# HIS Radeon HD 6870 1 GB



## W1zzard (Oct 19, 2010)

Today AMD released their new Radeon HD 6870. The card brings new features like HDMI 1.4 and DisplayPort 1.2 which allow up to six displays to be connected to a single card. Performance has also been substantially increased and power draw reduced. But is this enough to defeat NVIDIA's latest offerings ?

*Show full review*


----------



## DanishDevil (Oct 22, 2010)

I *love* the voltage tuning section. This will even further distinguish our reviews from everyone else's. Great job W1zz!


----------



## Batou1986 (Oct 22, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> I *love* the voltage tuning section. This will even further distinguish our reviews from everyone else's. Great job W1zz!



+1 the voltage/core/temp chart is awesome i think it will be extremely useful when comparing the same cards from different manufacturers


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 22, 2010)

Yea, +2 ...there aren't that many review sites (that I know of) that have voltage charts


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 22, 2010)

Pretty impressive card for a great price.

Definitely not much of an upgrade over my current 470 unfortunately, so i shall be awaiting the 6900 series reviews(and whatever Nvidia has out at the time) in the near future.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 22, 2010)

These cards scale pretty well to voltage. I cant wait till someone pushes them far. Good job w1zz this is a great card, cant wait for the 69xx reviews.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Oct 22, 2010)

It is totally stupid that the HD 6870 performs worse than the HD 5870.

That is totally deceptive and just AMD trying to rip customers off.

People are going to buy HD 6870 cards thinking they are getting an upgrade and find out performance is worse.

This is worse than the nVidia renaming BS.

At least when nVidia did it you got the same performance.

But AMD doing this naming shit means people are totally going to be deceived.

Shame on you AMD!


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> It is totally stupid that the HD 6870 performs worse than the HD 5870.



You should just be mad at the naming scheme, as the 6800 series isn't meant to beat the 5800 series. So it's not stupid considering it's a mid-range card.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 22, 2010)

Wow totally impressed me with this review. It performed a lot better than I thought it would and even at a respectable price point. I cant wait to see the how the higher end cards perform. I thought with the lower shaders it would be trumped but it looks like the rework has fixed a lot of those issues. Thanks Wizz.


----------



## mdsx1950 (Oct 22, 2010)

Very very nice card for the price! It's right next to the HD5870 being a mid-range card. If only it had 4-way CFX.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Oct 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> You should just be mad at the naming scheme, as the 6800 series isn't meant to beat the 5800 series. So it's not stupid considering it's a mid-range card.



Yes the naming scheme is what is stupid.

It is clearly just AMD trying to make the cards seem better than they really are by putting a higher number on them.

It was bad when nVidia did it with the 8800GT/9800GT but at least then the performance was the same and not worse.

AMDs move is much worse because the performance isn't even the same.

There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't have named these the HD 6700 series.

The 8 has always signified high end not mid-range.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Yes the naming scheme is what is stupid.
> 
> It is clearly just AMD trying to make the cards seem better than they really are by putting a higher number on them.



They just moved everything up a notch. The previously x700 series is now the x800 series. The previously x800 series would now be the x900 series (which was previously not used except for the 5970, i.e. only once). No deception of "seemingly better performance", just confusion. There were never any mention that the 6800 series would be the replacement of the 5800 series anyway.



Eric_Cartman said:


> It was bad when nVidia did it with the 8800GT/9800GT but at least then the performance was the same and not worse.



Of course it was the same because it was the same card. 

In this case these are two different cards from the 5850 and 5870.



Eric_Cartman said:


> AMDs move is much worse because the performance isn't even the same.



Of course the performance isn't the same! It's a mid-range v. a high-end!




Eric_Cartman said:


> There is absolutely no reason they shouldn't have named these the HD 6700 series.



They opted to keep the 5700 series as the 6700 series.



Eric_Cartman said:


> The 8 has always signified high end not mid-range.



Starting now, not anymore.

Following your logic, the 9 has always signified....nothing because it was never used (3870X2, not 3970. 4870X2, not 4970). But then there was just one card in the previous generation (5970) that came, so might as well use the 9 for a whole series in the next generation.


----------



## KainXS (Oct 22, 2010)

they're not intended to replace the HD5870, these are the replacements for the midrange, ie the 5770, the 6950, and 6970 will replace the high end 5850, and 5870 we have now.

in that respect based on these cards which perform as good as the 5870 in most cases(only slightly slower), the HD6970 could be a real monster and these a pretty cheap too.


----------



## morphy (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> AMDs move is much worse because the performance isn't even the same.


...and neither is the price. 5870=$350 vs. 6870=$240. Clearly they're not in the same class pricewise and performancewise.


----------



## Silverel (Oct 22, 2010)

Cartman is right. Branding these as the 6800 series is extremely misleading, they're not the same kind of X800 series performance as we're used to and it's the same BS that nVidia did with the 88/9800 series of cards.

Moves like this are shitty. Period. Anyone trying to justify this move has forgotten why we complained about it when nVidia did the same damn thing.


----------



## qubit (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> It is totally stupid that the HD 6870 performs worse than the HD 5870.
> 
> That is totally deceptive and just AMD trying to rip customers off.
> 
> ...



+1 Eric

I've seen the comments explaining how the whole number range has been shifted up a notch due to increased performance, but I don't buy it. I think AMD is cashing in on the confusion.

It would make perfect sense to call this the 6770 or something, so that it's clear that it's an improved 5770, have the 6870 as the high end and 6970 as the ultra high end, like before.

Regardless, this seems to be a very nice card, except for the fan noise. Why is it with successive cards AMD can't get this right? My reference GTX 285 is really quiet* regardless of how hard I push it and is a very important performance parameter for me. The last thing I want is to replace it with a noisy card and then have to spend extra for a third party cooler and void the warranty.  This applies to AMD & nvidia equally.

