Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 6950 vs 6970 vs 7950

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 12, 2012 11:59:38 PM

Hello

I am trying to get a new build figured out and i am not sure what to do with my GPU.

I am looking to play games with it (SWTOR, Tera, Skyrim etc) but also looking to use it to stream video game playing and render/edit videos.

The system the GPU will be going into will be:

Six Core CPU (either the 1090T, 1100T) or Eight Core (FX-8120, 8150)
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 motherboard

what i am looking for from my GPU is playing games on one monitor at 1920x1200 with running a second monitor for other things (monitoring my stream, internet usage etc)

my question is, do i get a 6950 or 6970 now which (i think) should fill my needs for the foreseeable future and then when prices drop in a year or so, pick up a second to CF
or do i spend the 500 now to get a 7950 without worrying for the next few years?

I guess, im asking is it worth the money to get a 7950 when i dont plan on running higher than 1920x1200 resolution right now and just waiting until some price drops to CF the 6900s?

Thanks so much for your help

PS- if anyone has any suggestions on a better motherboard, im all ears :D 

More about : radeon 6950 6970 7950

February 13, 2012 12:15:25 AM

I hear that the 7850s should be out this month for around 200 bucks. same architecture/performance as a 6950 but with a die shrink. so less power/heat/noise and probably more overclocking. and it will be easier to find a second down the road to crossfire.

IF the pricing/rumors are right that would def be my choice. Just food for thought
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:18:51 AM

unksol said:
I hear that the 7850s should be out this month for around 200 bucks. same architecture/performance as a 6950 but with a die shrink. so less power/heat/noise and probably more overclocking. and it will be easier to find a second down the road to crossfire.

IF the pricing/rumors are right that would def be my choice. Just food for thought


if that is tru, would they be available for March 1st (if they are released this month)
m
0
l
Related resources
February 13, 2012 12:29:00 AM

I'd grab a 7950.

Better motherboard: INTEL. That's currently, sadly (as it eliminates competition), the only option at the high end. Get a Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 ($150) and a 2500K. It'll be better than an 8150 actually far cheaper than any of your options with a Sabertooth.

There will be a bunch of new releases in the next month or two from both major companies. The first couple of cards in the 600 series should show up before the end of this month, and more in the weeks after that, and 7000 should continue to be released piecemeal.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:36:09 AM

Yup 7950 is the way to go.

same with the 2500k reccomendation.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:38:34 AM

as to the i5 2500k, i was told by ppl who currently stream video gaming and render videos, that i would really need at least a 6-core CPU

and my understanding is the i5 is only a quad core?
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:43:12 AM

Yes, and it's better than any of those other processors. Trust us. If you don't, I'll bring in some more old Tom's hands to tell you the same thing. A 2600K might give you a slight boost, but it wouldn't make a difference in gaming: your graphics card will still be your bottleneck with a 2500K, so you'll have the CPU power to spare for fraps.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:48:27 AM

JordanR44 said:
as to the i5 2500k, i was told by ppl who currently stream video gaming and render videos, that i would really need at least a 6-core CPU

and my understanding is the i5 is only a quad core?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

You dont need six cores + to do highly multi threaded media production tasks such as video rendering etc what you need is a fast CPU any fast CPU will do really but high and fast core count doesn't hurt tho neither does less but faster cores.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 12:52:36 AM

kajabla said:
Yes, and it's better than any of those other processors. Trust us. If you don't, I'll bring in some more old Tom's hands to tell you the same thing. A 2600K might give you a slight boost, but it wouldn't make a difference in gaming: your graphics card will still be your bottleneck with a 2500K, so you'll have the CPU power to spare for fraps.

