# XFX Radeon HD 6850 Pictured, Detailed



## btarunr (Oct 18, 2010)

After a recent exposé of the XFX Radeon HD 6870, DonanimHaber scored a few pictures of its next HD 6000 series card, the XFX Radeon HD 6850. Unlike the HD 6870 card, the HD 6850 from XFX makes use of XFX' own design for both PCB and cooler. The card is shorter than the HD 6870 by a fair bit, and makes use of typical XFX styling on the cooler shroud and rear panel. The cooler seems to be a circular fan-heatsink over the GPU, it's not known whether the memory and VRM have heatsinks too. Display connectivity includes two DVI, and one each of HDMI 1.4 and DisplayPort 1.2. 

The card carries 960 stream cores, contradicting an older report, and 1 GB of GDDR5 memory over a 256-bit wide memory interface. The core is clocked at 775 MHz, and memory at 1000 MHz (4 GHz GDDR5 effective). Expect it to be out on the 22nd of this month, at a highly competitive price for its performance level. 



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Imsochobo (Oct 18, 2010)

cannot complain about the looks for sure! ;P
benchies benchies, i wanna see benchies!
and cayman.. is what i'm wondering about.


----------



## wolf (Oct 18, 2010)

more solid specs really give me the hunch that this will be as fast as a 5850, if not a little faster, given the new strem processor design works out swish.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Oct 18, 2010)

The box looks nice! 

Awaiting benchmarks!


----------



## the_wolf88 (Oct 18, 2010)

Nice..

The red circle on the box reminds me about Samsung Vibrant Bionix ROM boot screen


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 18, 2010)

So this is in effect Bart Pro?


----------



## aCid888* (Oct 18, 2010)

I guess the old supposed specs dont mean nothing any more...  



Very nice looking card.


----------



## wolf (Oct 18, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> So this is in effect Bart Pro?



yessir, BartsXT will (reportedly) pack more sp's again, something in the order of 1280 odd I think... and faster clocked memory.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 18, 2010)

aCid888* said:


> I guess the old supposed specs dont mean nothing any more...
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice looking card.



They rarely do, thats why I get so amused over new GPU  threads where members spend 50 pages arguing over potential specs and performance just to find out that they argued over nothing


----------



## toyo (Oct 18, 2010)

It's good there aren't just 800 cores... c'mon, we have this number in the 4800 series. Even with the better efficiency, it's still too low for a meaningful increased performance - especially with this stupid Bart-is-6800-series.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 18, 2010)

toyo said:


> It's good there aren't just 800 cores... c'mon, we have this number in the 4800 series. Even with the better efficiency, it's still too low for a meaningful increased performance - especially with this stupid Bart-is-6800-series.



This makes no sense, it could be 600 cores and still be a better card by a decent margin.

I mean nvidias top end card uses 480 cores right? And beats 1600 cores in cypress.

The architecture is the important thing not the core amount. 




Anywhom! I woke up this morning thinking it was the 22nd and hoping for lots of cool news to read 

Oh well the 18th and a few pics are fine too I guess.


----------



## DriedFrogPills (Oct 18, 2010)

toyo said:


> It's good there aren't just 800 cores... c'mon, we have this number in the 4800 series. Even with the better efficiency, it's still too low for a meaningful increased performance - especially with this stupid Bart-is-6800-series.



different shader architecture and diff scheduler etc.  so 960 is apparently enough to match the ole 5850 withs it 1440 of the old style


----------



## aCid888* (Oct 18, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> They rarely do, thats why I get so amused over new GPU  threads where members spend 50 pages arguing over potential specs and performance just to find out that they argued over nothing



Exactly why I avoid the rumour threads on cards.

Total waste of time posting in them because its a wild guess on the real specs(Usually).


----------



## crow1001 (Oct 18, 2010)

6850 = 5830 performance - 6870 = 5850 performance.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

First box pic

I like what xfx have done with the 6870/50 bracket and it is good to hear that it has 960sp's not 800 but these next few days are going to kind of suck having to wait for the reviews but more so as barts is not what im really interested in, what i want to know is how cayman fairs against the 5870 and 460 sli so i can finally upgrade from my tierd 4870, it's been running for about 21,000+ hours and could proberley do with taking a rest


----------



## N3M3515 (Oct 18, 2010)

crow1001 said:


> 6850 = 5830 performance - 6870 = 5850 performance.



