AMD’s Radeon HD 6870 & 6850: Renewing Competition in the Mid-Range Market
by Ryan Smith on October 21, 2010 10:08 PM ESTWhat’s In a Name?
GPU naming is rarely consistent. While NVIDIA is usually the biggest perpetrator of naming confusion or suddenly switched names AMD does not have a clear record either (the Mobility 5100 series comes to mind). However we’re not sure there’s precedent for AMD’s latest naming decision, and there’s really no stepping around it. So we have a few thoughts we’d like to share.
Since the introduction of the Radeon 3870 in 2007, 800 has been the series designation for AMD’s high-end products. The only time they’ve broken this is last year, when AMD ditched the X2 moniker for their dual-GPU card for the 5900 designation, a move that ruffled a few feathers but at least made some sense since the 5970 wasn’t a true 5870 X2. Regardless, the 800 series has since 2007 been AMD’s designation for their top single-chip product.
With that naming scheme come expectations of performance. Each 800 series card has been successively faster, and while pricing has been inconsistent as AMD’s die size and costs have shifted, ultimately each 800 series card was a notable step up in performance from the previous card. With the 6800 this is not the case. In fact it’s absolutely a step down, the 6800 series is on average 7% slower than the 5800 series. This doesn’t mean that AMD hasn’t made enhancements to the card –we’ve already covered the enhanced tessellation unit, AA/AF, UVD3, and other features – but these are for the most part features and not performance enhancements.
Click to enlarge
Today AMD is turning their naming scheme on its head by launching these Barts cards with the 6800 name, but without better-than-5800 performance. AMD’s rationale for doing this is that they’re going to be continuing to sell the 5700 series, and that as a result they didn’t want to call these cards the 6700 series and introduce confusion. Furthermore AMD is trying to recapture the glory days of the 4800 series, where those parts sold for under $300 and then quickly under $200. It wasn’t until the 5800 series that an 800 series card became outright expensive. So for these reasons, AMD wanted to call these Barts cards the 6800 series.
We find ourselves in disagreement with AMD here.
We don’t have a problem with AMD introducing the 6 series here – the changes they’ve made, even if not extreme, at least justify that. But there’s a very real issue of creating confusion for buyers of the 5800 series now by introducing the 6800 series. The performance may be close and the power consumption lower, but make no mistake, the 5800 series was faster.
Ultimately this is not our problem; this is AMD’s problem. So we can’t claim harm per-say, but we can reflect on matters. The Barts cards being introduced today should have been called the 6700 series. It would have made the latest rendition of the 700 series more expensive than last time, but at the same time Barts is a very worthy upgrade to the 5700 series. But then that’s the problem for AMD; they don’t want to hurt sales of the 5700 series while it’s still on the market.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
197 Comments
View All Comments
krumme - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
No it more looks like NV have been playing around with rivatuner.Their cards at stock speed is a toaster. Overclocking again just before an AMD release does not make it better.
If they can sell cards at higher speeds do it. Release it. Dont talk about it, or coverdly hide behind factory overclocked cards. Pathetic and weak.
The sad thing about it is they made Anand change their methology.
What a sad result when the start was just bad gfx cards.
MrSpadge - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Not sure it was mentioned before: Cypress and RV770 run FP64 at 2/5th the FP32 speed, not 1/5th as written on the first page.MrS
Quantumboredom - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
It's 2/5 for addition, but 1/5 for multiplication and FMA as I recall it.krumme - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I you want real world testning for solid buying knowledge and no idiotic mixing of oc and non oc cards go to HardocpAnand needs to do a solid review of his own gfx reviews. This is stoneage methology with a fishy smell.
For the ssd there was an excellent revision with the real world bm suite introduction, - a revision far deeper is needed here.
chillmelt - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
I agree. Comparing a non-OC'd card to an OC'd one is in no way fair. The 6870 clearly clubbered 460 gtx in virtually all benchmarks, at stock speeds.krumme - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Yes. Think about this scenario: For this review anand (kyle) decided to use an overclocked Sapphire 6870 and compare it to a stock speed 460.What would happen? How would that look?
Its the same thing happening here.
mindbomb - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
if they are in the same price range, they should be compared.it gives the consumer more information on his purchasing decision.
idk why this arbitrary oc/non-oc rule comes into play. It was a factory overclock, and required nothing on the part of the end user.
krumme - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Okey. Now take an OC 6850, 900Mhz, and compare it to a far more expensive stock 460 1G?Where does this end. AMD and NV suplying the sites with factory overclocked cards for reviews. Its going to be a f..king mess. No one knows about availability, time period and so on.
Regarding pruchasing decision all the methology is plain wrong. Go to Hardocp if you consider buying a card. Here you have real world testing. Not like this old bad - and now fishy - methology of anand.
Why does he change methology just when he is getting the new cards. Hmm. Thats simply very bad science.
NV should concentrate on making cards that performs instead of using ressources putting pressure on sites like anand. If they have faster 460 models release it, or stop spinning.
Its a pain to read and watch. And its a shame for a site, that have the ressources to do proper testing, but dont have the balls any more.
We dont like AMD, Intel nor NV to influence the reviews. Right now there is an obvious bad influence from especially NV. And you, and everyone can see it. Dont underestimate the consequenses.
bji - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
You COMPLETELY missed the point. *IF* the OC 6850 was a factory overclocked card, sold at a price that puts it in the range of cards reviewed, then it *WOULD* make sense to compare it.So your example just further makes the point.
krumme - Friday, October 22, 2010 - link
Well as it stands now they dont release oc cards at launch day, but that will soon change..., if Anand and others dont stick to their policy