| AMD Radeon HD 6870 Barts Video Card |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Video Cards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Written by Olin Coles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Friday, 22 October 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AMD Radeon HD 6870 Video Card ReviewFeaturing a reconfigured Cypress GPU, the Barts architecture delivers AMD's HD3D technology with better performance and price.The Radeon HD 6870 is AMD's latest DirectX-11 video card, and uses an updated Cypress back-end to offer 'Barts' GPU architecture. Built to deliver improved performance to the value-hungry mainstream gaming market, the $180 AMD Radeon HD 6850 and $240 Radeon HD 6870 video cards supplement their 5800-series counterparts. The most notable new feature is Bart's 3rd-generation Unified Video Decoder with added support for DisplayPort 1.2. AMD's UVD3 accelerates multimedia playback and transcoding, while introducing AMD HD3D stereoscopic technology with multi-view CODEC (MVC) support for playing 3D Blu-ray over HDMI 1.4a. In this article Benchmark Reviews tests the AMD Radeon HD 6870 video card, a DirectX-11 graphics solution that doesn't really have direct competition at the $240 price point but costs less and still performs better than the Radeon HD 5850. Graphical frame rate performance is tested using the most demanding PC video game titles and benchmark software available. DirectX-10 favorites such as Crysis Warhead, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and PCMark Vantage are all included, in addition to DX11 titles such as Aliens vs Predator, BattleForge, Lost Planet 2, Mafia II, Metro 2033, and the Unigine Heaven 2.1 benchmark.
According to information presented at the AMD Editor's Day event in Los Angeles on October 14th, approximately 33% of all AMD graphics solutions are sold for the desktop platform, with over 25-million AMD Radeon DirectX-11 compatible products shipped to date. In many ways this data reinforces my position in the recent Desktop Platform article series, but it could also mean that manufacturers are listening ever more intently to the changing needs of their remaining consumer base. This doesn't always leave room for innovation, but AMD manages to introduce emerging technologies nevertheless. For those who have been patiently waiting for news on ATI Stream technology, it's been re-tasked as AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing, or APP technology. AMD Eye-Definition represents their commitment to PC gamers, PC game developers, and the PC gaming industry. Through Eye-Definition AMD delivers their "Gamers Manifesto", which they assert will enable the best experience possible regardless of hardware manufacturer. Visitors have proven they're impatient and want everything up front and in small doses. Keeping in that spirit, I'll reveal that AMD Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870 video cards offer improved PC gaming performance while also including innovative new technologies at an affordable price point. This has become the repetitive central thesis with each new graphics card launch, running opposite the excitement manufacturers often build up. Marketing departments do their best to tout these fresh changes, all the while knowing that the more things change the more they remain the same. And so it begins once again: consumers are given more for less, and the AMD Radeon HD 6850/6870 affords them this opportunity. Thankfully, it's the glory of these details that makes a new product launch much more interesting. Benchmark Reviews has previously gone to great lengths to provide comprehensive details within each of the video card project we've published, however these overly verbose articles are going to be modified the modern online audience. In each review, we test a large selection of comparison products and provide more than twenty pages of introspective details. We enjoy doing it, mostly, and feel that our more experienced readers deserve the added illustration to fully explore newly revealed technology. Beginning with this project, the topic is delivered in three separate portions: this video card review, a separate editorial piece on AMD HD3D stereocopic technology, along with AMD's own whitepaper documents on their new display and video technologies (Adobe PDF). Now everyone should be happy, and the world can be a better place.
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by AMD. Radeon HD 6870 Closer LookFrom the neck down, AMDs Radeon HD 6870 video card looks very similar to the previous generation of 5800-series products. In fact, the only discernable difference appears on the connection header panel, which adds an additional DisplayPort monitor output (if a vendor implements this feature) and the closed rear section.
While there are still two digital DVI ports available, only one of them is dual-link to support AMD HD3D while the other is reduced to single-link. AMD's HD3D technology currently supports only one 3D display, with plans for multi-monitor 3D available in future products.
The Radeon HD 6870 measures 9.75" inches long, by 1.25" tall and 3.75" wide. This is slightly longer than the Radeon HD 5850 model, which also occupied two expansion bay slots, but 1.25" shorter than the Radeon HD 5870. For reference, the Radeon HD 6850 measures 9.0" inches long, by 1.25" tall and 3.75" wide.
One particular item I've been hoping for and have failed to discover, is a focused fan orientation. This design slightly angles the blower fan to improve the forward force of air and creates a small separation between adjacent video cards. CrossFire configurations could benefit by such a design, as the competition has done to tame their much warmer products for several generations now.
Similarly, the Radeon HD 6870 requires two 6-pin PCI-Express power connections. AMD suggests that the TDP power demands are less than 151 watts for the Barts GPU.
