AMD Radeon HD 6670
forum
Post your Graphics Card (Computer parts thread)
posted
Total Posts
72
,if i sell my house i can buy one too Intel HD Graphics 4000.
Shouldn't this be in General Discussion? Threads of "post your x" generally hang there. Not that I'm complaining, but hey, it just crossed my mind.
Shouldn't this be in General Discussion? Threads of "post your x" generally hang there. Not that I'm complaining, but hey, it just crossed my mind.
hehe. he.eternityglacier wrote:
So, On-Topic, what graphics card do YOU use?
Yeah this should go there.
nVidia GTX 580 by ASUS (Direct CU ll)
Also getting GT 610.
Why!? may you ask
Well I use it to run third (and maybe 4th) monitor on it. (It doesn't need any more power than to run them in 2d mode at 60hz)
Also getting GT 610.
Why!? may you ask
Well I use it to run third (and maybe 4th) monitor on it. (It doesn't need any more power than to run them in 2d mode at 60hz)
Radeon HD 4850 X2 for my compy (it still runs most games like a charm)
Intel HD 4000 for my lappy though
Intel HD 4000 for my lappy though
XFX 7850 2GB DDR5
Processor & Bus
Versión del chipset:ATI Radeon HD 7850
Reloj de GPU:860 MHz
Memory
Bus de memoria:256 bit
Reloj de memoria:4.8 GHz
Tamaño de memoria:2 GB
Tipo de memoria:DDR5
Memory bandwidth: 156GB/S
Sorry for my spanish ~
Processor & Bus
Versión del chipset:ATI Radeon HD 7850
Reloj de GPU:860 MHz
Memory
Bus de memoria:256 bit
Reloj de memoria:4.8 GHz
Tamaño de memoria:2 GB
Tipo de memoria:DDR5
Memory bandwidth: 156GB/S
Sorry for my spanish ~
Sapphire Radeon HD6850
HD6470M on laptop
HD6470M on laptop
Radeon 5850 with Zalman VF3000A cooler.
IppE
IppE
well, why not, that's what it needs to do so why does it matter if u said it?and ofc I am dumb with these so I just played safe :3IppE wrote:
5/5 copypaste of what I said to you on irc :3Zertap wrote:
Well I use it to run third (and maybe 4th) monitor on it. (It doesn't need any more power than to run them in 2d mode at 60hz)
Radeon 7970 main rig, 5870 for storage/pc for people to use when they come over.
How on earth could you call a GPU not sensible D:IppE wrote:
Because spending money on sensible things is too mainstream.Emaal wrote:
why do you all have these mlg gpu's
IppE is noob.
radeon 6870 btw
radeon 6870 btw
Topic Starter
Sorry for the late responses 
EDIT: Okay I see. If a mod reads this, please move this thread to GD please?
Sorry to hear that.Kazuo wrote:
i dont even have one
Anything to get away from having a bad integrated graphics card (it was a GeForce 6150SE, very bad for gaming and even osu)Card N'FoRcE wrote:
NVidia Riva TNT2 M64, 32MB
Ok, that was ten years ago, i'm using an overclocked Gigabyte GTX560 right now. Still, that TNT2 was an amazing card.
Why would you even buy a GT610? I'm kinda curious about how much it costed you and what card you were using before.
I'm serious, low end graphics cards aren't really worth even the 30/40$ you spend for them.
I don't actually know.Mr Color wrote:
Intel HD Graphics 4000.
Shouldn't this be in General Discussion? Threads of "post your x" generally hang there. Not that I'm complaining, but hey, it just crossed my mind.
EDIT: Okay I see. If a mod reads this, please move this thread to GD please?
See above.Wojjan wrote:
hehe. he.eternityglacier wrote:
So, On-Topic, what graphics card do YOU use?
Yeah this should go there.
/) Brohoof for matching graphics cardsZertap wrote:
nVidia GTX 580 by ASUS (Direct CU ll)
Also getting GT 610.