*Except when it's full of dust!


----------



## johnnyfiive (Oct 22, 2010)

Fantastic review again Wizz, awesome card for the money.


----------



## KainXS (Oct 22, 2010)

in a way it is amd trying to bank slightly on confusion but is it worst than nvidia, last time i remember I remember nvidia and its partners renamed the 8800GS to 9600GSO then remade the card 4 times and then banked on confusion before discontinuing it.
8800GS ->9600GSO(962SP 12ROP) -> 9600GSO(48SP 16ROP) -> 9600GSO(48SP 8ROP) 9600GSO(48SP 4ROP)
the end result was a card with less than half the performance of the original.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Yes the naming scheme is what is stupid.
> 
> It is clearly just AMD trying to make the cards seem better than they really are by putting a higher number on them.
> 
> ...



Is AMD asking HD 5870's prices? If not, argument-fail, it's not a rip-off. Read the review, please, not just browse through pictures and graphs.


----------



## erocker (Oct 22, 2010)

KainXS said:


> in a way it is amd trying to bank slightly on confusion but is it worst than nvidia, last time i remember I remember nvidia and its partners renamed the 8800GS to 9600GSO then remade the card 4 times and then banked on confusion before discontinuing it.
> 8800GS ->9600GSO(962SP 12ROP) -> 9600GSO(48SP 16ROP) -> 9600GSO(48SP 8ROP) 9600GSO(48SP 4ROP)
> the end result was a card with less than half the performance of the original.



I agree it could be confusing for some. AMD did have a reason other than confusion considering they need to make room in their lineup for the slew of Fusion parts that are also going to have the 6XXX moniker. We'll know the "truth" once the entire 6 series is released from top to bottom. I don't believe it's been officially stated that the 57xx series will actually be the 67xx series as of yet.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Oct 22, 2010)

Great review, W1zz. Like I've said before, your writing is very refreshing for a technology piece. I've run across my fair share of reviewers that didn't use correct grammar.

This whole "change is bad" attitude is complete nonsense. These cards, as stated by AMD multiple times, and in these reviews, are meant to be a performance/price sweet spot, and not a direct replacement for the 58xx series. If AMD didn't inform the public in a clear and precise manner then people might have an excuse to flame them. However, AMD released a card that is performing this well, and a consumer not reading reviews or news on the name switch has no right to say they were duped. Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## v12dock (Oct 22, 2010)

Wow awesome 5770 successor


----------



## Delta6326 (Oct 22, 2010)

nice performance but this thing is as hot as a 480!? we need some after market coolers now


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Oct 22, 2010)

I guess those are something like I²C driver-MOSFETs left of the chokes (below the CHL8214)?   They look too small to be power MOSFETs, yet they are also directly contacted by the heatsink shroud...  Are they required by the CHL8214 controller or is it just an improvement over using traditional MOSFETs?

Great review and I also think the voltage tuning section is awesome!


----------



## BraveSoul (Oct 22, 2010)

nice review, nice video card, i like the voltage tuning section, gives good perspective on the card's  possibilities
_____________________________





Antec1200 filter project


----------



## Thefumigator (Oct 22, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Is AMD asking HD 5870's prices? If not, argument-fail, it's not a rip-off. Read the review, please, not just browse through pictures and graphs.



+1

I believe people will take a look at the price, 5870 is 360$ and the 6870 is only 240$... 

It doesn't sound like "oh no! there's a trick here! go for the 5870, is way better than the 6870 and is worth paying the extra 120$"...

In my opinion, with this release, at this price range, *the 5850 and 5870 are completely DEAD*. Nobody is going to pay the extra cash for such a small performance increase. C'mon guys. Thinking about it, I believe its a very smart move from the AMD side. I think that in the long run everybody will agree with this desition.


----------



## HXL492 (Oct 22, 2010)

+1
the barts chip is also smaller and has less shaders resulting in a lesser power consumption. it's pretty impressive that it was able to perform close to the 5870 in my opinion.

by the way, Wizard can you include the S.T.A.L.K.E.R Call of Pripyat benchmark?


----------



## lism (Oct 22, 2010)

Good review.

The nominal power usage (avg 100 to 125Watts) for this card (furmark excepted) is really good compared to its previous generations.

This is a fixed up chip compared to the older series, with better improvements on tessalation. I can't recall this chip being a actual rebrand rather calling it 6850. Please wait for the higher end cards to come out, they should rock your shoes.

Nvidia tends to rename what supposed to be the 490GTX towards 580GTX to compete against these new cards.


----------



## Phxprovost (Oct 22, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Is AMD asking HD 5870's prices? If not, argument-fail, it's not a rip-off. Read the review, please, not just browse through pictures and graphs.



yea because that logic makes it an ok practice, im sure AMD is totally not banking on consumers missing the price differance and assuming that the number scheme thats gone on for 5 generations is still going strong 
Ot:
Great review, shit business tactics by amd


----------



## angelkiller (Oct 22, 2010)

AMD couldn't get this core on 32nm so they were forced to improve Cypress on 40nm. 57xx cards are going to stay on the market. AMD has planned another core planned that will have higher performance than Barts called "Cayman". 

As far as naming goes, AMD is in a funky situation. They can't call it 67xx series because that'll be confusing with the still-on-the-market 57xx series. And these cards don't fit anywhere in the 5 series at all. AMD did the best they could imo. The price clearly reflects performance. To all the "I hate everybody's naming scheme" people, what _should_ this card be called?

Obviously, we're going to have to wait to see a successor to the 5870 series. But I do like AMD's strategy. The 58x0 series was always expensive and that's why the GTX 460 was so good at $200. $200 is a really big market and the 58xx series missed that price point. Specifically targeting this price point is a good idea. Especially when you have another card that will fill the $300+ category.


