Dual Radeon HD 6950

[Impulser]

I'm wondering how much performance would I get out of dual Radeon HD 6950 2GB graphic cards. I'm looking into buying them. I'm not sure if it worth it. Would I be better of buying a more high end graphic card.

Thanks, Impulser

 

[Elfear]

What resolution do you play at and which games?

 

[Impulser]

My current monitor is 1920×1080. I plan on playing Starcraft, Battlefield, and Crossfire.

 

[toyota]

please list ALL of your other specs in detail.

 

[Impulser]

please list ALL of your other specs in detail.

I'm planning on doing this build. http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=13319094

I can spend up to 1550$ and I want to know if I should order 2 Radeon HD 6950

or buy a single Radeon HD 6970, or any other GPU

 

[Chinoman]

Like many others on the forum will tell you, unless you plan on running applications which may benefit from a high thread count, it will be smarter to go with the i5-2500K and put the savings toward other components.

As for the dual 6950 configuration, nothing really comes close to its performance at that price. If raw overall power per dollar is what you're looking for, you really can't go wrong.

 

[Elfear]

Dual 6950s is probably overkill for 1080p with the games you listed (although BF3 might be a killer depending on settings). I'd grab a single 6950 and see how it does. It will handle anything you throw at it except for a small handful of games at max settings. Initial investment will be low and then you can buy one of the next gen cards when they appear.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm planning on doing this build. http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=13319094

I can spend up to 1550$ and I want to know if I should order 2 Radeon HD 6950

or buy a single Radeon HD 6970, or any other GPU

For HD6950 2GB CF + 2600k Overclocked, I'd grab a 750 Watt Antec power supply. I think it's $10 more or something. ($65 on the egg).

Alternatively, drop the processor to a 2500k for games. It's a beast already even at stock speeds. A single HD6950 is enough for the games you listed at 1080P. You can always grab a 2nd one later.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

You'll need a different PSU.

Dual 6950s/6970s are not complete overkill for 1080p. Some games will love the extra GPU power. Crysis, Metro 2033. But SC is mostly CPU limited, BF3 could destroy GPUs (not sure yet), and I know nothing about Crossfire (the game)

 

[3DVagabond]

I would get a good 750W PSU if you are going dual cards.

 

[Will Robinson]

I think you should get the Core i5-2500K processor and a single HD6950.
That will be great for current games.
In 6 months you could get the latest and greatest video card as a nice refresh.

 

[Silverforce11]

I advise against the common suggestions on here. Building a new rig from the ground up, always go for the best CPU you budget can afford.

The CPU and thus MB/ram setup is the single most long lasting component of a typical rig. GPUs will be upgraded more regularly.

Get a CPU in your rig that in 2-3 years time will still be a great performer. As more games go multithreaded even now, we can make an educated guess that games in 2 years time will benefit from 8+ cores/thread etc.

A single 6950 is enough for 1080p. You can get another very cheap 6950 a year from now if you need more grunt and CF them.

 

[Jacky60]

While one 6950 will be enough for most games to look acceptable at 1920/1080 there are some -Metro 2033, Arma 2, Shogun 2 that will certainly benefit from more power. From initial testing of BF3 (see Russian Sensation's thread in video section) you'll need a lot more than a single 6950 even at that resolution. Buy one 6950 see how you go then get another when you discover (as I suspect you will) it's not quite where you want to be. 2 6950's is the sweet spot for performance and value and the best you can get for the money by far. Contrary to what another poster said I'd get the 2500k unless you run a lot of threaded applications-video encoding for example.

 

[Smartazz]

I advise against the common suggestions on here. Building a new rig from the ground up, always go for the best CPU you budget can afford.

The CPU and thus MB/ram setup is the single most long lasting component of a typical rig. GPUs will be upgraded more regularly.

Get a CPU in your rig that in 2-3 years time will still be a great performer. As more games go multithreaded even now, we can make an educated guess that games in 2 years time will benefit from 8+ cores/thread etc.

A single 6950 is enough for 1080p. You can get another very cheap 6950 a year from now if you need more grunt and CF them.

I agree that one 6950 should be enough for 1080p, however I disagree with your suggestion on the 2600K. Unless the OP needs the added threads now, he'd be better off saving himself roughly $100 with the 2500K. If the OP needs more CPU power, he can sell the 2500K next year, then put the ~$100 he saved toward getting an Ivy Bridge processor.

