Featured Articles

Analysts expect ARM to do well next year

Analysts expect ARM to do well next year

British chip designer ARM could cash in on the mobile industry's rush to transition to 64-bit operating systems and hardware.

More...
Huawei and Xiaomi outpace Lenovo, LG in smartphone market

Huawei and Xiaomi outpace Lenovo, LG in smartphone market

Samsung has lost smartphone market share, ending the quarter on a low note and Xiaomi appears to be the big winner.

More...
Intel Broadwell 15W coming to CES

Intel Broadwell 15W coming to CES

It looks like Intel will be showing off its 14nm processors, codenames Broadwell, in a couple of weeks at CES 2015.

More...
Gainward GTX 980 Phantom reviewed

Gainward GTX 980 Phantom reviewed

Today we’ll be taking a closer look at the recently introduced Gainward GTX 980 4GB with the company’s trademark Phantom cooler.

More...
Zotac ZBOX Sphere OI520 barebones vs Sphere Plus review

Zotac ZBOX Sphere OI520 barebones vs Sphere Plus review

Zotac has been in the nettop and mini-PC space for more than four years now and it has managed to carve…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011 11:24

1GB HD 6950 marginally slower than 2GB model

Written by


More than a match for the GTX 560 Ti
AMD has rolled out the red carpet for Nvidia’s GTX 560 Ti in the form of a more affordable 1GB version of the HD 6950. Granted, the 1GB version is only about €20/$30 cheaper than the original 2GB version, but according to Hardwarecanucks it still packs quite a punch.

In a series of real life tests the 1GB version was just marginally slower than the 2GB model and in most 1080 tests the difference is negligible. In most tests card also managed to outperform Nvidia’s GTX 560 Ti, although Nvidia proved faster in some titles, such as DIRT 2 and Lost Planet 2. On average the 1GB card was 5 percent slower than the 2GB version, but it’s also 5 percent faster than the GTX 560 Ti.

All in all it appears that the reduction in memory size had very little effect on performance. So, it’s about 10 percent cheaper than the full blown 2GB version, yet just 5 percent slower, so it’s clearly very good value.

You can check out the review here.
Last modified on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 14:15
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments