Hd 5870 vs hd 6870: Radeon HD 5870 vs Radeon HD 6870 Graphics cards Comparison

Radeon HD 5870 vs Radeon HD 6870 Graphics cards Comparison

Find out if it is worth upgrading your current GPU setup by comparing Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870. Here you can take a closer look at graphics cards specs, such as core clock speed, memory type and size, display connectors, etc. The price, overall benchmark and gaming performances are usually defining factors when it comes to choosing between Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870. Make sure that the graphics card has compatible dimensions and will properly fit in your new or current computer case. Also these graphics cards may have different system power recommendations, so take that into consideration and upgrade your PSU if necessary.

Radeon HD 5870

Check Price

Radeon HD 6870

Check Price

Main Specs

	Radeon HD 5870	Radeon HD 6870
Power consumption (TDP)	188 Watt	151 Watt
Interface	PCIe 2. 0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	2x 6-pin
Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Display Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
	Check Price	Check Price

Radeon HD 5870 has 24% more power consumption, than Radeon HD 6870.
Both video cards are using PCIe 2.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have maximum RAM of 1 GB.
Both cards are used in Desktops.
Radeon HD 5870 is build with TeraScale 2 architecture, and Radeon HD 6870 — with Terascale 2.
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 are manufactured by 40 nm process technology.
Radeon HD 5870 is 62 mm longer, than Radeon HD 6870.
Memory clock speed of Radeon HD 5870 is 3750 MHz higher, than Radeon HD 6870.

Game benchmarks

Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks
high / 1080p	10−12	10−12
ultra / 1080p	6−7	6−7
QHD / 1440p	1−2	1−2
low / 720p	24−27	24−27
medium / 1080p	14−16	12−14
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey.
high / 1080p	18−20	18−20
ultra / 1080p	16−18	14−16
QHD / 1440p	1−2	1−2
low / 720p	35−40	35−40
medium / 1080p	20−22	20−22
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in Battlefield 5 is 5% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
low / 768p	45−50	45−50
QHD / 1440p	0−1	0−1
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone.
low / 768p	180−190	180−190
medium / 768p	150−160	140−150
ultra / 1080p	75−80	75−80
QHD / 1440p	45−50	40−45
4K / 2160p	30−33	30−33
high / 768p	110−120	110−120
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 2% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
low / 768p	55−60	55−60
ultra / 1080p	30−35	30−33
medium / 1080p	45−50	45−50
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077.
low / 768p	95−100	95−100
medium / 768p	80−85	75−80
ultra / 1080p	50−55	50−55
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in Dota 2 is 2% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
high / 1080p	12−14	12−14
ultra / 1080p	12−14	12−14
4K / 2160p	5−6	5−6
low / 720p	30−33	27−30
medium / 1080p	14−16	14−16
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Far Cry 5.
high / 1080p	20−22	20−22
ultra / 1080p	14−16	14−16
low / 720p	80−85	80−85
medium / 1080p	35−40	35−40
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Fortnite.
high / 1080p	18−20	18−20
ultra / 1080p	16−18	14−16
QHD / 1440p	5−6	5−6
low / 720p	40−45	40−45
medium / 1080p	21−24	21−24
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in Forza Horizon 4 is 5% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
low / 768p	70−75	70−75
medium / 768p	60−65	60−65
high / 1080p	21−24	21−24
ultra / 1080p	9−10	9−10
QHD / 1440p	0−1	0−1
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Grand Theft Auto V.
high / 1080p	7−8	7−8
ultra / 1080p	5−6	5−6
4K / 2160p	1−2	1−2
low / 720p	21−24	21−24
medium / 1080p	10−11	9−10
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in Metro Exodus.
low / 768p	100−110	100−110
ultra / 1080p	95−100	90−95
medium / 1080p	100−110	100−105
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in Minecraft is 2% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
high / 1080p	20−22	18−20
ultra / 1080p	16−18	16−18
low / 720p	45−50	45−50
medium / 1080p	21−24	21−24
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS is 3% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
high / 1080p	12−14	12−14
ultra / 1080p	8−9	8−9
QHD / 1440p	0−1	0−1
low / 720p	21−24	20−22
medium / 1080p	14−16	12−14
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 7% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
low / 768p	40−45	40−45
medium / 768p	24−27	24−27
high / 1080p	14−16	14−16
ultra / 1080p	9−10	8−9
4K / 2160p	7−8	7−8
The average gaming FPS of Radeon HD 5870 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 5% more, than Radeon HD 6870.
low / 768p	95−100	95−100
medium / 768p	55−60	55−60
ultra / 1080p	27−30	27−30
high / 768p	45−50	45−50
Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 6870 have the same average FPS in World of Tanks.

Full Specs

	Radeon HD 5870	Radeon HD 6870
Architecture	TeraScale 2	Terascale 2
Code name	Cypress	RV940 Barts
Type	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	23 September 2009	22 October 2010
Pipelines	1600	1120
Core clock speed	850 MHz
Boost Clock		900 MHz
Transistor count	2,154 million	1,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	40 nm
Texture fill rate	68. 00	50.40
Floating-point performance	2,720.0 gflops	2,016.0 gflops
Length	282 mm	220 mm
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	4800 MHz	1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth	153.6 GB/s	134.4 GB/s
Shared memory		—
DirectX	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.0
OpenGL	4.4	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	N/A
Bus support		PCIe 2. 0 x16
HDMI		+
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256)		213 Mh/s
Eyefinity		+
Design		reference
CrossFire		+
	Check Price	Check Price

Similar compares

Radeon HD 5870 vs GeForce GTX 460
Radeon HD 5870 vs Radeon HD 5970
Radeon HD 6870 vs GeForce GTX 460
Radeon HD 6870 vs Radeon HD 5970
Radeon HD 5870 vs FirePro V7900
Radeon HD 5870 vs Quadro P520
Radeon HD 6870 vs FirePro V7900
Radeon HD 6870 vs Quadro P520

AMD Radeon HD 6870 vs ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6: What is the difference?

32points

AMD Radeon HD 6870

31points

ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

54 facts in comparison

AMD Radeon HD 6870

ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Why is AMD Radeon HD 6870 better than ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6?

1. 6 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
28.8 GPixel/svs27.2 GPixel/s
77W lower TDP?
151Wvs228W
2 more DVI outputs?
2vs0
59mm narrower?
220mmvs279mm
24mm shorter?
96mmvs120mm

Why is ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 better than AMD Radeon HD 6870?

0.7 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
2.72 TFLOPSvs2.02 TFLOPS
150MHz faster memory clock speed?
1200MHzvs1050MHz
600MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
4800MHzvs4200MHz
2x more VRAM?
2GBvs1GB
17.6 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
68 GTexels/svs50.4 GTexels/s
20GB/s more memory bandwidth?
154GB/svs134GB/s
480 more shading units?
1600vs1120
454million more transistors?
2154 millionvs1700 million

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1050

ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan X

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750

ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 650

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Asus Strix GeForce GTX 960 DirectCU II OC

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Asus HD 7770

AMD Radeon HD 6870

Asus GeForce GTX 550 Ti DirectCU TOP

AMD Radeon HD 6870

AMD Radeon HD 7850

AMD Radeon HD 6870

AMD Radeon R9 280X

Price comparison

User reviews

Performance

1. GPU clock speed

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon HD 6870)

850MHz

The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

2.GPU turbo

900MHz

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6)

When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

3.pixel rate

28.8 GPixel/s

27.2 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

4.floating-point performance

2.02 TFLOPS

2.72 TFLOPS

Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

5.texture rate

50.4 GTexels/s

68 GTexels/s

The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

6. GPU memory speed

1050MHz

1200MHz

The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.

7.shading units

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.

8.texture mapping units (TMUs)

TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.

9.render output units (ROPs)

The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.

Memory

1.effective memory speed

4200MHz

4800MHz

The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

134GB/s

154GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4.memory bus width

256bit

A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.

5.version of GDDR memory

Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.

6.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD Radeon HD 6870

✖ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

Features

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

2.OpenGL version

OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

3.OpenCL version

Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.

4.Supports multi-display technology

✔AMD Radeon HD 6870

✔ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.

5. load GPU temperature

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6)

A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖AMD Radeon HD 6870

✖ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.

7.Supports 3D

✔AMD Radeon HD 6870

✔ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).

8.supports DLSS

✖AMD Radeon HD 6870

✖ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.

9.PassMark (G3D) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6)

This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.

Ports

1.has an HDMI output

✔AMD Radeon HD 6870

✔ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6

Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.

2.HDMI ports

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon HD 6870)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6)

More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.

3.HDMI version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon HD 6870)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (ATI Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6)

Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.

4.DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.

6.mini DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best graphics cards?

AMD Radeon HD 6870 1GB Video Card

Video Cards & GPUs

AMD Radeon GPU

We check out the big brother to the new HD 6850 that’s also been launched today; the HD 6870. Where’s it sit and how’s it go?

Published Oct 21, 2010 9:00 PM CDT | Updated Tue, Nov 3 2020 7:02 PM CST

Manufacturer: AMD

16 minute read time

Introduction

Already we’ve taken the time to look at the entry level HD 6850. With that out the way it’s time to look at the HD 6870, a model that is again not designed to replace the HD 5870. It’s important that we continue to push this as I’m still reading on a lot of forums that people are under the impression the HD 6800 series is a flat out replacement for the HD 5800 series.

I don’t agree with what AMD has done with the name change, but really, this is the most confusing part. The HD 6900s that we should start to see next month aren’t going to be as confusing; they will be AMDs top of the line cards. What I would probably suggest if you’re interested in knowing a bit more about the lineup is head on over to our preview article posted in the middle of the week; AMD Radeon HD 6850 and HD 6870 — What We Can Tell You.

Of course, we’re not going to force you to do that and if you haven’t seen it you’ll no doubt want to check out the actual card we’re looking at today on the next page. What wasn’t in that original quick look were the clocks of the cards, so even if you have seen what the HD 6870 looks like, you might still want to check out the specifications to get a clearer picture.

Unlike the HD 6850 we just looked at, the HD 6870 isn’t a retail version, so we haven’t got a bundle to look at yet. Don’t worry, though, we’ve got retail versions in the lab and you’ll see what companies like Sapphire and HIS are offering when we start to look at CF and OC performance.

For now, though, let’s just check out that’s going on with this HD 6870 in reference form.

Card and Specifications

The Card

Looking at the card, there’s nothing too out of the ordinary for the most part when it comes to the HD 6870. We’ve got that fan at the rear of the card which is designed to push air over the top of the GPU and straight out the front.

Power requirements on the HD 6870 is double that of the HD 6850, meaning we need two 6-Pin PCI-E connectors. There’s no requirement for an 8-pin one. These connectors have also been moved to the top of the card. Closer to the front we’ve got a single CF connector allowing us to put two of these cards together, again something we’ll be doing very soon.

Connectivity is a little different when compared to the HD 6850 we looked at from Sapphire. The reference setup opts for a Dual-Link and Single-Link DVI connector, HDMI 1.4 port and two mini 1.2 DisplayPorts. If you’re interested in knowing a bit more about the connectivity, I would again mention that it’s probably worth checking out our AMD Radeon HD 6850 and HD 6870 — What We Can Tell You article.

Specifications

Comparing there HD 6850 and HD 6870, there’s some subtle changes. At the same time, there are a lot of things that the two cards share. As far as similarities go, they’re both on a 40nm processor with 1.7B transistors. At default both carry 1GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit memory bus. ROPs on both cards are the same at 32 as well.

There’s a fair few changes, though. What I’ll do is list the HD 6870 numbers normally and the HD 6850 numbers in brackets.

The HD 6870 carries 1120 (960) Stream Processors, a stock clock of 900MHz (775MHz) on the core and 4200MHz QDR (4000MHz QDR) on the 1GB of GDDR5 memory and texture units come in at 56 (48). Most of this information can be seen in GPU-Z.

Test System Setup and 3DMark Vantage

We would like to thank the following companies for supplying and supporting us with our test system hardware and equipment: Intel, ASRock, Kingston, Mittoni, Noctua and Corsair.

The lineup of cards we test the HD 6870 against will be almost identical to that of what was seen in the Sapphire HD 6850 review with the only difference being the HD 5770 has been dropped in this instance.

What that means is we’ll have the HD 6850, HD 5850, HD 5870 and GTX 460 OC in our tests here. The main things we want to answer are how much faster is the HD 6870 over the HD 6850? How does the HD 6870 go against the GTX 460? And how does the HD 6870 sit against the HD 5850 and HD 5870?

Let’s get started!

3DMark Vantage

Version and / or Patch Used: 1. 0.1
Developer Homepage: http://www.futuremark.com
Product Homepage: http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmarkvantage/
Buy It Here

3DMark Vantage is the new industry standard PC gaming performance benchmark from Futuremark, newly designed for Windows Vista and DirectX10. It includes two new graphics tests, two new CPU tests, several new feature tests, and support for the latest hardware.

3DMark Vantage is based on a completely new rendering engine, developed specifically to take full advantage of DirectX10, the new graphics API from Microsoft.

Under Vantage we can see that the HD 6870 offers a nice little boost over the HD 6850. It manages to also outperform the HD 5850 and even the GTX 460 which is making use of its PhysX abilities here.

Unigine Heaven Benchmark

Version and / or Patch Used: 2
Developer Homepage: http://www.unigine.com
Product Homepage: http://unigine. com/press-releases/091022-heaven_benchmark//

New benchmark grants the power to unleash the DirectX 11 potential in the gift wrapping of impressively towering graphics capabilities. It reveals the enchanting magic of floating islands with a tiny village hidden in the cloudy skies. With the interactive mode emerging experience of exploring the intricate world is ensured within reach. Through its advanced renderer, Unigine is one of the first to set precedence in showcasing the art assets with tessellation, bringing compelling visual finesse, utilizing the technology to the full extend and exhibiting the possibilities of enriching 3D gaming.

While the HD 5870 was faster than the HD 6870 in 3DMark Vantage, under Heaven we can see that the HD 6870 is faster. That’s because Tessellation performance is something that AMD has concentrated on with this new card. We can see while the HD 6850 continued to fall a little behind the GTX 460, the HD 6870 does the same, but only by a very small margin.

Benchmarks — Resident Evil 5

Resident Evil 5

Version and / or Patch Used: Demo Benchmark
Developer Homepage: www.residentevil.com/
Product Homepage: http://www.residentevil.com/

Resident Evil 5 is a survival horror video game developed and published by Capcom. The game is the seventh installment in the Resident Evil survival horror series, and was released on September 18. Resident Evil 5 revolves around Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar as they investigate a terrorist threat in Kijuju, a fictional town in Africa.

We again see at all resolutions a nice bump in performance that puts the model between the two HD 5800 series cards here. Compared to the GTX 460 OC it doesn’t have any problem out pacing it, especially at the highest resolution.

Benchmarks — Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X.

Tom Clancy’s H. A.W.X.

Version and / or Patch Used: Benchmark Demo
Timedemo or Level Used: Built-in Test
Developer Homepage: http://www.ubi.com/UK/default.aspx
Product Homepage: http://www.hawxgame.com/

Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X is an arcade-style flight simulator video game developed by Ubisoft Romania and published by Ubisoft for Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and iPhone OS.

The fundamental gameplay mechanics are similar to those of other console-based flight series. Players take on enemies with over 50 aircraft available. Each mission is at real world locations in environments created with commercial satellite data. A cockpit, first person, and third person view are selectable. The third person view gives the player an external view of both their plane and the target.

Set above the skies of a near-future world, increasingly dependent on private military companies with elite mercenaries who have a relaxed view on the law. As these non-governmental organizations gain power, global conflict erupts with one powerful PMC attacking the United States.

Under H.A.W.X. we see strong performance across the board again. The card has no problems dealing with the GTX 460 OC, especially as we climb the resolution table. Compared to the HD 5800 series, we can see its performance is in line with the HD 5870 with it even performing a single FPS faster at the highest resolution.

Benchmarks — Mafia II

Mafia II

Version and / or Patch Used: Latest Steam Update
Timedemo or Level Used: Built in Benchmark
Developer Homepage: http://www.2kczech.com/
Product Homepage: http://www.mafia2game.com/
Buy It Here

Mafia II is a third-person action-adventure video game, the sequel to Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven. It is developed by 2K Czech, previously known as Illusion Softworks, and is published by 2K Games. The game is set from 1943 to 1951 in Empire Bay (the name is a reference to New York’s state nickname «The Empire State»), a fictional city based on San Francisco and New York City, with influences from Chicago and Detroit. The game features a completely open-ended game map of 10 square miles. No restrictions are included from the start of the game. There are around 50 vehicles in the game, as well as licensed music from the era.

We continue to see the HD 6850 has no problems dealing with an overclocked 1GB GTX 460. Again it also out performs the HD 5850 and manages to sit between the two HD 5800 series cards.

Benchmarks — Lost Planet 2

Lost Planet 2

Version and / or Patch Used: Benchmark Demo
Timedemo or Level Used: Built in Benchmark — Test A Scene 1
Developer Homepage: http://www.capcom.com/
Product Homepage: http://www.lostplanet2game. com/

Lost Planet 2 is a third-person shooter video game developed and published by Capcom. The game is the sequel to Lost Planet: Extreme Condition which is also made by Capcom, taking place ten years after the events of the first game, on the same fictional planet. The story takes place back on E.D.N. III 10 years after the events of the first game. The snow has melted to reveal jungles and more tropical areas that have taken the place of more frozen regions. The plot begins with Mercenaries fighting against Jungle Pirates. After destroying a mine, the Mercenaries continue on to evacuate the area, in which a Category-G Akrid appears and attacks them. After being rescued, they find out their evacuation point (Where the Category-G appeared) was a set-up and no pick up team awaited them. The last words imply possible DLC additions to the game, «There’s nothing to be gained by wiping out snow pirates… unless you had some kind of grudge.»

Under Lost Planet 2 we see the HD 6870 performs very strong and while it falls under the 60 FPS average we need, it manages to perform better than the HD 5870 because of the improved tessellation performance.

Benchmarks — Aliens vs. Predator

Aliens vs. Predator

Version and / or Patch Used: Standalone Benchmark
Timedemo or Level Used: Built in Benchmark
Developer Homepage: http://www.rebellion.co.uk/
Product Homepage: http://www.sega.com/games/aliens-vs-predator/

Aliens vs. Predator is a science fiction first-person shooter video game, developed by Rebellion Developments, the team behind the 1999 original PC game, and published by Sega for Microsoft Windows, the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360. The game is based on the Alien vs. Predator franchise, a combination of the characters and creatures of the Alien franchise and the Predator franchise. There are three campaigns in the game, one for each race/faction (the Predators, the Aliens and the Colonial Marines), that, while separate in terms of individual plot and gameplay, form one overarching storyline.

Following the storyline of the campaign modes comes the multiplayer aspect of the game. In this Multiplayer section of the game, players face off in various different gametypes in various different ways.

We again see the HD 6870 is a little faster than the HD 6850 and almost in line with the HD 5850. Across the board we’re below that 60 FPS average we want to see, though. With that said, we’re only a single FPS away at 1680 x 1050.

Benchmarks — Final Fantasy XIV

Final Fantasy XIV

Version and / or Patch Used: Standalone Benchmark
Timedemo or Level Used: Built in Benchmark — Elezen (Male)
Developer Homepage: http://www.square-enix.com/
Product Homepage: http://www.finalfantasyxiv.com/

Final Fantasy XIV, also known as Final Fantasy XIV Online, is the fourteenth installment in the Final Fantasy series. The game is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game and is developed and published by Square Enix. The game takes place in a land called Hydaelyn, mainly in a region named Eorzea, which will have a contemporaneously aesthetic blend of science fiction and classic fantasy elements.

The battle and job systems will be different from the one previously used in Final Fantasy XI, which utilized experience points and level-based progression. Final Fantasy XIV is being designed to utilize a skill-based progression[15] system similar to that of Final Fantasy II. Character races will resemble and allow players to create avatars similar to ones in Final Fantasy XI. Group play has been de-emphasized, and now solo and group play have been balanced. Weapon use will alter «character development».

Note: Final Fantasy XIV gives us a score and not a normal FPS rating, our understanding is that anything around 2000 points or above is considered playable.

Under FF XIV we see performance is again improved. We see the AMD cards perform a lot stronger than the NVIDIA one here and we see the performance is again between the two HD 5800 series cards we’re testing today.

Benchmarks — Street Fighter IV

Street Fighter IV

Version and / or Patch Used: Standalone Benchmark
Timedemo or Level Used: Built in Benchmark
Developer Homepage: http://www.capcom.com/
Product Homepage: http://www.streetfighter.com/

While Street Fighter IV features models and backgrounds rendered in 3D, the gameplay remains on a traditional 2D plane, with the camera having freedom to move in 3D at certain times during fights, for dramatic effect. Producer Yoshinori Ono has stated that he wanted to keep the game closer to Street Fighter II. A new system called «Focus Attacks» («Saving Attack» for the Japanese version) has been introduced, as well as Ultra moves. The traditional six-button control scheme returns, with new features and special moves integrated into the input system, mixing classic gameplay with additional innovations.

All the characters and environments in Street Fighter IV are rendered as 3D models with polygons, similar to the Street Fighter EX sub-series Capcom produced with Arika. However, there are a couple of key differences. Art director and character designer Daigo Ikeno, who previously worked on Street Fighter III 3rd Strike, opted for non-photorealistic rendering to give them a hand-drawn look, with visual effects accented in calligraphic strokes, ink smudges and ink sprays during the fights.

SF IV performance across the board is very strong; we do see again the card continues to sit between the two HD 5800 series. At all resolutions we see the model has no problems handling the overclocked 1GB GTX 460 from ECS.

Benchmarks — Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2

Version and / or Patch Used: 1.01
Timedemo or Level Used: Ranch Long
Developer Homepage: http://www.ubi. com/
Product Homepage: http://www.farcry2.com/
Buy It Here

The Dunia Engine was built specifically for Far Cry 2 by the award-winning Ubisoft Montreal development team. It delivers the most realistic destructible environments, amazing special effects such as dynamic fire propagation and storm effects, real-time night-and-day cycle, dynamic music system, non-scripted enemy A.I. and so much more.

A minimum above 30 FPS at all resolutions is the main thing here and we can see the HD 6870 doesn’t run into any problems. Compared against the GTX 460 1GB OC performance is close at 1680 x 1050. As we move up the resolution table the HD 6870 has no problems getting a lead on the model.

Benchmarks — Batman Arkham Asylum

Batman Arkham Asylum

Version and / or Patch Used: 1.1
Timedemo or Level Used: Built-in Test
Developer Homepage: http://www. batmanarkhamasylum.com/
Product Homepage: http://www.batmanarkhamasylum.com/

Batman: Arkham Asylum exposes players to a unique, dark and atmospheric adventure that takes them to the depths of Arkham Asylum — Gotham’s psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane. Gamers will move in the shadows, instigate fear amongst their enemies and confront The Joker and Gotham City’s most notorious villains who have taken over the asylum.

Using a wide range of Batman’s gadgets and abilities, players will become the invisible predator and attempt to foil The Joker’s demented scheme.
Batman: Arkham Asylum features an original story penned exclusively for the game by famous Batman author and five-time Emmy award winner Paul Dini, whose credits include Lost season one and Batman: The Animated Series.

Good numbers again across the board and a similar picture to what we’ve seen all along; strong performance against the 1GB OC GTX 460 and performance that sits between the HD 5850 and HD 5870.

Benchmarks — High Quality AA and AF

High Quality AA and AF

Our high quality tests let us separate the men from the boys and the ladies from the girls. If the cards weren’t struggling before they will start to now.

We see improved performance again compared to the HD 6850 and HD 5850. In Mafia II and AVP we’re still below the numbers we need for the game to be playable, though.

The FC2 AA numbers are interesting; both HD 6800s offered the same minimum. I double checked this and it was consistent. The average has increased, though, and on a whole the AA performance is better than the HD 5870. We would almost be at a playable level, but we just need another few FPS on the minimum.

Temperature Test

Temperature Tests

The temperature of the core is pulled from MSI Afterburner with the max reading used after a completed run off 3DMark Vantage and the Performance preset.

As far as heat goes, the HD 6870 runs a bit faster than the HD 6850, but the reference cooler offers us the same 67c we saw on the younger brother.

Sound Test

Sound Tests

Pulling out the TES 1350A Sound Level Meter we find ourselves quickly yelling into the top of it to see how loud we can be.

After five minutes of that we get a bit more serious and place the device two CM away from the fan on the card to find the maximum noise level of the card when idle (2D mode) and in load (3D mode).

Noise levels were slightly up, but not at a level we would be worried about.

Power Consumption Tests

Using our new PROVA Power Analyzer WM-01 or «Power Thingy» as it has become quickly known as to our readers, we are now able to find out what kind of power is being used by our test system and the associated graphics cards installed. Keep in mind; it tests the complete system (minus LCD monitor, which is plugged directly into AC wall socket).

There are a few important notes to remember though; while our maximum power is taken in 3DMark06 at the same exact point, we have seen in particular tests the power being drawn as much as 10% more. We test at the exact same stage every time; therefore tests should be very consistent and accurate.

The other thing to remember is that our test system is bare minimum — only a SSD hard drive is used with a single CD ROM and minimal cooling fans.

So while the system might draw 400 watts in our test system, placing it into your own PC with a number of other items, the draw is going to be higher.

Power draw again was also slightly up, as you would expect. It’s still lower than the GTX 460, though, and some GTS 450s for that matter.

Total Performance Rating (TPR)

Total Performance Rating

The TPR graph is a combination of all our benchmarks in which NVIDIA and ATI are on an even playing field.

The TPR number is a combination of:

3DMark Vantage, Heaven Benchmark V2, Resident Evil 5, Tom Clancy’s H. A.W.X., Mafia 2 (PhysX Off), Lost Planet 2, Aliens vs. Predator, Final Fantasy XIV, Street Fighter IV, Far Cry 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum (PhysX Off) and our four High Quality tests which include Mafia 2, Aliens vs. Predator, Street Fighter IV and Far Cry 2.

All of the benchmark results achieved are then combined into a single number. As this graph will grow over time and cards won’t be re-tested, next to each model you’ll find the driver version that was used when the card was benchmarked.

Our TPR graph shows us exactly where the model sits compared to some other cards we’ve tested and we see it manages to sit between a HD 5850 and HD 5870 as our tests have shown us. At its price bracket it’s not being beaten by anything else unless it’s heavily overclocked with Voltage adjustment like the ECS Black GTX 460 1GB at over 900MHz.

Total Value Rating (TVR)

Total Value Rating

The TVR graph is the TPR score divided by the price of the video card. The price of the video card is based on the list price of the model on Newegg.com. In the event the card isn’t listed, it will be based on the U.S. $ MSRP given to us by the manufacturer.

In the event we can’t source a price from either, the product will not receive a TVR rating. As with our TPR graph, the amount of video cards on the list will grow over time and the price of the model won’t change from what it was when first reviewed. For this reason the U.S. $ price that the card is based off will be included next to the name of the model.

In the event you want to find the TVR rating yourself based on the current price, all you have to do is simply divide the TPR number by the list price.

TVR numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number; 100.3 will be 100; 100.8 will be 101 and 100.5 will be rounded down to 100.

Priced at $239 the overall value of the product isn’t as strong as the HD 6850. It’s really only beat by the GTS 450 which is $100 cheaper and again a GTX 460 that is overclocked by us. It will be interesting to see what happens with these numbers when we start to overclock ourselves.

Final Thoughts

Overall it’s got to be said, at stock clocks the value of the HD 6870 isn’t as strong as the HD 6850. With that said, it’s also got to be mentioned that the only cards that offer better value when it comes to out of the box performance are the HD 6850 and GTS 450, with the latter really being in a different price bracket.

No doubt you’re going to ask yourself the question, which model should you buy? — Like the GTX 460 and GTX 465, with the latter being one of the shortest lived models ever, the HD 6850 is going to be the better value product. But for out of the box performance, if you’re happy to spend more, the HD 6870 is no doubt going to be the better option.

While AMD say that these models don’t really replace anything, it’s probably safe to say that after looking at both cards the HD 6850 would replace the failed model that was the HD 5830, and the HD 6870 replaces the HD 5850. For the most part the HD 5870 is still a faster card; you wouldn’t move from a HD 5870 to HD 6870 as it would just be a downgrade; not much of a downgrade, but a downgrade none the less. This brings us back around to the fact that the HD 5800s aren’t being replaced by the HD 6800s, even though it seems that two models could easily be replaced here in the HD 5830 and HD 5850.

What this ultimately does, though, is get us all excited about what the HD 6900s will bring; a series that is designed to replace the HD 5800s. If we’re seeing this performance already, hopefully we’ll see something extra special come November when the new top of the line single GPU models begin to poke their head around the corner.

AMD said they wanted to offer us more performance with less power; that’s fine, but more performance and less power than what? — If they wanted to get more performance than the GTX 460 with less power, they’ve achieved that. If they wanted to do the same, but with the HD 5850, they’ve achieved that as well. I don’t think that there’s any way that AMD have really failed to accomplish their goals here, it’s just that this last minute name change and lack of a real standing on where the models go in the market does make it a little more difficult to dissect then previous releases.

In the end we let the price do the talking and it seems the GTX 460 768MB is getting wiped out by the HD 6850 and the 1GB version is in trouble because of the aggressive pricing AMD have opted for on the HD 6870. An overclocked GTX 460 1GB with the help of a voltage increase doesn’t warrant the price you’ll pay for the model anymore it seems.

While there’s really no way you would move from a GTX 460 1GB to a HD 6870, we have to wonder if you would bother buying a GTX 460 1GB now over a HD 6870. AMD hope the answer to that question is no.

Shopping Information

PRICING: You can find products similar to this one for sale below.

United States: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon. com

United Kingdom: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.co.uk

Australia: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.com.au

Canada: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon.ca

Deutschland: Finde andere Technik- und Computerprodukte wie dieses auf Amazon.de

Shawn Baker

Shawn takes care of all of our video card reviews. From 2009, Shawn is also taking care of our memory reviews, and from May 2011, Shawn also takes care of our CPU, chipset and motherboard reviews. As of December 2011, Shawn is based out of Taipei, Taiwan.

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don’t have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

log 30. 03:48:43

#0 checking url part for id 1551 +0s … 0s

#1 checking url part for id 1776 +0s … 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s … 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:27:11 +0200 +0s … 0s

#4 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.059s … 0.059s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.004s … 0.064s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.064s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.064s

#8 composed specs +0s … 0.064s

#9 did output specs +0s … 0.064s

#10 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s . .. 0.064s

#11 getting avg benchmarks for device 1551 +0.028s … 0.091s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.092s

#13 got single benchmarks 1551 +0.021s … 0.113s

#14 getting avg benchmarks for device 1776 +0s … 0.113s

#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.114s

#16 got single benchmarks 1776 +0.006s … 0.12s

#17 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.12s

#18 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s

#19 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s

#20 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s

#21 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.12s

#22 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.121s

#23 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.121s

#24 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.121s

#25 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.121s

#26 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.121s

#27 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.122s

#29 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#30 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#32 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#33 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.122s

#34 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#35 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.122s

#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#37 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.122s

#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.122s

#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.122s

#40 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.122s

#41 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.122s

#42 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#43 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#44 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#45 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.123s

#46 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#47 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.123s

#48 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.123s

#49 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#50 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.123s

#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.124s

#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#54 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.124s

#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#56 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.124s

#57 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.124s

#58 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#60 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#61 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#62 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#63 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#64 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#65 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.124s

#66 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#68 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.124s

#69 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.124s

#70 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#71 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.124s

#72 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.124s

#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s

#74 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.125s

#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.125s

#76 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.125s

#77 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.125s

#78 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.125s

#79 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s

#80 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s

#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.126s

#82 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.127s

#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.127s

#84 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.127s

#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.128s

#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.128s

#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.128s

#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.13s

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s

#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s

#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s

#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s

#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s

#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.13s

#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.131s

#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s

#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s

#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s

#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s

#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 131s

#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s

#102 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.132s

#103 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.132s

#104 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.132s

#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s

#106 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.132s

#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s

#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s

#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.132s

#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s

#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s

#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s

#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s

#114 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.133s

#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.133s

#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s

#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.133s

#118 min, max, avg, median took s +0s … 0.133s

#119 before gaming benchmark output +0s … 0.133s

#120 Got 162 rows for game benchmarks. +0.013s … 0.146s

#121 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s … 0.146s

#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.146s

#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.146s

#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.146s

#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.147s

#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.147s

#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.147s

#180 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.003s … 0.15s

#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.152s

#182 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#185 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#187 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.152s

#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#190 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#192 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.152s

#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#194 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#196 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#198 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.152s

#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.153s

#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#202 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.153s

#203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#204 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.153s

#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#208 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.153s

#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#212 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.153s

#213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.153s

#215 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.154s

#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s

#217 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.154s

#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s

#219 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.154s

#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s

#221 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.154s

#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.154s

#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.155s

#224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.155s

#225 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.156s

#226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s

#227 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.156s

#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s

#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s

#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s

#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.156s

#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.156s

#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.157s

#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s

#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s

#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s

#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s

#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.158s

#239 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.159s

#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.159s

#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.159s

#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.159s

#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.159s

#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.159s

#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.161s

#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.161s

#247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.161s

#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.161s

#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.161s

#250 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.161s

#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.161s

#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.161s

#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.161s

#254 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.162s

#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.162s

#256 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.162s

#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.162s

#258 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.162s

#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.162s

#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.163s

#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.163s

#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.163s

#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.163s

#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.163s

#265 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.163s

#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.163s

#267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.163s

#268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.163s

#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.164s

#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.165s

#271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.165s

#276 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.165s

#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.165s

#282 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.166s

#283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.166s

#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.166s

#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.166s

#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.167s

#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.167s

#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.168s

#297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.169s

#298 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.17s

#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.17s

#304 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.17s

#305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#307 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.17s

#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.17s

#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.171s

#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.171s

#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.171s

#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.172s

#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.172s

#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.172s

#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.173s

#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.173s

#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.173s

#339 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.174s

#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.174s

#341 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.175s

#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.175s

#343 benchmarks composed for output. +0s … 0.175s

#344 calculated avg scores. +0s … 0.175s

#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.176s

#346 return log +0.002s … 0.178s

GPU Compare | Graphics Card Comparison

The Radeon HD 5870 will run 67% of the top 10,000 PC games. It will also run 38% of these games at the recommended or best experience levels.

Manufacturer: AMD
Generation: 13 generations old
Category: Enthusiast
Dedicated RAM: 1.0 GB
DirectX: 11
Rank: 62nd percentile of AMD GPUs
Rank in Power: 195th of AMD GPUs
Rank in Popularity: 383rd of AMD GPUs

Can the Radeon HD 5870 run the Top PC games? You can see a GPU comparison by choosing another video card. How many games can your GPU run?

		Radeon HD 5870 Choose Another…	Radeon RX 6950 XT Choose Another…
Rank	Game	Min Rec	Min Rec
1	Cyberpunk 2077
2	Grand Theft Auto V
3	FIFA 23
4	VALORANT
5	Call of Duty: Warzone
6	Elden Ring
7	Need for Speed Heat
8	Red Dead Redemption 2
9	Fortnite
10	Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered
11	Minecraft
12	God of War
13	Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
14	FIFA 22
15	League of Legends
16	Apex Legends
17	Genshin Impact
18	Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
19	Forza Horizon 5
20	ARK: Survival Evolved
21	The Sims 4
22	Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
23	The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
24	PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS
25	Overwatch 2
26	Phasmophobia
27	Far Cry 6
28	Battlefield 2042
29	Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
30	Assassin’s Creed: Origins
31	Grounded
32	Dying Light 2 Stay Human
33	Overwatch
34	Battlefield 1
35	Rust
36	Grand Theft Auto IV
37	Forza Horizon 4
38	Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
39	Call of Duty: WW2
40	World War 3
41	Destiny 2
42	Assassin’s Creed Unity
43	Call of Duty: Black Ops II
44	GTA 5 Thor Mod
45	Slime Rancher 2
46	Hogwarts Legacy
47	Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege
48	Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag
49	Batman: Arkham Knight
50	Kena: Bridge of Spirits
51	Fallout 4
52	Fortnite: Battle Royale
53	The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
54	Valheim
55	Rocket League
56	Far Cry 3
57	Mortal Kombat 11
58	Battlefield 5
59	Battlefield 4
60	Dota 2
61	Escape from Tarkov
62	Sea of Thieves
63	WARZONE
64	Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
65	Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout
66	Call of Duty: Black Ops III
67	Assassin’s Creed Syndicate
68	Middle-earth: Shadow of War
69	Euro Truck Simulator 2
70	Assassin’s Creed II
71	Far Cry 5
72	Dark Souls 3
73	Far Cry 4
74	World of Warcraft
75	GTA 5 Premium Online Edition
76	Hearts of Iron IV
77	PUBG Lite
78	Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
79	eFootball 2022
80	Batman: Arkham City
81	Dying Light
82	Monster Hunter: World
83	The Forest
84	FIFA 17
85	Skyrim Special Edition
86	CS:GO — Operation Riptide
87	FIFA 19
88	Assassin’s Creed III
89	Roblox
90	FIFA 18
91	Lost Ark
92	SEKIRO: SHADOWS DIE TWICE
93	Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
94	BONEWORKS
95	Watch Dogs 2
96	Forza Horizon 3
97	Assassin’s Creed Rogue
98	Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
99	FIFA 15
100	Age of Empires 4

AMD

NVIDIA

Intel

Rank	GPU

AMD Radeon 6870 & 6850 Review

Article Type:

Review

— GPU Review

Teaser Icon:

Custom

Image:

Just over a year ago, kicked off their Radeon HD 5000-series video card line with the release of the Radeon HD 5870. With this release, they unveiled «Eyefinity» — their single GPU multi-display technology. Over the last year, AMD has continued to release cards in the «Evergreen» line and filled out their DX11 product stack. Fast forward 13 months and AMD returns with the 6000-series («Northern Islands») — an evolution to, and update of the original Eyefinity cards.

AMD has been talking with gamers, and listening to what gamers wanted in a GPU. They have distilled that into a GPU that offers no-compromise performance, the latest technology, lower price, a more flexible and affordable Eyefinity experience and 3D Stereo for games and movies.

To that end, AMD is releasing the «Barts» products — HD 6870 and HD 6850 — with the following features:

Performance on par with the HD 5870 and HD 5850
Power, heat and price on par with the HD 5770
More connectivity options: 2x Mini-DP 1.2, 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a
Improved visual quality through new Anti-Aliasing and Anisotrpic Filtering
Improved DX11 performance through more efficient Tessellation
Improved multimedia acceleration for media playback («EyeDefinition»)
Improved parallel processing for media encoding and computing («EyeSpeed»)
Improved multi-monitor performance through improved ecosystem and affordability («Eyefinity»)

AMD feels that the «Sweet Spot» for the GPU market is within a $150 — $250 price point. AMD had a product within this range in the 4800-series, but failed to provide a compelling offereing between $150 and $250 within the 5000-series. The goal of the «Barts» family is to fill that (rather large) niche, while the upcoming «Cayman» (HD 6950 and HD 6970) fill out the Enthusiast range, and the «Antilles» (HD 6990) will occupy the Dual-GPU spot in the 6000-series.

Architecture & Specs

The Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 are a refinement of the 5800 and 5700 families, and many of the specs will be familiar. Pricing on the other hand, falls much more in line with the 5700.

Card	GPUs	Transistors	Max Memory	Shaders	Clock (MHz)		TDP (Watts)		MSRP*
Card	GPUs	Transistors	Max Memory	Shaders	Core	Mem	Idle	Max	MSRP*
AMD Radeon HD 6870	1	1.8B	1GB	1120	900	1050	19	151	$239
AMD Radeon HD 6850	1	1.8B	1GB	960	775	1000	19	127	$179
ATI Radeon HD 5870	1	2.15B	1GB	1600	850	1200	27	188	$374
ATI Radeon HD 5850	1	2.15B	1GB	1440	725	1000	27	151	$279
*These values represent the maximum wattage allowed through the AMD PowerTune. AMD estimates the average wattage draw for gaming is 375W/190W/140W for the 6990/6970/6950, respectively.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

In addition to the refined GPU, AMD has made significant improvement to the connectors on the board. Previously the reference Radeon 5870 could only drive three displays. With the reconfiguration of the outputs, a reference Radeon 6870 or 6850 can drive six displays. A Dual-Link DVI connector requires two clock signals to drive its potentially high-res (2560×1600) output. AMD has replaced one of the DL-DVI ports with a Single-Link DVI port (which drives up to 1920×1200), freeing up one clock.

Additionally, AMD has migrated to the Display Port 1.2 standard. DP 1.2 dramatically increases bandwidth, and allows for mutliple displays to be driven from one connection. Forthcoming DP 1.2 displays will feature both a signal input (from the GPU) and an output (to another display). The DP 1.2 spec allows for one port to drive up to four displays at 1920×1200 (or two at 2560×1600).

If you don’t have DP 1.2 displays (and as of today, no one does) — FEAR NOT. Currently in development are DisplayPort Multi-Stream Transport (MST) hubs. These will allow for the save 4x 1920×1200 or 2x 2560×1600 displays to be driven from the single DP 1.2 port. The one radical benefit is that the MST Hub can be create with any type of output — DP, VGA, DVI or HDMI. This means that you could pick up one Radeon HD 6870/6850 (and expectedly an HD 6900) with an MST Hub, and drive legacy monitors that don’t have DisplayPort connections.

Additionally, you can still pick up an Active Single-Link DVI to Mini-DisplayPort adapter get three DVI connections.

Improved DX11, Tessellation, AA and AF

AMD released the DX11 capable Radeon 5870 several months before Windows 7 was released. Over the past year, AMD has worked to improve their DX11 performance with faster and more efficient tessellation. Their viewpoint is that per-pixel tessellation is inefficent and wasteful. Each rasterizer can tessellate 16 pixels on each pass, so to get maximum efficiency the optimum path is triangles of 16 pixels. And, how can you even make a «triangle» from a single point? With proper tessellation you not only optimize your rendering, but you also avoid overshading or producing too many polygon edges for MSAA.

In addition to improved tessellation in their second generation DX11 GPU, AMD is introducting a new AA mode is called «Morphological Anti-Aliasing». It is a post-process filtering technique that they accelerate with Direct Compute («EyeSpeed»). This technique delivers full-scene AA (not just polygon edges or alpha surfaces), with performance similar to edge detect CFAA. AMD claims the technique is faster than super-sampling, and is compatible with DX9, DX10 and DX11.

Finally, AMD is also introducing an improved Anisotropic Filtering algorithm that addresses visible discontinuities in very noise textures. It also offers smoother transitions between filter levels.

Article Type:

Review

System Specs

The Radeon HD 5870 and 5850 benchmarks were done on the 10.8 drivers, on 16:10 1920×1200 monitors. The Radeon HD 6870 and 6850 benchmarks were done on the beta drivers provided by AMD, and on 16:9 1920×1080 monitors. Historical analysis shows us that the slightly lower resolution on the 16:9 panels can give a few fps, but the numbers here are still highly comparable.

Windows 7
EVGA X58 Tri-SLI Motherboard
Intel i7 920 at 4×2.67GHz
12GB G.Skill DDR3 RAM
2x Samsung 320GB T-Series HDD (one for the OS and games; one for swap file and FRAPS)
LG Super Multi Blu (HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Player)
Onboard audio
Corsair HX1000
My Open PC Doma Pro PCI Case
Logitch K340 Keyboard & Performance MX Mouse
Ergotech Heavy Duty Triple Desk Stand
5x Dell U2211H IPS 16:9 1920×1080 Displays

My test rig remains unchanged, except for a new case. For easier testing, I recently migrated to the Doma Pro PCI test bench from My Open PC (review on that coming soon).

Hardware Tested

I only have AMD hardware tested for comparison in this review. This is not for lack of wanting to test NVIDIA hardware in Surround, but NVIDIA has not yet decided to support the WSGF with hardware for review and benchmarking. Considering that the WSGF is a hobby that just supports itself, I cannot justify spending the money needed to test NVIDIA cards.

Most of my time is spent working on the site (or other projects), and much of my «play time» is spent benchmarking. Cards would basically only be used for testing, and I cannot reconcile purchasing cards that would only be used for testing. It’s simply not a good ROI.

Resolutions Tested

I tested both 1600×900 and 1920×1080 in widescreen, as well as 4800×900 and 5760×1080 in 3×1-L Eyefinity. Additionally I tested in 5400×1920 and 4500×1600 for 5×1-P Eyefinity. This allows for comparison between panels in the 20″ and 22″ range, as well as performance improvements from dialing back the resolution on notch.

Games Tested

My game selection has only had slight modification since my last round of review. I have dropped Batman: Arkham Asylum from the line-up. In testing the new GPU and driver, performance exploded at 5760×1080 — to an unexplainable manner. Previously, 1GB AMD cards crawled at this resolution with 4xAA enabled in the Catalyst Control panel. With the new driver, performance rose to levels seen with 0xAA. This made me wonder if Batman is not picking up the AA setting in the new driver.

Additionally I realized that while the game is Hor+, the demo is Vert-. This goes against our mandates for testings as fewer objects and geometry are actually shown on the screen in Eyefinity. I have replaced the Batman benchmark with the benchmark from the Just Cause 2 Demo.

Finally I dropped the HL2 titles from the line-up. The «HOC Bench» benchmark tool for Episode 2 is no longer functioning, and both Ep.2 and Lost Cost post extremely high scores at all resolutions on even middle range cards from the 5000-series. They are no longer indicitive of a real «test».

Battle Forge
DiRT 2
Far Cry 2
HAWX
Just Cause 2
Heaven Benchmark v1
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. — Call of Pripyat Benchmark Tool

As always, all games are tested at max settings (unless otherwise noted), with 4xAA and 16xAF enabled.

Future Testing

I need to make additional updates to the benchmark suite, and will do so for the Radeon HD 6900 series. I will be replacing Heaven v1 with the new Heaven v2 benchmark. Additionally, I am looking to add additional benchmarks such as AvP and Mafia II.

I will also be re-benchmarking the higher end cards in the 5000-series on the newer drivers and on the 16:9 1920×1080 panels. This will ensure completely accurate comparisons.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Battle Forge is the free-to-play RTS from Electronic Arts. It offers a steampunk/fantasy RTS experience, where armies are build based on «decks» of cards similar to the Magic: The Gathering card game.

Battle Forge is one of AMD’s spotlight (my terminology) games, as it offers both DX11 and proper Eyefinity support. The game offers a number of DX11 features, and a wealth of options for tuning performance. Specifically, Battle Forge uses DX11 and Shader Model 5.0 to compute HighDefinition Ambient Occlusion (HDAO). For our tests we maxed out all of the settings and forced DX11 through the config.xml file.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Dirt 2 is the latest iteration of the Dirt rally racing series from Codemasters. Like Battle Forge, Dirt 2 is a spotlight game for AMD. Like Battle Forge it offers proper Hor+ gameplay in Eyefinity and DX11 support. Unless the user goes into the «hardware_settings_config.xml» file and forces DX9, Dirt 2 runs in DX11 mode. Unfortunately Dirt 2 does not offer a DX10 mode. This is unfortunate, as many games show improved performance when running in DX10 vs. DX9.

The true (noticeable) DX11 features come in to play based on the user settings in the in-game graphics options. Several key features are the «Hardware Tessellated Dynamic Water» (achieved through «Ultra» quality water), «Hardware Tessellated Dynamic Cloth» (achieved through «High» quality cloth), and DX11 Accelerated HDAO (through «High» quality HDAO).

The DX11 water and cloth offer more realistic geometry and movement. The DX11 water produces actual waves in deep puddles (as the player drives through), rather than simple «swirls» in the texture surface. The DX11 cloth offers more realistic ripples and waves in the cloth material over the DX9 version. On the other hand, the DX11 HD Ambient Occlusion (HDAO) offers an accelerated computation path.

DX11 doesn’t necessarily provide earth-shaking changes to gameplay. But, it provides more realistic «movement» in the world’s objects — cloth, water, grass, etc. While a DX9 or DX10 game is perfectly enjoyable, the DX11 technology offers better immersion by making the «little things» more lifelike. Additionally, it offers better computation paths through increased parallelism (and better computation paths for DX10), much like DX10 offered better performance (over DX9) in games such as Far Cry 2.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Far Cry 2 (and the whole Cry/Crysis series) has long been considered a system killer. If not a killer, then at least a good strong test. As always, we run our test at max settings with 4xAA. The benchmark tool within Far Cry 2 offers settings for High, Very High and Ultra. We chose Ultra with 4xAA.

While once a true system killer, Far Cry 2 shows that hardware catches up to software. Even a sub-$200 card provides an easily playable experience (though not always at the highest settings).

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

H.A.W.X. is one last title that AMD has been showing off since the Radeon 5000 line launched. While the other titles are Hor+ and offer cutting-edge DX11 features, HAWX is quite the opposite. While it is a Hor+ title, it is only a DX10 title and runs quite well on a wide variety of hardware.

The well running and scalable title makes it a natural fit when showcasing both lower-end hardware pushing three panels, and high-end hardware pushing six panels. It also comes as no surprise that the additional VRAM largely goes unused, considering the title runs capably on lower hardware.

One note in the HAWX benchmark. Above 1920×1080 the game simply would not allow 4xAA. While the scores provide that the title could handle it, the option simply is not available. Though it isn’t our norm, we chose to accept 2xAA so that we could get consistent readings across the spectrum of hardware.

Article Type:

Article

The Unigine Heaven Demo is unique in that it is the only demo which allows for the following components in one package:

Synthetic Demo (i.e., a demo designed to «test» a system)
Comparable tests of DX9, DX10 and DX11
Is Hor+ (rather than limited to a few predefined aspect ratios)

The ability to compare DX9, DX10 and DX11 in the same environment allows for the unique ability to see when and if additional VRAM comes into play. Previous testing has shown that 2GB of VRAM is needed to run the game in Eyefinity at 5760×1080 with 4xAA, using the DX10 or DX11 codepath.

Article Type:

Article

Teaser Icon:

The Unigine Heaven Demo is unique in that it is the only demo which allows for the following components in one package:

Synthetic Demo (i.e., a demo designed to «test» a system)
Comparable tests of DX9, DX10 and DX11
Is Hor+ (rather than limited to a few predefined aspect ratios)

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

The Unigine Heaven Demo is unique in that it is the only demo which allows for the following components in one package:

Synthetic Demo (i.e., a demo designed to «test» a system)
Comparable tests of DX9, DX10 and DX11
Is Hor+ (rather than limited to a few predefined aspect ratios)

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

The Unigine Heaven Demo is unique in that it is the only demo which allows for the following components in one package:

Synthetic Demo (i.e., a demo designed to «test» a system)
Comparable tests of DX9, DX10 and DX11
Is Hor+ (rather than limited to a few predefined aspect ratios)

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Just Cause 2 is the wildly popular sequal to the wildly popular Just Cause. You take control of protagonist Rico Rodriquez and rain down over the top destruction across a small desert island. The game is a free roaming title that offers literally limitless options to wreck havoc with your «hook shot» grapling device.

While the benchmark tool in the demo doesn’t offer anything in the way of explosions or destruction, it does offer some beautiful scenery that is still quite demanding on multi-monitor environments.

Article Type:

Review

Prior to the game’s release, the developer put out a benchmarking tool to test your system configuration. It offers a number of different options for utilizing DX9, 10 or 11 code paths. It also offers options for varying levels of HDAO and Shadow Quality. The demo itself isn’t very pretty to look at (lots of dirt and dirt-colors), but it does put a beating on your system.

Like the Heaven demo, the demo basically will not run at 5760×1080 using 4xAA, with only 1GB of VRAM.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Like the Heaven demo, the demo basically will not run at 5760×1080 using 4xAA, with only 1GB of VRAM.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Like the Heaven demo, the demo basically will not run at 5760×1080 using 4xAA, with only 1GB of VRAM.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Like the Heaven demo, the demo basically will not run at 5760×1080 using 4xAA, with only 1GB of VRAM.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Like the Heaven demo, the demo basically will not run at 5760×1080 using 4xAA, with only 1GB of VRAM.

Article Type:

Review

Teaser Icon:

Below are some charts to show the scaling of both the HD 6870 and the HD 6850 in CrossFire, in both widescreen and Eyefinity. The scaling in most instances is quiet good, with many games hitting 80% improvement. Scaling tends to be better in the Eyefinity space. Widescreen performance in many areas is already outstanding with one GPU, and in many cases we are approaching CPU limitations of the Intel Core i7-920.

Article Type:

Review

The Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 are both excellent cards, and offer an amazing price/performance ratio. In my testing, the Radeon HD 6870 offered approximately 95% of the performance of the Radeon HD 5870, for 64% of the price — all with lower heat, noise and power.

The Radeon HD 6850 performed offered approximately 85% of the performance of the Radeon HD 5870, for 48% of ther price. The HD 6850 vs. HD 5850 comparison held ot that of the 6870/5870 — 95% of the power for 64% of the price.

The New Cost of Eyefinity

Six months ago, I said that a Radeon 5870 was the flagship for an Eyefinity setup and should be considered the real baseline for someone looking to really crank through serious frames at max settings. At the time, I also said that I believed the Eyefinity6 card was an even better choice due to the 2GB of framebuffer. Four months ago, I tested the HD 5770 and said that it would make a good entry point into Eyefinity for someone on a budget, especially if you went into it with the proper performance expectations.

I still think 2GB of framebuffer is needed for 5760×1080, and I still like the price point of the HD 5770. The Radeon HD 6850 offers one hell of a performance jump, for close to a Radeon HD 5770 price point. The Radeon HD 6870 offers performance damn-near on par with the Radeon 5870, for the price point of the Radeon HD 5830.

I year ago, the entry price for a high-end Eyefinity setup was $400 (or more, based on demand) for a Radeon HD 5870, and another $125 for an DP > Dual-Link DVI adapter. This was approaching $525 — just for the GPU. If you needed extra monitors, the cost went up significantly. Today, you can get a Radeon HD 6870 for $239, plus $25 for a DP > Single-Link DVI adapter. This puts you at less than $275 for what is essentially the same performance. Saving $250 on your GPU setup is a major improvement in affordability. That money could be put towards a CFX setup, the 3rd monitor, or left in your pocket.

Speaking of monitors — prices have come down significantly over the last year. I am a fan of IPS panels. The colors don’t fade as they extend into your periphery, or if you rotate them into Portrait mode. While not a requirement, IPS panels are a nice investment. A year ago, most IPS panels were 24″ or larger and designed for graphics professionals — with the price tag to match. The Dell U2410 alone cost $599 each. Today, both HP and Dell have highly rated 1080p IPS panels between 21.5″ — 23″ for between $249 — $319.

Final Thoughts

The HD 6870 and HD 6850 are simply some of the best cards I’ve ever seen or reviewed — powerful, quiet, cool energy efficient and cheap. These are truly amazing pieces of hardware, with a mature Eyefinity ecosystem to back them up. If you have a Radeon HD 5770 or lower, these would be a great replacement with huge benefits. Even a Radeon HD 5830 would see a noticeable increase, but only if you went for the Radeon HD 6870. However, I’d probably hold out for the Radeon HD 6900 series.

The Radeon HD 6900s — now those will be a lot of fun…

0022 1200MHz vs 1050MHz

600MHz higher effective clock speed?
4800MHz vs 4200MHz

17.6 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels? more memory bandwidth?
154GB/s vs 134GB/s

480 more stream processors?
1600 vs 1120

454million more transistors?
2154 million vs 1700 million

24 more texture units (TMUs)?
80 vs 56

Why is Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X better than ATI Radeon HD 5870?

GPU frequency 50MHz higher?
900MHz vs 850MHz
1. 6 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
28.8 GPixel/s vs 27.2 GPixel/s
143W below TDP?
151W vs 294W
5°C lower GPU temperature at boot?
72°C vs 77°C
75W lower power consumption at peak load?
277W vs 352W
3.1dB lower idle noise?
39.3dB vs 42.4dB
11W lower standby power consumption?
112W vs 123W
44mm narrower?
238mm vs 282mm

Which comparisons are the most popular?

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

ATI Radeon HD 5870

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti OC 4GT

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Nvidia GeForce GT 630

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 470

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Asus Strix Radeon R7 370 DirectCU II OC 2GB

ATI Radeon HD 5870

EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Classified

ATI Radeon HD 5870

EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Z Hydro Copper

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 DDR4 7 ATI

0003

NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 480

Complexation of prices

Users reviews

performance

1. TECTION FECTION GP

850MHz

900MHz

Graphic processor (GPU) has a higher stact.

2.turbo GPU

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (ATI Radeon HD 5870)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X)

When the GPU is running below its limits, it may jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

3.pixel rate

27.2 GPixel/s

28.8 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

4.flops

2.72 TFLOPS

2.02 TFLOPS

FLOPS is a measurement of GPU processing power.

5. texture size

68 GTexels/s

50.4 GTexels/s

Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

6.GPU memory speed

1200MHz

1050MHz

Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.

7.shading patterns

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.

8.textured units (TMUs)

TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.

9 ROPs

ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.

Memory

1.memory effective speed

4800MHz

4200MHz

The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the memory size and data transfer rate. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.

2.max memory bandwidth

154GB/s

134GB/s

This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4.memory bus width

256bit

Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.

5.versions of GDDR memory

Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.

6. Supports memory debug code

✖ATI Radeon HD 5870

✖Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

Functions

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

2nd version of OpenGL

The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

OpenCL version 3.

Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.

4. Supports multi-monitor technology

✔ATI Radeon HD 5870

✔Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.

5. GPU Temperature at Boot

Lower boot temperature means that the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖ATI Radeon HD 5870

✖Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.

7. Supports 3D

✔ATI Radeon HD 5870

✔Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).

8.supports DLSS

✖ATI Radeon HD 5870

✖Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.

9. PassMark result (G3D)

This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.

Ports

1.has HDMI output

✔ATI Radeon HD 5870

✔Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X

Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to an attached display.

2.HDMI connectors

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (ATI Radeon HD 5870)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X)

More HDMI connections allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.

HDMI version 3

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (ATI Radeon HD 5870)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Sapphire HD 6870 Vapor-X)

Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth for higher resolutions and frame rates.

4. DisplayPort outputs

Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows connection to a display using DVI.

6.mini DisplayPort outputs

Allows connection to a display using mini DisplayPort.

Price Match

Cancel

Which graphics cards are better?

5870 vs 6870

Dissemination of information is possible only with the written permission of the administration of the publication. THG Expert Club. Computer and server hardware. Last edited by naatland,

Data search for your query:

Databases of online projects:

Data from exhibitions and seminars:

Data from registers:

Wait until the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Content:

Simple arithmetic: AMD Radeon HD 68xx graphics cards in CrossFireX modes

PhysX on ATI Radeon HD 5870

HD 6870, 6870 HD + CF 6850, 6850 HD OC: everything that was not even Bartsról

AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon HD 6870M

Games of 2012 against modern video cards — GPU test

AMD Radeon HD 6870 vs ATI HD 5870

AMD Radeon 6870 against all. Part 1 — CrossFire (page 2)

WATCH RELATED VIDEO: Radeon 5870 vs GAMES — 10 Years Later

Simple arithmetic: AMD Radeon HD 68xx graphics cards in CrossFireX modes

Everything about computers, components, peripherals, mobile devices, software and accessories. All FPS readings were recorded using Fraps. How were the tests done? The gameplay was recorded twice for seconds, the results were averaged, and they became the indicators that we will see in the tables below.

The difference between test runs was around fps. Fraps was not used in synthetic tests, since they have built-in «parrot meters». The graphics were set to the maximum again — how old is the game? Post Processing was activated, the CarbonFire level was used for the test, the battle with bots. At x and x resolutions, the Enthusiast preset was selected, and at x resolution, Gamer. AA was disabled during the tests.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 — with Eyefinity enabled. At resolution x of the game Crysis Wars v1. I haven’t tried Metro yet, but in Crysis 2 v1. When switching the settings to «Extreme» the game runs fine again. I can’t figure out where to check the box to enable this feature. Update list of comments. Don’t have an account? Register Please login to the site by entering your username and password.

The answer is here! Forum Topics There are no posts to display. Test stand configuration and tests themselves. Username Login Password Remember me. Forgot login?

PhysX on ATI Radeon HD 5870

It is important to know that HD maximum load temperatures are very high and may require custom cooling solutions. View the current price list. Having taken the time to fully test the TeraScale 2 graphics card inside HD, we can say without a doubt that it continues the trend. If you are planning to upgrade your system by purchasing a new graphics card. Then there are several important factors to consider.

ATI VS GTX — As you can see, the GTX successfully smashes like the old guard in the test and even bypasses the overclocked AMD Radeon HD

HD 6870, 6870 HD + CF 6850, 6850 HD OC: everything that was not even Bartsról

Vo- first it turned out that the new loud letters are just marketing gimmicks and they do not carry any special technical load. And secondly, the cards did not shine even with the characteristics that they have, being everywhere worse than the previous ones. But it turns out that AMD engineers still hid a trump card in their sleeve, which played with the release of the new Catalyst driver. I will separately describe the technical characteristics of the Radeon. The number of its stream processors is pcs. But as it often happens, the first tests were not entirely correct, and the architecture information did not reflect perhaps the MOST main feature of the Radeon series. The vast majority of sites in their reviews ignored the fact that the new Radeon series has as many as TWO Ultra Threaded Dispatch Processors!

AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon HD 6870M

There are only two of them in the arsenal of the main manufacturers of discrete video cards today — AMD ATI and NVIDIA have 3D accelerators for every taste: from monstrous single- and dual-processor flagships with impressive computing power and no less impressive price to cheap, low-profile, entry-level babies that are almost impossible to play today’s games. The latter, although they have an order of magnitude smaller appetites, are not able to provide acceptable performance in most current games and GPGPU applications. It is for these reasons that mid-range video cards, the so-called Middle-End, are the most popular, and they bring the largest part of the profits to the chipmakers themselves and third-party manufacturers of discrete 3D accelerators. This article will review and test two cards that are at the very top level of the Middle-End class, the performance of which is quite sufficient for all today’s gaming applications, albeit not always at the highest settings, and programs for non-graphical calculations on video cards, and their cost is not so it will burden your wallet. Thanks to the built-in audio codec, you can transfer audio to your TV via an HDMI cable, no additional connections are required.

But the company is not used to resting on its laurels and decided to increase its lead by releasing a new line of video cards. However, there were many surprises in the history of the preparation of adapters of the th series.

2012 games against modern graphics cards — GPU test

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a version of this chip with all eight stream processors enabled? And, of course, a fully functional version of this video chip can challenge the more expensive and less attractive GeForce video cards. It may also be a threat to Radeon HD series graphics cards, which came out three months later. It is logical that nVidia did just that. However, these video cards are no longer produced. It is also worth recalling that nVidia wants to completely stop the production of graphics cards based on the GF 9 processor.0003

AMD Radeon HD 6870 vs.

ATI HD 5870

Interestingly, the release of Radeon HD and HD solutions completely destroyed the long-term universal product naming scheme. This segment is the top end of the mass market for accelerators and will play an important role in generating the company’s profits. So, faced with the choice of whether to attribute new products to the or series, AMD decided in favor of the latter name. However, such a move destroys the tradition when cards with a higher serial number had a higher performance. For example, it is about twice as fast, and — twice as fast, while also twice as productive. It would be logical to assume that it will have much more computing units than it will become a more productive accelerator.

I put the second same Asus in the cross — everything flies, acre So, in the light of the question » vs «, which is now being asked to oneself.

AMD Radeon 6870 against all. Part 1 — CrossFire (page 2)

Understanding how to properly install and configure uTorrent as a Windows service. Overview of the Microlab Solo 5C sound system version of the year. Cardinally, radically and conceptually, we repair Samsung LCD monitor!