 

[bryanW1995]

I advise against the common suggestions on here. Building a new rig from the ground up, always go for the best CPU you budget can afford.

The CPU and thus MB/ram setup is the single most long lasting component of a typical rig. GPUs will be upgraded more regularly.

Get a CPU in your rig that in 2-3 years time will still be a great performer. As more games go multithreaded even now, we can make an educated guess that games in 2 years time will benefit from 8+ cores/thread etc.

A single 6950 is enough for 1080p. You can get another very cheap 6950 a year from now if you need more grunt and CF them.

So you would recommend, say, a 2600k over a 2500k to all users who can afford the extra $100? What about 1100t over 1075t? At least for reasonably competent overclockers, I usually recommend something more like the i7 920, 1055t, basically just the same arch but at a lower multiplier. Especially in the case of unlocked cpus it makes no sense to pay a serious premium for a higher base multiplier, but even with locked chips other components usually keep overclocking in check, anyway.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Dual 6950's would preform quite well at 1080p. I would call that overkill. I suggest something like a GTX 570 over the 6970. I do not think that 2GB will really be necessary over the 1.2GB in the GTX 570. That power level is about the maximum I would recommend for one 1080p monitor.

 

[renz20003]

You can save yourself some money by getting the 1 gig cards if your just gaming at 1080p, there pretty much neck and neck at that rez

If you plan on using tri moniters is when it comes in handy with the extra ram.

 

[Jacky60]

I think saving $10-$20 to get a 1gb card is NOT a smart move. The extra ram is used in more and more games and some e.g.Shogun 2 push past the 2gb limit even at 1920/1200. Get the 1gb card if you're intending to upgrade again in the next three months otherwise do the sensible thing and get the 2gb cards. Also 2gb cards will have greater resale value.

 

[Silverforce11]

So you would recommend, say, a 2600k over a 2500k to all users who can afford the extra $100? What about 1100t over 1075t? At least for reasonably competent overclockers, I usually recommend something more like the i7 920, 1055t, basically just the same arch but at a lower multiplier. Especially in the case of unlocked cpus it makes no sense to pay a serious premium for a higher base multiplier, but even with locked chips other components usually keep overclocking in check, anyway.

The difference between the 55T and the 110T is just clock speed. But the difference between the 2500k vs 2600k is 4 extra threads for software which can use it.

The point is that games now already use 4 cores, and new games coming out (BF3) also scale with 6+ cores. So building a new rig now, just spend $100 extra and get a CPU thats capable of 8 threads so its still strong 2 years down the road (especially so if its a good overclocker).

$100 isn't much in the total build for future proofing. My CPU setup has survived a 4870 and now 5850s, or equivalent to a gtx580, so thats three generations of GPU from a single CPU.

Edit: If it was Phenom II x4 vs 1055T, i recommend getting the 55T for the extra cores even if it costs more. etc

 

[toyota]

as of right now the 2600k as zero advantage clock for clock in games even with HT and the extra 2mb of L3. in fact HT has almost just as good of chance of slowing 4 cores down as it does of helping. by the time an overclocked 2500k becomes a limitation at realistic settings, it will be way past time for a cpu upgrade anyway

 

[RussianSensation]

as of right now the 2600k as zero advantage clock for clock in games even with HT and the extra 2mb of L3. in fact HT has almost just as good of chance of slowing 4 cores down as it does of helping. by the time an overclocked 2500k becomes a limitation at realistic settings, it will be way past time for a cpu upgrade anyway

Exactly. Core i7 860 was no faster in games than the i5 760. When we'll run into a situation where a 2500k @ 4.4-4.5ghz is no longer fast enough (while maxed out at 99&#37 to run our games, the 2600k is unlikely to fair any better. More importantly, when this happens, today's GPUs will be doing a slideshow dance. I can see 2500k @ 4.5ghz easily lasting into the GTX8xx series generation in fact.

And honestly, in 3-4 years from now, we'll have 8 core CPUs with another 15-20% IPC improvement over SB and even higher clock speeds. So $100 saved on 2600k can go a long way towards a future CPU / platform upgrade in 3-4 years.

To support my theory, a $225 2500k @ 4.4-4.5ghz (with 4 threads) stomps all over my $330 Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz (8 threads) in pretty much any scenario, and esp. in games.

 

[xXCrossCheckXx]

i have a single 5870 2gb card running bf:bc2, moh, cod:BO, crysis1, farcry2 on my 1080p 52in lg led with no probs