 2 GB is needed. So, we're comparing five custom 1 GB cards to the 2 GB part to find out.

The Radeon HD 6950 Sweet Spot: Five 1 GB Cards Rounded-Up : Read more

 

[mayankleoboy1]

are the benches of metro2033 correct?? They seem very high to me.
my gtx 580 @ 1080p with these exact settings gets around 35 average fps.
the low fps are probably around 15.

Edit: oh ok. i play at ultra settings with advanced physx on. the test uses medium settings with no physx.

 

[compton]

I've really started gravitating to the card with the lowest noise at idle -- but if I don't need to pour hot wax in my earholes on load, that's certainly a bonus. Perhaps the forthcoming 28nm GPUs can give the same kind of quietness at full load -- even overclocked substantially -- that my i5 2500K does. The main issue with aftermarket GPU coolers is their questionable compatability and the fact that the market for them isn't nearly as broad as CPU coolers are. I bought a Noctua for my CPU, that I can take with me from 775, 1156, 1155 (maybe X58 boards too)... in addition to every AM2 and AM3/3+. So I view that purchase as more of a long term investment. If GPU coolers were the same way, I'd have no problem just buying the GPU I want and slapping a cooler on it.

If only things were so simple. That's why I think (hope, really) that a large number of next-gen low and mid range cards will be mostly silent, and very efficient.

 

[Guest]

Why wasn't the Asus HD 69501GB w/ DirectCU II cooler tested? I'd think that's a pretty strong competitor as well.

 

[jdwii]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]are the benches of metro2033 correct??my gtx 580 @ 1080p with these exact settings gets around 35 average fps.the low fps are probably around 15.[/citation]

Yeah it cost twice as much to. I could CF both of these cards and it would kill your card in performance/price

 

[amirp]

The metro2033 benches are on medium that's why...
and why ARE they on medium settings? wouldn't it show the benefit of 2gb on higher settings, hell even on my 6850 I play it on higher settings than that...

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]conjugate[/nom]Why wasn't the Asus HD 69501GB w/ DirectCU II cooler tested? I'd think that's a pretty strong competitor as well.[/citation]Try asking Asus? If you don't see a card it's because the company decided not to use it.[citation][nom]amirp[/nom]The metro2033 benches are on medium that's why...and why ARE they on medium settings? wouldn't it show the benefit of 2gb on higher settings, hell even on my 6850 I play it on higher settings than that...[/citation]Thumbs down for not reading the text below those charts:

The benchmark for this game also reports minimum frame rates, and most players will only be able to see apparent smoothness at 2560x1600 using medium details with AA disabled (producing around 19 FPS minimum).

The test was set up to produce playable framerates in the sample map. The tests showed a minimum framerate of around 19.8 FPS using MEDIUM details and no AA at 2560x1600. Obviously, the sample map pushes these graphics cards harder than the maps you're currently playing.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]Actually no, my 6950 1GB handles Metro as good as the 2GB version on very high settings with Adavanced DOF on,only difference between mine and the Sapphire card used in this article is mine has just one fan..........wtf....[/citation]You'll still see it fall off at 2560x1600 more than the 2GB version Not that anyone actually buys a single 1GB 6950 to run 2560x1600 or higher in Metro 2033 at very-high settings, CrossFire does exist for a reason.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]are the benches of metro2033 correct??my gtx 580 @ 1080p with these exact settings gets around 35 average fps.the low fps are probably around 15.[/citation]

I have found that Metro 2033 requires a strong CPU as well as GPU. Your CPU might be the bottleneck. I've also found that Metro 2033 is one of the few games I've played that hyperthreading matters.

 

[flong]

I have the XFX 6950 2GB card and when I bought mine, the cost difference (in the real world) between the 1 GB and 2GB cards was lik $20. I just didn't see the value of going to a 1 GB card for $20.

Unless prices have changed a lot, I don't see the 1GB 6950 as the sweet spot.There are probably a dozen of other professional reviews that show that the 2GB version DOES greatly improve performance at the highest settings. At the highest settings, the 6950 2GB card virtually ties the more expensive 570.

It would have been interesting to see which of the cards overclocks the best. I moved my settings up in ATI's Catalsyst Control but the card did not overclock when I moved the settings up for some reason. I tried researching it but XFX's info kind of sucks. Anyway, my card is so fast that I decided it wasn't important anyway and I don't game.

 

[_Pez_]

I liked how the review was made, it solve part of my decisions to get a 2Gb or 1Gb card. But I think, that would be maybe more accurate if on the charts were shown the max amount of graphics memory used per game at each settings and resolution... Just to see what results pops out...

 

[TopGun]

1.) Besides the OC'ed cards I don't understand what would make a 2GB card have less fps than a 1 GB card...shouldn't they be pretty much tied (when not OC'ed)? What am I missing that makes the 2GB card slower?

2.) Are any of the 1GB cards in this article able to unlock the extra shaders like I've read that some 2GB 6950's can (into basically a 6970)?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]TopGun[/nom]1.) Besides the OC'ed cards I don't understand what would make a 2GB card have less fps than a 1 GB card...shouldn't they be pretty much tied (when not OC'ed)? What am I missing that makes the 2GB card slower?2.) Are any of the 1GB cards in this article able to unlock the extra shaders like I've read that some 2GB 6950's can (into basically a 6970)?[/citation]I've heard that you need a first-generation 6950 to get shader unlocking capability but haven't investigated it beyond the card BIOS issues. Also, I've heard from numerous sources that 1GB cards have better memory timings compared to 2GB cards

 

[flong]

[citation][nom]_Pez_[/nom]I liked how the review was made, it solve part of my decisions to get a 2Gb or 1Gb card. But I think, that would be maybe more accurate if on the charts were shown the max amount of graphics memory used per game at each settings and resolution... Just to see what results pops out...[/citation]

Be careful, this review while having a reference 2GB card,doesn't even begin to show the true performance of the 2GB cards and in that way it is misleading. I would strongly suggest that you read some other site's reviews because this one sucks in telling the whole story about the 2 GB card.

The Reader's Digest version is that there is little difference in performance between the 1 GB and the 2 GB card until you start getting into the highest game settings and higher resolution monitors. Then the 2 GB card starts to pull away.

 

[flong]

[citation][nom]TopGun[/nom]1.) Besides the OC'ed cards I don't understand what would make a 2GB card have less fps than a 1 GB card...shouldn't they be pretty much tied (when not OC'ed)? What am I missing that makes the 2GB card slower?2.) Are any of the 1GB cards in this article able to unlock the extra shaders like I've read that some 2GB 6950's can (into basically a 6970)?[/citation]

This is a reference card and its performance is not anywhere near the improved versions of the card

 

[damric]

Why didn't you overclock or unlock the shaders? This would have shown much advantage to the MSI and Gigabyte cards better power handling and cooling.

 

[flong]

[citation][nom]northfaceoutlet[/nom]North Face Outlet Berkeley TNF Prophet 65 backpack in general, its main design direction in the face of Alpine climbing snow-capped mountains and rock climbing technology-based large-capacity backpack. Backpack weight, suspension system, fabric, accessories and other indicators, the basic class to match the characteristics of Arab-style backpack. North Face Outlet Locations Words: Light, slim, simple, strong.If targeted at low altitude mountain climbing, then this section backpack needs some changes in design, in order to better meet the actual demand. However, North Face Outlet large backpack, Primero series should specifically address A-type backpack mountaineering climbing outside. From the North Face Berkeley technical information on the official website of view, Primero series backpack, basically very few of those features mentioned above does not apply to the design, such as increased storage compartment sleeping bags, open side of the main pack, detachable belt bilateral woven water bottle pocket, walking sticks instead of ice ax loop and ring crampons bag, backpack enhanced waterproof function, in short, northface outlet berkeley Primero series of basic backpack design features adapted to the daily outdoor hiking and long distance travel.Now North Face Outlet Stores items on Sale.[/citation]

Dude you need to get off of this site unless you are going to discuss the subject - you are way out of line and you are going to sale anything to anyone by flaming this site!