Introduction Today it can be noted that we live in the «golden age», which is marked by the arrival of all computer novelties on the domestic market with minimal delays, which in most cases do not exceed hours. This circumstance is largely due to the increasing role of the domestic user in the world market of computer components. Many vendors see our market as the most promising, as the prevalence of computers per capita in it still remains at a catastrophically low level. Just a month ago, the announcement of new video cards AMD Radeon HD and AMD Radeon HD was made, as domestic computer component stores offer everyone any solutions based on these graphics platforms.

Mobile version is working. When will you ship the geforce gtx???

We have already seen all this in various variations many times. Well, let’s not break the traditions and evaluate the debutants in all severity. Or rather, a debutant. So far, only the older model of the line, Radeon HD, has reached us. That is, the new product has more stream processors, the frequency is higher, and, in general, the old graphics card should bow to the young and daring and leave the stage.

Mitchell Camps Download. More about video. As you see in the title and this video, I am using this card on my 8 Core Mac Pro. A very timely and tedious project.

Testing the Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon HD 6850

According to Mercury Research, 75 percent of the market for video cards sold with DX 11 support fell to AMD products. And this is no coincidence, because the accelerators of the Radeon HD 5×00 line were announced and put on sale more than a year ago and remained out of competition for a long time, until the emergence of response solutions from the Nvidia Fermi family. Today, AMD wants to build on its success, and we have a new generation of its motherboards.

Who was the first to reach the gigahertz limit in nuclear frequency? And who was the first to cross the teraflop border? Who was the first to launch the production of accelerators with GDDR5 on board? And who was the first to master the DirectX 11 API at the hardware level? Of course, the American corporation AMD. Until the second quarter of this year, AMD was dynamically capturing new territories, and Nvidia Fermi solutions could compete with it only in the highest price segments. With the announcement of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 460, the situation has changed dramatically. Green novelties not only demonstrated a qualitative increase in performance and capabilities for their price, but also got close to the much more expensive products of the Radeon HD 5800 series. And it’s good that AMD did not sit idly by announcing the first-born from the new AMD Radeon 6800 family — Radeon HD 6870 and 6850.
Bull’s-eye
Let’s turn back time and remember that the Radeon HD 5800 series was launched on the market at a price point slightly higher than the Radeon HD 4800, with a $200 (±50) fork. At the same time, competitors could not oppose anything to AMD, and the prices for the Radeon HD 5870 and 5850 accelerators did not change for a whole year. Even with the advent of the GeForce GTX 480 and 470 boards, AMD marketers did not flinch, and the Radeon HD 5800 series continues to be sold in a given corridor.

AMD specialists have now decided to bring motherboards with the HD x870 and x850 indices back into the price range from $150 to $250 and have developed new products for this. However, in terms of the performance of single-chip solutions, the Radeon HD 6870 and 6850 crystals can be classified as middling. And only in mid-November we will see a new line of Radeon HD 6900, claiming the laurels of the most-most.

New configuration
The differences between the past and current generations of products are minimal, and this is true — the structure of all blocks has remained intact, only their number has changed. If the 5850th and 5870th contained 18 and 20 active SIMD clusters, then in the case of the 6850th and 5870th, their number is only 12 and 14, respectively. In view of the foregoing, the peak performance of the AMD Radeon HD 6800 series is significantly inferior to the products of the previous generation Radeon HD 5800 — 2 Tflops versus 2.7. Don’t be surprised, the processing power of the highest performing solution of the new line, the AMD Radeon HD 6870, is even lower than that of the AMD Radeon HD 5850.

Well, the memory controller has remained unchanged — the new series will still have the same 256-bit memory bus, plus four wide ROPs, each of which is equipped with its own L2 cache. However, the resulting performance is again lower. Savings were made on the frequencies of the video memory of the older model — 4.2 GHz for the HD 6870 versus 4.8 GHz for the HD 5870. The frequencies of the younger solutions HD 6850 and 5850 are the same, amounting to 4 GHz.

Light tuning
Nevertheless, there are a number of important architectural moments in which new items show their best side. First of all, we are talking about geometric performance: this module has remained unchanged, therefore, the difference will be proportional to the frequencies. For new products, they are higher by 50 MHz, which is less than 10% in the overall standings.
The second positive thing is the block of new generation tessellation. It’s no secret that it was this functional component of the AMD Radeon 5000 architecture that looked the weakest compared to Nvidia Fermi solutions. The modification of this block promises to bring a one and a half to two times performance increase when using tessellation with a numerical factor of up to 11. However, with more aggressive values of this indicator, the speed drops to the level of the previous generation. Thus, in the highest quality DirectX 11 modes with maximum quality tessellation enabled, the advantage of Nvidia solutions will continue. Nevertheless, some work on the bugs done by AMD specialists cannot but rejoice.

Let’s summarize the chickens
Let’s try to summarize the official information and list the key points. First, AMD engineers reduced the die area, resulting in lower power consumption and lower cost. Secondly, the core itself was optimized — tessellation was improved. Thirdly, new technologies for improving image quality have appeared, and algorithms for anisotropic filtering have been improved. And fourthly, the designers have added new possibilities for processing the video stream. But in fact, the architecture of the Barts graphics crystal is very close to Cypress. Alas, we did not see anything fundamentally new. Unless we mention the work with interfaces DisplayPort version 1.2 and HDMI version 1.4. But this is already from another opera, where there is little space for games.

Participants of the race
Let’s consider the main characters of our testing. The AMD Radeon HD 6870 and 6850 reference boards differ from their predecessors in their more compact dimensions. In addition, one design feature of its predecessors has been preserved: both new products are equipped with a quiet closed-type cooling system that blows hot air out of the case. True, through the grid, reduced due to the need to accommodate five video connectors.

Image output has undergone some modifications. If earlier more than three monitors allowed connecting only a specialized AMD Radeon HD 5870 2Gb EyeFinity adapter (up to 6 monitors), now this feature is available on all AMD Radeon HD 6800 class solutions thanks to five video output connectors — two DVI-I ports, one HDMI and two miniDPs. The second announced change concerns stereoscopic 3D support. AMD speaks directly about this possibility with the help of iZ3D and DDD technologies. Although the value of such a solution is only nominal, because the corresponding monitors work perfectly with AMD products of previous generations. Moreover, of the standard monitor models, only the ViewSonic V3D241wm-LED has so far been certified — convenience and the ability to use in applications still remain the prerogative of Nvidia 3D Vision technology.
Let’s return to the description of the boards themselves. On the HD 6870 and HD6850, the power connectors are located on top, like on the HD 5870, while the HD 5850 has a connection on the front side, which is not always convenient. In general, the reference boards of new products are so well made that it makes no sense for manufacturers of ready-made solutions to try to make changes to the printed circuit board or cooling system.

How we tested
All testing was done on a test bench with the following configuration: AMD Phenom II X4 9 processor25, Gigabyte GA-880GA-UD3H motherboard, Transcend TX2000KLU-4GK (DDR3, 1333MHz, 4GB, 9-9-9-24, 2ch mode), Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX (2GB, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB cache, 7200 rpm), Plextor DVDR PX-810SA optical drive, Tagan SuperRock TG880-U33II power supply (880 W). The test platform was run with a BenQ EW2420 monitor connected at 1280 x 800, 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1080 graphic resolutions.
Software tests were performed under Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. To work with the graphics subsystem, video drivers Catalyst 64-bit version 10.10 and ForceWare 64-bit version 8.17.12.6089 were used. As a measuring tool, we used the scenario test SmartFPS.com version 1. 11 to automatically determine performance in gaming applications Crysis, Serious Sam 2, Call Of Juarez (Russian version of DVD), Unreal Tournament 3 (Russian version of DVD), Enemy Territory — Quake Wars and The Chronicles of Riddick.
The study of 3D performance was carried out in two modes with different display quality of the game image: with full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled, and with 4x anti-aliasing (AA:04) and 16x anisotropic filtering (AF16) enabled. All rendering quality settings were controlled using global settings in the respective video drivers.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 470 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 1 GB reference board performance figures were taken from respective Zotac solutions configured in MSI Afterburner 2.0.0.

Test results
To get a basic idea of the performance of new products, we used a shortened set of test applications — the full version of the research, as well as a comparison with other products on the market, we will present to you later.
The very first test in the Crysis gaming project brought an advantage to both new AMD products: the Radeon HD 6870 outperformed the more expensive GeForce GTX 470 by 10%. While the Radeon HD 6850 was slightly faster than the GeForce GTX 460 with 1 GB of video memory. However, the abundance of DX9-shaders in the Call of Juarez game turned out to be a disappointment for the Radeon HD 6870 and 6850. As a result, a complete defeat — even the older board lost to the Nvidia GeForce GTX 460. Almost the same results were obtained in the game Unreal Tournament 3. But it is worth noting that in this In the test, even the weakest AMD Radeon HD 6850 demonstrates performance with a margin for a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, with anisotropic filtering and full-screen anti-aliasing enabled. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars paints a mixed picture: in the heaviest mode, AMD Radeon HD 6850 and 6870 are slightly ahead of the GeForce GTX 460 with an advantage of less than 5%. However, in less aggressive modes, the advantage was on the side of Nvidia due to better driver optimization. Nvidia GeForce GTX 470 based on the first generation of Fermi GPUs showed the best results in the game Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. But both novelties from AMD turned out to be limited by CPU performance in almost all modes.

First Impressions
First impressions from AMD Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 can be called positive. Although, thanks to the chosen indexes in the names of these products, you expect more than they are able to provide in reality. In fact, we have before us solutions of the level of the previous generation — AMD Radeon HD 5800. But, on the other hand, the new products are distinguished by a new generation tessellation unit and increased geometric performance.
It’s a pity that SIMD clusters are cut down so much that the processing power of the older model, the AMD Radeon HD 6870, is lower than that of the AMD Radeon HD 5850. Nevertheless, the announced prices of new products increase their attractiveness against the background of the old series.
As for the preliminary study of the overall performance of AMD Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850, it turned out to be at a very good level. Still, we’re not sure if all users will want to buy these products instead of the Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 470. using AMD Eyefinity technology. Unfortunately, the weak points of the previous generation — rudimentary support for stereoscopic 3D and acceleration of «physics» in gaming applications — have also been inherited by the first products of the AMD Radeon HD 6000 series. However, we are confident that the retail price will play a decisive role in the fate of AMD Radeon HD 6850 and HD 6870 products.
In conclusion, let’s talk about one curious association. Motorcycle enthusiasts have a favorite technique. We squeeze the lever of the front brakes, turn on the gear and unscrew the throttle. The result is a roar of the engine and thick smoke around. It looks very impressive, but there is no practical sense. Moreover, the rear cylinder is to be replaced, and high speeds reduce the life of the engine. I really want the appearance of AMD video cards with another epochal index in the name not to become such an annealing of rubber — primarily because of the high expectations associated with the new series.

AMD Radeon HD 6850 and HD 6870 — a new generation of DirectX 11 compatible graphics — Ferra.ru

Computers So the next generation of Radeon graphics cards will appear under the AMD brand. And here are its first representatives — AMD Radeon HD 6850 and 6870. What are the new models?

With the release of the HD 5000 series graphics cards, AMD became the only manufacturer of DirectX 11 compatible graphics for a long time. These cards were distinguished not only by the latest API support, but also by excellent performance/price and performance/watt ratios. All this allowed AMD to overtake NVIDIA in the discrete graphics market. But the company is not used to resting on its laurels and decided to strengthen its lead by releasing a new line of video cards.

However, there were many surprises in the history of the preparation of the 6000-series adapters. It is noteworthy that this time again, the blame lies largely with TSMC. It is believed that AMD planned to transfer new models to a thinner 32nm process technology, and the contract manufacturer decided in November 2009 to skip its development and immediately master 28nm. Therefore, the chips had to be redesigned, taking into account the use of the old 40-nm process technology. This doesn’t put AMD at a distinct disadvantage, as competitors only use 40nm chips, either. However, a thinner process technology would give the new Radeon a very serious advantage. In connection with this story, AMD may in the future abandon the services of TSMC and use the facilities of its sister company Globalfoundries.

Peak performance per dollar is AMD’s goal with the HD 68XX

The second surprise was that NVIDIA released very competitive mid-range products, the GTX 460 and GTS 450. Not that anyone expected this, but there was a need for a quick response. After all, it is the sales of such models that bring the greatest total profit. And just then the autumn “backtoschool” purchases took place, and Christmas, in fact, is just around the corner. Most likely, it was precisely this logic that convinced AMD to break the established tradition — to release a mid-price solution up to flagship models in the new line. Previously, the Radeon series always showed up with the highest performing solutions first, raising money from the wealthiest and most impatient users. This tactic is used by the vast majority of companies in the market.

There are a couple of other signs in favor of the GTX 460’s fast-response idea. Firstly, this is the activation of various news and leaks regarding Barts adapters (that’s what the new items are called), which began immediately after the announcement of the corresponding video card. Secondly, the announcement turned out to be «papery» to some extent, since the availability of video cards for a couple of weeks left much to be desired.

Many people were also surprised by the changed principle of naming video cards. Usually, it was the X8XX models that were the top solutions that were produced first in the series. Only in the early models of the 2000 series were the top 29XX, and in the 1000 series, the 19XX were upgraded 18XX graphics cards. Now the flagship adapters will immediately belong to the 69XX series, and the two-chip solution will be marked 6990. The previous two-chip card was called HD 5970, and before that such models received the X2 suffix. In principle, the new system is no worse than the old one, but at first some confusion awaits us.

Everything is done in order to squeeze into the so-called SweetSpot

Thus, the name 68XX in this case denotes continuity with respect to 58XX models. But in reality, Barts is more likely to be the successor to Juniper, which was used for 57XX video cards. AMD is positioning the new items as a replacement for the 58XX. They should have slightly lower performance at a significantly reduced price and power consumption. Thus, the company will fill the price gap between the HD 57XX and HD58XX, where the competitors’ models just managed to wedge in. At the same time, HD 57XX video cards, according to AMD’s roadmap, will remain on sale for quite a long time. It is possible that they will be renamed HD 67XX. Such a «rebrand» is not welcomed by many users, but in the past, when only one graphics chip was developed with each new generation, such tactics were used very often. 9Tue Once upon a time, the figure of 27 W for the previous generation of AMD video cards seemed something surprising, but the company managed to reduce it immediately by one and a half times. In fairness, we note that the HD 5750 consumes 16 W in idle, and the HD 5770 consumes 18 W.

Power consumption under load is also lower than HD 58XX. More precisely, the HD 6870 officially consumes the same as the HD 5850 — 151 W, and the HD 6850 — even less, 127 W.

The company didn’t succeed in really turning around within the same technical process, but AMD obviously did everything in its power. First of all, the modifications concerned the reduction of functionality that was irrelevant from a gaming point of view and an increase in geometric performance. As a result, this led to the removal of 450 million «extra» transistors and a corresponding reduction in core size. This was the main reason for reducing the price and energy consumption of new products.

First of all, FP64 double precision calculations went under the knife. No wonder, they are completely irrelevant for games and are usually the prerogative of older models. There is no such support in the HD 57XX cards, and even NVIDIA, which advocates GPGPU, severely cut this support in the GTX 460.

Secondly, the memory controller was cut. More precisely, we used a variant from the Redwood chip, which was used for 55XX-56XX video cards. It is not able to «start» GDDR5 with an effective frequency of 5 GHz, but it is as much as 2 times less than the Cypress controller. Accordingly, at high resolutions, insufficient video memory performance can lead to a noticeable decrease in performance, but we have solutions in the middle price segment …

The core circuitry remains the same

The biggest blow to gaming performance came from the actual removal of stream processors. The concept of the core with two SIMD blocks remained similar to Cypress. However, the number of SIMD cores in the block decreased from 18-20 to 12-14. The structure of the SIMD cores remained the same — 16 stream processors, L1 cache and 4 texture units. So the loss in pure shader performance turned out to be quite significant, and even an increase in the operating frequency could not compensate for this loss. However, there is an opinion that if Fermi video cards lacked texture performance, then Cypress solutions in most games all rested on the insufficient power of rasterization units. Now the ratio has changed, because the number of ROPs has remained the same, and the frequency of their work has even increased slightly. How much this actually affected performance, tests will show.

