Radeon HD 6670, HD 6570 Performance Estimates Out

[btarunr]

Slated for Tuesday, 19th April, AMD new mainstream DirectX 11 compliant graphics cards, the Radeon HD 6670, and HD 6570, have been drawing some attention as two of the last products to launch in the HD 6000 series. It will probably only be with the HD 7000 series slated for who knows when, that AMD will release new GPUs. DonanimHaber put a HD 6670 and two HD 6570 graphics cards, along with a GeForce GT 440 (NVIDIA's fastest card in the segment), through 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 11, in performance and extreme presets. The Radeons emerged faster overall. The HD 6670 and HD 6570 are designed for price points below $100.



Source: DonanimHaber

[mdm-adph]

"Estimates?" Really?

[Jack Doph]

Am I the only one thinking that the GPU market is quickly becoming saturated with too many choices, of which many are quite .. well, redundant?

[Sasqui]

Nice watermark on the chart, hard to even make out the numbers.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

Am I the only one thinking that the GPU market is quickly becoming saturated with too many choices, of which many are quite .. well, redundant?

You might be. Most people tend to like the competition and choice.

[Jack Doph]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

You might be. Most people tend to like the competition and choice.

Perhaps.. but then I read about "radeon x, vs radeon xx, vs radeon xxx, vs radeon xxxv2, vs radeon xx2-ultra, vs radeon x-v2-mega-super, vs radeon x4-bow-before-me" et cetera, et al, ad nauseum.
Same goes for the nVidia camp.
Giving people choices is great, but when most of the manufacturers come out with very much competing products, even within their own range, let alone the competing camps, how on earth is the average person supposed to make an informed choice and how's the salesman going to try and justify product X over product XX?
There's too much of the same choice, with nary a difference in either price-point or performance to consider..

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

Am I the only one thinking that the GPU market is quickly becoming saturated with too many choices, of which many are quite .. well, redundant?

Do you think so? Compare it to the automobile market for a second.

[Kitkat]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Do you think so? Compare it to the automobile market for a second.

lol!

[Thefumigator]

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

Am I the only one thinking that the GPU market is quickly becoming saturated with too many choices, of which many are quite .. well, redundant?

This world is overwhelmed by everything. still wanting more so much...
But as mentioned, its good to have more choices. Also low end cards are cheap and for me they rule. These are tough times btw...

[Jack Doph]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Do you think so? Compare it to the automobile market for a second.

So, you agree then?
Changing the object in question, is in no way making the statement I made any more redundant, other than now pointing out that a comparison is made with a market comprising far more players, as compared to the GFX card market for the public at large.
On the whole, us end-users are pretty much stuck with either nVidia or AMD and both camps now offer a plethora of the same stuff, that competes with even their own stuff, that one is utterly bewildered by it all.
There's no need for any company to produce products that aren't significantly different enough to warrant being labelled a "new" model with xx features.

With only 2 major players, market saturation is already a big problem and these sorts of tactics won't help at all.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Thefumigator

This world is overwhelmed by everything. still wanting more so much...
But as mentioned, its good to have more choices. Also low end cards are cheap and for me they rule. These are tough times btw...

But what are the choices though?
This is what I'm getting at.
Both camps are offering a plethora of choices of THE SAME thing!
Look at them objectively..

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

So, you agree then?
Changing the object in question, is in no way making the statement I made any more redundant, other than now pointing out that a comparison is made with a market comprising far more players, as compared to the GFX card market for the public at large.
On the whole, us end-users are pretty much stuck with either nVidia or AMD and both camps now offer a plethora of the same stuff, that competes with even their own stuff, that one is utterly bewildered by it all.
There's no need for any company to produce products that aren't significantly different enough to warrant being labelled a "new" model with xx features.

With only 2 major players, market saturation is already a big problem and these sorts of tactics won't help at all.

EDIT:


But what are the choices though?
This is what I'm getting at.
Both camps are offering a plethora of choices of THE SAME thing!
Look at them objectively..

I can't see how it's bad for the consumer to have a "saturated" GPU market. Besides, if HD 6670 displaces the GPUs currently holding its target price points to give higher performance per Dollar, I can't see how it is "saturation" in the first place. If anything your analysis is alarmist.

[Jack Doph]

Originally Posted by btarunr

I can't see how it's bad for the consumer to have a "saturated" GPU market. Besides, if HD 6670 displaces the GPUs currently holding its target price points to give higher performance per Dollar, I can't see how it is "saturation" in the first place. If anything your analysis is alarmist.

No, what I'm referring to is the saturation point of offering nothing new, at a similar price-point, where the choice for such an offering already has so many choices the average consumer doesn't know whether they're Arthur or Martha.
Of all the things you report on, how many are GFX cards that are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the one it supposedly replaces, even by the same camp?
There's nothing alarmist at all about what I'm saying - merely that the choice of "product X' vs the virtually identical "product X" is an utter waste of time.

[Thefumigator]

But what are the choices though?
This is what I'm getting at.
Both camps are offering a plethora of choices of THE SAME thing!
Look at them objectively..

Well its a good point, all we see are video cards everywhere from dozens of manufacturers,

However in this particular case, I wouldn't go for a 5670 when the 6670 is out. because is newer, it should be cheaper (at least to manufacture), and it should have a lower power consumption rating. (Unless someone can confirm that the 6670 is a rebranded 5000, personally, I'm not a GPU mastermind, perhaps one of you could make this more clear to me)

And not to mention I had a 4670 in the past. Seems X670 are the only options for me from the ATI front. Always pleased with those models, not wanting less or more.

On the Nvidia front, correct me if I'm wrong: but the GTS450 looks like a fine video card, but then you see, the GTS450 performs better than the 5670 and the GT440 performs worse than the 5670. I would like something in the middle, while not having to look for the 200 series.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

No, what I'm referring to is the saturation point of offering nothing new, at a similar price-point, where the choice for such an offering already has so many choices the average consumer doesn't know whether they're Arthur or Martha.

The "new" is always is higher performance per Dollar. Between HD 5000 and HD 6000, there were some new features, like HDMI 1.4a, Blu-ray 3D support, better tessellation, etc.

It's also not that when a customer goes shopping, he'll find everything there. Stock keeps rolling. If inventory gets digested, it's always replaced by new products. Everytime a new generation of GPUs is launched, the older generation's volumes are downgraded (manufactured less/not-manufactured). If inventory isn't digested, they try to clear it with lower prices, and that's naturally beneficial, and a price-cut always steps up performance:dollar.

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

Of all the things you report on, how many are GFX cards that are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the one it supposedly replaces, even by the same camp?

Doesn't matter, since the one being replaced is not going to be produced anymore. If there's leftover inventory, it's sold on rebates, or the suppliers push them in bulk to other markets.

Originally Posted by Jack Doph

There's nothing alarmist at all about what I'm saying - merely that the choice of "product X' vs the virtually identical "product X" is an utter waste of time.

It's not a waste if all you ever wanted was "product X". You needn't care if they called it "product X" or "product Timbuktu", as long as you're an informed buyer.

If someone's not an informed buyer, he's made to pay the "idiot-tax" (paying for ignorance/lack-of-information/lack-of-research).

[Jack Doph]

Perhaps my point is getting lost here.
What I'm referring to is not a change in generation, rather an offering within the same generation, of basically the same product(s) with virtually the same capabilities and pretty much within the same price-range.
At the high-end of the market, there's only a few, and they are similar to each other, with one only having a slight advantage over the other, but enough to make a difference, depending on the app/game (eg. GTX580 vs HD6970 or GTX590 vs HD6990).
In the mid to low range, this is a different picture completely..

