# AMD Radeon HD 6670 1 GB



## W1zzard (Apr 18, 2011)

Today AMD releases their HD 6670 which is priced at $100. The card is based on a brand-new graphics processor called "Turks" with 480 shaders and GDDR5 memory. Like all recent cards from AMD the card supports EyeFinity, DirectX 11 and full HD video acceleration.

*Show full review*


----------



## Nintendork (Apr 19, 2011)

Great OC but:

1
How can "Not powerful enough for full HD resolutions" qualify as a con? These range of cards were never meant to play at full HD, that's hardly a con (non existant).

That will continue until full HD becomes the new "1280x1024" with 4K monitors.

2
No support for CUDA / PhysX

What's this? Add that is and nvidia gpu comes without that gimmicks. This is an AMD gpu, for now it'll never support that. Maybe you can add on a Nvidia gpu review "it doesn't support MLAA or UVD 3.0"

That cons are not cons (maybe personal opinion but this a site review right?).


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 19, 2011)

Nintendork said:


> maybe personal opinion



yes, i'm just listing them, readers should think about those points and decide whether they matter for their own requirements or not


----------



## demonkevy666 (Apr 19, 2011)

has wrong ROP's on GPU-z showing double the pixel fill rate because of it.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 19, 2011)

You left out a zero on the memory spec on the first page.


----------



## Over_Lord (Apr 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> yes, i'm just listing them, readers should think about those points and decide whether they matter for their own requirements or not



You know, you can stop mentioning no CUDA and PHYSX on all AMD graphics cards reviews.

You know asking for those features in AMD cards is illogical(i.e. an never happen), and mentioning them every time is nonsensical.

Also, The summary should be based on the card's price. You should work out positively, like

: Great for gaming at 1680x1050 @ 100$

That puts a proper impression, instead of:

: 100$
: Not good at Full HD

Just my opinions.. and I guess, DX11 relevance point will go once BF3 releases huh  (crysis 2 made a fool of us already)


----------



## Semi-Lobster (Apr 19, 2011)

The performance numbers here remind me of what my brother's 9800 GT gets


----------



## hanzi (Apr 19, 2011)

The size of the card is suitable for those who are in htpc setups. So I think the conclusion "Not powerful enough for full HD resolutions" is very relative. 

Still, great review W1zzard!


----------



## RONX GT (Apr 19, 2011)

Wow i mean great HTPC card. Thanks for the review W1zz.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 19, 2011)

thunderising said:


> You know, you can stop mentioning no CUDA and PHYSX on all AMD graphics cards reviews.



right back to you: You know, you can stop mentioning no CUDA and PHYSX on all AMD graphics cards reviews

getting tired of seeing the same comments every time in reviews


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 19, 2011)

Semi-Lobster said:


> The performance numbers here remind me of what my brother's 9800 GT gets



yes, 9800 GT == GTS 250 is roughly in that performance class, just cheaper


----------



## HalfAHertz (Apr 19, 2011)

It's nice to see the power consumption going down while performance goes up


----------



## xenocide (Apr 19, 2011)

That's some pretty low Power Consumption, even under load.  Seems like the perfect HTPC card imo.


----------



## Cold Storm (Apr 19, 2011)

W1zz, it was a good review. A card for those htpc's that don't have the full 1080p aspect.


As for :thunderising:


The card doesn't have the factor, so why shouldn't he add those specs? I mean, what if a "Joe Q Somebody" E-machine's video card died? Tech guys at work are talking about cuda/Physx on video cards? He want's it but doesn't know if "every" card has it? Goes to a review, and see is.. Boom, it doesn't.. He reads another review... He finds that it's only on one developer/manufacture... Now, he knows what to get...


----------



## damric (Apr 19, 2011)

This little bugger packs a lot of punch. It definitely rules performance to size ratio  Not sure why they didn't make it with a single slot cooler though.


----------



## Cold Storm (Apr 19, 2011)

The card will be like that soon enough.. If they do it the same via the 4670/5670.. There will be a single slot down the road not to far from now.


----------



## mastrdrver (Apr 19, 2011)

Real quick W1z, what Civ 5 benchmark are you using? Thanks.



W1zzard said:


> yes, i'm just listing them, readers should think about those points and decide whether they matter for their own requirements or not





thunderising said:


> Also, The summary should be based on the card's price. You should work out positively, like
> 
> : Great for gaming at 1680x1050 @ 100$
> 
> ...



I don't mean this to be personal in anyway (to W1z, thunder, or anyone else). I've never realized it myself either.

You know I was not sure why W1z always put things like that in the comments. There was always a blatant obviousness to me. Now I realize that the target customer maybe oblivious (for obvious reasons) to those blatancies. Most on this site have the privilege of having something way faster while similarly costlier.

It may look monotonous at first glance but its also stating a clear limit of a possible unawareness that the buyer needs to understand.

