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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would also love to see the 2GB models put into situations where the extra ram becomes useful. Crossfire 2 2GB models vs 2 1GB models and run 2033 at max resolutions and see where you end up. I think that's when you will really see the extra ram shine, which is why I bought the 2GB model.
 
[citation][nom]amirp[/nom]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.[/citation]

i agree. Crashman, you should have pushed the settings to the max. at 1080p. I know most games don't use more than 1GB RAM, but i'be seen the megabytes climb even in games like MW2 with shaders set to the highest. I play at 1024x768, so i only saw the RAM usage go from 400-something to over 600MB after i did this.

1080p and a 6950 i a kind of bang for buck combo, you're not spending a huge amount for a decent full HD 23-inch screen (at least in the US, not in India as of now, sadly) and you're not emptying your pockets trying to get a top of the line GPU. I mean, it's pretty high end, but it's not a flagship.

People would want to push a 1080p setup to the max with this card in most games, so i think it is a good idea to see if more memory is worth it.

BTW, how future-proof is a 1GB card vs a 2GB card? With beautiful DX11 games becoming more common, i wonder how future games (at least the next 3 years) would respond to increased graphics memory.

And why not include Crysis 2 set at it's highest settings with AA and DX11? Would really like to see a similar comparison after BF3 (sooooo close!) and Skyrim release too.
 
[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]
ahahahahaha

If you ask me, sapphire suck, no really, look at the benchmarks, you'll see the difference, besides, i preffer either HIS or Gigabyte, even MSI is better than sapphire, no really, sapphire suck if you ask me, had 2 graphic cards from sapphire, and one of them was so poor in gameing (it was a 4650 wich overheader when gameing, 2nd was an 5450 wich was for a normal computer pc, wich also overheader and sometimes made blu-screens).

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but i won't even buy a sapphire, now i have a HD 5670, from HIS and it's pretty chilly 😀 atm, 41 C
 
The real question is how the 1GB hold up against the 2GB in an eyefinity setup, that's where the 2GB cards shine and that is why I bought mine.
 
I[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]..The best excuse to buy 2GB cards is CrossFire. 2GB x2 = 2GB because the data on both cards is identical ...[/citation]
Is there a demonstration somewhere of a 1GB vs 2GB in Crossfire?
 
Why use only imperial in the table on the first page? Sure I can convert the numbers to metric to make sense of them. However, you have previously used metric in many articles and you used it for temperatures. I know you cater primarily to a US audience, but there are a number of people from outside the US who use the site as well. For them millimeters and grams would make more sense and could be listed in parenthesis beside the existing numbers.
 
Nice review Tom's. It often bugs me when people say 1gb is insufficient and will bottleneck the cards. This just goes to show how silly that is. Not that 2gb is bad, but it's hardly what most people on the forums seem to make of it.
 
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]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![/citation]


i cant believe you're trying to talk to a spambot!!!
 
[citation][nom]Flerbizky[/nom]Some of them can.. I know my XFX 6950 is running as a 6970 with all shaders enabled. Thread is here: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/ [...] count=2191[/citation]

We were talking about that the 1 GB 6950s cannot be flashed to a 6970. We were not saying that the 2 GB could not be flashed. Sorry for the confusion.
 
People are reporting over 1gb VRAM usage in BF3 beta @ 1080p. It would be great if this was addressed in the BF3 performance review. In particular, are setups like the 2x6870's, 2xgtx 560ti's, 2xhd6950 1gb's being bottlenecked by VRAM?
 
[citation][nom]amirp[/nom]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?...)[/citation]And I'm telling you the cards did not produce playable framerates with everything else maxed and MEDIUM details at that resolution. Averages don't matter if you get fragged whenever you hit fog.[citation][nom]shane799[/nom]I would also love to see the 2GB models put into situations where the extra ram becomes useful. Crossfire 2 2GB models vs 2 1GB models and run 2033 at max resolutions and see where you end up. I think that's when you will really see the extra ram shine, which is why I bought the 2GB model.[/citation]Exactly.[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]Considering Displayport was adopted as a standard quite some time ago I am surprised at the number of graphic cards that lack Displayport.[/citation]They all had DisplayPort, look closer or just read the list on the front page.[citation][nom]triculious[/nom]would the extra gRAM make a difference on cross fire and multi-monitor settings?[/citation]Usually.
 
