Hardware Canucks - 6970 performance just below GTX 580

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)

- Rumor Mill (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/rumor-mill/)

- - 6970 performance just below GTX 580 (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/rumor-mill/38083-6970-performance-just-below-gtx-580-a.html)

6970 performance just below GTX 580

Quote:

"We believe that the [Radeon HD 6900] will be the No. 1 on the market and no one [will be able to] compete with AMD. We believe that the performance of the new-generation Radeon HD 6900 will be 30% to 50% higher compared to the Radeon HD 6800-series," said Eliane Liao, a spokeswoman for Power Color, in an interview with Donanim Haber web-site.
...
In case Ms. Liao is correct and the Radeon HD 6970 - the fastest single-chip Cayman-based graphics card - will be about 40% faster than the Radeon HD 6870 on average, the novelty will deliver performance comparable or higher than the GeForce HD 480, but will not be able to compete head-to-head against Nvidia Corp.'s new flagship offering, the GeForce GTX 580.

Source:
ATI Radeon HD 6970 "Cayman" to Provide Significant Performance Boost - Graphics Cards Maker - X-bit labs
News: AMD Radeon HD 6900 - Powercolor verrät die vermutliche Leistung | Grafikkarten | News | Hardware | GameStar.de
PowerColor ile Radeon HD 6900 serisinin performans

Sorry, but if there's no benchmarks, it's just FUD. That's pure speculation based on what one PR person said.

There is a reason this is in the rumors section. You don't usually hear PR people underestimate things. If anything I'd expect the 6970 to be slower than what she said.

what i want to know is the final specs with regard to shader numbers. there you can draw conclusions with a quick calculation..or two...

how? well, its not that straight forward, but compare 6850 to 6870 at same clock speeds, and see what the difference the extra juice under the hood makes under a certain scenario.

if that guy says 30% better than 6870, i guess add 30% to the underhood, thus...hmmm...1456 shaders? doesnt seem enough for a high end card...lets try 50% ..1680? more like it.

im expecting anywhere around the 1600 shader mark. or more.

No point getting too excited over the PR stuff. Like SugarJ says, until we see some proper benchmarks we'll never know.

I dunno why AMD had to go and Screw up their numbering system again though.... In what universe does logic dictate that a 6870 should perform worse than a 5870, 5970 be dual chip but 6970 be single and 6990 be dual etc.etc.etc.

I've had better luck with ATI cards than Nvidia for Longevity and can't believe how power hungry the higher 4XX cards are, but am getting bored with weird naming schemes and endless driver updates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _dangtx_ (Post 451542)

if that guy says 30% better than 6870, i guess add 30% to the underhood, thus...hmmm...1456 shaders? doesnt seem enough for a high end card...lets try 50% ..1680? more like it.

im expecting anywhere around the 1600 shader mark. or more.

Actual rendering horsepower in relation to SP counts does not scale in a linear fashion.

yup, that's why i like clock for clock comparisons :)

Believe me if AMD where to make a card as powerful as the 580 it would use just as much power. It takes a lot of juice to put out as many frames as possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by belgolas (Post 451611)

Believe me if AMD where to make a card as powerful as the 580 it would use just as much power. It takes a lot of juice to put out as many frames as possible.

5870 is equal to or greater than GTX 470, yet uses less power. Performance per watt AMD has the win, no matter how you look at it.

^^^ C'mon guy lets not turn this into a "King of the Hill" - Red vs Green Flame War.....in all fairness Iphakrateous the 5970 is more on par with the 480 / 580 and we all know the Power Consumption of that Card. I think the point Belgolas was trying to make is that any Card with the poop of the 580 is going to have high power consumption regardless.