| HIS Radeon HD6950 IceQ-X Turbo-X Video Card |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Video Cards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Written by Steven Iglesias-Hearst | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thursday, 09 June 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page 6 of 18
DX10: 3DMark Vantage3DMark Vantage is a PC benchmark suite designed to test the DirectX10 graphics card performance. FutureMark 3DMark Vantage is the latest addition the 3DMark benchmark series built by FutureMark corporation. Although 3DMark Vantage requires NVIDIA PhysX to be installed for program operation, only the CPU/Physics test relies on this technology. 3DMark Vantage offers benchmark tests focusing on GPU, CPU, and Physics performance. Benchmark Reviews uses the two GPU-specific tests for grading video card performance: Jane Nash and New Calico. These tests isolate graphical performance, and remove processor dependence from the benchmark results.
3DMark Vantage GPU Test: Jane NashOf the two GPU tests 3DMark Vantage offers, the Jane Nash performance benchmark is slightly less demanding. In a short video scene the special agent escapes a secret lair by water, nearly losing her shirt in the process. Benchmark Reviews tests this DirectX-10 scene at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 resolutions, and uses Extreme quality settings with 8x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. The 1:2 scale is utilized, and is the highest this test allows. By maximizing the processing levels of this test, the scene creates the highest level of graphical demand possible and sorts the strong from the weak.
Cost Analysis: Jane Nash (1680x1050)Test Summary: In the charts and the cost analysis you will notice not one but three HIS HD6000 series cards, but this review is focusing on the HIS HD6950 IceQ X Turbo X. This also goes to dispell an old myth/misconception that someone new to buying video cards may encounter, the HIS HD6870 is the highest clocked video card of the trio but it still fails to match or outperform its bigger brother, the HD6950 (even at reference speeds). The point I am trying to address here is that a higher clock speed on a lower tier video card will not perform better than a lower clock on a higher tier video card. When buying a video card it is always best to do your homework. 3DMark Vantage GPU Test: New CalicoNew Calico is the second GPU test in the 3DMark Vantage test suite. Of the two GPU tests, New Calico is the most demanding. In a short video scene featuring a galactic battleground, there is a massive display of busy objects across the screen. Benchmark Reviews tests this DirectX-10 scene at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 resolutions, and uses Extreme quality settings with 8x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. The 1:2 scale is utilized, and is the highest this test allows. Using the highest graphics processing level available allows our test products to separate themselves and stand out (if possible).
Cost Analysis: New Calico (1680x1050)Test Summary: The tables have turned in the New Calico Vantage test, here the results show that the FERMI architecture is the more advanced. The performance scaling is as expected, the HIS HD6950 IceQ X Turbo X has a slight performance lead over the GTX 560Ti (which offers better value when we analyse the cost per FPS results of the two cards). With its overclock the HIS HD6950 IceQ X Turbo X is top of the charts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
I'm glad to be different from the masses, I do a lot of research before I buy things and I like to get the best deals possible.
Your comparison charts spoke of something, to me at least. All the cards in the comparison would be pleasing to own. Not a real "dog" amongst them. I'm keeping in mind that gaming performance is a primary consideration. But even without games, these cards are all excellent to have in an HTPC or demanding video environment.
Oh and one more thing to watch when buying HIS graphics cards is the Fan wont last long if it's anything like the one on my HIS HD5770 (which it looks to be) not even 6 months old and it's already noisy as on start-up takes about 10~15mins of running before it gets to some semblance of quiet.. You all know the sound that grinding labored sound a fan starts to make when it's just about to fail
try it at 1920x1080 with lower AA and see how it goes
For the benchs I seen of one of those cards fully unlocked and with some good extra OC put in, its performance is way better than 570.
Unfortunately, these low-profile manufacturers are so for a reason, they don't have any feature to stand themselves ought of several sharks like PowerColor, Sapphire, XFX, ASUS and of course MSI.
In the end you only need that super high speed fan on TF3 if you're OCing it close or beyond a 1ghz core frequency.
But please note this are just suppositions I've made base on looking at both coolers and reading testimonies. For example, notice that HIS cooler, unlike TF3, hasn't got the back opened, allowing to suck in the air coming from front fans.
P.S.: For instance, because of that feature alone, I'm thinking on making a mod to my case so I can mount a Noctua P12 fan close to HD bays, to pressure air into the Graphics card cooler through the back of the cooler (the 6 pin connectors are above, so the intake from that position is very optimized)
And you completely ignored what I said about the noise per watt of heat spread. Without keeping this in mind you're just comparing apples with oranges...
Your guesses and suppositions might be plausible in the absence of any concrete data, but reviewer Steven Iglesias-Hearst did in fact point you to the concrete data that informed his assessment, data that he derived from (1) Full Reviews of the two cards that (2) He conducted personally, 17 days apart, using (3) A single Temperature Testing methodology (FurMark 1.9.0 Torture Test) and using (4) The exact same 'Lancool PC-K63'/'Intel P55'/'i5 760' System for each Review.
It?s rare that so many variables (Reviewer, Methodology, Case and System Cooling Config) are kept constant when comparing two cards, so his assessment of the relative merits of the two Cards should probably carry more weight than random testimonials. His results:
HIS 6950 IceQ X - Ambient Temp: 24 / Fan: 100% / FurMark Load Temp: 61 / Sound: ?Quite Bearable? Noise is a non-issue?
MSI 6950 Twin Frozr III -- Ambient Temp: 28 / Fan: 100% / FurMark Load Temp: 59 / Sound: ?Noise level is too much??
Granted, (5) Ambient temperatures are different (24 versus 28 degrees), but if (6) the Twin Frozr Fan is creating significantly more noise than the IceQ X, while (7) achieving approximately the same Load Temperature in FurMark (59 versus 61 degrees), then (8) your speculation -- ?You would need a lower speed [on the Twin Frozr 3] to match the [HIS IceQ X], and at that lower fan speed, it would make less noise than the top HIS heat spread? ? is not really consistent with the data.
Note also that in the test, the HIS Card was running at a higher default clock speed (880 MHz, versus 850 MHz for the MSI Card).
To be sure, we could ask Steven Iglesias-Hearst to (9) quantify (in decibels) ?quite bearable? and ?too much?, and also to (10) demonstrate the effect of a 4 degree difference on Ambient Temperature on FurMark Load Temps, but I think the data he has already provided is more than enough to support his assessment that the HIS Cooler is ?better? overall.
In the absence of such survey data, the overclocking results in Hearst?s review -- Street Fight IV 152.76 FPS @ 950/1350 (max OC) for the HIS IceQ X, versus Street Fighter IV 143.30 FPS for the MSI Twin Frozr III @ 900/1325 (max OC) -- give us the most helpful picture of the relative power/performance of the two cards.
Those OC numbers (900/1325) aren't the mirror of that MSI's true potential, since I've read dozens of high OCing numbers, being 975mhz on the core what most got, and a few lucky individuals got 1000mhz+ (cant remember memory speed). With such numbers I believe MSI's card would get similar results as HIS', and but with more durable and stable OC with its well-known military class components.
Here's win or win situation in which specific personal requirements make a difference (OC roof, silence, durability), but overall they seem to be in same level (opposite of my previous statements)
I end up loosing the right time for purchase with HD6xxx, so for HD7xxx I'll keep an open mind about this 2 coolers.
Offtopic: Does anyone think the thermal paste that comes with the card (with all brands) is as good as Arctic Silver 5 or a similar one? Never got the chance to compare then and now results with same ambient temperature, reason why I'm asking.
It's very hard to say without doing actual testing, but in my honest opinion you will not gain more that 2-3 degrees Celsius if you are lucky.
idle temps before AS5 were 36~37c after AS5 and curing time 27c
load temps before AS5 63c after AS5 52c (using F@H to load GPU's)
Because over time thermal paste gets dry and loses some of their heat transference capabilities, reason why if you already used the card for some time it's an unfair comparison.
I got the same results back then, after changing the 2 year old thermal paste of my HD4850, reason why I guess you did the same.
to flash my card is one that is the 840mhz version
thanks before hand
I need this card is at 880MHz core gpu bios
can use this bios
my original bios is the 840mhz version?