----------



## Phxprovost (Oct 22, 2010)

angelkiller said:


> _should_ this card be called?



5860?


----------



## Wile E (Oct 22, 2010)

I have to admit, I am very surprised by the performance knowing this is the mid range part.

And I also think the naming change is bullshit, but it's hit is lessened a great deal by the price.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 22, 2010)

Great review, packaging looks kinda weak, but is standard for HIS, preformence was meh IMO.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> yea because that logic makes it an ok practice, im sure AMD is totally not banking on consumers missing the price differance and assuming that the number scheme thats gone on for 5 generations is still going strong
> Ot:
> Great review, shit business tactics by amd



Price difference is close to $150, it really is hard to miss.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 22, 2010)

Great review as always, i love how you have decided to do the increased voltage overclocking section 

To be honest i was a little supprised by how well the 6870 performs, it gives me a lot of hope that the 6970 will be the card that suits my needs.


----------



## Wyverex (Oct 22, 2010)

Awesome review and awesome card!

And, non-informed people rarely buy high-end GPUs anyway, yet alone upgrade every generation, so it's not that shady of a practice.
In the end, screw the name - look at the Performance over power graphs!


----------



## red1414 (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric,
The only way that this renaming is a problem is if you are incompetent. if it was the same price, that would be an attempt at a swindle. but as you can plainly see...they are not. and besides, if you are considering spending a couple hundreds bucks on a VGA, have a care... and ya know...read a review or two. I realize you think everything should always stay the same forever, but she don't always work out that way in life.


----------



## VulkanBros (Oct 22, 2010)

Yes ... great review

Is´nt it odd that they have´nt released new drivers for the 68xx - I mean optimized for the 68xx cards....especially before reviewers begin testing???


----------



## kajson (Oct 22, 2010)

I'm not too happy about the changing in the numbering, just because it makes things less logical for people in here who give a damn about vid cards in the first place. 

But as to consumer being misleaded, not really because most buying a high end vid card will know exactly what they are buying and people blindly buying these cards will have bought a card that at this moment has roughly 98% of performance for 70% of the price, which isn't really getting screwed is it. You still get premium updated newest technology(which 6 series implies), no 2007 cards being sold 2010 series numbering.

I am expecting these cards to perform equally to the 58xx equivalents and better at dx11 tasks after a couple of driver updates. 



However from what I've read in the reviews, people coming here will mostly not buy one with a stock cooler on it. And in that matter AMD has made an error I think.
Also I would've expected the dx11 perfomance increase to be a bit bigger, as it was the clear weak point in the previous series.


----------



## wahdangun (Oct 22, 2010)

wow great price/performance, lets  the price wars II begin, its just like HD 48XX era again and i love it (although the new naming scheme was suck)


----------



## burtram (Oct 22, 2010)

These are really nice looking cards, but i am glad i got my 460 when i did, it's a beast of an overclocker and the adobe suite seems to really like it, so it's quite nice. Though i am really looking forward to the 6950/6970 review. Going to build a new pc soon enough, would love to grab a 6950, if the price/performance is right.


----------



## Bobington (Oct 22, 2010)

Did you bother to check if it's possible to overclock the cards while using more than one monitor; which could not be done with 5xxx until 10.5?

Did you run into the cursor bug, which is still a problem with the 5xxx line as of 10.9a. Run into any GSODs? Is AA or Vsync working on most games?

You want us to take it on faith that AMD magically fixed everything?


----------



## Yukikaze (Oct 22, 2010)

Impressive little beasts. They did, however, reinforce my belief that buying my GTX470s when I was stateside was the right choice (instead of waiting for them and buying DX11 cards for 100% higher prices here).


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 22, 2010)

Hey Wiz, can you do me something lovely, and let me know if the mounting holes are like 5770/4770 or if they are like 5870/4870 please.

Very important factor in my buying decision.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 22, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Hey Wiz, can you do me something lovely, and let me know if the mounting holes are like 5770/4770 or if they are like 5870/4870 please.
> 
> Very important factor in my buying decision.



grab my high res shots and overlay them in photoshop


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 22, 2010)

460 power consumption with 470 performance... AMD really is a step ahead now.

Edit* Just saw the overclocking part... a $240 card that overclocks to 480 speeds BEFORE voltage tweaks? I'd still buy nvidia because of driver and feature preference, but damn does AMD make me feel like I'm missing out.


----------



## Mescalamba (Oct 22, 2010)

Hm.. must say, its nice graphic card, but that naming scheme seriously sux.. AMD is fortunate that we kinda dont have that much choice.

Its either nVidia, which does this naming juggling all-the-time or AMD which it does now.. Can I have honest 3rd graphic card manufacturer please?


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 22, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> grab my high res shots and overlay them in photoshop




My rig is dead, I'm borrowing a crappy laptop.

Anyone willing to do this for me?


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 22, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> My rig is dead, I'm borrowing a crappy laptop.
> 
> Anyone willing to do this for me?



Just swapping between the high res 5770, 5870 and 6870 pic's in the TPU reviews they all look like they have different spacing on the mounting holes, is the spacing and location what you wanted to know?


----------



## Valdez (Oct 22, 2010)

What are the idle clocks, idle power consumption and  idle temps when overclocked?


----------



## Akumos (Oct 22, 2010)

entropy13 said:


> They just moved everything up a notch. The previously x700 series is now the x800 series. The previously x800 series would now be the x900 series (which was previously not used except for the 5970, i.e. only once). No deception of "seemingly better performance", just confusion. There were never any mention that the 6800 series would be the replacement of the 5800 series anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I was confussed too but this has cleared it up nicely for me! Thanks!!


----------



## Pandemiclah (Oct 22, 2010)

what software was used for the vmod?


