HD 6870 1GB vs. HD 6950 1GB - which one is worth the money

[Leeky]

Indeed....sort of.
HD 6870 > HD 6950 1GB or 2GB (no difference for single monitor) > HD 6870 CFX > HD 6950 CFX (again no difference for single monitor).

vRAM dependancy is more noticeable at higher resolutions (across 2+ screens) and/or when very high levels of antialiasing are involved. You would also find that to make a discernable difference in framerate, you would need to crank the AA past a feasible level (i.e. image quality gain is minimal and framerate drop makes gameplay marginal). Games in general respond better to increased shader count and increased memory, core (and hence shader) frequency.

Thanks for the clarification boss.

And a few more facts learned in the process.. Your like a walking IT dictionary dude!

The GTX 460 will not max every game try pulling that off with BFBC 2 ASF max and AA max @ 1080P don't think so sir.

Totally agree.. I was actually very disappointed with my GTX460 1GB GS.

 

[klepto12]

Don't get me wrong i have a gtx 470 with a very nice overclock but the gtx 460 is basically a gtx 285 with higher clock frequencies. you need a little step up from the gtx 460 and that's where the AMD 6870 comes in and even the 6950 there all great video cards that get there job done the 6870 and 6950 being the better of them.

 

[Atham]

6950 2GB might go in CF. Maybe I will get one now and the other one for Christmas or something. That would kick any game in the ****.

Isn't there a benchmark for this vs the 6990 on the Techspot forums? If not, would the 6950 2GB in CF compare well with the 6990?

 

[klepto12]

it will be very similar to the 6990 since its basically 2 6950 in crossfire.

 

[dividebyzero]

Thanks for the clarification boss.

In the interest of completeness, I'd add that this is a snapshot of gaming today. Most games are developed and designed to run on the common (for now) 256Mb memory bus and 1GB of vRAM. Skip back 2-3 years and for the most part, 512MB was the standard for enthusiast cards, and 1GB was seen as excess to a degree. As the base level of the cards improves, so generally does the entry level of the games- a 512MB frame buffer in modern games usually gets found out quite quickly in 2011...so maybe, 1+GB vRAM becomes de rigueur in a couple of years (as does a wider memory bus 320, 384, 448, 512Mb etc.), but at the moment, the number of games that become vRAM constrained before they become CPU/GPU limited isn't that significant...if it were, then the 3GB versions of cards such as the GT 545 would be flying off the shelves.

 

[Atham]

So which card is better out of these two:

• MSI R6950 Twin Frozr III Power Edition OC
• Sapphire HD 6950 2GB dirt 3 edition

Which one is "worth the money more"

 

[Leeky]

I'd go with the MSI over the Sapphire, but isn't it the same two (out of the 3) you previously asked about? In which case, the answer would be the same as last time.

 

[Atham]

Why would you go with the MSI? It says that it sends the warm air straight into the case or something, through those fans. My case has no fans.

 

[klepto12]

sapphire makes great cards as does msi its really up to you we can't decide for you.

 

[Atham]

I wish you could decide for me! The MSI one's power consumption when on full load is a bit high.
Can't decide.

 

[klepto12]

either of the cards you posted will spill hot air into the system so it really comes down to which card you like i prefer MSi since i run an msi motherboard and video card.

 

[Leeky]

I prefer the MSI as it looks nicer, has a extra display connector, and is clocked higher.

 

[Atham]

Okay, so the MSI one it is. Know I have to wait 'til my birthday or something.

Thank you all for your suggestions. If you have anymore suggestions PM me. Thread can be locked.