AMD Radeon HD 6670 1 GB

[W1zzard]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

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

 

[Over_Lord]

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]

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

 

[hanzi]

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]

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

 

[W1zzard]

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]

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]

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

 

[xenocide]

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

 

[Cold Storm]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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)

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]

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]

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

 

[HalfAHertz]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

then leave, please . . . . . .

 

[Radys]

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.