[Benetanegia]

I have to agree with Jack here. I do think they are over saturating the market and I do think it is "bad" for the consumer, because this over saturation on the low/mid range has no other purpose than to prevent the fall on prices of performance class cards (i.e HD68xx, GTX560...). They release many cards in the 80-150 range so that average joe that wants to get a card for an specific price can get one and does not have to wait until prices fall. This might seem good but IMO it's not, not at all. If instead of having $80, $90, $100, $110... cards we only had 3-4 cards priced at say $50, $100 and $150 it would be much better for the customer in the long term, because retailers would be forced to eventually lower the price of the $150 card to $125-ish for those who want more than the $100 card but can't or are not willing to pay $150. That's just how free market should work and by flloding the market they just prevent that. You just have to look at GTX550 and HD6790 to understand what they are doing...

That's not to say that I want a them to only release 3 cards, but they used to release 1-2 cards per segment per generation and now they release 3-5... They should release more cards in the performance and high end prices, i.e release a $200, $250, $300, $350 and so on instead of going from $150-200 directly to $300++ and then to $400++.

[Jonap_1st]

i have a bad feeling when they compare it with 440's..

[Liquid Cool]

I'm quite excited for this release...

For LP...this is like the GTX580/HD6970. Looking forward to putting one of these 6570's in my htpc.

Best,

Liquid Cool

[Semi-Lobster]

Originally Posted by Jonap_1st

i have a bad feeling when they compare it with 440's..

The Benches show that the 6570/6670 perform consistently above the 440

[Jonap_1st]

Originally Posted by Semi-Lobster

The Benches show that the 6570/6670 perform consistently above the 440

from the table? yes..

but you know 440 are slower, even 20% than GT 240. and GT 240 are somewhat on par with 4670 which are 20% slower than 5670 (how many percentages i counted?)

from that point, just calculate it by yourself.. at the end this just another polished 5670's with some or maybe a few new features.

if it price is same with 5670 or maybe a few bucks more expensive then its good, but from this segment we need more performance not a couple of features that just really shine on high-end part..

[BrooksyX]

Hope the 6670 comes in a low profile varient. Want to updrade my 5670 but i might as well wait for a 7 series low profile card.

[silkstone]

Hmm, if these come in at under $100 it might be time to upgrade my aging 4850.. i wonder how they would compare.

[jmcslob]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

I have to agree with Jack here. I do think they are over saturating the market and I do think it is "bad" for the consumer, because this over saturation on the low/mid range has no other purpose than to prevent the fall on prices of performance class cards (i.e HD68xx, GTX560...). They release many cards in the 80-150 range so that average joe that wants to get a card for an specific price can get one and does not have to wait until prices fall. This might seem good but IMO it's not, not at all. If instead of having $80, $90, $100, $110... cards we only had 3-4 cards priced at say $50, $100 and $150 it would be much better for the customer in the long term, because retailers would be forced to eventually lower the price of the $150 card to $125-ish for those who want more than the $100 card but can't or are not willing to pay $150. That's just how free market should work and by flloding the market they just prevent that. You just have to look at GTX550 and HD6790 to understand what they are doing...

That's not to say that I want a them to only release 3 cards, but they used to release 1-2 cards per segment per generation and now they release 3-5... They should release more cards in the performance and high end prices, i.e release a $200, $250, $300, $350 and so on instead of going from $150-200 directly to $300++ and then to $400++.

If they were releasing more cards for the upper end I'd agree...But in the end it's about silicone real estate and since you want as many high ends as you can get your gonna be left with a lot of low end and your not gonna wanna wait until it's obsolete to be released and you don't want to devalue your upper end....

[meirb111]

Originally Posted by silkstone

Hmm, if these come in at under $100 it might be time to upgrade my aging 4850.. i wonder how they would compare.

upgrading from 4850 to 6670 is not a good upgrade you will
get only directx 11 ,computing power will not improve much if
you dont have the cash $ for 6850 wait for 7000 series

[BrooksyX]

Originally Posted by meirb111

upgrading from 4850 to 6670 is not a good upgrade you will
get only directx 11 ,computing power will not improve much if
you dont have the cash $ for 6850 wait for 7000 series

might be worth the cost in power savings though.. Im sure a 6670 will use much less power than a 4850. But yes better offer waiting a little longer.