Yes please bring in more of your INTEL/Nvdia cult followers to spread more propaganda and completely biased one sided Rhetoric and false flag statements while I go make some pop corn and enjoy the show LOL ;-)
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:16:37 AM

Gamer Dude said:
Yes please bring in more of your INTEL/Nvdia cult followers to spread more propaganda and completely biased one sided Rhetoric and false flag statements while I go make some pop corn and enjoy the show LOL ;-)


could u be more specific than just bad-mouthing this guy? i mean if you have something that shows that for me, the x6 or FX is better, id love to see it.

i personally have limited experience with CPUs, so i am just looking for information

personally, i have always had great success with AMD CPUs over Intel CPUs (my last CPU was a x4 955 and it was great) so i would rather stick with an AMD but if the i5 is same price but better performance than i would take it
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:20:53 AM

I'll pull up as much evidence as you like. I make my statements based on facts, on reviews from this site and from others. I'm not a cult follower, and I built my own computer around an AMD processor (they can actually compete, value-wise, below the high end). I don't "spread propaganda"; I draw reasonable conclusions based on hard data and the opinions of those, like Tom's reviewers, with more experience than I have.

Read this conclusion page of Tom's 8150 review:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...

Quote:
"If it’s me, I’m going with the Core i5. I gave the -2500K a Tom’s Hardware Recommended Buy award back in January, and I stick by that recommendation almost a year later.

In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors. Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads.

Toss a single-threaded app at the processor, though, and it underperforms Intel's three-year-old Core i7-920 running at its stock 2.66 GHz. AMD’s architects say they shot to maintain IPC and ramp up clock rate, but something clearly went wrong along the way.

Ironically, consistent, scalable performance is one of the attributes that AMD claims it gets from its Bulldozer module. The issue we see over and over, though, is that it relies on software able to exploit scalability in order to compete. When it doesn’t get what it wants, performance steps back relative to the previous generation.

...it’s disappointing to see Zambezi suck down the power of Intel’s highest-end processors under load, perform like its competitor’s year-old mainstream chips, and wear the branding of a family that, eight years ago, actually made Intel squirm."


I say the same as Jordan. If you have evidence that Bulldozer or one of the old six-cores is better than the 2500K (and right now they're all more expensive but the 8210, so all but that one would have to be better), please show it to us. It would come as a surprise to me.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:28:45 AM

The phenom II x6 are probably the cheap and best solution for Fraps and playing at once, make sure you can get a ssd because you'd need it for fraps if you want any reasonable framerates when playing. Also should have at least 8 gb of ram.

The i5 should be good enough as well and will give better performance when you aren't recording.

I'd definately go with the 7950 in your case as fraps likes to suck processing from all the parts.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:34:25 AM

I was not aware of that, if thats the case then the i5 will definitely be the way to go.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:38:15 AM

ok so, if i got this straight :pt1cable: 

the 1100T or 1090T would be better if they were cheaper but since they arent, the i5 2500k is the best bet

and bc of FRAPs etc the 7950 should be the GPU i go with (are there rumours of a price drop in the near future because of the new 600s coming out?)

thanks so much for everything guys, lots of help with the CPU even though its the GPU subforum :D 

:bounce: 
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:42:26 AM

JordanR44 said:

"personally, i have always had great success with AMD CPUs over Intel CPUs (my last CPU was a x4 955 and it was great) so i would rather stick with an AMD but if the i5 is same price but better performance than i would take it
"

Ok here is a list of CPUs and anyone will work just great for you for a long time to come so from best to worst here goes IMHO what is the only CPU an Enthusiast needs to consider for modern up to date high performance computing and gaming.

Intel/Core i7-2600K,Core i5-2500K,
AMD/FX-8150,FX-8120,Phenom II X4 980 BE
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:46:23 AM

Quote:
Yes please bring in more of your INTEL/Nvdia cult followers to spread more propaganda and completely biased one sided Rhetoric and false flag statements while I go make some pop corn and enjoy the show LOL ;-)

Quote:
Ok here is a list of CPUs and anyone will work just great for you for a long time to come so from best to worst here goes IMHO what is the only CPU an Enthusiast needs to consider for modern up to date high performance computing and gaming.