Many people expected Barts to switch shader cores to use VLIW4 (4 ALUs per core), but this innovation was left for upcoming Cayman adapters.

Updated tessellation engine

The replacement of the tesselator has become a clear step forward compared to the previous generation. It is reported that in some situations it is possible to achieve a twofold increase in performance relative to previous models.

Hardware support for tessellation has been around for a long time

As you know, the possibility of tessellation at the hardware level was added by ATI a long time ago, but without standardization it could not gain serious support. Therefore, the era of tessellation began only with its introduction in the corresponding DirectX 11 API. AMD’s marketing slides mention the 7th generation tesselator, but it makes more sense to talk about the 2nd generation. AMD does not hide the fact that the geometric performance of its new products is lower than that of Fermi solutions. However, it is claimed that the achieved level of performance is optimal for modern games.

The fact is that the operation of the tessellation mechanism is determined by the game engine, which can set the tessellation factor depending on the specified graphics settings, in-game distance to the object, and other parameters. The tessellation factor determines how many polygons will be used when splitting the primitive. Obviously, there is a certain “golden mean” here, such a value of the factor, the further increase of which will no longer lead to a noticeable improvement in the quality of the picture.

AMD claims that this factor value roughly corresponds to polygons «consisting» of 16 pixels. Moreover, when the polygon size decreases below 16 pixels, overshading begins on modern video cards, a phenomenon associated with a sharp drop in performance. Accordingly, the updated tessellator was optimized to work with the average tessellation factor, where the indicated twofold advantage is achieved. We will return to this issue when we consider the test results.

MLAA — new anti-aliasing mechanism

Along with the release of new video cards, AMD also optimized the anisotropic filtering mechanism and introduced a new anti-aliasing mode. And if the optimization of anisotropic filtering is not very interesting for us, then we will dwell on the new anti-aliasing mode in more detail. Meet Morphological Anti-Aliasing. In fact, it is new only for PC, on consoles this method (in any case, the principle itself) has been used before. Yes, and it is called antialiasing only conditionally.

Unlike traditional methods, MLAA is a pure post-processing that works exclusively with a 2D image. It analyzes the image for too sharp and contrasting transitions between pixels and softens them by adding halftones. The advantages of this approach are obvious: lower load on the video card compared to MSAA and complete versatility. Being forced in the drivers, MLAA should work absolutely correctly and equally in all games, since it practically does not interact with their engine. The disadvantages are also obvious — sometimes the method may not work correctly due to the lack of real information on the in-game geometry. However, in general, this approach seems to us very promising. We will follow developments. NVIDIA may adapt it in the near future, since adaptation should not be very difficult.

UVD 3.0 and new interface connectors

New decoder — a serious claim to dominance in HTPC systems

AMD also updated its video processor. Now, in addition to H.264 and VC-1 hardware acceleration, DivX and xVid codec acceleration is supported. The latter are not so resource-intensive, but still, for an HTPC system, this option can be very useful. In addition, the entire decoding cycle is now accelerated, and not part of it, as it was before. Of course, this will be more relevant for younger video cards of the 6000 series. HD video is also accelerated in Adobe Flash 10.1 and the now fashionable 3D is supported.

About 3D, by the way, the conversation will be special. It will be appropriate here to first discuss the new front-end features of Barts. Already with the introduction of the HD 5000 series, AMD has seriously overtaken its main competitor in this regard. 2 DVI, 1 HDMI and 1 DisplayPort connectors allowed connecting up to 3 monitors to one video card. True, this required the use of a rare DisplayPort. Moreover, the HD 5870 EyefinityEdition video card was later released, equipped with 6 Mini DisplayPort connectors, which supported the simultaneous operation of 6 monitors at once.

Attaching 6 displays to an inexpensive gaming graphics card is real!

Mini DisplayPort connectors have migrated further into HD 6000 cards. In place of one DisplayPort, there are now 2 small connectors. But that’s not all, the DP version (up to 1.2) and HDMI (up to 1.4a) have also been updated. HDMI version 1.4a is known to support stereoscopic signal transmission. You can use 1080p24 and 720p60 modes. Unfortunately, 1080p60 mode is not supported due to the limited bandwidth of HDMI 1.4. For this reason, games continue to use the Dual-Link DVI interface, which has sufficient bandwidth.

This is where the updated DisplayPort kicks in. It turns out to be about 2 times faster than DLDVI. This is enough to transmit a stereoscopic signal 2560*1600 with a refresh rate of 120 Hz. Accordingly, in normal mode, DP 1.2 is enough for 2 monitors 2560*1600 or 4 1920*1200. But why does one connector need enough bandwidth to connect 4 monitors? VESA has an answer to this question. Using the technology with the speaking name Multi-Stream Transport, several video streams can be transmitted at once through the DisplayPort interface.

Further two different configurations are possible. The simplest one implies the presence of a special adapter-splitter. At the same time, the latter can have any video outputs, so we are not limited in the choice of monitor models.

Other configuration requires DP 1.2 compliant monitors. Each of them will have not only a DP input, but also an output, which will allow you to organize configurations from daisy-chained monitors. This solution is more compact, but the strict limitation imposed on the type of monitors used is unlikely to allow it to become widespread in the near future. In fact, by pushing DP heavily since its inception, the company was able to install DP 1. 2 connectors before other commercially available products supported them.

HD3D is not an attempt to «befriend» someone

Many thought that AMD would decide to promote its own stereoscopic video transmission standard, but instead it came out with an open HD3D initiative. As a result, the company cooperates with the majority of vendors, one way or another connected with the promotion of various 3D technologies. These are manufacturers of TVs and monitors, developers of solutions with shutter and polarization mechanisms, as well as software developers.

It is assumed that the developer of a closed solution with a closed infrastructure will not be able to compete in the market and will be forced to retreat. However, this developer is just busy expanding the infrastructure (see 3DTVPlay), and 3Dvision has no serious competitors as a gaming platform for PC yet.

AMD Radeon HD 6850

Enough theory, let’s look at the video cards themselves. Let’s start with the younger model. She came to us from AMD itself, in an OEM configuration. The design of the casing refers to the cards of the 58XX series, but there were some changes. The shape of the casing has become more angular and strict, but at the same time, AMD has allowed itself a little liberties in the form of a red-gray pattern and selective UV varnishing. The turbine design implies the release of heated air to the outside, but some of it still exits through the vents on the top face.

In addition to the rear panel already described in sufficient detail, without removing the casing, we can pay attention only to the contacts for connecting the CrossFire bridge and only one six-pin power connector. The location of the latter at the end, taking into account the low, about 23 cm, length of the video card, does not raise any special questions.

The key design element of the new cooling system designed for the HD 6850 graphics card is the vapor chamber. This is not such a monster as was used in the GTX 580, but the principle of operation is the same: the heat from the chip is evenly distributed over the surface of the chamber and transferred to the radiator fins, which are blown by the air flow of the turbine. The advantage of this approach over using heat pipes is that there are no airflow obstructions. However, in this case, the size of the camera makes us doubt its effectiveness. In addition, the “exhaust” hole, like in previous models, is small — only half the plug.

The power subsystem and memory chips are covered by one common radiator with low fins. It is blown a little by the turbine, but only a little. This may not have the best effect on the overclocking potential of the video card.

The novelty shares a four-phase design with its older sister, but the design of the printed circuit board, as we will see further, is very different.

At the center of the board is the Barts chip we discussed at the beginning of the article. It is rectangular, like Juniper, but at the same time turned at an angle and framed by a protective frame.

Video memory built with Hynix chips, 8 H5G01h34AFR-T2C modules in total, 128 MB each. Their nominal frequency is 5 GHz, while in this video card they operate at a frequency of 4 GHz.

Powercolor Radeon HD 6870

The HD 6870 we tested was kindly provided by Powercolor. It is made according to the reference design. In the colorful box, in addition to the video card itself, instructions and a driver disk, there are several useful accessories: a CrossFire bridge, a D-Sub-DVI adapter, and a miniDisplayPort-DisplayPort adapter.

Despite belonging to the same series, the differences between the cards are quite significant. You can already see it on the casing — the HD 6870 has a dull one, except for a few small slots at the base of the card. There are already 2 power connectors and they are located at the top of the card. Thanks to this, the requirements for the case will be practically the same as those of the HD 6850, because the older model is about a centimeter longer. The set of connectors is the same, including the possibility of creating CrossFire configurations.

The cooling system of the HD 6870 is traditional, with heat pipes. But at the same time it looks more thoughtful and efficient than the HD 6850: 3 heat pipes (one 8 mm and two 6 mm thick) contact with an impressive copper plate, which further enter the radiator body at different distances from the core. The tubes are laid in grooves, all joints are soldered. And the heatsink area is corny larger than that of the 6850.

The PCB design had to be seriously redesigned for more efficient cooling. The four-phase power subsystem has been moved closer to the bottom of the map. This was done so that the heatsink covering the transistors would be blown by a warm, but still strong air flow, which should significantly increase the stability of the card. However, only tests can show this to us.

Competitors

The slides from AMD’s presentation that appeared on the net showed a very rosy picture for new cards — a significant advantage over competing solutions of the same price range. This forced NVIDIA to reduce the prices of their existing solutions before the announcement of new products. In a win, as usual, we are with you. Now the situation with prices has stabilized a bit and we can already make a correct comparison on the Russian market. Price will ultimately be the determining factor for most users, so this comparison is very important. When analyzing prices, we started from the average values for the cheapest options. It turned out to identify unambiguous pairs of competitors, only the HD 5870 is clearly out of work.

HD 6850 — GTX 460 1 GB — 7000 rub

HD 5850 — GTX 460 1 GBOC — 8000 rub

HD 6870 — GTX 470 — 9000 RUB

HD 5870 — 12000 rub

NVIDIA separately insisted on the inclusion in comparison in comparison in comparison in comparison in comparison in comparison in comparison. overclocked versions of the GeForce GTX 460 as a separate class of video cards. Indeed, the performance difference between different versions of the GTX 460 can easily be as high as 15%. However, taking into account the changed prices, there will be no such card as a direct competitor, since the HD 5850 did not participate in our tests.

The HD 5870 was courtesy of AMD itself, while the GTX 460 and GTX 470 are from MSI. Both of them belong to the TwinFrozr series, and the 460 model in addition to the HAWK series. It just belongs to the class of video cards with factory overclocking, and the possibility of increasing the supply voltage on various components of the board interested us so much that in the near future we will release a separate review on it.

As you understand, the price situation abroad is somewhat different, and in Russia they can change at any time. But we will proceed from current data.

Power consumption, cooling efficiency, noise, overclocking

We indicated the official data on the power consumption of new video cards at the beginning of the article, but, of course, it was not without verification. The measurements were carried out for the entire system directly, «from the socket».

Power consumption of video cards

With regards to idle power consumption, our data clearly does not match those presented by AMD. It is approximately on the same level with the HD 5870 and even slightly inferior to the GTX 460 cards. The GTX 470 is noticeably more power hungry. Under load, the novelties are more economical than both the HD 5870 and competing cards. The power consumption of the HD 6870 is on par with the GTX 460. NVIDIA will have to work hard to achieve similar power efficiency with the 500-series graphics cards. So far, the leadership in this area is with AMD.

The efficiency of standard cooling systems is not too high. At the same time, the HD 6850 cools somewhat worse than the HD 6870 — 80 degrees versus 74 degrees under load. Not too good, but both of them turn out to be quieter and more efficient than the HD 5870’s CO. Moreover, alternative versions with improved characteristics should appear fairly quickly. As a matter of fact, we already have the HD 6850 from Asus, the DirectCu model, which is equipped with a much better and more thoughtful cooling system. This map will also be devoted to a separate review.

The HD 6850 frequency has been limited at the BIOS level — it cannot be raised above 850 MHz with conventional software tools. At the same time, the potential of the chip is clearly greater — our HD 6870 sample worked stably at a frequency of 980 MHz. In fact, the Asus version of the 6850 even managed to break the 1000 MHz barrier when the voltage was increased. It turns out that the HD 6850 is a serious competitor to the GTX 460 in the «overclocker’s choice» category. Only here the nominally wired in the BIOS frequency values prevent the card from revealing its potential.

A powerful six-core processor, overclocked to 4 GHz, ensures that the potential of the tested video cards is unleashed to the maximum. The following driver versions were used: Catalyst 10.10 and ForceWare 262.99. Graphics settings are set to maximum unless otherwise noted.

Let’s start as usual with 3DMarkVantage:

The GTX 460 is slightly ahead of the competition at both presets. In the confrontation at a higher level, the situation is not so unambiguous — the GTX 470 is faster at Extreme settings, and the HD 6870 breaks ahead in Performance. The overclocked version of the GTX 460 has very good performance, it almost catches up with the GTX 470. Well, the clear leader is the HD 5870.

Now let’s look at the UnigineHeaven DirectX 11 results:

We see a similar situation, but the Fermi cards are somewhat ahead, which is especially noticeable in the case of the GTX 460. HD 5870 is in the lead. Let’s see what happens if we activate tessellation. As usual, we have included an «extreme» profile, although it turns out that it may not be optimal.

NVIDIA’s cards take the lead. However, I would like to note that the results of the new products clearly illustrate that significant work has been done on the tesselator. The HD 6870 manages to overtake the HD 5870, and the 6850 is also faster in terms of the minimum FPS value.

Go to H.A.W.X. 2 — the benchmark, around which the «tessellation» scandal flared up. It was officially released right on the day of the announcement of new AMD graphics cards. At the same time, the game developers worked very closely with NVIDIA. Probably, few people were surprised by the superiority of the corresponding video cards. AMD in its presentation at the same time claimed that this is exactly the case with excessive tessellation, small polygons and hard overshading. NVIDIA responded by saying that on average, 18 pixels are used to display a polygon in a game. This is exactly the optimum that AMD was talking about.

This “averaging” is a little confusing, but we have no way to get to the bottom of the real state of affairs. Either way, this will probably be the first game where enabling tessellation really makes a huge difference in image quality. The fact is that here it is used to detail the landscape, which allows you to get rid of unnecessary angularity and makes the mountain peaks look much more natural.

The funny thing is that there is nothing to argue about here — the benchmark turns out to be not very demanding and all video cards provide a decent level of performance even in the most difficult modes. Yes, on a card from AMD it is unlikely that it will be possible to run a three-monitor configuration normally, but even one NVIDIA video card will not be enough for this. Fermi will be able to «show itself» except in stereoscopic mode.

In general, the picture repeats that in the Unigine benchmark — the updated tessellator works, and works efficiently.

But H.A.W.X. 2 has not yet been released, and even in fairly advanced modern games, tessellation is not used very actively. The HD 5870 is again the fastest. New products show results close to competing solutions. Without anti-aliasing turned on, the HD 68XX sometimes wins, but turning it on changes the balance of power a bit.

Metro 2033 is one of the most demanding games of our time, we even had to turn off the DepthofField effect, which greatly reduces the results shown by maps. Anti-aliasing again gives NVIDIA models some advantage, in the most demanding mode the GTX 470 even outperforms the HD 5870. In the more playable 1680×1050 mode without anti-aliasing, there is parity between the HD 6850 and the GTX 460, and the HD 6870 is slightly behind the GTX 470.

Anti-aliasing helps AMD graphics cards this time. They are, albeit not by much, but ahead of competing models. However, the HD 5870 remains out of reach.

MafiaII doesn’t support DirectX 11, but it’s still very demanding on the video subsystem. Once again, the new products are slightly ahead of the NVIDIA models when anti-aliasing is enabled, and the HD 5870 is predictably out of reach.

In FarCry 2, which is no longer a new bestseller, Fermi cards are ahead of their competitors, moreover, in some places even the GTX 460 manages to overtake the older HD 6870. The new cards also fail to reach the HD 5870. But in general, the capabilities of all video cards in this test are enough for a comfortable game.

In the World In Conflict strategy, the HD 6850 manages to compete well with the GTX 460, but the HD 6870’s capabilities against the GTX 470 are clearly not enough. When anti-aliasing is enabled, all AMD models show low minimum performance values.

