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

Featured Articles

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel has released a 3G cellular modem with an integrated power amplifier that fits into a 300 mm2 footprint, claiming it…

More...
Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

It's not all rosy in the house of Intel. It seems that upcoming Atom out-of-order cores might be giving this semiconductor…

More...
TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC will start producing 16nm wafers in the first quarter of 2015. Sometime in the second quarter production should ramp up…

More...
Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S is the ‘tock’ of the Haswell architecture and despite being delayed from the original plan, this desktop part is scheduled…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

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