5830 < 6850 <= 5850 < 6870 <= 5870


----------



## mdsx1950 (Oct 18, 2010)

N3M3515 said:


> 5830 < 6850 <= 5850 < 6870 <= 5870



Thats bullshit. I for one know that the 6870 is better than the 5870. Even W1zzard stated so somewhere in a thread.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 18, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Thats bullshit. I for one know that the 6870 is better than the 5870. Even W1zzard stated so somewhere in a thread.



no i didnt say that


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Thats bullshit. I for one know that the 6870 is better than the 5870. Even W1zzard stated so somewhere in a thread.





W1zzard said:


> no i didnt say that



jamsbong "I've seen the benchmarks and it is slower than the 58xx series"
w1zzard "i've run the benchmarks and your statement is not true"

That's what was said 

source


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 18, 2010)

The fan looks cheapass. The rest looks OK, kinda reminds me of the 5850 but without the Batmobile looks.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 18, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Thats bullshit. I for one know that the 6870 is better than the 5870. Even W1zzard stated so somewhere in a thread.



Your right.... It was in one of the 3 recent news threads but he "suggested" that was the case, or near to it.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Thats bullshit. I for one know that the 6870 is better than the 5870. Even W1zzard stated so somewhere in a thread.





Tatty_One said:


> Your right.... It was in one of the 3 recent news threads but he "suggested" that was the case, or near to it.



What was said on the link i provided above was kind of open, it seamed to be denying that the 6870 was slower than something in the 58xx range, that could just mean the 6870 beats the 5830... just a few more days untill we know


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 18, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> What was said on the link i provided above was kind of open, it seamed to be denying that the 6870 was slower than something in the 58xx range, that could just mean the 6870 beats the 5830... just a few more days untill we know



I know, all I was saying was a statement that when W1z simply said _"i've run the benchmarks and your statement is not true" _  In reply to a comment "_I've seen the benchmarks and it is slower than the 58xx series"_  is not the same as W1z saying it is as fast as a 5870.  Although my post above was not very clear .


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 18, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> jamsbong "I've seen the benchmarks and it is slower than the 58xx series"
> w1zzard "i've run the benchmarks and your statement is not true"
> 
> That's what was said
> ...



58xx series != hd 5870


----------



## mdsx1950 (Oct 18, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> jamsbong "I've seen the benchmarks and it is slower than the 58xx series"
> w1zzard "i've run the benchmarks and your statement is not true"
> 
> That's what was said
> ...



Thanks for that.



W1zzard said:


> no i didnt say that



That was what i was referring to. Because i remembered thanking your post.


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 18, 2010)

It's about time AMD reveals their stuff, we're almost fighting here


----------



## crow1001 (Oct 18, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> 58xx series != hd 5870



So the 6870 is faster than a 5870, confirmed price at OCUK is £211, not bad for 5870 performance.


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 18, 2010)

crow1001 said:


> So the 6870 is faster than a 5870, confirmed price at OCUK is £211, not bad for 5870 performance.



I assumed that he was drawing attention to the fact that saying "58xx series" is not equivalent to saying "5870", but I'm not sure.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

This is starting to get too much, i just want to sleep through the coming days and wake up to a review.

I damn nda's


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 18, 2010)

crow1001 said:


> So the 6870 is faster than a 5870, confirmed price at OCUK is £211, not bad for 5870 performance.



Could you link that because i can't see it anywhere on overclockers uk?   All i see are the usual 58xx parts and still with 5850's at £195 and upwards.


----------



## crow1001 (Oct 18, 2010)

the54thvoid said:


> Could you link that because i can't see it anywhere on overclockers uk?   All i see are the usual 58xx parts and still with 5850's at £195 and upwards.



http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=17595715&postcount=12

Confirmed by OCUK manager, stock won't show on site until the NDA ends on the 22nd.


----------



## 10TaTioN (Oct 18, 2010)

I wonder how much noise this thing does lol.

PS: Can anyone provide me a link where i can read the differences between Series 5k and 6k? I've read it sometime ago, but it seems that Google is only showing me articles with news about pricing of the 6k instead of what i want. :/


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 18, 2010)

10TaTioN said:


> I wonder how much noise this thing does lol.
> 
> PS: Can anyone provide me a link where i can read the differences between Series 5k and 6k? I've read it sometime ago, but it seems that Google is only showing me articles with news about pricing of the 6k instead of what i want. :/



Wait till the end of the week. Then you will be able to see all the details you want.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 18, 2010)

"6850 - Maximum 50pc, competes with GTX 460 768mb and price circa £135 +VAT!
6870 - Maximum 50pc, competes with GTX 460 1GB and replaces 5830, price circa £180 +VAT."

