AMD's Radeon HD 6970 & Radeon HD 6950: Paving The Future For AMD
by Ryan Smith on December 15, 2010 12:01 AM ESTHAWX
Ubisoft’s 2008 aerial action game is one of the less demanding games in our benchmark suite, particularly for the latest generation of cards. However it’s fairly unique in that it’s one of the few flying games of any kind that comes with a proper benchmark.
HAWX is a game that traditionally favors NVIDIA, so there aren’t any major surprises here. At 2560 the gap is nearly 10% between the 6970 and 570, while it grows to 20% at 1920. The difference is largely academic – I’m not sure even NVIDIA’s DX10 SSAA mode can make HAWX anything but buttery smooth – but it’s an area where the Radeon consistently falls up short. Meanwhile CrossFire and SLI scaling is almost equal here, leading to even more ridiculous framerates but no change in ranking.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
168 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Exactly the same as on Cypress.L2: 128KB per ROP block (so 512KB)
L1: 8KB per SIMD
LDS: 32KB per SIMD
GDS: 64KB
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/4061/MidLevelView...
I don't have the register file size readily available.
DanNeely - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
How likely is the decrease from 2 to 1 operations per clock likely to affect real world applications?yeraldin37 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
My current cards are running at 870Mhz(GPU) and 1100Mhz(clock), faster than stock 5870, those benchmarks for new 6970 are really disappointing, I was seriously expecting to get a single 6970 for Christmas to replace my 5850OC CF cards and make room for additional cards or even have a free pcie to plug my gtx460 for physx capability. I was going to be happy to get at least 80% of my current 5850CF setup from new 6970. what a joke! I will not make any move and wait for upcoming next generation 28nm amd GPU's. We have to be fair and mention all great efforts from AMD team to bring new technology to newest radeon cards, however not enough performance for die hard gamers. If gtx 580 were 20% cheaper I might consider to buy one, I personally never ever pay more than $400 for one(1) video card.Nfarce - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Reading Tom's Hardware they essentially slam AMD's marketing these cards as a 570-580 beater. Guru3D is also less than friendly. Interstingly, *both* sites have benches showing the 570 an d580 beating the 6950 and 6970 commandingly. What's up with that exactly?fausto412 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
it's called AMD didn't deliver on the hype...they deserve to get slammed.medi01 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
AMD delivers cards with better performance/price ratio that also consume less power. How come there is a reason to "slam", eh?zst3250 - Friday, December 31, 2010 - link
Off yourself cretin, prefearbly by getting your cranium kicked in.Mr Perfect - Thursday, December 16, 2010 - link
Wait, is Tom's reputable again? Haven't read that site since the Athlon XP was new....AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
As a 30" owner and gamer, I would never run at 2560x1600 with AA enabled if that causes <60fps. I'd disable AA. Who wouldn't value framerate over AA? So when the fps is <60, please compare cards at 2560x1600 without AA, so that I'm able to apply the results to a purchase decision.SimpJee - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Greetings, also a 30'' gamer. If you see the FPS above 30 with AA enabled, you can assume it will be (much) higher without it enabled so what's the point in actually having the author bench it without AA? Plus, anything above 30 FPS is just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.