Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Radeon 6850 to GTX 660 worth it?

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • Radeon
  • Sapphire
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 20, 2013 2:57:55 AM

Would it be a big difference jumping from a Sapphire Radeon 6850 to a EVGA GTX 660?

More about : radeon 6850 gtx 660 worth

July 20, 2013 3:12:46 AM

You can expect a bit over 60% framerate gain on average, assuming you have a decent CPU also.
Score
0
July 20, 2013 3:16:19 AM

i jumped from GTX 460 1GB/256bit to Radeon 7850 OC 2GB/256bit (same league as gtx 660) and yes, it was worth it.
Score
0
Related resources
July 21, 2013 7:11:47 PM

adlx21 said:
Would it be a big difference jumping from a Sapphire Radeon 6850 to a EVGA GTX 660?

Not really!
My specs:
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K 3.9 GHz
RAM: Corsair 16 GB DDR3 1600 MHz
OS: Windows 7 x64
GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 GHz 2 GB
Hard Drive: 3 TB
SSD: 256 GB
Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-M PRO
Box: CM Storm Trooper
Water cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H110
PSU: Cooler Master GX-Lite 600W

My friend's specs:
Motherboard: ASUS P8H61-M LE
CPU: Intel Core i5-2400 3.4 GHz
GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD 6850 1 GB
RAM: Kingston 4 GB DDR3 1333 MHz
OS: Windows 8 x64
Hard Drives: 1 TB
PSU: Cooler Master Elite 500W

Since the HD 7870 GHz has similar performance to the GTX 660, I can say that the difference between the 660 and 6850 isn't going to be big enough for you to upgrade.. Me and my friend have similar frame rates in most major games and all I can say is that HD 7870 GHz is only 20 - 30% better than 6850. If you want to experience a noticeable performance difference, upgrade to HD 7970, GTX 680 or GTX 770. I hope I helped!
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:02:42 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Here's some actual benchmarks. HD6850 delivers the same level of performance as the HD7770 on this chart:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_7...

80 / 44 = 1.81 or 81%

You have probably already read my previous reply, so I am going to say again that me and my friend played almost all of the major games and the difference between HD 7870 GHz and HD 6850 is not big at all. I am not going to gain anything by lying, so I am telling what it actually is. I've calculated that in most games the FPS difference is only 20 - 30% between the 7870 GHz and 6850, since the 7870 GHz has its performance levels around the 660, I can say that the difference between 660 and 6850 will be similar to the one between 7870 GHz and 6850, so there's absolutely no point for adlx21 to upgrade his graphics card.. Besides, back in 2010 and 2011, HD 6850 was a god, so I don't think that it's urgent to change it after 3 years, taking under consideration how much graphics cards have improved in general since October 22 2010.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:07:08 AM

The 6850 was mid-range when it launched. If anything the 6970 was the "god" card but even that fell behind the GTX580 (which is comparable to the GTX660).

jnilson are you saying Techpowerup are lying then? What would they gain by lying?
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:09:47 AM

byogamingpc said:
The GTX 660 http://amzn.to/18yFmdy would be a significant upgrade.


sam_p_lay said:
The 6850 was mid-range when it launched. If anything the 6970 was the "god" card but even that fell behind the GTX580 (which is comparable to the GTX660).

jnilson are you saying Techpowerup are lying then? What would they gain by lying?

I am not saying that they are lying. I am only saying that I had the luck to be able to compare 2 systems with 7870 GHz and 6850 on my own, and give you the results.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:11:10 AM

sam_p_lay said:
The 6850 was mid-range when it launched. If anything the 6970 was the "god" card but even that fell behind the GTX580 (which is comparable to the GTX660).

jnilson are you saying Techpowerup are lying then? What would they gain by lying?

It's not true that the HD 6850 was a mid-range card! It was written to be a high-end graphics adapter!
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:13:46 AM

LOL why was it so cheap then? And by that logic, 6850, 6870, 6950, 6970 AND 6990 were ALL high-end models :-) 6850 was neck-to-neck with the GTX460 - both mid-range. Doesn't mean I'm saying it's slow, but it was never high-end.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:13:46 AM

sam_p_lay said:
The 6850 was mid-range when it launched. If anything the 6970 was the "god" card but even that fell behind the GTX580 (which is comparable to the GTX660).

jnilson are you saying Techpowerup are lying then? What would they gain by lying?

Personally, the last card I had was a 6770, and all I can say is that I didn't feel a major upgrade from it to 7870 GHz! I could play BF3 at 1920x1200 (everything fully maxed out) with 30 FPS in a server with 64 players. My 3770K contributed to that by a long shot, but HD 6770 is miles behind 6850, and yet, I didn't feel a huge performance difference in most games.
Score
0
July 22, 2013 8:15:11 AM

sam_p_lay said:
LOL why was it so cheap then? And by that logic, 6850, 6870, 6950, 6970 AND 6990 were ALL high-end models :-) 6850 was neck-to-neck with the GTX460 - both mid-range. Doesn't mean I'm saying it's slow, but it was never high-end.