I like this new and improved Gamer Dude.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 1:54:21 AM

JordanR44 said:
ok so, if i got this straight :pt1cable: 

the 1100T or 1090T would be better if they were cheaper but since they arent, the i5 2500k is the best bet

and bc of FRAPs etc the 7950 should be the GPU i go with (are there rumours of a price drop in the near future because of the new 600s coming out?)

thanks so much for everything guys, lots of help with the CPU even though its the GPU subforum :D 

:bounce: 

This is a decent price for an x6 Phenom II 1090T CPU http://ncix.com/products/?sku=52067&vpn=HDT90ZFBGRBOX&m...
But because an i5 2500K and FX-8120 are so close in price they are better options for the money.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:14:03 AM

^yep. Except the 2500K's better.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
Here's a comparison between the 2500K and the 8150, which is better than the '20. The 2500K wins in all but heavily threaded situations like certain encoding and modeling tests. Check out the gaming numbers.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:23:06 AM

kajabla said:
^yep. Except the 2500K's better.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
Here's a comparison between the 2500K and the 8150, which is better than the '20. The 2500K wins in all but heavily threaded situations like certain encoding and modeling tests. Check out the gaming numbers.

^yep. Except the tuned and OCed FX-8120 is as good as i5 2500K
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:23:56 AM

...as a tuned and OCed 2500K? A 4.5ghz 2500K? Show meh.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:26:52 AM

kajabla said:
...as a tuned and OCed 2500K? A 4.5ghz 2500K? Show meh.

Not possible for 8120 to meet the performance of an OCed i5 2500k but 8120 can meet and match a stock i5 2500K easy.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:27:40 AM

i5-2500k is the best for gaming period. i7-2600k is better for doing gaming and video editing and rending period.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:32:19 AM

azeem40 said:
i5-2500k is the best for gaming period. i7-2600k is better for doing gaming and video editing and rending period.

its subjective/fickle really yes its faster OCed but my monitor and GPU only display's 60fps MAX so AMD does a grand job for me and most in gaming but ya it nice a 2500K can get more frames that I will never see good for a synthetic number I presume.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:32:20 AM

Sounds about right.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:33:09 AM

What does?
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:45:09 AM

I have two 6970s in crossfire and I only ever game at 1080p, and I still need every bit of my rigs horsepower to play some of the more demanding games maxed out - such as BF3, Crysis/Warhead, Skyrim, and Metro 2033. I barely manage 60fps in those games and, believe me, this is nothing to aspire to. And there isn't any way I could make it with one card, at least not with being able to manage desirable frame rates in max settings.

The future is the 7xxx series, so I would advise you to wait.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 3:05:10 AM

PCgamer81 said:
I have two 6970s in crossfire and I only ever game at 1080p, and I still need every bit of my rigs horsepower to play some of the more demanding games maxed out - such as BF3, Crysis/Warhead, Skyrim, and Metro 2033. I barely manage 60fps in those games and, believe me, this is nothing to aspire to. And there isn't any way I could make it with one card, at least not with being able to manage desirable frame rates in max settings.

The future is the 7xxx series, so I would advice you to wait.

I was never really impressed with the 69xx series and the 5xx they both could have done better but the 68xx was good and the 460 was as well and 7xxx look promising but on a 60hz monitor 60fps is as good as it gets but you seem to have been hinting that somehow the monitor will get better after 60fps. PS this is assuming yours is a 60hz display. PS 7950 OCed struggles to maintain 60fps dropping to mid/high 40s in BF3 at times on 1080P same thing with Metro 2033 and Crysis but that's the nature of the beast I guess until developers put more precedent on the PC gaming software development.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 3:09:15 AM

Ok, i guess i have figured out the build for my new PC

its a little more than i was hoping to spend but i will post it in the new build forum

thanks for everything guys!
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 3:31:32 AM

Gamer Dude said:
I was never really impressed with the 69xx series and the 5xx they both could have done better but the 68xx was good and the 460 was as well and 7xxx look promising but on a 60hz monitor 60fps is as good as it gets but you seem to have been hinting that somehow the monitor will get better after 60fps. PS this is assuming yours is a 60hz display.


*sigh*

Where did I hint that I could get better than 60fps on a 60hz monitor?
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 3:38:56 AM

PCgamer81 said:
*sigh*

Where did I hint that I could get better than 60fps on a 60hz monitor?