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Oct 22, 2010)

These new AMD cards offer great price/performance value. The only negative thing I can find is the new, confusing naming scheme. It's currently listed for 199.99€, which is cheaper than the 5850, but this card is faster. I can't wait to see Cayman reviewed, but at the same time, I'm afraid they will not be very cheap... AMD has been forced to price Barts as low as they are, because GTX 460 offers tough competition. But if Nvidia doesn't manage to get a full fledged GF104 out by the time Cayman is released, the price will probably be pretty high, since there isn't as much competition from Nvidia.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 22, 2010)

Think we could get the performance gain of the voltage oc added to the oc chart?


----------



## qaski (Oct 22, 2010)

nice video card 6870 
 the best for the price


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Oct 22, 2010)

The price argument fails.

Because it isn't that hard for the consumer to see the higher price and just assume it is either price wrong, or priced high because it is from the previous generation.

Look at the GTX 285 it is priced higher than the GTX 460 despite being a weaker card.  

Simply because it is left over from the previous generation where it carried a high price tag.

Everyone is saying this is a mid-range card like I don't know that.

My point is that it is not NAMED like a mid-range card.

It is named like a high end card.

The first number always tells us the generation which is 6 in this case with the previous generation being 5.

The second number tells us if it is mid-range high end or low end.

An 8 signifies high end.

If there are 9 numbers 1 through 9, then 8 and 9 are the high end while 5 6 and 7 are mid-range.

Anyone that can count can figure out why that is.

Naming a mid-range card with a high end name is deceptive.


----------



## jasper1605 (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Because it isn't that hard for the consumer



how many consumers are buying cards at this tier without coming to sites like this and following news and doing a touch of research/ doing just a simple adjustment of "Ok, the 68xx series is now midrange, I will wait for the 69xx.  I think the renaming hullaballoo is being made into a Mt. Everest when in reality it is about as high as the tallest mountain in North Dakota (i.e. flatland).  Now if they did this every gen and in the 7 series the 71xx is top tier and 72xx is mid and 73xx is low then someone needs to be fired.  But atm, just make a small adjustment and go on with life 

OT:

Wizz, I've a request.  Would it be possible to do an eyefinity review with one of the cards to compare against the 58xx series?  Maybe not w/ every card you do, but one here and there would be awesome to test the new architectures out at very high resolutions.  Especially with these as it looked like they started performing better as the resolutions got higher.

Thanks


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> The price argument fails.
> 
> Because it isn't that hard for the consumer to see the higher price and just assume it is either price wrong, or priced high because it is from the previous generation.
> 
> ...



Yes, we all agree with you: the naming scheme is bullsh*t. But it's not necessary to post several times complaining about it. Who is going to buy a card without at least looking at a couple of reviews? And it's not even as bad as what Nvidia has done before, which is rename the same card. At least this is a brand new chip.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 22, 2010)

jasper1605 said:


> Wizz, I've a request.  Would it be possible to do an eyefinity review with one of the cards to compare against the 58xx series?  Maybe not w/ every card you do, but one here and there would be awesome to test the new architectures out at very high resolutions.  Especially with these as it looked like they started performing better as the resolutions got higher.
> 
> Thanks



Already asked, it would require some monitor donations. anyone got 3 spare monitors?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 22, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> The price argument fails.
> 
> Because it isn't that hard for the consumer to see the higher price and just assume it is either price wrong, or priced high because it is from the previous generation.
> 
> ...



6800 is the new mid-range. Deal with it. It's priced like mid-range, performs better than NVIDIA's mid-range.


----------



## Arska (Oct 22, 2010)

angelkiller said:


> To all the "I hate everybody's naming scheme" people, what _should_ this card be called?



It should be 6770 but since AMD said no to that, I'd be ok with 6850 as well (and 6830/6840 for its little brother).


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 22, 2010)

Who cares what it is called.  It could be called Giant-Green-Turd-With-Nuts-Stuck-In-It for all I care, as long as the price and performance is right.

People that buy based on name alone deserve to get "ripped-off".  They should do their research before purchasing.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Who cares what it is called.  *It could be called Giant-Green-Turd-With-Nuts-Stuck-In-It for call I care, as long as the price and performance is right.*
> 
> People that buy based on name alone deserve to get "ripped-off".  They should do their research before purchasing.



 so true, i was one of the people a little annoyed by the name change but it really does not matter.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Who cares what it is called.  It could be called Giant-Green-Turd-With-Nuts-Stuck-In-It for call I care, as long as the price and performance is right.
> 
> People that buy based on name alone deserve to get "ripped-off".  They should do their research before purchasing.



The large majority are people who buy based on the name alone. For people like us it's much more easier to avoid that. Most people will just be buying it based on the assumption that nothing has changed and that the 6870 has to be better then their current 5870 or else it's a failure.

Most of them don't give a shit about doing research, nor do most know where to do to obtain that information.(besides going to google and clicking some random site)


----------



## qubit (Oct 22, 2010)

You know why nvidia isn't releasing a GTX560 right now? Because AMD was stupid enough to release a card slower than a GTX470. Hell its slower than a vast majority of GTX460 OC models.

AMD just let nvidia steal their launch thunder completely with a $260 price point on the GTX470 which some sites have moved down into the 6870s range or lower with rebates. Now they get to move products that were sitting, generating revenue they weren't getting at all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> The large majority are people who buy based on the name alone. For people like us it's much more easier to avoid that. Most people will just be buying it based on the assumption that nothing has changed and that the 6870 has to be better then their current 5870 or else it's a failure.
> 
> Most of them don't give a shit about doing research, nor do most know where to do to obtain that information.(besides going to google and clicking some random site)



Yes, and the large majority of people are idiots that get what they deserve.