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]We were talking about that the 1 GB 6950s cannot be flashed to a 6970. We were not saying that the 2 GB could not be flashed. Sorry for the confusion.[/citation]
If you read the thread, and my post in particular, you see that I'm running a 1Gb XFX 6950 flashed to 6970 specs.. So yes - Many 1Gb 6950s CAN be flashed to 6970 specs..
 
to add to everyone else. Why did they test metro 2033 on medium I run it on high with Radeon 4850 and its smooth. Kinda pointless to test these high end cards on medium?
 
I have to say I'm a little dissapointed with the 2Gb version results, since it does worse even than all the 1Gb versions with stock settings. I expected it to at least get the same results.
In what situations would the extra memory be worth it, getting better performance? if it was to have the extra shaders unlocked and have 6970 clocks, would the extra memory be usefull and make a difference in comparisson with the 1Gb versions in the same settings (supposing we had both versions on hand with successfull shaders unlock)? I'm asking because I have a 2Gb versions with unlocked shaders.
 
[citation][nom]zeromikey[/nom]to add to everyone else. Why did they test metro 2033 on medium I run it on high with Radeon 4850 and its smooth. Kinda pointless to test these high end cards on medium?[/citation]-1, already answered three times.[citation][nom]Uni-duni-te[/nom]I have to say I'm a little dissapointed with the 2Gb version results, since it does worse even than all the 1Gb versions with stock settings. I expected it to at least get the same results.In what situations would the extra memory be worth it, getting better performance? if it was to have the extra shaders unlocked and have 6970 clocks, would the extra memory be usefull and make a difference in comparisson with the 1Gb versions in the same settings (supposing we had both versions on hand with successfull shaders unlock)? I'm asking because I have a 2Gb versions with unlocked shaders.[/citation]-1, already answered five times
 
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]already answered five times[/citation]

Please show me where it was answered about the extra memory being usefull with unlocked shaders and higher clocks, because honestly I didn't see it, and I just read all the posts to be sure.
 
This article is stupid and misleading.

You can't put a "reference" 2GB card up against other modified and overclocked cards! It's like you purposely are just trying to rig the setup to meet your desired conclusion.

Why is it that only older PC titles were tested? It's because the 2GB would shine through on newer games with high res textures that eat up the gpu memory quickly.

I mean, I don't think the 2GB version is way better or anything ... but to put test results up that show the 2GB reference card score lower than the 1GB versions is just lame!

 
[citation][nom]Uni-duni-te[/nom]Please show me where it was answered about the extra memory being usefull with unlocked shaders and higher clocks, because honestly I didn't see it, and I just read all the posts to be sure.[/citation]Higher resolutions and detail levels require more memory. With a single HD 6950, by the time you need more than a gigabyte you're probably already exceeding the capabilities of the GPU, aka your game looks like a slide show. So, you need more GPU. Add a second card (CrossFire) and now you have more GPU, then you can play past the limits of 1GB (at least in some games). In CrossFire, the memory on both cards is mapped identically, so 2x 2GB = 2GB. Improving the performance of a single GPU has some of the same effect.[citation][nom]beardguy[/nom]You can't put a "reference" 2GB card up against other modified and overclocked cards! It's like you purposely are just trying to rig the setup to meet your desired conclusion.[/citation]It's obvious why one would compare modified cards to a standard card, you want a baseline to see what has been improved. THE standard is AMD's launch card, so that's what was used. You'd better work a little harder if you want to convince people with your conspiracy theories.[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]Now do a benchmark where 2GB shows it's use; in crossfire config. Sure, with a single GPU, the 6950 doesn't need the extra Vram. But with two of them running, it'll use 2GB or more easily with the right games.[/citation]I believe Chris or Don wrote that article when 1GB cards were launched. Now I can't find it...
 
"It's obvious why one would compare modified cards to a standard card, you want a baseline to see what has been improved. THE standard is AMD's launch card, so that's what was used. You'd better work a little harder if you want to convince people with your conspiracy theories."

Well the point of the article is to help people decide what card to buy. So obviously since nobody is going to but a 2GB reference card, it's not helpful.

It's a bit like comparing a multi-core processor to a single core before software was actually taking advantage of multiple cores. If you went solely on clock speed, there was no difference in performance from the single core to a multi-core processor. Most games currently cannot even saturate the 1gig limit on GPU's, so these tests don't tell us much. Especially in regards to how future proof a 2GB model might be.
 
[citation][nom]beardguy[/nom]Well the point of the article is to help people decide what card to buy.[/citation]To clarify, the point of the article is to help Radeon HD 6950 1GB buyers decide which specific model best fits there needs. The 1GB vs 2GB article was a long time ago.

Sorry, I have no 1GB reference cards, but it was nice to see one benchmark where the extra RAM was useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom