Error
  • JUser::_load: Unable to load user with id: 67

Featured Articles

Intel refreshes CPU roadmap

Intel refreshes CPU roadmap

Intel has revealed an update to its CPU roadmap and some things have changed in 2015 and beyond. Let’s start with the…

More...
Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

Hands on: Nvidia Shield Tablet with Android 5.0

We broke the news of Nvidia's ambitious gaming tablet plans back in May and now the Shield tablet got a bit…

More...
Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia N1 Android tablet ships in Q1 2015

Nokia has announced its first Android tablet and when we say Nokia, we don’t mean Microsoft. The Nokia N1 was designed…

More...
Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell launches octa-core 64-bit PXA1936

Marvell is better known for its storage controllers, but the company doesn’t want to give up on the smartphone and…

More...
Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia recently released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture, with exceptional performance-per-watt. The Geforce GTX 970…

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