AMD's Radeon HD 6970 & Radeon HD 6950: Paving The Future For AMD
by Ryan Smith on December 15, 2010 12:01 AM ESTFinal Thoughts
Often it’s not until the last moment that we have all the information in hand to completely analyze a new video card. The Radeon HD 6970 and Radeon HD 6950 were no different. With AMD not releasing the pricing information to the press until Monday afternoon, we had already finished our performance benchmarks before we even knew the price, so much time was spent speculating and agonizing over what route AMD would go. So let’s jump straight in to our recommendations.
Our concern was that AMD would shoot themselves in the foot by pricing the Radeon HD 6970 in particular at too high a price. If we take a straight average at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, its performance is more or less equal to the GeForce GTX 570. In practice this means that NVIDIA wins a third of our games, AMD wins a third of our games, and they effectively tie on the rest, so the position of the 6970 relative to the GTX 570 is heavily dependent on just what games out of our benchmark suite you favor. All we can say for sure is that on average the two cards are comparable.
So with that in mind a $370 launch price is neither aggressive nor overpriced. Launching at $20 over the GTX 570 isn’t going to start a price war, but it’s also not so expensive to rule the card out. Of the two the 6970 is going to take the edge on power efficiency, but it’s interesting to see just how much NVIDIA and AMD’s power consumption and performance under gaming has converged. It used to be much more lopsided in AMD’s favor.
Meanwhile the Radeon HD 6950 occupies an interesting spot. Above it is the 570/6970, below it are the soon to be discontinued GTX 470 and Radeon HD 5870. These cards were a bit of a spoiler for the GTX 570, and this is once more the case for the 6950. The 6950 is on average 7-10% faster than the 5870 for around 20% more. I am becoming increasingly convinced that more than 1GB of VRAM is necessary for any new cards over $200, but we’re not quite there yet. When the 5870 is done and gone the 6950 will be a reasonable successor, but for the time being the 5870 at $250 currently is a steal of a deal if you don’t need the extra performance or new features like DP1.2. Conversely the 6950 is itself a bit of a spoiler; the 6970 is only 10-15% faster for $70 more. If you had to have a 6900 card, the 6950 is certainly the better deal. Whether you go with the 5870, the 6950, or the 6970, just keep in mind that the 6900 series is in a much better position for future games due to AMD’s new architecture.
And that brings us to the final matter for today, that new architecture. Compared to the launch of Cypress in 2009 the feature set isn’t radically different like it was when AMD first added DirectX 11 support, but Cayman is radically different in its own way. After being carried by their current VLIW5 architecture for nearly four years, AMD is set to hand off their future to their new VLIW4 architecture. It won’t turn the world upside down for AMD or its customers, but it’s a reasonable step forward for the company by reducing their reliance on ILP in favor of more narrow TLP-heavy loads. For gaming this specifically means their hardware should be a better match for future DX10/DX11 games, and the second graphics engine should give them enough tessellation and rasterizing power for the time being.
Longer term we will have to see how AMD’s computing gamble plays out. Though we’ve largely framed Cayman in terms of gaming, to AMD Cayman is first and foremost a compute GPU, in a manner very similar to another company whose compute GPU is also the fastest gaming GPU on the market. Teething issues aside this worked out rather well for NVIDIA, but will lightning strike twice for AMD? The first Cayman-based video cards are launching today, but the Cayman story is just getting started.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
168 Comments
View All Comments
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
First of all, 30fps is choppy as hell in a non-RTS game. ~40fps is a bare minimum, and >60fps all the time is hugely preferred since then you can also use vsync to eliminate tearing.Now back to my point. Your counter was "you know that non-AA will be higher than AA, so why measure it?" Is that a point? Different cards will scale differently, and seeing 2560+AA doesn't tell us the performance landscape at real-world usage which is 2560 no-AA.
Dug - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Is it me, or are the graphs confusing.Some leave out cards on certain resolutions, but add some in others.
It would be nice to have a dynamic graph link so we can make our own comparisons.
Or a drop down to limit just ati, single card, etc.
Either that or make a graph that has the cards tested at all the resolutions so there is the same number of cards in each graph.
benjwp - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Hi,You keep using Wolfenstein as an OpenGL benchmark. But it is not. The single player portion uses Direct3D9. You can check this by checking which DLLs it loads or which functions it imports or many other ways (for example most of the idTech4 renderer debug commands no longer work).
The multiplayer component does use OpenGL though.