"Great for 1680x1050" does not draw the line in the sand like "Not good at Full HD". They both say each other in their assumptions. Both also speak clearly at their intended point on the surface. thunder's tells you the max the card can provide without killing enjoyment. Though Wizzard's says don't go here, you need to turn around and go back to thunder's limit or spend more money to avoid "in hindsight" experience.

In a review I'd rather state the plain and obvious (neg and/or pos) less the reader think they got hustled by me when I thought I was being clear. It reads as ymmv instead of "here and no further". I'm not saying you have to always put it in the negative. Just limits in their very nature carry some kind of negative tone in them.

An analogy? How does the ref call the game if the lines are not on the field/court? Whether the lines are negative or not to the player depends on if they are the one disputing the clearness of them (clarity being the point).

You always read how dumb/stupid/etc the buyers on the bottom end of the market are (the usual "they don't do research" comments), the ones who buy in to the marketing of whoever throws it out best. What does that say about the quality of the reviews out there then? Sounds to me like there are a lot of markless fields. I think most readers will forgive a negative tone to avoid a "in hindsight" moment.

It's not always easy to see what is obvious to us either. It is always hard though to make the obvious, obvious when it is unapparent to the reader of their need to know. So you got to "cover all the bases" per-say without making the reader think they're being talked down to.

That's a challenge.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Apr 19, 2011)

GTS250 1GB = $80 ?? i found it still cost around $100, maybe that $80 is for 512MB models.

but i think this card still give a good punch for 1680 x 1050 resolution, which you know.. like most of $100 cards are targeted


----------



## christian27 (Apr 19, 2011)

Nice power consumption improvements over HD 5670 ... and over HD 4670


----------



## HalfAHertz (Apr 19, 2011)

Well AT included a good old 8800GT along side the 6670 and the thing ate it for breakfast, usually edging the 8800 by a few fps in Dx9/10 games.


----------



## GSquadron (Apr 19, 2011)

The advantage between the 5670 seems really low. I don't think it is worth the money addition.
Only thermal design power is much better!


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 19, 2011)

thunderising said:


> You know, you can stop mentioning no CUDA and PHYSX on all AMD graphics cards reviews.
> 
> You know asking for those features in AMD cards is illogical(i.e. an never happen), and mentioning them every time is nonsensical.
> 
> ...




No CUDA and no PhysX support should still be listed because AMD has made no attempt to produce successful technologies equivalant to them.  When AMD introduced Eyefinity, the lack of Eyefinity was listed as a con for nVidia cards.  The difference is that nVidia actually produced a technology that is equivalant, so it isn't listed anymore.(Though the weaker display output still is.)

As for not good at HD, the GTS450 is at the same $100 price point and is capable of gaming at HD resolutions(with AA disabled), so this card not being capable is definitely a con.


----------



## Radys (Apr 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No CUDA and no PhysX support should still be listed because AMD has made no attempt to produce successful technologies equivalant to them.



AMD's APP is much better in transcoding than CUDA. Apparently Techpowerup never heard of that.

Now for the review. HTPC card and no HD quality benches (hint: AMD much better than Nvidia) but we have instead the usual soup of TWIMTBP games, including...Metro 2033 - the famous game that works on low end cards and HAWX - the famous game nobody plays. 

Ludicrous. I lost every single bit of respect for this site.


----------



## KainXS (Apr 19, 2011)

then leave, please . . . . . .


----------



## Radys (Apr 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> yes, i'm just listing them, readers should think about those points and decide whether they matter for their own requirements or not



You don't list them only as features for the Nvidia cards but also as bad points for the AMD ones. No APP feature on the AMD cards listed (or the lack of for Nvidia). No other features like dual GPU support on AMD platforms or UVD 3.0. No "Not powerful enough for full HD resolutions" for any Nvidia cards.

Exactly the most important things for a HTPC card are missing from the review. Instead we have CUDA, Physix and Metro 2033.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> right back to you: You know, you can stop mentioning no CUDA and PHYSX on all AMD graphics cards reviews
> 
> getting tired of seeing the same comments every time in reviews



Then perhaps you should stop putting no Cuda/PhysX support? i love your reviews i think they are the BEST in the whole internet, but come on... that is not a CON... you want cuda you get a nVidia, simple as that... dont take this personally but the others are RIGHT, maybe next review dont use physx/cuda as a con on AMD cards.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Apr 19, 2011)

Guys lay it off a bit...Every time a new high end card from either Nvidia or Ati rolls  along, it comes with a "Review guide" the size of a small novel. It can include anything from "use only our latest alpha-beta super driver" to "remember to review this game using these settings". I wouldn't be surprised if "remember to mention CUDA/Physx" was in that list with big bold letters.

If you don't comply with it, you get cut off. If you get cut off not only is it harder to get your hands on the new tech, you also don't get access to the promotional events or get the interviews and the insights on the next big thing. You're shun off and there's nothing you can do about it because it's a cut-throat world out there.