All graphics cards work fine with ResidentEvil 5. When anti-aliasing is enabled, the HD 6850 is slightly more productive than the GTX 460, while the HD 6870 is slightly inferior to the GTX 470. Again, with anti-aliasing enabled. But no one can notice this difference by eye, because even the minimum FPS is around 60.

In the new hit from Blizzard, video cards based on the Fermi chip feel most confident. However, for a comfortable game, any video card from the list is also enough.

Conclusions

After all the pandemonium with prices, the new products demonstrate a performance similar to competing solutions. At the same time, for most users, any of the presented models will be enough for a comfortable FPS level in the vast majority of games. The difference in playability can manifest itself only in three-monitor configurations, which are not very relevant for this price segment.

On the side of the HD 6850 and HD 6870 is their very high energy efficiency and rich equipment of various video outputs. On NVIDIA’s side are closed PhysX and 3DVision technologies, which, like multi-monitor configurations, are not so relevant in this price segment.

For overclockers, the younger HD 6850 is of the greatest interest, as it most often happens — its overclocking potential (though, in the case of the reference card, it is the potential) is on the same level as the GTX 460. 9Ol000
Select..AMD Radeon 530 Mobile — $41,715 AMD Radeon 540 Mobile — $71,231AMD Radeon HD 6850 — $13,052AMD Radeon HD 6950 — $16,398 ₽ 9,183AMD Radeon HD 7750M — ₽ 56,276AMD Radeon HD 7790 — ₽ 9,773AMD Radeon HD 7850 — ₽ 16,332AMD Radeon HD 7850M — ₽ 63,229AMD Radeon HD 7950 — ₽ 9,773AMD Radeon HD 7950M — ₽ 67,099AMD Radeon HD 7970 — ₽ 19,611 GHz HD 7970M — RUB 70,772AMD Radeon HD 7990 — RUB 65,524AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 Mobile — RUB 128,491AMD Radeon R5 — RUB 46,569AMD Radeon R5 — RUB 45,979AMD Radeon R7 250 — RUB 6,231AMD Radeon R7, R77 AMD 370 — RUB 13,249AMD Radeon R9 270 — RUB 18,037AMD Radeon R9 280 — RUB 22,957AMD Radeon R9 280X — RUB 22.957AMD Radeon R9 285 — ₽ 24.924AMD Radeon R9 290 — ₽ 20,3333AMD Radeon R9 290X — ₽ 26,170AMD Radeon R9 295×2 — ₽ 98,319AMD RADEON R9 380 — ₽ 19,611AMD RADEON R9 380X — ₽ 15. 02011 Radeon R9 390X — ₽ 32,467AMD Radeon R9 FURY — ₽ 36,009AMD Radeon R9 FURY X — ₽ 42,568AMD Radeon R9 M270X — ₽ 66,639AMD Radeon R9 M280X — ₽ 70,181AMD Radeon R9 M280X 2GB — ₽ 70,181AMD Radeon R9 M290X — ₽ 79,298 AMD Radeon R9 M380 — RUB 70,444AMD Radeon R9 Nano — RUB 100,287AMD Radeon RX 460 — RUB 9,183AMD Radeon RX 470 — RUB 22,432AMD Radeon RX 470 Mobile — RUB 78.905AMD Radeon RX 480 — RUB 26,170AMD Radeon RX 480 Mobile — RUB 83,627AMD Radeon RX 540 Mobile — RUB 42,306AMD Radeon RX 550 — RUB 4,854AMD Radeon RX 550 Mobile — RUB 60,540AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB1 5500 XT 8GB — RUB 13,052AMD Radeon RX 550X Mobile — RUB 60,540AMD Radeon RX 560 — RUB 6,493AMD Radeon RX 560 Mobile — RUB 64,737AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT — RUB 18,300AMD Radeon RX 560X 6 Mobile2.04 2GB — RUB 64,737AMD Radeon RX 570 — RUB 8,068AMD Radeon RX 570 Mobile — RUB 82,643AMD Radeon RX 5700 — RUB 22.89AMD Radeon RX 580X Mobile — RUB 85,726 AMD Radeon RX 590 — RUB 14,036 AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT4 — RUB 14,036 AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT4 — RUB 14,036 XT — RUB 31,418AMD Radeon RX 6800 — RUB 37,977AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT — RUB 42,568AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT — RUB 65,524AMD Radeon RX VEGA 10 — RUB 41,453AMD Radeon RX VEGA 3 — RX VEGA AMD 37. 1 AMD Radeon RX VEGA 8 — RUB 39,420AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 — RUB 17,644AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Mobile — RUB 103,567AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 — RUB 27,482AMD Radeon VII — RUB 43,552ATI Radeon HD 4870 — RUB 19,611NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 — ₽ 5,182NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 — ₽ 5,182NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 — ₽ 13,052NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 — ₽ 8,461NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q — ₽ 84,086NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile — ₽ 49,193NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 2GB — ₽ 69,657NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti — ₽ 8,461NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q — ₽ 83,299NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile — ₽ 57,457NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB — ₽ 11,150NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB — ₽ 10,429 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q — RUB 77,724NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile — RUB 64,737NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 — RUB 21,579NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q — Rs. 72,543NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile — Rs. 102,255NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti — Rs. 121,801NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti — ₽ 52,931NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 — ₽ 9,773NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q — ₽ 81,266NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile — ₽ 75,494NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER — ₽ 10,494NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 — ₽ 14,430NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER — RUB 15,020NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti — RUB 18,300NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q — RUB 77,724NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile — RUB 115,307NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 — RUB 29,450NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 — ₽ 19,611NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 — ₽ 42,568NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 — ₽ 16,332NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 — ₽ 19,611NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 — ₽ 32,729NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti — ₽ 13,052NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 — ₽ 10,035NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti — ₽ 14,430NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 — ₽ 22,891NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 — ₽ 26,170NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 — ₽ 45,847NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 — ₽ 3,214NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti — ₽ 4,198NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost — $11,085NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 — $5,182NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti — $19,611NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M — ₽ 64,737NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 — ₽ 5,182NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M — ₽ 69,394NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX — ₽ 69,394NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 — ₽ 31,811NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M — ₽ 71,034NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 — ₽ 28,794 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti — ₽ 18,300NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 — ₽ 20,989NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M — ₽ 67,951NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 — ₽ 11,741NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M — ₽ 72,149NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 — ₽ 23,285NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti — ₽ 26,892NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M — ₽ 76,216NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M — ₽ 76,216NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 — ₽ 5,838NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 — ₽ 5,838NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M — ₽ 69,919NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 — ₽ 29,450NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M — ₽ 81,922NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M 6GB — ₽ 81,922NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 — ₽ 16,332NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Mobile — ₽ 88,219NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti — ₽ 40,600NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M — ₽ 88,219NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980MX — ₽ 88,219NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN — ₽ 42,634NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK — ₽ 65,524NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X — ₽ 72,083 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 — $22. 891NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile — ₽ 72,411NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER — ₽ 26,236NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 — ₽ 30,762NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q — ₽ 99,434NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile — ₽ 113,077NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER — ₽ 32,729NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 — ₽ 45,454NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q — ₽ 116,226NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile — ₽ 127,376NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER — ₽ 45,847NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti — ₽ 77,855NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 — ₽ 13,118NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti — $16,332NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 — $21,579NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti — ₽ 26,170NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 — ₽ 32,729NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti — ₽ 39,288NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 — ₽ 45,847NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti — ₽ 52,406NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 — ₽ 98,319NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 — ₽ 13,118NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 — ₽ 21,579NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti — ₽ 26,170NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 — ₽ 32,729NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 — ₽ 45,847NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti — ₽ 52,406NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 — ₽ 98,319NVIDIA TITAN RTX — $163,909NVIDIA TITAN V — $196,704NVIDIA TITAN Xp — ₽ 78,642

Change CPU to
Select. .AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core — RUB 6555.7AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core — RUB 1967AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ — RUB 8523.4 — RUB 23609.1AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+ — RUB 30168.1AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ — RUB 21742.4AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ — RUB 3482.2AMD Athlon 64 X4 Dual Core 5400+ — RUB 3482.2AMD Athlon 64 X4 Dual Core 5400+ — RUB X2 Dual Core 5600+ — RUB 9835.2AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+ — RUB 1639.1AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ — RUB 3013.9AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ — RUB 17050.1AMD Athlon 7550 Dual-Core — RUB 3935.4 AMD Athlon Dual Core 5000B — $ 6231.1AMD Athlon II X2 215 — $ 786.4AMD Athlon II X2 220 — $ 2111.3 II X2 255 — RUB 4277.8AMD Athlon II X2 260 — RUB 1311.1AMD Athlon II X2 265 — RUB 5436.1AMD Athlon II X2 270 — RUB 1573.5AMD Athlon II X2 B22 — RUB 2358AMD Athlon II X2AMD II2 X20. — ₽ 3217.2AMD Athlon II X3 425 — ₽ 6835.1AMD Athlon II X3 435 — ₽ 3278.8AMD Athlon II X3 440 — ₽ 3079.5AMD ATHLON II X3 445 — ₽ 5968.7AMD athlon II X3 450 — ₽ 2622. 9AMD ATHLON II X3 455 — ₽ 7664.2AMD ATHLON II X3 460 — ₽ 3278.8AMD ATHO X4 620 — ₽ 3932.1AMD ATHLON 28 Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core — $ 5247.2AMD Athlon II X4 635 — $ 4588AMD Athlon II X4 640 — $ 5243.9AMD Athlon II X4 641 Quad-Core — $ 6001.5 — ₽ 18168.4AMD Athlon X4 760K Quad Core — ₽ 3017.1AMD Athlon X4 840 — ₽ 5164.6AMD Athlon X4 845 — ₽ 3278.8AMD Athlon X4 860K — ₽ 4196.4AMD ATHLON X4 870K — ₽ 5246.5AMD Athlon X4 880K — ₽ 5902.4AMD ATHLON X4 950 — ₽ 3934.7AMD E2-3200 APU — ₽ 524.1AMD FX -4100 Quad -Core — ₽ 8526AMD FX -4130 QUAD -₽ 4984. FX-4170 Quad-Core — RUB 6558.3AMD FX-4200 Quad-Core — RUB 14968.3AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core — RUB 3501.9AMD FX-4350 Quad-Core — RUB 8526AMD FX-6200 Six-Core — RUB 22297.3FX -6300 Six-Core — RUB 3869.2AMD FX-6350 Six-Core — RUB 8526AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core — RUB 6558.3AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core — RUB 25153.8AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core — RUB 5285.9AMD 8320 Eight-Core — ₽ 5214.4AMD FX-8320E Eight-Core — ₽ 6484.9AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core — RUB 5246.5 AMD FX-8370 Eight-Core — RUB 8853. 3AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core — RUB 11805.5 Phenom 8250e Triple-Core — ₽ 3082.1AMD Phenom 8450 Triple-Core — ₽ 1964.4AMD Phenom 8600 Triple-Core — ₽ 3475.6AMD Phenom 8600B Triple-Core — ₽ 3475.6AMD Phenom 8650 Triple-Core — ₽ 3278.8AMD Phenom 9100e Quad-Core — ₽ 2620.3AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core — ₽ 2620.3AMD Phenom 9350e Quad-Core — ₽ 221830AMD Phenom 9450e Quad-Core — ₽ 6887AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core — ₽ 3934.7AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core — ₽ 2620.3AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core — ₽ 3276.2AMD Phenom 9600B Quad-Core — ₽ 9654.2AMD Phenom 9650 Quad-Core — ₽AMD-Core 360 ₽ 3932.1AMD Phenom 9850 Quad -Core — ₽ 3279.5AMD Phenom 9950 Quad -Core — ₽ 11804.9AMD Phenom II X2 545 — ₽ 2884.6AMD Phenom II X2 550 — ₽ 3278.8AMD PHENOM II X2 555 — ₽ 9323AMD PEN 1967AMD Phenom II X2 B550.6AMD Phenom II X3 B73 — ₽ 4919.3AMD Phenom II X4 805 — ₽ 11412AMD Phenom II X4 810 — ₽ 7607.8AMD Phenom II X4 820 — ₽ 4916AMD Phenom II X4 840 — ₽ 5899.8AMD Phenom II X4 905E — ₽ 13 905E — ₽ 13 910 — ₽ 65559AMD Phenom II X4 910e — ₽ 10297AMD Phenom II X4 920 — ₽ 4393. 9AMD Phenom II X4 925 — ₽ 10493.7AMD Phenom II X4 940 — ₽ 7870.1AMD PHENOM II X4 945 — ₽ 3278.8AMD Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd Phenomd AMD Phenom II X4 960T — RUB 8854 AMD Phenom II X4 965 — RUB 3902.6AMD Phenom II X4 B95 — RUB 4784.8AMD Phenom II X4 B97 — ₽ 5899.8AMD Phenom II X6 1035T — ₽ 12396.5AMD Phenom II X6 1045T — ₽ 11478.3AMD Phenom II X6 1055T — ₽ 12134.2AMD Phenom II X6 1075T — ₽ 17052.7AMD PHENOM II X6 1090T — ₽ 259978.90T — ₽ 259978.90T ₽ 13117.3AMD Phenom X3 8550 — ₽ 11147AMD RYZEN 3 1200 — ₽ 6230.4AMD RYZEN 3 1300X — ₽ 8198.1AMD RYZEN 3 2200G — ₽ 6427.2AMD RYZEN 3 3100 — ₽ 5903.1AMD RYZEN 3 3200G — ₽ 6493.4AMD RYZEN 3300 — AMD Ryzen 5 1400 — $ 8789.1AMD Ryzen 5 1500X — $ 9503.3AMD Ryzen 5 1600 — $ 10165.8AMD Ryzen 5 1600X — $ 11701.3837.8AMD RYZEN 5 2600X — ₽ 13773.2AMD RYZEN 5 3400G — ₽ 9837.8AMD RYZEN 5 3500 — ₽ 9707.3AMD RYZEN 5 3500X — ₽ 10527.2AMD RYZEN 5 3600 — ₽ 13052.4AMD RYZEN 5 3600X — ₽ 16331. AMD RYZEN 5 5600X — ₽ 19611.4AMD RYZEN 7 1700 — ₽ 12461.4AMD RYZEN 7 1700X — ₽ 13117.3AMD RYZEN 7 1800X — ₽ 16396.8AMD RYZEN 7 2700 — ₽ 16347AMD RYZEN 7 2700X — ₽ 20004.3AMD RYZEN 7, 3700X — ₽ ₽ ₽ ¦ 3800X — RUB 26170.4AMD Ryzen 7 5700X — RUB 19676.3AMD Ryzen 7 5800X — RUB 26170.4AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D — RUB 29514.8AMD Ryzen 9 3900X — ₽ 32729.4AMD Ryzen 9 3950X — ₽ 49192.5AMD Ryzen 9 5900X — ₽ 32729.4AMD Ryzen 9 5950X — ₽ 46568.9AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X — ₽ 22955.8AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X — ₽ 27547.1AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X — ₽ 44600.5 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X — ₽ 59030.3AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX — ₽ 112814.1Intel Core i3-10100 — ₽ 8002Intel Core i3-10300 — ₽ 9379.4Intel Core i3-11100 — ₽ 8002Intel Core i3-11300 — ₽ 9379.4Intel Core i3-12100 — ₽ 8002Intel Core i3-12300 — ₽ 9379.4Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz — ₽ 3934.7Intel Core i3-2102 @ 3.10GHz — RUB 3804.2Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz — RUB 5246.5Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.30GHz — RUB 1967.7Intel Core i3-2125 @ 3.30GHz — RUB 13052. 2Intel Core0 @ 3.40GHz — $ 4590.6Intel Core i3-3210 @ 3.20GHz — $ 6558.3Intel Core i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz — $ 2289.1Intel Core i3-3225 @ 3.30GHz — $ 6558.3 Intel Core i3-3245 @ 3.40GHz — $ 5246.5 Intel Core i3-3250 @ 3.50GHz — $ 6230.4 Intel Core i3-4130 @ 3.40GHz — $ 9181.9 3.60GHz — ₽ 9181.9Intel Core i3-4170 @ 3.70GHz — Rs. 9837.8Intel Core i3-4330 @ 3.50GHz — Rs. 11805.5Intel Core i3-4340 @ 3.60GHz — Rs. @ 3.70GHz — $18361.9Intel Core i3-4370 @ 3.80GHz — $29513.5Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93GHz — $1311.8Intel Core i3-540 @ 3.07GHz — $1377.4Intel Core i3-550 @ 3.20GHz — $13 Intel Core i3-560 @ 3.33GHz — RUB 1966.4Intel Core i3-6098P @ 3.60GHz — RUB 8772Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz — RUB 10895.2Intel Core i3-6300 @ 3.80GHz — RUB 9Intel Core i3-7320 @ 3.90GHz Intel Core i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz — RUB 8526 i3-9100F @ 3.60GHz — $ 6886.3Intel Core i3-9320 @ 3.70GHz — $ 10625.6Intel Core i3-9350KF @ 4.00GHz — $ 14691.537.4 Intel Core i5-10600K — $15533.7 Intel Core i5-11400 — $11937.4 Intel Core i5-11600K — $ 17184. 6 ₽ 5246.5Intel Core i5-2310 @ 2.90GHz — ₽ 5245.9Intel Core i5-2320 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 12806.4Intel Core i5-2380P @ 3.10GHz — ₽ 5902.4Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz — ₽ tel5 Core508.9 2400S @ 2.50GHz — $4309.3 Intel Core i5-2405S @ 2.50GHz — $10783Intel Core i5-2450P @ 3.20GHz — $ 5902.4Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz — $6886.3 Intel Core i5-2500S @ 2.70GHz — ₽ 4918.6Intel Core i5-2550K @ 3.40GHz — Rs. 8526Intel Core i5-3330 @ 3.00GHz — Rs. 6558.3Intel Core i5-3330S @ 2.70GHz — Rs. 2.80GHz — $ 9837.8 Intel Core i5-3350P @ 3.10GHz — $ 11149.6 Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz — $ 8394.9 Intel Core i5-3470S @ 2.90GHz — RUB 9188.5 Intel Core i5-3475S @ 2.90GHz — RUB 9412.2 GHz — ₽ 9Intel Core [email protected] @ 3.10GHz — $ 11149.6 Intel Core i5-4440S @ 2.80GHz — $ 30366.2 Intel Core i5-4460 @ 3.20GHz — $ 11149.6 Intel Core i5-4460S @ 2.90GHz — $ 43288.7 Intel Core i5-4570S @ 2.90GHz — RUB 14536.7 Intel Core i5-4590 @ 3.30GHz — RUB 12133.5 Intel Core i5-4590S @ 3.00GHz — RUB 12986.2 3.40GHz — ₽ 16396.8Intel Core i5-4670R @ 3. 00GHz — Rs. 18102.8Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz — Rs. 13117.3Intel Core i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz — Rs. @ 3.10GHz — $ 26235.3 Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz — $ 13117.3 Intel Core i5-6402P @ 2.80GHz — $ 12461.4 Intel Core i5-650 @ 3.20GHz — $ 6558.3 Intel Core i5-655K @ 3.20GHz — RUB 3934.7 Intel Core i5-660 @ 3.33GHz — RUB 3213.9 Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.30GHz — RUB 14429.148.3Intel Core i5-661 @ 3.33GHz — Rs. 6558.3Intel Core i5-670 @ 3.47GHz — Rs. 5902.4Intel Core i5-680 @ 3.60GHz — Rs. @ 2.67GHz — $ 10527.2 Intel Core i5-7500 @ 3.40GHz — $ 13773.2 Intel Core i5-760 @ 2.80GHz — $ 6558.3 Intel Core i5-7600 @ 3.50GHz — $ 15739.6 Intel Core i5-7640X @ 4.00GHz — $16396.8 Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz — $13117.3Intel Core i5-8500 @ 3.00GHz — $15676 GHz — ₽ 24770.1Intel Core i5-9400 @ 2.90GHz — $ 11149.6Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90GHz — $ 11149.6Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.70GHz — $ 18364.5 i7-11700K — $ 26891.9Intel Core i7-12700K — $ 30826.6Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz — $ 9837.2 -2700K @ 3.50GHz — $13117. 3Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz — $11740Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz — $16330.6Intel Core i7-3770S @ 3.10GHz — $13117.3Intel Core i7-3820 13117.3Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz — RUB 26169.1Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz — RUB 52471.3Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.50GHz — RUB 62572.2Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz — RUB 15740.9Intel Core i7-4770K 20tel Core135 3.20GHz — RUB 22470.5 Intel Core i7-4820K @ 3.70GHz — RUB 32794.3 Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz — RUB 26169.1514.8Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3.30GHz — RUB 19676.3Intel Core i7-5930K @ 3.50GHz — RUB 32728.1Intel Core i7-5960X @ 3.00GHz — RUB 50503.6Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3.40GHz — RUB 28444 Intel Core i7-6800K @ 3.40GHz — RUB 27547.1 Intel Core i7-6850K @ 3.60GHz — RUB 36073.8 Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz — RUB 21325.3 Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.20GHz — RUB 23283.8 Intel Core i7-7740X @ 4.30GHz — RUB 22890.3 GHz — ₽ 60998Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.00GHz — Rs. Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.70GHz -930 @ 2.80GHz — $3934.7Intel Core i7-940 @ 2.93GHz — $4637.2Intel Core i7-950 @ 3. 07GHz — $16069.6Intel Core i7-960 @ 3.20GHz — $6558.3Intel Core i7-965 @ 3.20GHz — $ 9181.9Intel Core i7-970 @ 3.20GHz — $ 9837.2Intel Core i7-9700 @ 3.00GHz — $ 21644 Intel Core i7-975 @ 3.33GHz — RUB 11805.5 Intel Core i7-980 @ 3.33GHz — RUB 13116.7 Intel Core i7-980X @ 3.33GHz — RUB 14428.5 ₽ 38698.1Intel Core i9-11900K — ₽ 32007.9Intel Core i9-12900K — ₽ 38697.4Intel Core i9-7900X @ 3.30GHz — ₽