Quoted from that link (thanks btw!).

That infers quite a lot about strategy.  6870 replacing 5830.  Does this imply 6950 to trump 470 and 6970 to trump 480?

The problem is, with the 6870 replacing the 5830, which is lesser than the 5850, it means the pricing looks a bit screwed up.  A 6870 at £211, replacing the 5830 (cheaper than a 5850) but with 5850's at around £200.  Eh?

Yeah, we need benchmarks so we can unravel the mysteries of AMD's pricing and performance strategy.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 18, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> 58xx series != hd 5870



!= means not equal .. -> when someone talks about "58xx series", he is not talking about the 5870 but 5870+5850+5830


----------



## nt300 (Oct 18, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Thats bullshit. I for one know that the 6870 is better than the 5870. Even W1zzard stated so somewhere in a thread.


 I can see Wiz talking about HD 6970 being much better than HD 5870 but not HD 6870. 

XFX card looks very nice, I love the red and black combo


----------



## Mr McC (Oct 18, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> != means not equal .. -> when someone talks about "58xx series", he is not talking about the 5870 but 5870+5850+5830



Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I assumed you meant, but others were suggesting that you had stated something entirely different.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Oct 18, 2010)

You know what, I was about to post my expectations and speculations, but instead I think I'll just shut up and wait for Friday


----------



## HXL492 (Oct 18, 2010)

What ever happened to the blower style coolers? 

Hopefully HIS will have an ICEQ solution


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

HXL492 said:


> What ever happened to the blower style coolers?
> 
> Hopefully HIS will have an ICEQ solution



There will be blower syle coolers for the 6850 from what i have read but they will be the more expensive ones, this style of cooler is apparantly cheaper.


----------



## Initialised (Oct 18, 2010)

6970?


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 18, 2010)

Initialised said:


> 6970?
> 
> http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/113155_15ati600.jpg



I seriously doubt that since it has two DVI's, what looks like an S-Video connector and a red PCB. This looks like an older card.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

Initialised said:


> 6970?
> 
> http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/113155_15ati600.jpg



You shoudl be asking be asking 6990? not 6970 

There is a bunch more images like that out there with like 4 or 6 chips on them, they all look very wrong 



Thrackan said:


> I seriously doubt that since it has two DVI's, what looks like an S-Video connector and a red PCB. This looks like an older card.



could be 3870 or 4870 as that pic was made before the 5870 came out. same output setup as my 4870.


----------



## Thrackan (Oct 18, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> You shoudl be asking be asking 6990? not 6970
> 
> There is a bunch more images like that out there with like 4 or 6 chips on them, they all look very wrong
> 
> ...



Could be fake as well, but the pic is too low-res to confirm anything. It kinda looks like someone frankensteined alot of stuff together though.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> Could be fake as well, but the pic is too low-res to confirm anything. It kinda looks like someone frankensteined alot of stuff together though.



It definatly is fake, a year or more ago there was this image and a bunch more made the exact same way as mock up suggestions for the 5xxx cards, and being asked if they were 5870,5870x2,5970 etc.


----------



## CharlO (Oct 18, 2010)

Wow, long time no actually liking an xfx, but this one looks good.


----------



## Anusha (Oct 18, 2010)

wizzard's comments aside...
I am happy that the 6850 is the 960 shader card, not the 6870. there is some hope now XD


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

Anusha said:


> wizzard's comments aside...
> I am happy that the 6850 is the 960 shader card, not the 6870. there is some hope now XD



But now i'm curious how many sp's the 6870 has as i'm sure the rumoured sp's were likly relative to the rumored 800 sp's of the 6850 (in other words wrong ).


----------



## Anusha (Oct 18, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> But now i'm curious how many sp's the 6870 has as i'm sure the rumoured sp's were likly relative to the rumored 800 sp's of the 6850 (in other words wrong ).


it will be more than 960, right?


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

Anusha said:


> it will be more than 960, right?



i think for the past couple generations the xx50 card has either one or 2 simd units disabled from the xx70 core depending on the range, normally 2 for the higher end and 1 for the lower end. but either way i can't even geuss the numbers as i don't know how many sp's there are per simd unit for the 6xxx architecture. damn i want friday to come sooner


----------



## Animalpak (Oct 18, 2010)

naahh  i will wait the 78xxx series


----------



## Mindweaver (Oct 18, 2010)

The card looks good! 