It isn't that hard to go to google and type in "HD 6870 review" and figure out from the results how these cards perform.  In the first 10 results you get reviews from Techpowerup, Guru3d, engadget, pcperspective, bit-tech, and hardocp with a few others as well.  It isn't like they are going to get the wrong information from these sites.  It isn't that hard to get and idea of the performance of these cards with 5 minutes of google searching.  They don't even have to have a clue about what specific sites to go to.


----------



## genta3d (Oct 22, 2010)

Thats nice, only 83C at load.
More over the OCed one only at 88C at load.
My old 4870X2 are 85C at full load...


----------



## Arska (Oct 22, 2010)

Yeah, props to AMD and Nvidia whenever they manage to mislead the general public with the model numbers. You go, guys.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 22, 2010)

qubit said:


> You know why nvidia isn't releasing a GTX560 right now? Because AMD was stupid enough to release a card slower than a GTX470. Hell its slower than a vast majority of GTX460 OC models.
> 
> AMD just let nvidia steal their launch thunder completely with a $260 price point on the GTX470 which some sites have moved down into the 6870s range or lower with rebates. Now they get to move products that were sitting, generating revenue they weren't getting at all.



You forget the 6900 series is still yet to come? Also the 6870 might be slower than some 460OC models but its cheaper than they are and the card can OC a little as well.

AMD did not let NVIDIA steal their thunder. I know alot of people that base their card picking based off electrical imprints and do not overclock. This card is win in those areas and the 470 cant keep up with efficiency. You forget that these are midrange cards competing with one of NVIDIAs enthusiast cards.


----------



## jasper1605 (Oct 22, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> Already asked, it would require some monitor donations. anyone got 3 spare monitors?



If it would guarantee some eyefinity reviews I would pitch $$ in for wiz to buy some monitors, even 1080p's as the price is much lower would suffice as it still pushes the resolution well beyond just one screen.


----------



## erocker (Oct 22, 2010)

qubit said:


> You know why nvidia isn't releasing a GTX560 right now? Because AMD was stupid enough to release a card slower than a GTX470. Hell its slower than a vast majority of GTX460 OC models.
> 
> AMD just let nvidia steal their launch thunder completely with a $260 price point on the GTX470 which some sites have moved down into the 6870s range or lower with rebates. Now they get to move products that were sitting, generating revenue they weren't getting at all.



6870/6850's competition is the GTX 460 and it beats it in terms of price/performance. Not only that the 6870 is about equal to a GTX 470 which is supposedly above the 68xx series. It also looks as if an overclocked 6870 can beat any overclocked 460 model and meet or exceed any overclocked 470 model. It's clear that one company knows how to get a good product out and one company that is playing catch-up with a product that isn't nearly as profitable. The only reason I can think of why this "GTX 560" isn't out is because it's not ready to be out. Same goes for any kind of "GTX 475, 485, 580, etc." If these cards were ready, Nvidia would have them out as quicly as possible. Instead we get a "paper launch" for what seems to be a fully functioning GTX 480.


----------



## ERazer (Oct 22, 2010)

qubit said:


> You know why nvidia isn't releasing a GTX560 right now? Because AMD was stupid enough to release a card slower than a GTX470. Hell its slower than a vast majority of GTX460 OC models.
> 
> AMD just let nvidia steal their launch thunder completely with a $260 price point on the GTX470 which some sites have moved down into the 6870s range or lower with rebates. Now they get to move products that were sitting, generating revenue they weren't getting at all.



ur kidding right? like others mentioned 6850/70 are mid range yet able to keep up with 470, cant wait for 69xx totally gonna  nvidia

+1, to erocker


----------



## morphy (Oct 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> For people like us it's much more easier to avoid that. Most people will just be buying it based on the *assumption* that nothing has changed and that the 6870 has to be better then their current 5870 or else it's a failure.)



Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.


----------



## OneCool (Oct 22, 2010)

Will Barts replace the current Juniper in mobile high end too?


----------



## Steevo (Oct 22, 2010)

Great review W1zz, and I too love the power/clock/temp chart. It helps drive home the abilities of a card for those who want to go further. Basically every member of TPU.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 22, 2010)

Steevo said:


> User: Eric Cartman
> 
> eVGA GTX 460 768MB overclocked to 815Mhz Core 975Mhz Memory
> 
> ...



What kind of video cards they own shouldn't determine whether or not they're fanboy's. Then again, i have considering you a heavy fanboy before and your system is all AMD, so maybe there is some truth to it  lol.

The new naming scheme is in fact shit for those how have gotten used to the older naming scheme for the past 3 generations, but really it's not that bad once you get used to it. It's just a matter of adjusting to it.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> What kind of video cards they own shouldn't determine whether or not they're fanboy's. Then again, i have considering you a heavy fanboy before and your system is all AMD, so maybe there is some truth to it  lol.
> 
> The new naming scheme is in fact shit for those how have gotten used to the older naming scheme for the past 3 generations, but really it's not that bad once you get used to it. It's just a matter of adjusting to it.



I agree that just because you own a brand of hardware does not make you a fanboy.
I was pissed at AMD for the name change and still kind of disagree that it was a good idea but It's something i'm rapidly getting used to... even more so as i have ordered 2 6870's 
I may have owned a lot of AMD hardware recently but i don't consider myself a fanboy,  i keep swapping between intel, AMD, nvidia also ati and 3dfx before they were eaten by AMD and nvidia  it just happens that AMD has given me what i wanted recently.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 22, 2010)

I usually judge fanboyism on absurd skewering of available information. For instance I did find qubit basing an argument on a 1% performance difference between the 6870 and 470 a bit silly. Personally I'll rip on both companies for what they deserve to be ripped on for. AMD for driver and card batch issues, nvidia for architecture problems and forcing the industry away from standards, hurting the consumer with crap like "physx".