One obvious difference between the 5800-series and the Radeon HD 6870 is the lack of intake vents from beside the blower fan. Some readers might recall the 'Bat mobile' appearance of the last generation, which has been replaced with a less-exciting look. Radeon Features
AMD Barts GPU Details
6850/6870 Specifications
VGA Testing MethodologyThe Microsoft DirectX-11 graphics API is native to the Microsoft Windows 7 Operating System, and will be the primary O/S for our test platform. DX11 is also available as a Microsoft Update for the Windows Vista O/S, so our test results apply to both versions of the Operating System. The majority of benchmark tests used in this article are comparative to DX11 performance, however some high-demand DX10 tests have also been included. According to the Steam Hardware Survey published for the month ending September 2010, the most popular gaming resolution is 1280x1024 (17-19" standard LCD monitors). However, because this 1.31MP resolution is considered 'low' by most standards, our benchmark performance tests concentrate on higher-demand resolutions: 1.76MP 1680x1050 (22-24" widescreen LCD) and 2.30MP 1920x1200 (24-28" widescreen LCD monitors). These resolutions are more likely to be used by high-end graphics solutions, such as those tested in this article. In each benchmark test there is one 'cache run' that is conducted, followed by five recorded test runs. Results are collected at each setting with the highest and lowest results discarded. The remaining three results are averaged, and displayed in the performance charts on the following pages. A combination of synthetic and video game benchmark tests have been used in this article to illustrate relative performance among graphics solutions. Our benchmark frame rate results are not intended to represent real-world graphics performance, as this experience would change based on supporting hardware and the perception of individuals playing the video game. Cost to Performance Ratio
For this article Benchmark Reviews has included cost per FPS for graphics performance results. An average of the five least expensive product prices are calculated, which do not consider tax, freight, promotional offers, or rebates into the cost. All prices reflect product series components, and do not represent any specific manufacturer, model, or brand. The median retail prices for each product were obtained from NewEgg.com and current as of 20-October-2010:
Intel X58-Express Test System
DirectX-10 Benchmark Applications
DirectX-11 Benchmark Applications
Video Card Test Products
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX10: Crysis Warhead
Crysis Warhead is an expansion pack based on the original Crysis video game. Crysis Warhead is based in the future, where an ancient alien spacecraft has been discovered beneath the Earth on an island east of the Philippines. Crysis Warhead uses a refined version of the CryENGINE2 graphics engine. Like Crysis, Warhead uses the Microsoft Direct3D 10 (DirectX-10) API for graphics rendering.
Benchmark Reviews uses the HOC Crysis Warhead benchmark tool to test and measure graphic performance using the Airfield 1 demo scene. This short test places a high amount of stress on a graphics card because of detailed terrain and textures, but also for the test settings used. Using the DirectX-10 test with Very High Quality settings, the Airfield 1 demo scene receives 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering to create maximum graphic load and separate the products according to their performance.
Using the highest quality DirectX-10 settings with 4x AA and 16x AF, only the most powerful graphics cards are expected to perform well in our Crysis Warhead benchmark tests. DirectX-11 extensions are not supported in Crysis: Warhead, and SSAO is not an available option.
- Crysis Warhead v1.1 with HOC Benchmark
- Extreme Settings: (Very High Quality, 4x AA, 16x AF, Airfield Demo)
Crysis Warhead Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: Crysis Warhead (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $7.26 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $6.92 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $8.46 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $8.28 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $8.39 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $9.70 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $8.59 per FPS
Test Summary: The CryENGINE2 graphics engine used in Crysis Warhead allows the AMD Radeon HD 6850 to match up with the 1GB GeForce GTX 460, and seriously outperform its price point ($6.92 vs $8.46). Surprisingly, the Radeon HD 6870 soars past the Radeon HD 5850, and even catches up to the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW in terms of performance and value in Crysis.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX11: Aliens vs Predator
Aliens vs. Predator is a science fiction first-person shooter video game, developed by Rebellion, and published by Sega for Microsoft Windows, Sony PlayStation 3, and Microsoft Xbox 360. Aliens vs. Predator utilizes Rebellion's proprietary Asura game engine, which had previously found its way into Call of Duty: World at War and Rogue Warrior. The self-contained benchmark tool is used for our DirectX-11 tests, which push the Asura game engine to its limit.
In our benchmark tests, Aliens vs. Predator was configured to use the highest quality settings with 4x AA and 16x AF. DirectX-11 features such as Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) and tessellation have also been included, along with advanced shadows.
- Aliens vs Predator
- Extreme Settings: (Very High Quality, 4x AA, 16x AF, SSAO, Tessellation, Advanced Shadows)
Aliens vs Predator Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: Aliens vs Predator (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $6.71 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $6.41 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $7.67 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $7.27 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $7.54 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $7.92 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $8.13 per FPS
Test Summary: Aliens vs Predator may use the well-known Asura game engine, but DirectX-11 extensions push the graphical demand on this game to levels eclipsed only by Mafia-II or Metro 2033 (and possibly equivalent to DX10 Crysis). With an unbiased appetite for raw DirectX-11 graphics performance, Aliens vs Predator accepts AMD and NVIDIA products as equal contenders. When high-strain SSAO is called into action, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 compares to the 1GB GeForce GTX 460 at stock speeds, while the Radeon HD 6870 performs identically to the more expensive Radeon HD 5850 and also matches up to the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW video card.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX11: Battlefield Bad Company 2
The Battlefield franchise has been known to demand a lot from PC graphics hardware. DICE (Digital Illusions CE) has incorporated their Frostbite-1.5 game engine with Destruction-2.0 feature set with Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 features destructible environments using Frostbit Destruction-2.0, and adds gravitational bullet drop effects for projectiles shot from weapons at a long distance. The Frostbite-1.5 game engine used on Battlefield: Bad Company 2 consists of DirectX-10 primary graphics, with improved performance and softened dynamic shadows added for DirectX-11 users.
