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

Featured Articles

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

We wanted to learn a bit more about Qualcomm's plans for wearables and it turns out that the company believes its…

More...
Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

We had a chance to talk to Michelle Leyden-Li, Senior Director of Marketing, QCT at Qualcomm and get an update on…

More...
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

Today we will take a look at the PowerColor TurboDuo Radeon R9 285. The card is based on AMD’s new…

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