----------



## Steevo (Oct 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> What kind of video cards they own shouldn't determine whether or not they're fanboy's. Then again, i have considering you a heavy fanboy before and your system is all AMD, so maybe there is some truth to it  lol.
> 
> The new naming scheme is in fact shit for those how have gotten used to the older naming scheme for the past 3 generations, but really it's not that bad once you get used to it. It's just a matter of adjusting to it.



I wasn't saying anything about Nvidia, other than the people who are ripping AMD for this move have no intention of buying, using, or trying these cards, they are posting just for the sake of being a assclown.

I owned almost all Intel systems since my first coppermine, and the only reason I switched was the damn P4 presshott bullshit. I built all C2D systems untill AMD got their pricing right, and use Nvidia cards where I find them a better option, and my first AMD build was based on a Nforce chipset, and I loved it.



I use AMD as when I was going for my build it was the biggest bang for the buck, longest supported platform (AM2 socket) and my 4850 1GB was enough to play my game of choice (GTA4) well. 

Since I have replaced a CPU, GPU and still have all the same hardware, minus I upgraded RAM too. 

Fanboi? No, dictated by what my wallet will allow. I won't pay the extra for a delusional benefit like CUDA/Physx. Currently my system does everything I want it to, better than the competition. 


I was saving for a 480, but when the delays, lies, and other shit came down. I bought my 5870 for cheap and have never been happier.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 22, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> I agree that just because you own a brand of hardware does not make you a fanboy.
> I was pissed at AMD for the name change and still kind of disagree that it was a good idea but It's something i'm rapidly getting used to... even more so as i have ordered 2 6870's
> I may have owned a lot of AMD hardware recently but i don't consider myself a fanboy,  i keep swapping between intel, AMD, nvidia also ati and 3dfx before they were eaten by AMD and nvidia  it just happens that AMD has given me what i wanted recently.



oh bear....you really should have got the 6850's and OCed them to 950+


----------



## Bobington (Oct 22, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I usually judge fanboyism on absurd skewering of available information. For instance I did find qubit basing an argument on a 1% performance difference between the 6870 and 470 a bit silly. Personally I'll rip on both companies for what they deserve to be ripped on for. AMD for driver and card batch issues, nvidia for architecture problems and forcing the industry away from standards, hurting the consumer with crap like "physx".



Except the things you're ripping Nvidia for are false.


----------



## erocker (Oct 22, 2010)

The posts pointed towards others, going into nuances about the competition and general "fanboy" talk will end now. Let this be a post warning all of those heading down this path. This is a review for the HD 6870, please keep your posts on the topic of the review and/or the card being reviewed. 

Thank you.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Oct 22, 2010)

This thread is a train wreck. :shadedshu

I still haven't received an answer to my question earlier in the thread.  Does anyone know what kind of MOSFETs this board is using?  I can't read the labels even with the huge picture and they clearly aren't power MOSFETs or digital VRMs.  I'd really like to know because I've never seen power chips that looked like that before.



OneCool said:


> Will Barts replace the current Juniper in mobile high end too?



That's a damn good question and I certainly hope so.  The extra power savings of Barts over the Cypress core makes them a logical replacement for the aging fleet of Juniper based Mobility cards.  On the other hand it's not like they could directly drop any existing Barts chip into a mini-PCIe card without suffering a huge clock speed loss.

I'd love to hear from ATI about their plans to update the Mobility series.  My best guess is that AMD will wait to switch to 32nm (or less) and then die shrink Barts for the Mobility series.


----------



## Jaffakeik (Oct 22, 2010)

only thing i can say about HIS company dont buy it,becuase I had  1 HIS 4870X2 it broke down,than they sended me another one and it broke down aswell after month.


----------



## T3kl0rd (Oct 22, 2010)

I paid less than this for my GTX 470s.  Glad I bought them.  Interesting cards but the naming scheme can be confusing to some.  HD 69xx series is the one to watch for me.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 22, 2010)

dir_d said:


> oh bear....you really should have got the 6850's and OCed them to 950+



I could have but the only ones avalible were the non blower style cooers and that was something i really wanted as i can stand a bit of noise for good cooling, i wanted the extra vrm phase and 6 pin connector in the hope that it will help me get to 1ghz or even a little more if i'm lucky. Along with the extra 360 sp's it was worth the extra £40 to me. 

Also I hope the extra 360 sp's will help out a little with running at 5040x1050.


----------



## imperialreign (Oct 23, 2010)

First off - great review w1z, as always! 




Eric_Cartman said:


> The price argument fails.
> Because it isn't that hard for the consumer to see the higher price and just assume it is either price wrong, or priced high because it is from the previous generation.
> 
> Look at the GTX 285 it is priced higher than the GTX 460 despite being a weaker card.
> ...





I'm just curious . . . but how did you feel when ATI changed from their X1000 and X100 naming schemes to the current HD nomenclature?

Surely, the move from X1000, X1300 and X1600, to HD2400 and HD2600 and X1800 and X1900 to HD2900 must've been confusing?  Then another change-up to for the HD3000 series, right (HD2900 to HD3870). Not to mention numerous sub-sets of card models that were dropped entirelly.  The list of X1000 series cards is extensive as hell, and there were quite a few incarnations for the HD2000 series; and that's not even taking into account the X700 and X800 series, and how those carried over.  The current naming scheme didn't come about until the HD3000 series, which was only a couple of years ago.

Companies need to revise their product naming now and then, and many times that involves restructuring the current naming scheme to make room for newer models.  The current HD scheme (carrying over from the HD5000 series) now includes a HDx9xxx bracket - which is aimed at being the high-performance models.  To make room for that, everything gets bumped down one notch.

It's not rocket science, nor is it a reflection of a company trying to dupe any customers via using confusing tactics.  Quite honestly, if one thinks about it for a quick second, it's the only solution that makes sense without having to try and devise a whole new naming scheme - which could actually be even more confusing than changing up the current listings.  All things considered, it's nowhere near as bad as the constant rebadging lineup shuffles of some other hardware manufacturers.