At the time Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was published, DICE was also working on the Frostbite-2.0 game engine. This upcoming engine will include native support for DirectX-10.1 and DirectX-11, as well as parallelized processing support for 2-8 parallel threads. This will improve performance for users with an Intel Core-i7 processor. Unfortunately, the Extreme Edition Intel Core i7-980X six-core CPU with twelve threads will not see full utilization.
In our benchmark tests of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, the first three minutes of action in the single-player raft night scene are captured with FRAPS. Relative to the online multiplayer action, these frame rate results are nearly identical to daytime maps with the same video settings. The Frostbite-1.5 game engine in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 appears to equalize our test set of video cards, and despite AMD's sponsorship of the game it still plays well using any brand of graphics card.
- BattleField: Bad Company 2
- Extreme Settings: (Highest Quality, HBAO, 8x AA, 16x AF, 180s Fraps Single-Player Intro Scene)
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $3.46 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $3.21 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $4.04 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $3.72 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $3.47 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $4.23 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $3.93 per FPS
Test Summary: Our extreme-quality tests use maximum settings for Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and so users who dial down the anti-aliasing or use a lower resolution will have much better frame rate performance. All of these video cards produced playable frame rates up to 1920x1200, where the AMD Radeon HD 6850 really began to pull ahead of both the 768MB and 1GB GeForce GTX 460 video cards. The similarly priced EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW outperforms the Radeon HD 6870 in both frame rate and value (also matches GTX 470), but then the 6870 clears past the Radeon HD 5850 without much trouble.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX11: BattleForge
BattleForge is free Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) developed by EA Phenomic with DirectX-11 graphics capability. Combining strategic cooperative battles, the community of MMO games, and trading card gameplay, BattleForge players are free to put their creatures, spells and buildings into combination's they see fit. These units are represented in the form of digital cards from which you build your own unique army. With minimal resources and a custom tech tree to manage, the gameplay is unbelievably accessible and action-packed.
Benchmark Reviews uses the built-in graphics benchmark to measure performance in BattleForge, using Very High quality settings (detail) and 8x anti-aliasing with auto multi-threading enabled. BattleForge is one of the first titles to take advantage of DirectX-11 in Windows 7, and offers a very robust color range throughout the busy battleground landscape. The charted results illustrate how performance measures-up between video cards when Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) is enabled.
- BattleForge v1.2
- Extreme Settings: (Very High Quality, 8x Anti-Aliasing, Auto Multi-Thread)
BattleForge Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: BattleForge (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $4.76 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $5.10 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $5.71 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $5.93 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $5.34 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $6.74 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $5.41 per FPS
Test Summary: With BattleForge graphics settings turned to their highest quality, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 is reduced to competing with the less-expensive 768MB GeForce GTX 460 and loses the cost per frame value. Alternatively, the Radeon HD 6870 share a relatively similar cost per frame value with the 1GB EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW, but gets trampled in terms of frame rate performance. Compared with the more-expensive Radeon HD 5850, the 6870 performs about the same and offers a much better value.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX9+SSAO: Mafia II
Mafia II is a single-player third-person action shooter developed by 2K Czech for 2K Games, and is the sequel to Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven released in 2002. Players assume the life of World War II veteran Vito Scaletta, the son of small Sicilian family who immigrates to Empire Bay. Growing up in the slums of Empire Bay teaches Vito about crime, and he's forced to join the Army in lieu of jail time. After sustaining wounds in the war, Vito returns home and quickly finds trouble as he again partners with his childhood friend and accomplice Joe Barbaro. Vito and Joe combine their passion for fame and riches to take on the city, and work their way to the top in Mafia II.
Mafia II is a DirectX-9/10/11 compatible PC video game built on 2K Czech's proprietary Illusion game engine, which succeeds the LS3D game engine used in Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven. In our Mafia-II Video Game Performance article, Benchmark Reviews explored characters and gameplay while illustrating how well this game delivers APEX PhysX features on both AMD and NVIDIA products. Thanks to DirectX-11 APEX PhysX extensions that can be processed by the system's CPU, Mafia II offers gamers is equal access to high-detail physics regardless of video card manufacturer.