Now, not only is W1z doing these reviews in his leisure time, but he's doing a bang of a job. I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize because good feedback is always a nice thing - but come on: keep it constrictive.

All i see is: "Whine, whine; stop dissing my lovely brand! Ati/Nvidia are so awesome. I don't care if product xwz doesn't support uvt - it still gives me a woody!"


----------



## Cold Storm (Apr 19, 2011)

If we want to tell W1z on what he "should/shouldn't have" then why not go to his wishlist... As you can see on the "wishlist" he's going to reamp his benches... If you want to go anal on it.. Read a few reviews.. Read his last March/April review on which it got people Fueling.. Now, what site goes threw all those benches, goes threw all those cards, just to review one card?


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 19, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> If you don't comply with it, you get cut off



i dont care about reviewer guides or similar bs .. which means that in addition to you guys, some manufacturers hate me too. check tpu how many samples i got directly from nvidia, also check the sample count from amd.

nvidia hasn't been doing much cuda/physx brainwash lately. i really think it is a point that should be mentioned in the reviews. as soon as we see decent opencl apps (there are none, i checked today, was hoping to find something for the new vga reviews) become as competitive as cuda that point will be gone. If physx loses importance for the gamers (it's on the best way to do that) then i won't mention it anymore either.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 19, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> i dont care about reviewer guides or similar bs .. which means that in addition to you guys, some manufacturers hate me too. check tpu how many samples i got directly from nvidia, also check the sample count from amd.
> 
> nvidia hasn't been doing much cuda/physx brainwash lately. i really think it is a point that should be mentioned in the reviews. as soon as we see decent opencl apps (there are none, i checked today, was hoping to find something for the new vga reviews) become as competitive as cuda that point will be gone. If physx loses importance for the gamers (it's on the best way to do that) then i won't mention it anymore either.[/QUOT
> 
> ...


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 19, 2011)

etayorius said:


> As for whining no one is whining, i own 5 nVidia GPUs while i only own 2 AMD/ATi GPUs, but i do think AMD are not meant to have PhysX or CUDA, so this is why think this should not be considered a CON.



The reviews are meant for people that are looking to buy a card, and are comparing cards from both.  So it is proper to include a feature that one has and the other lacks.  It doesn't matter that AMD isn't bothering to developer a technology to compete with it, it is still something that someone buying this card would be missing out on, so it should be mentioned.


----------



## mastrdrver (Apr 21, 2011)

*Can't you feel the love.........tonight?*



W1zzard said:


> i dont care about reviewer guides or similar bs .. which means that in addition to you guys, some manufacturers hate me too. check tpu how many samples i got directly from nvidia, also check the sample count from amd.
> 
> nvidia hasn't been doing much cuda/physx brainwash lately. i really think it is a point that should be mentioned in the reviews. as soon as we see decent opencl apps (there are none, i checked today, was hoping to find something for the new vga reviews) become as competitive as cuda that point will be gone. If physx loses importance for the gamers (it's on the best way to do that) then i won't mention it anymore either.



......and that's why W1z came up with GPUz as a catch 22. Hate W1z and get your stuff black marked on GPUz! 

Haters   W1z

Oooooohhh snap!


----------



## GSquadron (Apr 21, 2011)

Techpowerup is the only place where i see reviews in the net
So i must admit that W1z is number one for me


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 21, 2011)

mastrdrver said:


> ......and that's why W1z came up with GPUz as a catch 22. Hate W1z and get your stuff black marked on GPUz!



nah i dont do such childish things


----------



## Casecutter (Apr 25, 2011)

Well for someone with an older dual Core OEM box with a good 300W PSU, to plug-and-play at what is a GTS250 512Mb level is pretty dang nice.  Sure you won't get newer Dx11 titles, but perf/power leader and play most previous gen titles for nothing more that a $80 card final street price is good.  

As to the whole "Not powerful enough for full HD resolutions" sure a miss-opportunity, but not a CON ... Because is there an Nvidia card that’s in the market, half-height and this low of power that can pull that off? I don't see a GT430 having that ability, does that newly released GT520 (wasn't mentioned) , or even the GT440 _(oddly completely missing even though you did that one 2-1/2 months ago)_. While a GTS 450 might, it’s still not a card that most consider for actual HTPC duty.  Face it, it’s just an attribute/feature that’s not yet a reality for cards at this level.

As to Cuda/PhysX: Cuda is a useful feature even at the lowest price point, but why even ding the AMD product on PhysX when heck even a GTS450 and below will have you compromising setting and resolutions just to get playable FpS.  To me saying Nvidia offers PhysX at this level is a misnomer, and Nvidia should get the "CON" when specifications indicate it can do it, but not with any adeptness.

Wiz does good… just keep it real.


----------



## sliderider (Jun 20, 2011)

A review of a pair of these in Crossfire would be nice to see. Would two of these be faster than a HD6870?


----------