----------



## wolf (Oct 23, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> That's a damn good question and I certainly hope so.  The extra power savings of Barts over the Cypress core makes them a logical replacement for the aging fleet of Juniper based Mobility cards.  On the other hand it's not like they could directly drop any existing Barts chip into a mini-PCIe card without suffering a huge clock speed loss.
> 
> I'd love to hear from ATI about their plans to update the Mobility series.  My best guess is that AMD will wait to switch to 32nm (or less) and then die shrink Barts for the Mobility series.



Getting faster and faster chips into any system is always good IMO, but I think it will take a die shrink for AMD to consider a mobility barts option. IMO a Juniper based mobility chip in a laptop is a butload of horsepower as it is, especially for 1600x900 and smaller res's. currently I use a redwood based mobility 5650 (half of juniper and no GDDR5) and I can play just about any game maxxed with AA @ 1366x768.

I do await the day you can just rock up at a lan with a reasonable, not over the top, gaming laptop and just plow hardcore competitive games. I think Barts could do just that.

problem is even Barts pro, in the vicinity of ~125w is still way too high to go mobility, they need to shave that down to something like 50w, for the whole board, which to me means 28nm and sacrificing clockspeeds somewhat greatly.


----------



## MikeX (Oct 23, 2010)

wow It beats gtx 460 with less transistorz and it is cheaper than 5870 only that getting beat by 5870 only a couple times in a tiny bit 
I think overclock limit is just too low


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 23, 2010)

nice to see BFBC2 in tests w1z , awesome work


----------



## wolf (Oct 23, 2010)

MikeX said:


> wow It beats gtx 460 with less transistorz and it is cheaper than 5870 only that getting beat by 5870 only a couple times in a tiny bit
> I think overclock limit is just too low



It is a pity about the 6870 overclocks, but it's pretty much just like Cypress, the 5870 and 5850 can generally speaking, overclock to roughly the same clockspeeds, making the cheaper/slower card, the more attractive option.

and remember that not all of a GTX460 core is active, and Nvidia went for lower clocks than they couldhave, most likely saving that as their new answer to the 6800's whhich we will seen soon enough IMO with higher default clockspeeds, and 384 sp's instead of 336.

a cursory glance at the numbers suggests that a GF104, with all 384 sp's active, clocked around 750mhz roughly matches the on-paper numbers of a GTX470, and they could price it easily between $199 and $239.

the next 3-6 months are going to ROCK if you love your GPU's


----------



## Super XP (Oct 23, 2010)

It's nice to see the HD 6870 keep up quite well with the HD 5870 and beat out the HD 5850 completely. Good job ATI... Now bring on the HD 6900 series.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 23, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> The new naming scheme is in fact shit for those how have gotten used to the older naming scheme for the past 3 generations, but really it's not that bad once you get used to it. It's just a matter of adjusting to it.



People who "have gotten used to the older naming scheme for the past 3 generations" (which means they're buying video cards since 2006) are smart enough to understand video cards, their market positioning, can choose their own video cards, and won't care what it's named.


----------



## air_ii (Oct 23, 2010)

Why all the fuss about the naming? It's not like they renamed Juniper to 6870... It might be confusing for some, but then you have reviews, which people tend to read before a buy like this.

I'm not a fan of the new naming myself, but you can't compare it to 8800->9800 case, as it's actually a new product naming scheme, not renaming an old product.

Anyway, why not focus on the card instead? It is a worthwile option if you're moving to DX11 world, isn't it?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 23, 2010)

btarunr said:


> People who "have gotten used to the older naming scheme for the past 3 generations" (which means they're buying video cards since 2006) are smart enough to understand video cards, their market positioning, can choose their own video cards, and won't care what it's named.



That's a bit of an over generalization actually, people who have been buying cards since '06 know that scheme by heart because it's what they're used to, not everyone who has followed hardware that long can easily adjust to a sudden name change with a sudden performance difference(believe it or not). And again, read the rest of my post. It's really just a matter of getting used to it to it and adjusting. Also people who have been buying videos card since '06 doesn't somehow mean they understand the naming scheme or performance of the cards, i've seen people by video cards for years and yet they since don't comprehend what video card is what, they just want the one that's cheap and sounds like it can play games, as that's all they care about, and they know if the number is higher it's got to be better.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 23, 2010)

To me (just recently remembering) the x900, x1950 and 2900 it seams ati started with x9xx as the top end then switched it to x8xx when they stopped aiming for an all out king of the hill chip and it's now going back to x9xx.... could that mean something?


----------



## erocker (Oct 23, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> To me (just recently remembering) the x900, x1950 and 2900 it seams ati started with x9xx as the top end then switched it to x8xx when they stopped aiming for an all out king of the hill chip and it's now going back to x9xx.... could that mean something?



That was just the point I was about to make. AMD just fixed the naming scheme that ATi broke back in late 2007. Again, if you make any purchase without doing a bit of research (in the age of internetz) your purchasing "mistake" is on you.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 23, 2010)

erocker said:


> That was just the point I was about to make. AMD just fixed the naming scheme that ATi broke back in 2008.



The thing that makes me wonder though is did ATI dropped it down to x8xx when they stopped aiming for the most powerful single chip as if they did it kind of makes sense that AMD are going back to the x9xx *if* they are going for a really powerful single chip this time?


----------



## erocker (Oct 23, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> The thing that makes me wonder though is did ati drop it down to x8xx when they stop aiming for the most powerful single chip as if they did it kind of makes sense that if amd are going back to the x9xx if they are going for a really powerful single chip this time?



This is what I'm thinking.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 23, 2010)

erocker said:


> This is what I'm thinking.