- Mafia II
- Extreme Settings: (Antialiasing, 16x AF, High Shadow Quality, High Detail, High Geometry, Ambient Occlusion)
Mafia II Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: Mafia II (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $3.80 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $3.73 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $4.70 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $4.20 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $4.55 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $4.81 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $5.21 per FPS
Test Summary: Of all the video games presently available for DirectX-11 platforms, Mafia II is by far one of the most detailed and feature-rich. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 outperforms both the 768MB and 1GB versions of the GeForce GTX 460, and offers the best value of the entire group. The Radeon HD 6870 also performs extremely well on Mafia II, and surpasses both the EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW and Radeon HD 5850 video cards in both performance and value. It seems that Mafia II performs extremely well for AMD Barts GPUs when APEX PhysX effects are disabled, however these effects really help make the game more realistic.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX11: Metro 2033
Metro 2033 is an action-oriented video game with a combination of survival horror, and first-person shooter elements. The game is based on the novel Metro 2033 by Russian author Dmitry Glukhovsky. It was developed by 4A Games in Ukraine and released in March 2010 for Microsoft Windows. Metro 2033 uses the 4A game engine, developed by 4A Games. The 4A Engine supports DirectX-9, 10, and 11, along with NVIDIA PhysX and GeForce 3D Vision.
The 4A engine is multi-threaded in such that only PhysX had a dedicated thread, and uses a task-model without any pre-conditioning or pre/post-synchronizing, allowing tasks to be done in parallel. The 4A game engine can utilize a deferred shading pipeline, and uses tessellation for greater performance, and also has HDR (complete with blue shift), real-time reflections, color correction, film grain and noise, and the engine also supports multi-core rendering.
Metro 2033 featured superior volumetric fog, double PhysX precision, object blur, sub-surface scattering for skin shaders, parallax mapping on all surfaces and greater geometric detail with a less aggressive LODs. Using PhysX, the engine uses many features such as destructible environments, and cloth and water simulations, and particles that can be fully affected by environmental factors.
NVIDIA has been diligently working to promote Metro 2033, and for good reason: it is the most demanding PC video game we've ever tested. When their flagship GeForce GTX 480 struggles to produce 27 FPS with DirectX-11 anti-aliasing turned two to its lowest setting, you know that only the strongest graphics processors will generate playable frame rates. All of our tests enable Advanced Depth of Field and Tessellation effects, but disable advanced PhysX options.
- Metro 2033
- Extreme Settings: (Very-High Quality, AAA, 16x AF, Advanced DoF, Tessellation, 180s Fraps Chase Scene)
Metro 2033 Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: Metro 2033 (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $8.88 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $7.20 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $10.68 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $8.42 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $9.89 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $11.29 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $10.21 per FPS
Test Summary: There's no way to ignore the graphical demands of Metro 2033, and only the most powerful GPUs will deliver a decent visual experience unless you're willing to seriously tone-down the settings. Even when these settings are turned down, Metro 2033 is a power-hungry video game that crushes frame rates. Although Metro 2033 offers advanced PhysX options, these settings are available only to NVIDIA GeForce video cards and disabled for our tests.
As demonstrated in Mafia II, the AMD Barts GPU truly thrives on the newest DirectX-11 video games - so long as PhysX is disabled. With all settings being equal, the Radeon HD 6850 outperforms both the 768MB and 1GB versions of the GeForce GTX 460 as well as the Radeon HD 5850 that's been competing with the 6870. As for the Radeon HD 6870, it surpassed the factory-overclocked EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW video card as well as the much more expensive GeForce GTX 470.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
DX11: Unigine Heaven 2.1
The Unigine "Heaven 2.1" benchmark is a free publicly available tool that grants the power to unleash the graphics capabilities in DirectX-11 for Windows 7 or updated Vista Operating Systems. 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 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.
The distinguishing feature in the Unigine Heaven benchmark is a hardware tessellation that is a scalable technology aimed for automatic subdivision of polygons into smaller and finer pieces, so that developers can gain a more detailed look of their games almost free of charge in terms of performance. Thanks to this procedure, the elaboration of the rendered image finally approaches the boundary of veridical visual perception: the virtual reality transcends conjured by your hand.
Although Heaven-2.1 was recently released and used for our DirectX-11 tests, the benchmark results were extremely close to those obtained with Heaven-1.0 testing. Since only DX11-compliant video cards will properly test on the Heaven benchmark, only those products that meet the requirements have been included.
- Unigine Heaven Benchmark 2.1
- Extreme Settings: (High Quality, Normal Tessellation, 16x AF, 4x AA
Heaven 2.1 Extreme Quality Settings
Cost Analysis: Unigine Heaven (1680x1050)
- $167 GeForce GTX 460 768MB costs $6.12 per FPS
- $180 Radeon HD 6850 1GB costs $7.03 per FPS
- $220 GeForce GTX 460 1GB costs $7.59 per FPS
- $240 Radeon HD 6870 1GB costs $7.95 per FPS
- $260 EVGA GTX 460 FTW 1GB costs $7.26 per FPS
- $262 Radeon HD 5850 1GB costs $10.08 per FPS
- $292 GeForce GTX 470 1GB costs $8.23 per FPS
Test Summary: Reviewers like to say "Nobody plays a benchmark", but it seems evident that we can expect to see great things come from a graphics tool this detailed. For now though, those details only come by way of DirectX-11 video cards. Our 'extreme' test results with the Unigine Heaven benchmark tool appear to deliver fair comparisons of DirectX-11 graphics cards when set to higher quality levels. Heaven 2.1 is a very demanding benchmark tool, which is why tessellation is set to normal levels and antialiasing is reduced to 4x.
Unigine's Heaven 2.1 benchmark delivered performance results similar to 3dMark Vantage, Aliens vs Predator, and BattleForge. Using Heaven 2.1, the Radeon HD 6850 trails behind the 768MB GeForce GTX 460 and really fails to match the value. The Radeon HD 6870 surpasses the 1GB GeForce GTX 460 by a small margin, costing it more the value rating, but outperforms the older Radeon HD 5850 and offers a much better value. In this test, the GeForce GTX 470 was actually outmatched by the less-expensive EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW video card.
| Graphics Card | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon 6850 | GeForce GTX460 | Radeon HD6870 | EVGA GTX460 FTW | Radeon HD5850 | GeForce GTX470 |
| GPU Cores | 336 | 960 | 336 | 1120 | 336 | 1440 | 448 |
| Core Clock (MHz) | 675 | 775 | 675 | 900 | 850 | 725 | 608 |
| Shader Clock (MHz) | 1350 | N/A | 1350 | N/A | 1700 | N/A | 1215 |
| Memory Clock (MHz) | 900 | 1000 | 900 | 1050 | 1000 | 1000 | 837 |
| Memory Amount | 768MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1024MB GDDR5 | 1280MB GDDR5 |
| Memory Interface | 192-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 320-bit |
AMD Barts GPU Overclocking
AMD's Cypress GPU was well-known for accepting massively overclocked speeds. The new Barts GPU is based on Cypress, and should in theory yield a similar overclock. This presumes that AMD hasn't already stretched the Radeon HD 6850 and 6870 as far as they could go. For this project, we used MSI's free Afterburner program to overclock the video cards.
The MSI Afterburner "Graphics Card Performance Booster" application offers several adjustable variables to reach the desired overclock. Afterburner allows for voltage changes (increase/decrease), but this project aimed to stretch the AMD Barts GPU as far as it could go without any extra power applied. Beginning with the maximum stable GPU clock speed, I slowly increased the settings until I began to see tearing or the driver crashed. Once I reached the most stable speeds for both GPU and GDDR5, I put the video card back into action with high-demand video games for additional benchmark tests. Here are the results:
AMD Radeon HD 6850 Overclocking Results
| Test Item | Standard | Overclocked | Improvement | |||
| Radeon HD 6850 | 775/1000 MHz | 850/1075 MHz | 75/75 MHz | |||
| DX10: Crysis Warhead | 22 | 24 | 9.0% | |||
| DX11: Aliens vs Predator | 23.1 | 25.0 | 8.2% | |||
| DX11: BattleForge | 30.1 | 32.4 | 7.6% | |||
| DX11: Heaven 2.1 | 22.5 | 23.6 | 4.9% | |||
| DX11: Lost Planet 2 | 25.5 | 28.1 | 10.2% | |||
| DX9+SSAO: Mafia II | 39.9 | 43.2 | 8.3% |
AMD Radeon HD 6870 Overclocking Results
| Test Item | Standard | Overclocked | Improvement | |||
| Radeon HD 6870 | 900/1050 MHz | 950/1200 MHz | 50/150 MHz | |||
| DX10: Crysis Warhead | 25 | 27 | 8.0% | |||
| DX11: Aliens vs Predator | 27.0 | 29.5 | 9.3% | |||
| DX11: BattleForge | 34.3 | 37.4 | 9.0% | |||
| DX11: Heaven 2.1 | 26.5 | 28.6 | 7.9% | |||
| DX11: Lost Planet 2 | 31.0 | 33.0 | 6.5% | |||
| DX9+SSAO: Mafia II | 47.5 | 50.7 | 6.7% |
Radeon HD 6870 Temperatures
Benchmark tests are always nice, so long as you care about comparing one product to another. But when you're an overclocker, gamer, or merely a PC hardware enthusiast who likes to tweak things on occasion, there's no substitute for good information. Benchmark Reviews has a very popular guide written on Overclocking Video Cards, which gives detailed instruction on how to tweak a graphics cards for better performance. Of course, not every video card has overclocking head room. Some products run so hot that they can't suffer any higher temperatures than they already do. This is why we measure the operating temperature of the video card products we test.
To begin my testing, I use GPU-Z to measure the temperature at idle as reported by the GPU. Next I use FurMark's "Torture Test" to generate maximum thermal load and record GPU temperatures at high-power 3D mode. The ambient room temperature remained at a stable 20°C throughout testing, while the inner-case temperature hovered around 37°C.