I wonder? will they make a 6990 XT PE... hehehe


----------



## N3M3515 (Oct 18, 2010)

mdsx1950 said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> 
> 
> That was what i was referring to. Because i remembered thanking your post.



What wiz said is that 5800 series is NOT just 5870, BUT 5830, 5850, 5870.
So, 6870 at best is equal or sightly slower than a 5870 being optimistic 
And 6850 is equal or sightly slower than 5850.


btw the54thvoid, if 6870 performance is between 5830 and 5850, that would suck BIG TIME.


----------



## Anusha (Oct 18, 2010)

Better to wait for the proper reviews.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Oct 18, 2010)

Oh boy you guys forget these were supposed to be the 6770 line right?

It makes sense for AMD to have them between the 5830-5850 when crossfire what will they do 5870-5970 ?The guy above posting an old fake 3870x2 please see the article with the comparison to Nvidia. The 6970 is a single chip so AMD can take back the crown it is to compete with the gtx480.....The 6990 is the dual killer of all cards.


----------



## crow1001 (Oct 18, 2010)

Leaked Dirt 2 performance, 6850>6870 v 460 768>460 1GB





1120 = 6870

960 = 6850


Ultra DX11 at 1920x1200, 8xAA, 16xAF.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-radeon-hd-6800-dirt-2-battleforge-benchmarks-leaked/10091.html


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 18, 2010)

Bah, i hate to be pessimistic (or wary?) but I'll need to see proper un biased and official results (TPU, Anand, Hexus being my three core sites) before saying, gosh!!

But if true, good start but Cayman XT is where i'm looking at.  I want a single card with above 5870 performance.  Woulda bought GTX 480 but meh...

And yes, would love to get rid of my crossfire set up to get a single solution.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Oct 18, 2010)

Initialised said:


> 6970?
> 
> http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/113155_15ati600.jpg



I'm gonna get this if thats the case.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2010)

the54thvoid said:


> Bah, i hate to be pessimistic (or wary?) but I'll need to see proper un biased and official results (TPU, Anand, Hexus being my three core sites) before saying, gosh!!
> 
> But if true, good start but Cayman XT is where i'm looking at.  I want a single card with above 5870 performance.  Woulda bought GTX 480 but meh...
> 
> And yes, would love to get rid of my crossfire set up to get a single solution.



Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I want a single card that can push 3 monitors, and the 5970 just doesn't cut it. But at the same time, I'm offloading my 5870's, because I have no confidence in AMD's ability to actually do 3 monitors right...my cards work great with just a single monitor, and then I only need one card.

Of course, it looks like we might have to wait until next year to get decent gpus...not that this is surprising to me personally, but it's still a disappointment when I've been waiting since September last year for a decent multi-monitor solution.

And if these cards don't offer that, I'm not interested, at all. If there are no multi-monitor reviews, I'm not gonna buy either...I want cards for a specific use, and current cards meet all other basic needs, and I bought last time with no reviews; look how THAT turned out.



1Kurgan1 said:


> I'm gonna get this if thats the case.
> 
> http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/4380870/1024/Random/69990.jpg





That's a photoshop of a 2900XT, FYI. If you want a photoshopped picture, that can definately be arranged. PM me.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Oct 18, 2010)

Nope, thats a photoshop that I just made of the picture he linked, looked way too long for me, so I made it even longer. I did a crappy job though as I'm at college and didn't feel like getting into fine details. I'm bored  (notice the file name, 69990, I was going to go for more cores, but I think my instructor is watching me)


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2010)

Heh..it's still a 2900XT.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Oct 18, 2010)

lol, thats great, photoshop too look too long, then I go and add another GPU onto it, total win.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 18, 2010)

Initialised said:


> 6970?
> 
> http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/113155_15ati600.jpg




Maybe just me but looks like there is some VRMs missing as in not enough of them.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2010)

AsRock said:


> Maybe just me but looks like there is some VRMs missing as in not enough of them.



The RageTheatre chip died many moons ago too(by lower DVO pirt close to PCI-E connector). Should have been the first sign it was fake.(nevermind I have been seeing the same picture for a few years now).

:shadedshu


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 18, 2010)

Perf comparisons and speculations aside, the pics don't show the power connectors.  Also, the XFX box shows a big "5" - perhaps doing away with the "lifetime" warrantee?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2010)

Sasqui said:


> Perf comparisons and speculations aside, the pics don't show the power connectors.  Also, the XFX box shows a big "5" - perhaps doing away with the "lifetime" warrantee?