I really hope that's right, i dislike dual card setups so i wont be holding on to my 6870's for long and i really want the 6970 be more powerful than a pair of 6870's, if not then i really hope the 580 is something special  (that can also do 3 monitors on one card)


----------



## air_ii (Oct 23, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> to me (just recently remembering) the x900, x1950 and 2900 it seams ati started with x9xx as the top end then switched it to x8xx when they stopped aiming for an all out king of the hill chip and it's now going back to x9xx.... Could that mean something?



x900?


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 23, 2010)

air_ii said:


> x900?



 I fail  the top one was the x850 back then, so only x1950 and 2900.... how about we pretend i meant to say x1900


----------



## wahdangun (Oct 23, 2010)

bear jesus said:


> The thing that makes me wonder though is did ATI dropped it down to x8xx when they stopped aiming for the most powerful single chip as if they did it kind of makes sense that AMD are going back to the x9xx *if* they are going for a really powerful single chip this time?



its different because right now ati doesn't have any competition. nvdia must die shrink their gigantic GPU to 28 Nm before they can make another fermi and we know TSMC wont have that until next year


----------



## Super XP (Oct 23, 2010)

Good to see the HD 6870 topping the HD 5850 and keeping up with the Hd 5870 quite well.


----------



## Mome (Oct 24, 2010)

First of all... thank you for your great Reviews about 68xx Series!

I really appreciate reading your Reviews! 

One question... can you tell me, which tool you used for adjusting Voltage on these cards?
Or did you do a Biosflash?


----------



## Lusuyi (Oct 24, 2010)

Guys tell so what better me to buy Gtx 460 hawk atalon attack or Radeon 6870 ? wich card be better without OC. ty)


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 24, 2010)

Lusuyi said:


> Guys tell so what better me to buy Gtx 460 hawk atalon attack or Radeon 6870 ? wich card be better without OC. ty)



The 6870 would be a better pick.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 24, 2010)

Lusuyi said:


> Guys tell so what better me to buy Gtx 460 hawk atalon attack or Radeon 6870 ? wich card be better without OC. ty)





CDdude55 said:


> The 6870 would be a better pick.



I would agree, if you look at the 6870 review that should be enough to make you want the 6870... i know it did for me


----------



## Wile E (Oct 26, 2010)

erocker said:


> 6870/6850's competition is the GTX 460 and it beats it in terms of price/performance. Not only that the 6870 is about equal to a GTX 470 which is supposedly above the 68xx series. It also looks as if an overclocked 6870 can beat any overclocked 460 model and meet or exceed any overclocked 470 model. It's clear that one company knows how to get a good product out and one company that is playing catch-up with a product that isn't nearly as profitable. The only reason I can think of why this "GTX 560" isn't out is because it's not ready to be out. Same goes for any kind of "GTX 475, 485, 580, etc." If these cards were ready, Nvidia would have them out as quicly as possible. Instead we get a "paper launch" for what seems to be a fully functioning GTX 480.



While I agree with this, nVidia codes better drivers right now. That equals everything out in my book. nVidia only needs to drop prices to overshadow the 6800 series.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 26, 2010)

Wile E said:


> nVidia only needs to drop prices to overshadow the 6800 series.



They have already dropped prices for the 470 and 460 to try and overshadow the 6800 series launch. Doubt we will see any more price drops from them until the 6900's come.


----------



## inferKNOX (Nov 26, 2010)

Love the Voltage tuning section. I think that it would help to clearer indicate (on the graph) what the default load voltage is (as stated by manufacturer or via software); like a dotted line down to the voltage measurements with the value written along it, or something.
EG:


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Dec 5, 2010)

imperialreign said:


> Surely, the move from X1000, X1300 and X1600, to HD2400 and HD2600 and X1800 and X1900 to HD2900 must've been confusing?



Not at all confusing because the numbers stays in line.  A 2600 was better than a 1600.  The numbers being totally screwed is what matters, people buy cards based on the numbers in the name.  A bigger number should indicate a better card.  ATi is purposely trying to trick people into buying a weaker card by giving it a bigger number.  A 6800 series card should be better than a 5800 series card, it is simple.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Not at all confusing because the numbers stays in line.  A 2600 was better than a 1600.  The numbers being totally screwed is what matters, people buy cards based on the numbers in the name.  A bigger number should indicate a better card.  ATi is purposely trying to trick people into buying a weaker card by giving it a bigger number.  A 6800 series card should be better than a 5800 series card, it is simple.



An HD 2400 isn't exactly better than a X1300 either, the former being the low-end and the latter being mid-range.


----------



## CDdude55 (Dec 5, 2010)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Not at all confusing because the numbers stays in line.  A 2600 was better than a 1600.  The numbers being totally screwed is what matters, people buy cards based on the numbers in the name.  A bigger number should indicate a better card.  ATi is purposely trying to trick people into buying a weaker card by giving it a bigger number.  A 6800 series card should be better than a 5800 series card, it is simple.



I thought people were done complaining over the name change, but apparently not..:shadedshu

It's really not that confusing, the 6800's moved down a spot to mid-range and the 6900's are now the top single and dual GPU AMD cards, anyone who reads reviews and actually cares about performance should be able to understand the name change right off the bat.

I too was complaining about it at first, because i think they messed with something that wasn't broken and it could of saved them a lot of time if they just sticked with what we all know.

But really, anyone who actually has an interest in hardware should be able to understand it and comprehend which card is what.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Dec 5, 2010)

entropy13 said:


> An HD 2400 isn't exactly better than a X1300 either, the former being the low-end and the latter being mid-range.



The HD 2400 is better than the X1300.

And since when was the HD 2400 mid-range?  

What is below it that makes it mid-range and not low end?

Because the HD 2600 was mid-range.


----------

