Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 6870 conquers Crysis

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 1, 2010 2:59:51 PM

Quoting VR-Zone:

But, can it play Crysis? At Very High, 1920x1200, 4x AA, the HD 6870 comfortably plays along at 43.55 fps. The minimum fps is 29.57. Crysis has been well and truly conquered at HD resolutions with high IQ settings. At these kind of settings, previous single GPU cards barely broke 30 fps average, which means the HD 6870's minimum framerate is the same as the average of HD 5870 / GTX 480. Remarkable!

http://vr-zone.com/articles/more-radeon-hd-6870-benchma...


Technical specs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics...


According to those charts, Radeon 67xx cards might appear at the end of this month, Radeon 68xx cards in November or December and 69xx in 2011.
October 1, 2010 3:04:54 PM

"75% faster then a 5870...if rumors are to be true."
I say no, but if it can play Crysis at that resolution and AA settings then 'Hells to the yea AMD!'
Also, this will be merged~hopefully
October 1, 2010 3:10:09 PM

Radeon 6970 specs look really monstrous, though the price estimate is very monstrous too ($899).
Related resources
October 1, 2010 3:13:29 PM

75% faster in a Unigine Heaven test, 30% faster in Crysis and Vantage Performance, 45% faster with Extreme preset compared to 5870
October 1, 2010 3:15:54 PM

Awesome news, sooner than I expected, glad I held out. Now to get a 6870.
October 1, 2010 5:24:45 PM

Hmmm that's only slightly worse than my 5850s in crossfire with an OC... Crazy!
October 11, 2010 2:46:46 AM

do you have any information about the number of shaders in HD6870? according to the latest leaks, AMD added more tesselation units, but still, i can't find any infomation about the shaders.
October 11, 2010 2:53:10 AM

Awesome. Now we need tests for the 6970!
October 11, 2010 5:24:16 AM

Honestly... Who needs that much power? I run everything on high at 1920 x 1080 with my 2 year old GTX 280. The only thing I could want more is DX11.
October 11, 2010 12:57:57 PM

the only thing that gets me excited about this is hopefully a price drop in the 5xxx.

but then again if the price/performance is already good with the 6xxx then maybe a 6770 would be better than 5770x2?
October 11, 2010 1:34:03 PM

JohnnyChrist said:
Honestly... Who needs that much power? I run everything on high at 1920 x 1080 with my 2 year old GTX 280. The only thing I could want more is DX11.


Everyone who plays with an Eyefinity 3 screen set-up (like me).

- Hd 5870 @ 1gb just can't handle it with AA.
- 5870 2gb will do, but still.. not very fast.
- 5970 2x1gb is sometimes worse than 5870 2gb because of the lack of memory.
- 5970 4gb is wayyy to expensive..

> Crossfiring two 5870-2gb would be the best bet right now. But you need a crossfire mainboard (and quite a big PSU), which I do not have.

And I'm not even talking about games with tesselation. look up some tesselation benchmarks; the 5xxx series sucks at it.

I hope that the 6970 will provide some good fps in eyefinity (+ tesselation) games That would be great.

edit: Some eyefinity benchmarks
October 11, 2010 10:41:05 PM

JohnnyChrist said:
Honestly... Who needs that much power? I run everything on high at 1920 x 1080 with my 2 year old GTX 280. The only thing I could want more is DX11.


:hello:  I do. Running FPS games at 40FPS is just unacceptable for me. I like to snap around quickly and not see screen tearing or FPS lagging. I also like AA and AF settings at 4x/16x at least so that vegetation doesn't look like it is from an SNES game.
October 12, 2010 6:39:33 AM

SpinachEater said:
:hello:  I do. Running FPS games at 40FPS is just unacceptable for me. I like to snap around quickly and not see screen tearing or FPS lagging. I also like AA and AF settings at 4x/16x at least so that vegetation doesn't look like it is from an SNES game.



Same here, if its not capped at a constant 60FPS im not interested.. So far the only games that give me trouble achieving the 60FPS mark are Metro/Warhead unless I enable SNES "mode" which makes the game look horrible and basically defeats the whole purpose of playing on a PC as opposed to a console (with the exception of FPS games which should always be played on a PC regardless..)

Hopefully the launch of these new cards can lower the price of the current lineup by quite a bit, I wouldn't mind a second 5850 @ 200.00$ shipped.

BTW, have you been playing BC2 lately?
October 12, 2010 8:07:25 AM

The SOUTHERN ISLAND cards are coming out before 2011. The NORTHERN ISLANDS won't be available until late 2011.
October 12, 2010 12:48:21 PM

OvrClkr said:
Same here, if its not capped at a constant 60FPS im not interested.. So far the only games that give me trouble achieving the 60FPS mark are Metro/Warhead unless I enable SNES "mode" which makes the game look horrible and basically defeats the whole purpose of playing on a PC as opposed to a console (with the exception of FPS games which should always be played on a PC regardless..)