Nah, that's thier "5-Star Support" garbage...kinda hate that bit..beucase they use the cheapest shipping possible for RMAs...I can ship something into the US withing 3 days, for them, it takes 17 days. Heck, I ahd to call them up to get the mto send me a replacement...they would have had me wait until someone RMA'ed a card that would work for me. I'd cal lthat false advertizing....thier service is hardly "5-Star"...they should take some lessons from Dell.

Yes, you read that right...Dell has *better* support.

More info here:

http://xfxforce.com/en-gb/features/5starsupport.aspx?lang=en-gb


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 18, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Nah, that's thier "5-Star Support" garbage...kinda hate that bit..beucase they use the cheapest shipping possible for RMAs...I can ship something into the US withing 3 days, for them, it takes 17 days. Heck, I ahd to call them up to get the mto send me a replacement...they would have had me wait until someone RMA'ed a card that would work for me. I'd cal lthat false advertizing....thier service is hardly "5-Star"...they should take some lessons from Dell.
> 
> Yes, you read that right...Dell has *better* support.
> 
> ...



I had to replace a card with them not too long ago.  I found it slow too.  However, once they determined the item to be "defective", it was shipped out the next day.  All told about a 2-week turn-around.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2010)

Well, my card was found defective, and they did not, and were not, going to ship until I called them up. It's already been two weeks..they shipped my card on friday(I called on Thursday)...and it's not expected to arrive until NEXT WEEK. I even had to call 'em up for them to confirm they even received my card...2 days after they had accepted it.

And then, because they are so stupid in shipping choices, I'll have to pay customs broker charges(I run my own business, act as my own broker, and do not pay taxes on stuff like this).


Nevermind it costs me $35 at least to ship to them. Their 5-Star Support crap says they work to get you your card back as fast as possible, yet my experience(with many cards RMA'ed to them now, all tested faulty) greatly discredits thier claims to decent service. They've lied to me, missed the obvious in troubleshooting an issue(told me the problem was impossible, yet it was as simple as the card overheating)...

If you live in the US, it seems thier turnaround is much better, and in all honestly, it's not the worst, but it's definately far from the best. I'd not say a word if it weren't for thier audacious claims.

Del lstuff might be overpriced, but that extra cost goes into alot of thier support network. Heck, Dell even pays for shipping on items returned to them, and do not require a deposit for cross-shipping RMAs. I understand Dell is a bigger company, but at the same time, they don't make any claims they fail to uphold, at least in my experience.


----------



## lashton (Oct 18, 2010)

*grrr*

the fact of the matter is that NO ONE knows until its released


----------



## dir_d (Oct 18, 2010)

release date is friday 22nd


----------



## DriedFrogPills (Oct 18, 2010)

3 more days until the NDA is lifted and we get answers


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 18, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Of course, it looks like we might have to wait until next year to get decent gpus...not that this is surprising to me personally, but it's still a disappointment when I've been waiting since September last year for a decent multi-monitor solution.
> 
> And if these cards don't offer that, I'm not interested, at all. If there are no multi-monitor reviews, I'm not gonna buy either...I want cards for a specific use, and current cards meet all other basic needs, and I bought last time with no reviews; look how THAT turned out.



i really hope the 6970 does well with a triple monitor setup otherwise amd will be pushing me to get a couple 1gb 460's in sli to be able to run the 3 new monitors i will be buying with whatever card i buy... i really hope i have better luck than you, i also hope you have better luck than you have been having as well. 
If i had not waited so long i proberley would be having simmilar problems to you and i admit i would be really pissed at amd by now.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2010)

Well, I mean, I'm critical of AMD, for sure, but it's not all bad.

Apparantly some people have no problems. But none that I've actually personally talked to(usually i can get the problems to manifest on onther people's rigs).

The one huge outstanding issue...Cursor corruption...should be fixed, if we can really run all three monitors off of DP. Time will tell, but unfortunately, very few sites are doing multi-monitor reviews.

5870, by itself, is great with my Dell 3007WFP. 2x, and I can run most games in DX9/10 with 8xAA. That's killer, in a single card.

DX11 sucks. Doesn't matter if it's AMD or nVidia, but most titles that I use eyefinity with also use DX11, and that greatly impacts framerates. I'm just a hard guy to please. I want perfection.

If you forgo the cursor corruption, and are OK with not maxing all in-game settings out, Crossfire Eyefinity works fine...needs more CPU than what I had, but I guess that was my own bad purchasing choices that left me with that one.