"I barely manage 60fps in those games and, believe me, this is nothing to aspire to." This is why I will stay on 1680x1050 res cause than I can get a solid 60fps min V-synch no dips in pretty well every game if I get CF 7950 1080P will have some albeit very few dips but I do not like dip its ugly takes me right out the gaming experience. PS you made it seem that 60fps is not anything to aspire to but I understand exactly what you mean now.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 3:59:57 AM

Gamer Dude said:
"I barely manage 60fps in those games and, believe me, this is nothing to aspire to." This is why I will stay on 1680x1050 res cause than I can get a solid 60fps min V-synch no dips in pretty well every game if I get CF 7950 1080P will have some albeit very few dips but I do not like dip its ugly takes me right out the gaming experience. PS you made it seem that 60fps is not anything to aspire to but I understand exactly what you mean now.


I was telling him that 60fps is nothing to aspire to when it comes to current games. My logic is that if you can barely manage 60fps with current games with a setup such as mine, then he would be better off waiting, as there is no future proof - at least not if he likes gaming at max settings with a decent frame rate. Anything less is nothing to aspire to.

My monitor is 75Hz, and I realize that it can only refresh itself 75 times in a second, but thanks anyway.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 4:13:46 AM

PCgamer81 said:
I was telling him that 60fps is nothing to aspire to when it comes to current games. My logic is that if you can barely manage 60fps with current games with a setup such as mine, then he would be better off waiting, as there is no future proof - at least not if he likes gaming at max settings with a decent frame rate. Anything less is nothing to aspire to.

My monitor is 75Hz, and I realize that it can only refresh itself 75 times in a second, but thanks anyway.

You can force you monitor down to 60hz and to me personaly 60fpsmin V-synch or nothin. PS my old monitor 1280x1024 Samsung was 75hz and I could barely tell a difference from 60hz fps to 75hz fps I mean it was not much better at all and I could PWN on MW2 just as well between 60hz and 75hz fps.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 4:26:53 AM

azeem40 said:
i5-2500k is the best for gaming period. i7-2600k is better for doing gaming and video editing and rending period.


3ds max rendering benchmarks are laughing at you:



When comparing price/performance in rendering, AMD CPU win almost all the time.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 5:10:10 AM

kajabla said:
I'd grab a 7950.

Better motherboard: INTEL. That's currently, sadly (as it eliminates competition), the only option at the high end. Get a Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 ($150) and a 2500K. It'll be better than an 8150 actually far cheaper than any of your options with a Sabertooth.

There will be a bunch of new releases in the next month or two from both major companies. The first couple of cards in the 600 series should show up before the end of this month, and more in the weeks after that, and 7000 should continue to be released piecemeal.


I definitely agree with the 2500k thing, but then again I play Crysis 2, BF3, Skyrim on my system, and can max em all out on a single card (30-50fps in Crysis), with the other two out of the system. The thing is, the Sabertooth is an amazing board, and the 990fx chipset surpasses all but the best Intel chips, sooo....
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 5:12:03 AM

FtsArTek said:
I definitely agree with the 2500k thing, but then again I play Crysis 2, BF3, Skyrim on my system, and can max em all out on a single card (30-50fps in Crysis), with the other two out of the system. The thing is, the Sabertooth is an amazing board, and the 990fx chipset surpasses all but the best Intel chips, sooo....

AMD does make really great Chipsets and CPU are not bad at all.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 5:52:08 AM

rmpumper said:
3ds max rendering benchmarks are laughing at you:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/G/310516/original/3ds%20max.png

When comparing price/performance in rendering, AMD CPU win almost all the time.


One example does not a trend make.

I've never heard of that game/program (what the heck is it?). That said, you'll notice the i7's beat out the AMD chips. If you do wish to have 6+ cores, the i7's hyper-threading does a better job in most cases for gaming.

For those who like to OC, you'll also find that the Intel options are very good for OCing.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 5:58:10 AM

bystander said:
One example does not a trend make.

I've never heard of that game/program (what the heck is it?). That said, you'll notice the i7's beat out the AMD chips. If you do wish to have 6+ cores, the i7's hyper-threading does a better job in most cases for gaming.