Amd say that their high-end cards start from HD 68XX, I guess you might want to ask them why they did that mistake!
Score
0
July 22, 2013 3:16:02 PM

How is this possible? That this thread degraded into an argument between you two. The OP was asking for some simple help and you two turned it into a mess. As you can see some of the posts have been deleted and reporting this altercation does not excuse you from your involvement.

All you have t do is answer the OPs question and provide links if needed, there is absolutely no reason to argue over a video card question.

Here is a hierarchy Chart that is put out by this site every month rating the video cards, since there are three levels between the 6850 and the gtx 660 it is worth it to do an upgrade. The OP was not asking about the 7870 so I don't know why that card was in there.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...
Score
0
July 22, 2013 11:54:57 PM

20 - 30% performance gain with 40W less power drawn from the grid, i think its worth it if you have the money.
Score
0
July 23, 2013 1:09:38 AM

A lot more than 20-30% but agreed - absolutely go for it.

And I did reply to inzone's post there but he deleted the response. So... not much I can do about that.
Score
0
July 23, 2013 1:09:48 AM

i think it's very important when comparing cards to take into account your personal preferences. for example a few years ago when crysis first came out the differences between the different graphics settings were very noticeable. if you jumped form medium to high to very high it was night and day levels of difference. a higher end card that could "run crysis" was indeed a beast in those days and it payed off having one on day one. today i stare at medium settings in metro last light and i'll be damned if i can see the difference between that and the uber tesselated extraordinarily ambient occluded uber high settings. unless you are going to stare at the edges of that tesselation sample teddy bear model you are not going to notice the differences in game. i played metro last light on medium on my crap machine (a laptop with what is basically a desktop 5770) and i didn't feel like i lost anything in terms of the visual experience. the same thing happened to me with crysis 3. in that game there are some notable differences between low-medium-high however i opted for the lower setting in favor of higher fps over what i perceived to be minimal graphical improvements. that goes for a lot of games today. for me the day when i will need an upgrade will be the day when i buy a game and i can't run that higher graphical setting at the framerate that i want to run it at in order to get the optimal experience that i want while gaming. these are all very subjective assessments - what is an acceptable framerate? is the difference between medium and high worth it? maybe the extra graphical fidelity is worth it for you. so, to bring it back to my original point, i think you need to think about what YOUR preferences are when it comes to these things. personally i think you will do just fine with the 6850 for at least another year... unless you REALLY need to see the edges on the teddy bear. but what do i know maybe for you those kind of details make all the difference and the reason to upgrade.
Score
0
July 23, 2013 1:24:33 AM

I agree completely that people's values vary a lot. For example I care far more about how a game sounds than how it looks. I still play old DOS games I love using DOSBox and the terrible graphics do nothing to make the game less enjoyable. That said, I know graphics are more important to some people, especially in terms of playing the game "the way it's meant to be played".

There's also the immersion argument of course but that depends a lot on the individual's capacity for suspension of disbelief. For me, I think we're still a very long way from games looking convincingly photorealistic. A 6850 is still enough to handle anything, so the benefit would be purely in the ability to play at better settings.

By the way targaryen if you break up huge posts with paragraph breaks, they're much easier to read :-) Most people won't bother reading one massive block of text.
Score
0
July 23, 2013 10:19:15 AM

sam_p_lay said:
A lot more than 20-30% but agreed - absolutely go for it.

And I did reply to inzone's post there but he deleted the response. So... not much I can do about that.


My post was not meant to be replied to but rather it was a statement of disbelief and if you wish to insult me , do so at your own risk.
I did not delete your reply , another Moderator did who saw it before I did.

Score
0
July 23, 2013 10:55:21 AM

My own risk? If you're going to threaten me with an abuse of power then I'll report you directly to Joe. I was infact aware you've been a mod on here for a while, which makes me wonder why you're pretending you've never seen an argument in a thread before. It also makes me question the purpose and value of your above post.

If you want to talk about posts with relevance and value, I suggest you take a look at the start of the thread. The very first response of the thread answers the OP's question immediately and is quantified with an estimate of expected framerate gain. Three posts below that, a link is provided to the summary page of a benchmark suite of 18 games, providing an accurate performance gain value and concluding the answer to the OP's question. At that point, they have the information they need to decide whether or not the upgrade is worth the cost. I suggest you take a look at who posted those responses. Now take a look at your own post and tell me what you feel that added to the discussion. Because I honestly don't see the value in it.

In summary, the OP's question had already been answered right at the beginning of the thread.

I fully expect you to hide this post as well.
Score
0
July 23, 2013 4:26:22 PM

I deleted your reply Sam, not Inzone. If you want to lay blame on anyone for that, its me.
Insult anyone on Toms at your own risk, the Mods will hand down the same punishment if its against us or anyone else. You deciding to insult Inzone was just skipping the Alert notification for us.

Our role as moderators isn't too necessarily make sure the information provided is accurate, we enforce the rules which you have broken (as well as JnJnilson). You called us to break up the argument, we have and now your trying to perpetuate it.
I find it strange that you decide to insult the mod who showed up at your request.
Score
0
July 24, 2013 4:40:45 AM

I do not see the reason to keep this thread open for further discourse.

If someone thinks otherwise feel free to PM me.
Score
0
!