 

[flong]

[citation][nom]damric[/nom]Why didn't you overclock or unlock the shaders? This would have shown much advantage to the MSI and Gigabyte cards better power handling and cooling.[/citation]

Gotta remember that you can brick a card by trying this. I think that this review rightfully did not bring this issue up. I do think they should have mentioned it though - so people would know. However there are several MSI Frozen versions and Gigabyte cards that cannot be unlocked to a 6970. These cards may not have the dual BIOS switch. And really, if you need a 6970, shouldn't you just buy a 6970? It really isn't that much faster than a good 6950 card.

 

[blackdragonx1186]

Can these 1gb versions be flashed to 6970's the way the 2gb models can?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]blackdragonx1186[/nom]Can these 1gb versions be flashed to 6970's the way the 2gb models can?[/citation]No. And most 2gb models can't either.

 

[flong]

Can these 1gb versions be flashed to 6970's the way the 2gb models can?

No, they cannot. And not every version of the 2 GB MSI Frozr and 2 GB Gigabyte card can be flashed to a 6970

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]flong[/nom]Be careful, this review while having a reference 2GB card,doesn't even begin to show the true performance of the 2GB cards and in that way it is misleading. I would strongly suggest that you read some other site's reviews because this one sucks in telling the whole story about the 2 GB card. The Reader's Digest version is that there is little difference in performance between the 1 GB and the 2 GB card until you start getting into the highest game settings and higher resolution monitors. Then the 2 GB card starts to pull away.[/citation]The difference between 5FPS minimum at 10FPS minimum is nothing when neither is playable. Winning" at unplayable settings is a losing proposition, so a single 2GB card usually doesn't make sense.

The best excuse to buy 2GB cards is CrossFire. 2GB x2 = 2GB because the data on both cards is identical (kind of like RAID 1 with hard drives), and TWO HD 6950 GPUs have the power to actually MAKE those higher settings playable.

 

[Rizlla]

I just love these comparison reviews.

 

[amirp]

Thumbs down for not reading the text below those charts:

The benchmark for this game also reports minimum frame rates, and most players will only be able to see apparent smoothness at 2560x1600 using medium details with AA disabled (producing around 19 FPS minimum).

The test was set up to produce playable framerates in the sample map. The tests showed a minimum framerate of around 19.8 FPS using MEDIUM details and no AA at 2560x1600. Obviously, the sample map pushes these graphics cards harder than the maps you're currently playing.

I disagree, and would argue that you have detracted from the usefulness of the metro2033 data (other than the 2560 by 1600 results, but who would purchase a single 6950 to run at such a resolution anyways?).

My point is, the great majority of people purchasing a 6950 would like to know how the 1gb version compares to the 2gb version at around 1080p resolution at MAX settings...you should focus more on making things realistic (the 2560 by 1600 data is realistic since it's on medium but the 1080p data isn't...who puts it on medium to get a 90fps average?...)

I just disagree with your use of medium settings at these resolutions, there could exist a vram bottleneck at higher settings which you didn't explore. Your results don't prove anything if realistically a person with a 6950 would put the settings to very high at 1080p , where maybe the 6950 2gb with full settings +dx11 could have pulled ahead.

Sorry, but you're clearly wrong on this, you can back-up your 2560 by 1600 results (for the 5 people with the 1 6950 and this monitor) but for the majority of 1080p users your data doesn't prove one way or another if the 1gb or 2gb is enough for a graphically intense game like metro2033 at realistic resolutions and FPS
You should have shown a comparison between Medium, high, and very high settings at 1080p to see if increasing the settings produces a gap between the 1gb and 2gb models.

 

[assassin123]

it is realy good