.5Intel Core i9-7920X @ 2.90GHz — $ 71932.6 Intel Core i9-7940X @ 3.10GHz — $ 78191.2 Intel Core i9-7960X @ 2.80GHz — $ 131179.3 i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz — ₽ 54767Intel Core2 Duo E4300 @ 1.80GHz — ₽ 10359.9Intel Core2 Duo E4400 @ 2.00GHz — ₽ 587Intel Core2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20GHz — ₽ 2622.9Intel Core2 Duo E4600 @ 2.40GHz — ₽ 10359.9Intel Core2 Duo E4700 @ 2.60GHz — ₽ 6559Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz — ₽ 852Intel Core2 Duo E6320 @ 1.86GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13GHz — ₽ 1308.5Intel Core2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Core2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHz — ₽ 980.6Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2. 40GHz — ₽ 983.2Intel Core2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66GHz — ₽ 1967Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz — ₽ 849.4Intel Core2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2.53GHz — ₽ 4919.3 Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz — $1311.1Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.80GHz — $1901.5Intel Core2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz — $983.2 Intel Core2 Duo E8300 @ 2.83GHz — RUB 1311.1Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz — RUB 642.1Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz — RUB 2622.9Intel Core2 Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz — ₽ 73788.8Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 98119.4Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz — ₽ 17292.1Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 59621.3 Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 @ 3.20GHz — ₽ 105531Intel Core2 Extreme X9775 @ 3.20GHz — ₽ 118452.3Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz — ₽ 2622.3Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz — ₽ 2950.9Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz — ₽ 1507.9Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.50GHz — RUB 3278.8Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz — RUB 6526.2Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 @ 2. 50GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz — ₽ 2228.7Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz — ₽ 21972.7Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 @ 2.83GHz — ₽ 2295Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz — ₽ 12462.1Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz — ₽ 3213.3Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 4576.9Intel Pentium G2010 @ 2.80GHz — ₽ 2288.4Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.90GHz — ₽ 2155.3Intel Pentium G2030 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 2688.5Intel Pentium G2120 @ 3.10GHz — ₽ 3016.5Intel Pentium G2130 @ 3.20GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Pentium G2140 @ 3.30GHz — ₽ 3278.8Intel Pentium G3220 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 7867.5Intel Pentium G3240 @ 3.10GHz — ₽ 5246.5Intel Pentium G3250 @ 3.20GHz — ₽ 7214.2Intel Pentium G3258 @ 3.20GHz — ₽ 11693.4Intel Pentium G3260 @ 3.30GHz — ₽ 6886.3Intel Pentium G3420 @ 3.20GHz — ₽ 7214.2Intel Pentium G3430 @ 3.30GHz — ₽ 5902.4Intel Pentium G3440 @ 3.30GHz — ₽ 10490.5Intel Pentium G3450 @ 3.40GHz — ₽ 6558.3Intel Pentium G3460 @ 3.50GHz — ₽ 18903Intel Pentium G3470 @ 3.60GHz — ₽ 6840.4Intel Pentium G4400 @ 3.30GHz — ₽ 5246.5Intel Pentium G4500 @ 3. 50GHz — ₽ 5592.2Intel Pentium G4520 @ 3.60GHz — ₽ 7273.3Intel Pentium G4560 @ 3.50GHz — ₽ 6763.6Intel Pentium G4600 @ 3.60GHz — ₽ 6558.3Intel Pentium G4620 @ 3.70GHz — ₽ 6943.4Intel Pentium G640 @ 2.80GHz — ₽ 1639.1Intel Pentium G645 @ 2.90GHz — ₽ 6231.1Intel Pentium G840 @ 2.80GHz — ₽ 2295Intel Pentium G850 @ 2.90GHz — ₽ 1967Intel Pentium G860 @ 3.00GHz — ₽ 1967Intel Pentium G870 @ 3.10GHz — ₽ 6362.2Intel Pentium Gold G5400 @ 3.70GHz — ₽ 8123.3Intel Pentium Gold G5500 @ 3.80GHz — ₽ 6580Intel Pentium Gold G5600 @ 3.90GHz — ₽ 6618

Change Variant To
Select..ASUS HD 6870 DirectCUGIGABYTE HD 6870 OCGIGABYTE HD 6870 SOCHIS HD 6870 Fan TurboHIS HD 6870 IceQ X TurboHIS HD 6870 IceQ X Turbo XMSI HD 6870 HawkMSI HD 6870 OC 2 GBMSI HD 6870 Twin Frozr II OCSapphire HD 6870 FX7Sapphire HD3 EditionSapphire HD 6870 FX70Sapphire HD3 EditionSapphire HD 6870 6870 ToxicSapphire HD 6870 Vapor-XVTX3D HD 6870 V2XFX Double D HD 6870 2 GBXFX Double D HD 6870 XXX Edition Yeston HD 6870 Game Master

Desired tuning quality
Select. .Ultra quality — MSAA, HBAO, and advanced shadowsHigh quality — No MSAA, HBAO, or advanced shadowsMedium qualityLow quality

AMD Radeon HD 6850 vs.
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon HD 6850 and ATI Radeon HD 5870 video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames) /s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T -Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.

0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score, Geekbench — OpenCL.

AMD Radeon HD 6850

versus

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Benefits

Reasons to choose AMD Radeon HD 6850

Newer graphics card, release dates difference 1 year(s) 0 month(s)
less power consumption Watt vs 188 Watt
Approximately 5% increase in PassMark — G2D Mark benchmark: 425 vs 403
Approximately 1% increase in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) performance: 3708 vs 3671
Performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) about 1% higher: 3708 vs 3671

Release date	21 October 2010 vs 23 September 2009
Power Demand (TDP)	127 Watt vs 188 Watt
PassMark — G2D Mark	425 vs 403
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)	3708 vs 3671
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)	3708 vs 3671

Reasons to choose ATI Radeon HD 5870

83% faster texturing speed: 68.0 GTexel / s vs 37.2 GTexel / s
67% more shader processors: 1600 vs 960
83% more floating point performance: 2,720.0 gflops vs 1,488.0 gflops
About 14% more performance in PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark: 22867 vs 1

performance about 44% more in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) benchmark: 18.787 vs 13.033
Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) is about 41% more: 1336.393 vs 946.933
About 33% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.773 vs 1.333
About 33% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) : 43. 496 vs 32.609
Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 76% more: 245.813 vs 139.45
Performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark: about 541 more vs 3489
Performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) about 30% higher: 4541 vs 3489

Texturing speed	68.0 GTexel/s vs 37.2 GTexel/s
Number of shaders	1600 vs 960
Floating point performance	2,720.0 gflops vs 1,488.0 gflops
PassMark — G3D Mark	2267 vs 1983
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)	18.787 vs 13.033
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	1336.393 vs 946.933
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)	1.773 vs 1.333
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)	43.496 vs 32.609
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	245.813 vs 139.45
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	4541 vs 3489
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)	3349 vs 3348
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	4541 vs 3489
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps)	3349 vs 3348

Benchmark comparison

GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 6850
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5870

PassMark — G3D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

PassMark — G2D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

13. 033

18.787

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

946.933

1336.393

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

32.609

43.496

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

139.45

245.813

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

Name	AMD Radeon HD 6850	ATI Radeon HD 5870
PassMark — G3D Mark	1983	2267
PassMark — G2D Mark	425	403
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)	13.033	18.787
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	946.933	1336.393
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)	1.333	1.773
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)	32.609	43.496
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	139.45	245.813
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	3489	4541
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames)	3708	3671
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames)	3348	3349
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	3489	4541
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)	3708	3671
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps)	3348	3349
3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score	0	0
Geekbench — OpenCL		1531

Feature comparison

	AMD Radeon HD 6850	ATI Radeon HD 5870
Architecture	TeraScale 2	TeraScale 2
Codename	Barts	Cypress
Design	AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series	ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series
Issue date	October 21, 2010	23 September 2009
Price at first issue date	$179	$399
Place in the rating	712	662
Price now	$99. 99
Type	Desktop	Desktop
Price/performance ratio (0-100)	28.63
Floating point performance	1,488.0 gflops	2,720.0 gflops
Process	40 nm	40nm
Number of shaders	960	1600
Texturing Speed	37.2 GTexel/s	68.0 GTexel/s
Power consumption (TDP)	127 Watt	188 Watt
Number of transistors	1,700 million	2,154 million
Boost Core Clock		850MHz
Core frequency		850MHz
Video connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
DisplayPort support
Support Dual-link DVI
Eyefinity
VGA
HDMI
Tire	AGP
Interface	PCIe 2. Навигация по записям Previous: 8700K vs 3900x: Ryzen 9 3900X vs Core i7-8700K [15-Benchmark Showdown] Next: Rx 580 watt consumption: Reddit — Dive into anything Найти: Свежие записи Intel pentium dual core 6000: Please click the green button to continue. Rivatuner osd not display in league of legends: Reddit — Dive into anything 980 ti wattage: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Specs A6-5200M: AMD A-Series A6-5200 Notebook Processor G502 lightspeed review: Logitech G502 LIGHTSPEED Review — RTINGS.com Свежие комментарии Архивы Октябрь 2023 Сентябрь 2023 Август 2023 Июль 2023 Июнь 2023 Май 2023 Апрель 2023 Март 2023 Февраль 2023 Январь 2023 Декабрь 2022 Ноябрь 2022 Октябрь 2022 Сентябрь 2022 Август 2022 Июль 2022 Июнь 2022 Май 2022 Апрель 2022 Март 2022 Февраль 2022 Январь 2022 Декабрь 2021 Ноябрь 2021 Октябрь 2021 Сентябрь 2021 Август 2021 Июль 2021 Июнь 2021 Май 2021 Апрель 2021 Март 2021 Февраль 2021 Январь 2021 Декабрь 2020 Ноябрь 2020 Октябрь 2020 Сентябрь 2020 Август 2020 Июль 2020 Июнь 2020 Май 2020 Апрель 2020 Март 2020 Февраль 2020 Январь 2020 Декабрь 2019 Рубрики Amd Benchmark Cpu Gpu Miscellaneous Monitor Playstation Radeon Windows Xbox Мета Войти Лента записей Лента комментариев WordPress.org 2024 © All rights reserved