Your best bet for an OpenGL gaming benchmark is probably Enemy Territory Quake Wars.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
We use WolfMP, not WolfSP (you can't record or playback timedemos in SP).7Enigma - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Hi Ryan,What benchmark do you use for the noise testing? Is it Crysis or Furmark? Along the same line of questioning I do not think you can use Furmark in the way you have the graph setup because it looks like you have left Powertune on (which will throttle the power consumption) while using numbers from NVIDIA's cards where you have faked the drivers into not throttling. I understand one is a program cheat and another a TDP limitation, but it seems a bit wrong to not compare them in the unmodified position (or VERBALLY mention this had no bearing on the test and they should not be compared).
Overall nice review, but the new cards are pretty underwhelming IMO.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, December 16, 2010 - link
Hi 7Enigma;For noise testing it's FurMark. As is the case with the rest of our power/temp/noise benchmarks, we want to establish the worst case scenario for these products and compare them along those lines. So the noise results you see are derived from the same tests we do for temperatures and power draw.
And yes, we did leave PowerTune at its default settings. How we test power/temp/noise is one of the things PowerTune made us reevaluate. Our decision is that we'll continue to use whatever method generates the worst case scenario for that card at default settings. For NVIDIA's GTX 500 series, this means disabling OCP because NVIDIA only clamps FurMark/OCCT, and to a level below most games at that. Other games like Program X that we used in the initial GTX 580 article clearly establish that power/temp/noise can and do get much worse than what Crysis or clamped FurMark will show you.
As for the AMD cards the situation is much more straightforward: PowerTune clamps everything blindly. We still use FurMark because it generates the highest load we can find (even with it being reduced by over 200MHz), however because PowerTune clamps everything, our FurMark results are the worst case scenario for that card. Absolutely nothing will generate a significantly higher load - PowerTune won't allow it. So we consider it accurate for the purposes of establishing the worst case scenario for noise.
In the long run this means that results will come down as newer cards implement this kind of technology, but then that's the advantage of such technology: there's no way to make the card louder without playing wit the card's settings. For the next iteration of the benchmark suite we will likely implement a game-based noise test, even though technologies like PowerTune are reducing the dynamic range.
In conclusion: we use FurMark, we will disable any TDP limiting technology that discriminates based on the program type or is based on a known program list, and we will allow any TDP limiting technology that blindly establishes a firm TDP cap for all programs and games.
-Thanks
Ryan Smith
7Enigma - Friday, December 17, 2010 - link
Thanks for the response Ryan! I expected it to be lost in the slew of other posts. I highly recommend (as you mentioned in your second to last paragraph) that a game-based benchmark is used along with the Furmark for power/noise. Until both adopt the same TDP limitation it's going to put the NVIDIA cards in a bad light when comparisons are made. This could be seen as a legitimate beef for the fanboys/trolls, and we all know the less ammunition they have the better. :)Also to prevent future confusion it would be nice to have what program you are using for the power draw/noise/heat IN the graph title itself. Just something as simple as "GPU Temperature (Furmark-Load)" would make it instantly understandable.
Thanks again for the very detailed review (on 1 week nonetheless!)
Hrel - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
I really hope these architexture changes lead to better minimum FPS results. AMD is ALWAYS behind Nvidia on minimum FPS and in many ways that's the most important measurment since min FPS determines if the game is playable or not. I dont' care if it maxes out 122 FPS if when the shit hits the fan I get 15 FPS, I won't be able to accurately hit anything.Soldier1969 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
I'm dissapointed in the 6970, its not what I was expecting over my 5870. I will wait to see what the 6990 brings to the table next month. I'm looking for a 30-40% boost from my 5870 at 2560 x 1600 res I game at.stangflyer - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Now that we see the power requirements for the 6970 and that it needs more power than the 5870 how would they make a 6990 without really cutting off the performance like the 5970?I had a 5970 for a year b4 selling it 3 weeks ago in preparation of getting 570 in sli or 6990.
It would obviously have to be 2x8 pin power! Or they would have to really use that powertune feature.
I liked my 5970 as I didn't have the stuttering issues (or i don't notice them) And actually have no issues with eyefinity as i have matching dell monitors with native dp inputs.
If I was only on one screen I would not even be thinking upgrade but the vram runs out when using aa or keeping settings high as I play at 5040x1050. That is the only reason I am a little shy of getting the 570 in sli.
Don't see how they can make a 6990 without really killing the performance of it.
I used my 5970 at 5870 and beyond speeds on games all the time though.