FurMark does two things extremely well: drive the thermal output of any graphics processor higher than applications of video games realistically could, and it does so with consistency every time. Furmark works great for testing the stability of a GPU as the temperature rises to the highest possible output. The temperatures discussed below are absolute maximum values, and not representative of real-world performance.
| Video Card | Idle Temp | Loaded Temp | Ambient | |||
| ATI Radeon HD 5850 | 39°C | 73°C | 20°C | |||
| AMD Radeon HD 6850 | 42°C | 77°C | 20°C | |||
| AMD Radeon HD 6870 | 39°C | 74°C | 20°C | |||
| ATI Radeon HD 5870 | 33°C | 78°C | 20°C |
VGA Power Consumption
Life is not as affordable as it used to be, and items such as gasoline, natural gas, and electricity all top the list of resources which have exploded in price over the past few years. Add to this the limit of non-renewable resources compared to current demands, and you can see that the prices are only going to get worse. Planet Earth is needs our help, and needs it badly. With forests becoming barren of vegetation and snow capped poles quickly turning brown, the technology industry has a new attitude towards turning "green". I'll spare you the powerful marketing hype that gets sent from various manufacturers every day, and get right to the point: your computer hasn't been doing much to help save energy... at least up until now.
For power consumption tests, Benchmark Reviews utilizes the 80-PLUS GOLD certified OCZ Z-Series Gold 850W PSU, model OCZZ850. This power supply unit has been tested to provide over 90% typical efficiency by Chroma System Solutions. To measure isolated video card power consumption, Benchmark Reviews uses the Kill-A-Watt EZ (model P4460) power meter made by P3 International.
A baseline test is taken without a video card installed inside our test computer system, which is allowed to boot into Windows-7 and rest idle at the login screen before power consumption is recorded. Once the baseline reading has been taken, the graphics card is installed and the system is again booted into Windows and left idle at the login screen. Our final loaded power consumption reading is taken with the video card running a stress test using FurMark. Below is a chart with the isolated video card power consumption (not system total) displayed in Watts for each specified test product:
VGA Product Description(sorted by combined total power) |
Idle Power |
Loaded Power |
|---|---|---|
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 SLI Set |
82 W |
655 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 Reference Design |
53 W |
396 W |
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 Reference Design |
100 W |
320 W |
AMD Radeon HD 6990 Reference Design |
46 W |
350 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 Reference Design |
74 W |
302 W |
ASUS GeForce GTX 480 Reference Design |
39 W |
315 W |
ATI Radeon HD 5970 Reference Design |
48 W |
299 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Reference Design |
25 W |
321 W |
ATI Radeon HD 4850 CrossFireX Set |
123 W |
210 W |
ATI Radeon HD 4890 Reference Design |
65 W |
268 W |
AMD Radeon HD 7970 Reference Design |
21 W |
311 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 Reference Design |
42 W |
278 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 Reference Design |
31 W |
246 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 Reference Design |
31 W |
241 W |
ATI Radeon HD 5870 Reference Design |
25 W |
240 W |
ATI Radeon HD 6970 Reference Design |
24 W |
233 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 Reference Design |
36 W |
219 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 Reference Design |
14 W |
243 W |
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2 11139-00-40R |
73 W |
180 W |
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 Reference Design |
85 W |
186 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Reference Design |
10 W |
275 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 Reference Design |
9 W |
256 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Reference Design |
35 W |
225 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 (216) Reference Design |
42 W |
203 W |
ATI Radeon HD 4870 Reference Design |
58 W |
166 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti Reference Design |
17 W |
199 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Reference Design |
18 W |
167 W |
AMD Radeon HD 6870 Reference Design |
20 W |
162 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 Reference Design |
14 W |
167 W |
ATI Radeon HD 5850 Reference Design |
24 W |
157 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST Reference Design |
8 W |
164 W |
AMD Radeon HD 6850 Reference Design |
20 W |
139 W |
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Reference Design |
31 W |
133 W |
ATI Radeon HD 4770 RV740 GDDR5 Reference Design |
37 W |
120 W |
ATI Radeon HD 5770 Reference Design |
16 W |
122 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Reference Design |
22 W |
115 W |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Reference Design |
12 W |
112 W |
ATI Radeon HD 4670 Reference Design |
9 W |
70 W |
The Radeon HD 6870 requires two six-pin PCI-E power connection for proper operation. Resting at idle, the AMD Radeon HD 6870 consumed 20W by our measure. Compensating for a small margin of error, this falls roughly in-line with AMD's 19W expected power draw. Once 3D-applications begin to demand power from the GPU, electrical power consumption climbed to full-throttle. Measured with 3D 'torture' load using FurMark, the AMD Radeon HD 6870 now required 162W. AMD's stated max TDP is 151W, and when factored with efficiency rating this is also within the margin of error. Loaded power draw matches the ATI Radeon HD 5850 and older ATI Radeon HD 4870. On the NVIDIA side, these figure compare to the GeForce GTX 460.