Hopefully the launch of these new cards can lower the price of the current lineup by quite a bit, I wouldn't mind a second 5850 @ 200.00$ shipped.

BTW, have you been playing BC2 lately?

What you two stated seems a bit much, that you CANNOT play a game if the fps is at 40 and if you are forced to have AA disabled to achieve great fps then it's not worth it.
Of course, if you go from 20-30fps on medium settings to being able to play on high/max at 40fps it feels incredibly different; to go and say that a game is terrible to play because you can't get 60fps isn't a great reason, though.

Take for example, metro 2033 on the xbox looks like it may be on the lowest possible settings and that's with dx9, while you can play it at dx11 with a higher resolution and higher settings.
October 13, 2010 2:13:20 PM

OvrClkr said:


BTW, have you been playing BC2 lately?


I haven't been on too much lately. I have been crazy busy in the past few months. If I am lucky I can jump on for a few hours on a week night. I will come looking for you next time I am on. :D 


dalta centauri said:
to go and say that a game is terrible to play because you can't get 60fps isn't a great reason, though.

Take for example, metro 2033 on the xbox looks like it may be on the lowest possible settings and that's with dx9, while you can play it at dx11 with a higher resolution and higher settings.


Yes it is. In order to be a maximum pwner in FPS games like me and OvrClkr the last thing you need is a FPS lag and screen tearing when you are pulling off a head shot on a running opponent. You actually need more than 60 FPS to compensate for FPS dips as well.

BTW....what is with this xbox jibber jabber? This is PC talk my friend, not nerfed controls console gaming with auto aim. PC gaming is a bit different control wise. Ah crap, we just turned the corner and made this a PC vs console thread. [:mousemonkey:2]
October 13, 2010 2:42:14 PM

SpinachEater said:
I haven't been on too much lately. I have been crazy busy in the past few months. If I am lucky I can jump on for a few hours on a week night. I will come looking for you next time I am on. :D 




Yes it is. In order to be a maximum pwner in FPS games like me and OvrClkr the last thing you need is a FPS lag and screen tearing when you are pulling off a head shot on a running opponent. You actually need more than 60 FPS to compensate for FPS dips as well.

BTW....what is with this xbox jibber jabber? This is PC talk my friend, not nerfed controls console gaming with auto aim. PC gaming is a bit different control wise. Ah crap, we just turned the corner and made this a PC vs console thread. [:mousemonkey:2]


Funny, seeing as you were comparing games to the quality of Snes games while Ovrclkr compared poor graphics to consoles.
Some people can manage 40fps rather then needing 80+fps to compensate for the dips...which are present in games like BC2 I'll admit. But what you said was,
Running FPS games at 40FPS is just unacceptable for me. I like to snap around quickly and not see screen tearing or FPS lagging. I also like AA and AF settings at 4x/16x at least so that vegetation doesn't look like it is from an SNES game. said:
"Running FPS games at 40FPS is just unacceptable for me. I like to snap around quickly and not see screen tearing or FPS lagging. I also like AA and AF settings at 4x/16x at least so that vegetation doesn't look like it is from an SNES game."

Basically I take that as, "It needs to give me high fps and needs to be on the highest setting the game allows or else I won't play it."
October 13, 2010 4:49:11 PM

dalta centauri said:
Funny, seeing as you were comparing games to the quality of Snes games while Ovrclkr compared poor graphics to consoles.
Some people can manage 40fps rather then needing 80+fps to compensate for the dips...which are present in games like BC2 I'll admit. But what you said was,

Basically I take that as, "It needs to give me high fps and needs to be on the highest setting the game allows or else I won't play it."


What I meant when I said SNES is basically lowering the visuals to the point that the details are no longer "crisp" as opposed to having all setting jacked up. 40FPS is not going to cut it no matter what game I play and the reason is simple, lets take BC2 as an example:

Back in March of this year when BC2 came out I was using a single GTX 260 (216) heavily overvolted and overclocked @ 1680x 1050, I went ahead and started to play with all settings on "high" including HBAO (no xAA) and I was getting around 45/60FPS (depending on map and number of players) with massive dips that would hit 20FPS or even lower depending on how much action was going on (tank explosions, etc). So the only way of achieving a constant 60FPS with minimal dips was to lower the visuals to "medium" and disabling HBAO but I was not happy with the way the game looked when comparing my screen shots to others that did have the details on the highest settings. I did some research and finally grabbed a 5850, when I was done installing the card I went ahead and raised all the settings and played for a few hours trying to find my "sweet spot" as far as FPS goes. Now in order to get a constant 60FPS @ 1920x 1080 (which is even harder on the GPU compared to 1680x 1050) I need to have the GPU @ 850/1200 or higher, anything less will result in a lower frame rate. So just like SE pointed out, if you want flawless game play with no screen tearing (v-sync) you will need a pretty hefty GPU when it comes to games like Dirt2/BC2/Stalker etc.. Of course there are games like Crysis and Metro where I will have to live with 30/40 frames max until i get my hands on a second 5850. IMO there is no point in buying a DX11 title if you have to play with "low" settings to attain playable frames, it defeats the whole purpose of buying the game for the "eye candy" ;) 

