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
mac2j - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Um - if you have the money for a 580 ... pick up another $80-100 and get 2 x 6950 - you'll get nearly the best possible performance on the market at a similar cost.Also I agree that Nvidia will push the 580 price down as much as possible... the problem is that if you believe all of the admittedly "unofficial" breakdowns ... it costs Nvidia 1.5-2x as much to make a 580 as it costs AMD to make a 6970.
So its hard to be sure how far Nvidia can push down the price on the 580 before it ceases to become profitable - my guess is they'll focus on making a 565 type card which has almost 570 performance but for a manufacturing cost closer to what a 460 runs them.
fausto412 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
yeah. AMD let us down on this here product. We see what gtx580 is and what 6970 is...i would say if you planning to spend 500...the gtx580 is worth it.truepurple - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
"support for color correction in linear space"What does that mean?
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
There are two common ways to represent color, linear and gamma.Linear: Used for rendering an image. More generally linear has a simple, fixed relationship between X and Y, such that if you drew the relationship it would be a straight line. A linear system is easy to work with because of the simple relationship.
Gamma: Used for final display purposes. It's a non-linear colorspace that was originally used because CRTs are inherently non-linear devices. If you drew out the relationship, it would be a curved line. The 5000 series is unable to apply color correction in linear space and has to apply it in gamma space, which for the purposes of color correction is not as accurate.
IceDread - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Yet again we do not get to see hd 5970 in crossfire despite it being a single card! Is this an nvidia site?Anyway, for those of you who do want to see those results, here is a link to a professional Swedish site!
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/13175-amd-rad...
Maybe there is some google translation available or so if you want to understand more than the charts shows.
medi01 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Wow, 5970 in crossfire consumes less than 580 in SLI.http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/13175-amd-rad...
ggathagan - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Absolutely!!!There's no way on God's green earth that Anandtech doesn't currently have a pair of 5970's on hand, so that MUST be the reason.
I'll go talk to Anand and Ryan right now!!!!
Oh, wait, they're on a conference call with Huang Jen-Hsun.....
I'd like to note that I do not believe Anadtech ever did a test of two 5970's, so it's somewhat difficult to supply non-existent into any review.
Ryan did a single card test in November 2009.That is the only review I've found of any 5970's on the site.
vectorm12 - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
I was not aware of the fact that the 32nm process had been canned completely and was still expecting the 6970 to blow the 580 out of the water.Although we can't possibly know and are unlikely to ever find out what cayman at 32nm would have performed like I suspect AMD had to give up a good chunk of performance to fit it on the 389mm^2 40nm die.
This really makes my choice easy as I'll pickup another cheap 5870 and run my system in CF.
I think I'll be able to live with the performance until the refreshed cayman/next gen GPUs are ready for prime time.
Ryan: I'd really like to see what ighashgpu can do with the new 6970 cards though. Although you produce a few GPGPU charts I feel like none of them really represent the real "number-crunching" performance of the 6970/6950.
Ivan has already posted his analysis in his blog and it seems like the change from LWIV5 to LWIV4 made a negligible impact at the most. However I'd really love to see ighashgpu included in future GPU tests to test new GPUs and architectures.
Thanks for the site and keep up the work guys!
slagar - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
Gaming seems to be in the process of bursting its own bubble. Graphics of games isn't keeping up with the hardware (unless you cound gaming on 6 monitors) because most developers are still targeting consoles with much older technology.Consoles won't upgrade for a few more years, and even then, I'm wondering how far we are from "the final console generation". Visual improvements in graphics are becoming quite incremental, so it's harder to "wow" consumers into buying your product, and the costs for developers is increasing, so it's becoming harder for developers to meet these standards. Tools will always improve and make things easier and more streamlined over time I suppose, but still... it's going to be an interesting decade ahead of us :)
darckhart - Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - link
that's not entirely true. the hardware now allows not only insanely high resolutions, but it also lets those of us with more stringent IQ requirements (large custom texture mods, SSAA modes, etc) to run at acceptable framerates at high res in intense action spots.