Radeon HD 6870 Conclusion
IMPORTANT: Although the rating and final score mentioned in this conclusion are made to be as objective as possible, please be advised that every author perceives these factors differently at various points in time. While we each do our best to ensure that all aspects of the product are considered, there are often times unforeseen market conditions and manufacturer changes which occur after publication that could render our rating obsolete. Please do not base any purchase solely on our conclusion, as it represents our product rating specifically for the product tested which may differ from future versions. Benchmark Reviews begins our conclusion with a short summary for each of the areas that we rate.
Beginning with frame rate performance, the AMD Radeon HD 6870 competes at a level slightly better than the older and more expensive Radeon HD 5850 video card, but it doesn't find a true NVIDIA GeForce target. This concurs with AMD's own results, placing the Radeon HD 6870 between the 5850 and 5870 in their product lineup. There were a few tests that matched the Radeon HD 6870 with the GeForce GTX 470, and then there were tests that pegged it against the 1GB GeForce GTX 460. Most times it required a heavily overclocked GTX 460 to find similar competition, especially because NVIDIA's GTX 465 was retired only a month after it launched.
We didn't test AMD HD3D technology, or the impact it has on video game frame rates, primarily because the middleware was not made available and there are only two monitors that currently exist to support it: the Zalman Trimon 3D and iZ3D H220z1. At the time of launch Viewsonic had announced their 120Hz Fuhzion 3D monitor, but the product had not yet shipped. AMD HD3D technology presently supports one display, using either DL-DVI and DP monitors or HDMI 1.4 3D HDTV, so 3D movie playback on one of the few compatible 3D TVs is a more likely application of this feature.
Appearance is a more subjective matter since the rating doesn't have benchmark scores to fall back on. Partners traditionally offer their own unique twist on the design, with improved cooling solutions and colorful fan shroud designs. AMD's design ultimately delivers function ahead of fashion, allowing heated air to externally exhaust outside of the computer case. This remains critically important to overclockers, but because the transition to 32nm wasn't achieved with Northern Islands the heat output with standard clock speeds is still considered moderately high.
I consider the constant move towards a smaller die process rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things, as NVIDIA once proved when their GeForce GTX 280 successfully launched at 65nm instead of 55nm. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is already building 32nm processors for other clientele, and AMD has noted that Moore's Law still applies - just not in regard to the Barts GPU. They claim that as a die processes become smaller, it also becomes much more costly to develop and produce.
There are six PLX display channel bridges on the Radeon HD 6850 and 6870 video cards, which open up the functionality. Two are dedicated to the only dual-link DVI port available on this video card, while the other DVI port remains single-link and consumes another. HDMI 1.4a uses one channel, and two mini-DisplayPort outputs each use a channel. The real innovation comes with DP 1.2, which can use a Multi-Stream Transport Hub to drive multiple displays at different resolutions, refresh rates, and color depth in Eyefinity. Please note that the dual mini-DisplayPort connections incorporated on this reference design may not be adopted by AMD board partners, who are free to implement a single full-size DisplayPort connection.
Value is a fast moving target, and please believe me when I say that it changes by the minute in this industry. Delivering better performance and additional features at a lower cost to consumers has been the cornerstone of AMD's business philosophy for more than a decade, and they've repeatedly demonstrated this resolve in each of their many battles with Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs. AMD's latest Radeon continues the tradition of more for less, and PC hardware enthusiasts can expect the Radeon HD 6870 to sell for $239.99 at launch. This was originally explained to media as closer to $249.99, but subsequent price battles between manufacturers took their toll. As soon as online merchants offer 6000-series products, this section will be updated with links.
Using the manufacturer suggested pricing in conjunction with NewEgg's average product pricing (on 20 October 2010), the price segments reveal a gap. The 1GB GeForce GTX 460 sells for $220, followed by the GTX 470 at $395. This leaves a significant hole in their product lineup, but we've managed to fill it with a $260 factory-overclocked EVGA GeForce GTX 460 FTW for this review. On AMD's side, the Radeon HD 5850 is about $2 more than the Radeon HD 6870, and then there 's a hole between $180 and $240.
- $239.99 - HIS H687F1G2M
- $239.99 - PowerColor AX6870 1GBD5-M2DH
- $239.99 - SAPPHIRE 100314SR
- $239.99 - VisionTek 900338
We've illustrated the cost per frame performance in the charts below:
In conclusion, the AMD Radeon HD 6870 introduces more flexibility for display devices, especially where Eyefinity is used, plus it enables stereoscopic 3D gaming and Blu-ray or 3D DVD playback for the first time. The reconfigured Cypress-turned-Barts GPU offers gaming performance that rivals the older Radeon HD 5850, occasionally competes with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, and easily outperforms the 1GB GTX 460. At the $240 price point there aren't many options, unless you want a less-impressive GPU that's been factory overclocked, or an older GPU that lacks HD3D and UVD3 support. AMD touted Barts' improved filtering performance, but test using 3DCenter Filter Tester showed that anisotropic texture filtering was still remains an issue. Overall I consider the AMD Radeon HD 6870 to be a good PC gaming product, stereoscopic 3D or otherwise, but overclockers could be disappointed with the lack of headroom. This is AMD's first self-branded video card, retiring nearly twenty years of ATI brand name recognition, so while it's done well to demonstrate modest mainstream performance capabilities there are still a few green areas. I'm not convinced the Radeon HD 6870 is going to impress consumers with improved Eyefinity support or added stereoscopic 3D functionality until these technologies become more mature, but thankfully the Radeon HD 6870 shines as a solid gaming product.