So the answer is YES, I actually need at least a steady 80FPS+ (v-sync off) = 60FPS (v-sync on) in order to get the best game play possible, since you have a 5770 which is more or less the same as what I used to have you can go ahead and test the game yourself so you can get an idea of what me and SE are talking about.
October 13, 2010 5:03:55 PM

@OvrClkr
Right, games like STALKER I felt was fine at 30fps; although getting those quick spots that decrease framerate from 35-40fps to 24 was a bit of a problem. But with high settings the game "was better" for me because things seemed more lively. When I first started the game I got a good 60fps but it looked terrible. Sorta like deer hunter from early 2000. I bumped the AA and other settings up and it looked awesome, like the rain splashing on your gun when you travel outside. Of course my fps dropped considerably.
So then it's multiplayer games in general for you, or do you need a constant 60+ in every game you play singleplayer and multiplayer wise?
October 13, 2010 6:02:41 PM

dalta centauri said:
@OvrClkr
Right, games like STALKER I felt was fine at 30fps; although getting those quick spots that decrease framerate from 35-40fps to 24 was a bit of a problem. But with high settings the game "was better" for me because things seemed more lively. When I first started the game I got a good 60fps but it looked terrible. Sorta like deer hunter from early 2000. I bumped the AA and other settings up and it looked awesome, like the rain splashing on your gun when you travel outside. Of course my fps dropped considerably.
So then it's multiplayer games in general for you, or do you need a constant 60+ in every game you play singleplayer and multiplayer wise?



Stalker is not as taxing as other games and the dips are minimal compared to BC2 with a packed server. To be honest I purchased Stalker CoP and now regret it since it is by far the buggiest game that I have in my library (it's even worse than Fallout 3 on my end). Not sure what the deal is but I have the game installed in 3 PC's and and to this date I have not found a fix that will let me play the game, I literally have to click the game icon more than 100 times for the game to load.

Quote:
So then it's multiplayer games in general for you, or do you need a constant 60+ in every game you play singleplayer and multiplayer wise?


In SP mode I can play with 35/45FPS just fine as long as the dips are tolerable but of course more would be better.
October 13, 2010 6:19:58 PM

SpinachEater said:
I haven't been on too much lately. I have been crazy busy in the past few months. If I am lucky I can jump on for a few hours on a week night. I will come looking for you next time I am on. :D 


Same here, too much work and little to no play. Anyways hit me up if you see me online, not sure what the deal is but it seems like everyone that I have on my friends list is offline for the most part.
October 13, 2010 6:35:06 PM

Back to the subject..

I don't really think users will go out and buy the 6870 strictly for Crysis, the 6870 is not going to be cheap and from what we can see it should be about 5/10% slower than dual 5850's. On the other hand dual 6870's should tame the game quite well, I would love to see some CF benchmarks.
October 13, 2010 6:41:49 PM

One of the possible "bottlenecks" for Radeon 68xx/69xx cards could be Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 in the sense that new games will still be mainly targeted at people with older technology. Crysis 2 is a case in point. The new high-end cards might become more popular if some game company releases a new ground-breaking game for PC even more demanding than Crysis 1. For example, Bethesda Softworks might release a new Elder Scrolls game.
October 13, 2010 9:48:50 PM

The link in the first post is from August. Several reports have come out since then that should temper the expectations a bit, i.e. the 6870 will be comparable in performance to the 5850 targeting the mid-range.

From today, Wednesday October 13, 2010:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/22nd-october-launch-for-amd...
"AMD will be releasing the Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon HD 6850 cards first. Based on previously leaked benchmarks by some Chinese websites, the Radeon HD 6870 will only be a little faster than an overclocked Radeon HD 5850. There sure is some name-play going on here; the x800 naming convention has traditionally been given to high-end single GPU cards but it seems that the Radeon HD 6870 and HD 6850 will be replacements for the current HD 5700 Series instead."
October 13, 2010 10:27:44 PM

Well then the only thing that comes to my mind is that the tess should be far superior to the 58xx series or else I don't see the point of this release. I actually thought the 6770 was on par with the 5850 when looking at the leaked chart for both the 6750/6770.
October 13, 2010 10:53:50 PM

OvrClkr said:
Well then the only thing that comes to my mind is that the tess should be far superior to the 58xx series or else I don't see the point of this release. I actually thought the 6770 was on par with the 5850 when looking at the leaked chart for both the 6750/6770.

I believe that is the point: to address the issues with DirectX 11 tesselation, a recognized weakness of the 5000 series, and to combat the popularity of the GTX460.
!