For those who like to OC, you'll also find that the Intel options are very good for OCing.

Well the 2600k should by rights be top of the pile it does however command a $100 price premium over the FX - 8150 BD which does actual sit right in between the performance of the i5 2500 and i7 2600.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 10:13:55 AM

...but then you OC the 2500K/2600K, which is what they're for IMO, and they surpass anything out there but X79.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:27:08 PM

You really don't know a lot, do you?

In one thread, you say that it would be impossible to max current games at any resolution with a dual x8s (PCI-e)...

kajabla said:
Nah, I don't think you'll max x8 at any res.


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/343176-33-radeon-6950...

...and now you say the i5 sandy bridge at 4.5GHz is slow.

kajabla said:
...as a tuned and OCed 2500K? A 4.5ghz 2500K? Show meh.


And you follow that up with...

kajabla said:
...but then you OC the 2500K/2600K, which is what they're for IMO, and they surpass anything out there but X79.


What do you thing the 2500k at 4.5GHz is? Stock?

Why don't you go do a little research, and in the mean time, try not to give any advice.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 2:41:03 PM

Gamer Dude said:
Well the 2600k should by rights be top of the pile it does however command a $100 price premium over the FX - 8150 BD which does actual sit right in between the performance of the i5 2500 and i7 2600.


The reality is, the 4 core options were close in that example, and from all the benchmarks and personal testing I've seen, at most 20% of the games out there will take advantage of having more than 4 cores, which is why people still suggest the faster 4 core option. I personally have only found 2 games that I play that take advantage of hyper threading. Metro 2033 and Resident Evil 5 (?).
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 4:23:05 PM

bystander said:
The reality is, the 4 core options were close in that example, and from all the benchmarks and personal testing I've seen, at most 20% of the games out there will take advantage of having more than 4 cores, which is why people still suggest the faster 4 core option. I personally have only found 2 games that I play that take advantage of hyper threading. Metro 2033 and Resident Evil 5 (?).

Resident Evil 5 doesn't need any help with HT is runs perfect maxed out on a low end system LOL Metro 2033 well that game will eat anything and still ask for more. More cores are good for when you want lots of apps open at one time while playing a heavy intensive game across multi monitors and fraps recording ect more cores smooth out and speed up muty taking better than any 4 core will including 2600k OCed.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 4:37:26 PM

Gamer Dude said:
Resident Evil 5 doesn't need any help with HT is runs perfect maxed out on a low end system LOL Metro 2033 well that game will eat anything and still ask for more. More cores are good for when you want lots of apps open at one time while playing a heavy intensive game across multi monitors and fraps recording ect more cores smooth out and speed up muty taking better than any 4 core will including 2600k OCed.


I run Metro 2033 without hyper-threading (i5 2500k), but I have seen it run with the i7 2600k and it does seem to work better with hyper-threading...or at least it does with AMD cards where advanced PhysX calculations would cripple the average CPU.

So you are wrong, yet again.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 4:54:16 PM

Gamer Dude said:
Resident Evil 5 doesn't need any help with HT is runs perfect maxed out on a low end system LOL Metro 2033 well that game will eat anything and still ask for more. More cores are good for when you want lots of apps open at one time while playing a heavy intensive game across multi monitors and fraps recording ect more cores smooth out and speed up muty taking better than any 4 core will including 2600k OCed.


As the above benchmark showed, the 2600k out performed the 8 core AMD chips. Hyperthreading is nearly as good as real cores these days. Look at how well the i3's do in comparison to AMD 4 core chips.
m
0
l
February 13, 2012 5:04:34 PM

bystander said:
As the above benchmark showed, the 2600k out performed the 8 core AMD chips. Hyperthreading is nearly as good as real cores these days. Look at how well the i3's do in comparison to AMD 4 core chips.

Actually Hyper Threading is like Physx it is a proprietary gimmick that only works in highly controlled environments so over all real core are better than a fake half a core plus Intel Atom has HT and its slow as hell . Its not the HT that makes a chip faster its the chip that make the chip faster HT is just another marketing gimmick.
m
0
l
!