What do you think of the AMD Radeon HD 6870 video card? Leave comments below, or ask questions in our Forum.
Pros:
+ Excellent mainstream DX11 graphics performance
+ Barts GPU Introduces stereoscopic 3D functionality
+ Reduced heat output enables nearly silent cooling fan
+ Fan exhausts all heated air outside of case
+ UVD3 Adds multi-view CODEC for 3D Blu-ray playback
+ Improves DisplayPort to 1.2 with display chaining
+ Supports CrossFire functionality
Cons:
- Limited initial AMD HD3D product support
- Fails to fix anisotropic texture filtering
- Barts GPU yields minimal overclock
Ratings:
- Performance: 9.50
- Appearance: 8.75
- Construction: 9.75
- Functionality: 9.50
- Value: 7.50
Final Score: 9.0 out of 10.
Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award.
Related Articles:
- QNAP TS-419P Turbo NAS 4-Bay Network Storage Server
- QNAP TS-459 Pro NAS Network Storage Server
- Cyber Acoustics AC-401 Gaming Headset
- Cooler Master ARC Macbook and iPad Stand
- ASUS RT-N56U Wireless-N Gigabit Router
- TRENDnet TPL-303E2K 200Mbps Powerline Adapter
- Mad Catz Call of Duty: Black Ops Stealth Mouse
- Cooler Master V6GT CPU Cooler
- HIS Radeon HD 6870 IceQ Video Card
- Thermaltake eSports MEKA G1 Keyboard
Comments
I love this review ( but would have likes multi gpu setup test)
With sandibridge around the corner, the entrylevel gpus will be dimineshed, AMD is stepping up its game in the mid level gpu section. ( because it will soon be entry level and not midlelvel)
I don't like that ATI and NVIDIA cards are so far apart as to how they do Phys-X and other newer game technologies. I'd like to see them both cleave to standards so we could rate them in a better and fair way against one another. ATI says that Phys-X is closed by the other guy, and NVIDIA say's it isn't,..........what a crock. They should both do it all.
Not knowing if Phys-X and Cuda will take off and be a part of every game makes me lean towards buying the cards that have it built-in to them just to ensure that I don't have to buy all over again later just to be able to play the next new wazoo games that developers are dreaming up. Thanks for the considered look at these new AMD Cards.
thats what i get, cause with the new prices 460 worth more and better tesselations VS non
otherwise ati boys stay with the 5850
So the 5830 doesn't exist anymore !
ROFLMAO - It's a hoot seeing so many geeks claiming to know something, and the entire red rooster set of intertards cannot bring themselves to type 5 8 3 0 .
Wow.
What card has 1120 shaders ? LOL
There are no less than 8 different 5830's available on the egg right now, exceeding a few other " quantity models".
Out of the 20-30+ reviews, I've seen ONE that logically and honestly claimed one of the cards "being replaced" was the 5830.
We have 5870, 5850, 5830 - not like it's easy to miss the 3rd card. You really have to work at it.
Those the masses and the two competing companies rely on for releases, affect the market quite substantially, yet they miss the single 1120 shader card ATI had on the table, when the 2nd 1120 shader hits ? Widely IT'S NOT EVEN MENTIONED NOR CHARTED IN ENTIRE ARTICLES.
"It's low in production" is a joke.
I have no idea if it's pressure or brainwashing or incompetence, but in any case no excuse will satisfy, period. I'm certain you understand that.
Now that AMD has released another set of competitors to the 460 in very short order, the 5830 falls into the amnesiac category. 8 different 5830's are currently available on one of the very popular online purchasing sites.
I've seen just one review actually mention the 5830 when reviewing the Barts 6000 release.
Those of us who are awake, obviously in the minority, have reason to be disturbed.
26 cards in total.
No 5830.
I'm not here to criticize you, but your last response is quite surprising to say the least. I don't suppose any card other than the GTX460 1gig "has anything to do with a $250 6870" , or perhaps we could just have a review with the 6870 compared to the 5850 or just the 5870, whichever the 6870 happens to be closest to. I suppose by your statement that's the 5850.
I will find more than the 5850 in the bench charts won't I.
I am sorry logic and comprehension and honesty isn't in the mix, all too often.
Believe me, it's not a conspiracy. I don't think it could be even if we really, really tried.
While you're at it, go back and re-read the 6850 review. It was re-written to compare against the 5770 and 5830.
i wanna play crysis2 on max settings so... which graphic card sholud i bu.
plzzz help me :(
ma budget is around 350-400$