I'm expecting ALOT...and I do not think i will get what I want out of a single card. I was more than prepared to buy three cards for Eyefinity, but turns out three cards don't work so well, and every gpu you add increases cpu workload.


That's OK...I did have alot fo fun palying in eyefinity, but it's not ready for primetime with 5-series...I AM really hoping it's fixed with 6-series, but then, I think asking for good framerates in a single card is at least an year too early.

I'm very impatiently awaiting real specs and pics for Cayman...


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 19, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> The one huge outstanding issue...Cursor corruption...should be fixed, if we can really run all three monitors off of DP. Time will tell, but unfortunately, very few sites are doing multi-monitor reviews.
> 
> 
> If you forgo the cursor corruption, and are OK with not maxing all in-game settings out, Crossfire Eyefinity works fine...needs more CPU than what I had, but I guess that was my own bad purchasing choices that left me with that one.
> ...




The cursor corruption is making me worry about my monitor choice, is running 3 monitors on display port a cause of it or something?
I still play mainly source engine games online with friends so i should still be able to max them out with ease 

I'm very impatiently awaiting real specs for Cayman as well as i think it will have to easly beat 1gb 460 sli at triple monitor res to keep me away from nvidia, i really want to stick to a single card thus why i want to see the 6970 so bad but could not go for a faster nvidia gpu as i need 2 for triple monitor and the power/heat would be too much  damn lack of time machines, a month is too long to wait


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2010)

Honestly, I don't know what causes the cursor corruption. I know that first I was dealing with the cursor getting really large, and then it was corrupting after they fixed the big cursor part...


I assume that it's from the monitor handing off hardware-accelerated cursor from DVI to DP..it's like either the differing interfaces aren't able to hand off the memory space for the cursor quickly enough, and the next interface then isn't able to read the cursor properly, or jsut staright incompatibility...

But I'm guessing...all that I do know is that it occurs more often in 2D than 3D, and that the problem is now listed in driver release notes, so maybe driver can fix it.

Of course they HAVE had a year to fix the problem, and haven't, but I think they might pull the "we weren't able to replicate the issue, so were unable to fix it" when confronted on this problem.

I am very tempted to keep a 5-series card just to see how long it takes them to fix it, if they can. But that seems a bit stupid...even though I think that's what might be needed for them to fix the problem...constant reminders.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 19, 2010)

Look it's a 5850 .. .  errr I mean a 6850 .. .  errr no wait I was right it's a 5850 GG AMD tech recycling FTL!:shadedshu


----------



## AsRock (Oct 19, 2010)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I'm gonna get this if thats the case.
> 
> http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/4380870/1024/Random/69990.jpg




More of a chance one of those GPU's being nvidia chip so we can have some nV physx


----------



## mab1376 (Oct 19, 2010)

How will the 6850 stack up against the 5870?


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 19, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Honestly, I don't know what causes the cursor corruption. I know that first I was dealing with the cursor getting really large, and then it was corrupting after they fixed the big cursor part...
> 
> 
> I assume that it's from the monitor handing off hardware-accelerated cursor from DVI to DP..it's like either the differing interfaces aren't able to hand off the memory space for the cursor quickly enough, and the next interface then isn't able to read the cursor properly, or jsut staright incompatibility...
> ...



I must admit that all the eyefinity and eyefinity with crossfire problems have made it easyer not to upgrade right away but it worrys me a little as i don't normally spend much on each pc upgrade (i'm a cheap bear ) but i will be paying over $1000 just for monitors this time and to be honest if i spend $1500+ on an upgrade i will just want it to work 

I really hope cayman/6xxx series in general works wih eyefinity better in both higher frame rates and lacking problems but i know just like everything there will be some issues i just wish amd could fix them faster, one of the biggest complaints from people about amd/ati is driver issues, it is the one area amd really needs to work harder.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 19, 2010)

Like the 'XFX' logo


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 19, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Honestly, I don't know what causes the cursor corruption. I know that first I was dealing with the cursor getting really large, and then it was corrupting after they fixed the big cursor part...
> 
> 
> I assume that it's from the monitor handing off hardware-accelerated cursor from DVI to DP..it's like either the differing interfaces aren't able to hand off the memory space for the cursor quickly enough, and the next interface then isn't able to read the cursor properly, or jsut staright incompatibility...
> ...




It's probably not using different interfaces, it used to do it on my two monitor set up initially ( both dvi) 

Like screen flickering it went away with higher idle voltages mind you.


----------