Why!? may you ask
Well I use it to run third (and maybe 4th) monitor on it. (It doesn't need any more power than to run them in 2d mode at 60hz)
Now THAT'S something like what I want to get later on, but for now, I'll stick with the GT610. It runs better than my integrated graphics at least. I can even run fullscreen 3D games at around max resolution with near max graphics settings with only some spike lags, rather than requiring to be in OpenGL (in this game) or DirectX 8 (games like TF2) at lowest graphics settings possible, and STILL have major FPS lag.RBRat3 wrote:
Radeon HD 6950 or as I like to call it "Back fat betty"
Integrated graphics is bad, but you have a LOOOOONG way to go before you can even grasp what a horrid comparison the 610 is to that 6950.eternityglacier wrote:
Now THAT'S something like what I want to get later on, but for now, I'll stick with the GT610. It runs better than my integrated graphics at least. I can even run fullscreen 3D games at around max resolution with near max graphics settings with only some spike lags, rather than requiring to be in OpenGL (in this game) or DirectX 8 (games like TF2) at lowest graphics settings possible, and STILL have major FPS lag.RBRat3 wrote:
Radeon HD 6950 or as I like to call it "Back fat betty"
And with the exception of Valve, the only games you may actually be running maxed out on that card would have to be at least 5 years old. In fact, it's not really "max resolution" because that would have to be 1080p, so your card can't even handle the modern Valve games on "max". Like, I don't want to get you sad or anything, but a 610 is nearly at the bottom of the ladder, with the only things slower than it being older iterations of x10's, AMD's budget counterparts, and iGPUs. Heck, the shiny new HD Graphics 4000 is probably better than your card by now. Your GPU isn't even using the latest Kepler architecture, it's just a rebranded 520.
The 6950 (stock) is 14 and a half times as powerful as your card. The more recent nVIDIA 680 is almost 20 times as powerful as your card. Hell, even the graphics card that I have in my laptop right now (GT 540M) is almost twice as fast as the graphics card that you have.
So does that give you an idea of the whole scale of everything? Please, to avoid making yourself look like an idiot next time, don't go making GPU threads when the brand spanking new GPU you just got is a bottom-tier, budget card. Or if you did all of this thinking your card is freaking fantastic... and you still think it is after reading this, then I'm sorry but you are a moron.
Geforce gtx 460 ._.
Speccy inc.
Monitor res is kinda smallish, but I'm too used to it. :<
Monitor res is kinda smallish, but I'm too used to it. :<
spammeracc
Depends the application you're running, really.spammeracc wrote:
fps? i just want to know what fps u get with a 690 .-.-Laputa- wrote:
I use 2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690s.
This graph gives you an idea of how it can work.
On games like Borderlands 2 and such, I get over 80 fps. Games like WoW I would get around 60, cause it seems to cap there. (Not sure if you can set some sort of limit on fps for that game)
On Skyrim, I get over 120 fps. So, the 690 is really a work of art.
Radeon 6950. The card is dying though so I'm probably gonna get a 7XXX series soon.
Topic Starter
No I understand that my card is not the best in the world. I was just stating that it is better than my integrated graphics, which by the way is from around when Vista was released (2006). And at the time I got the new card I didn't have the money for a 680.Kitsunemimi wrote:
Integrated graphics is bad, but you have a LOOOOONG way to go before you can even grasp what a horrid comparison the 610 is to that 6950.
And with the exception of Valve, the only games you may actually be running maxed out on that card would have to be at least 5 years old. In fact, it's not really "max resolution" because that would have to be 1080p, so your card can't even handle the modern Valve games on "max". Like, I don't want to get you sad or anything, but a 610 is nearly at the bottom of the ladder, with the only things slower than it being older iterations of x10's, AMD's budget counterparts, and iGPUs. Heck, the shiny new HD Graphics 4000 is probably better than your card by now. Your GPU isn't even using the latest Kepler architecture, it's just a rebranded 520.
The 6950 (stock) is 14 and a half times as powerful as your card. The more recent nVIDIA 680 is almost 20 times as powerful as your card. Hell, even the graphics card that I have in my laptop right now (GT 540M) is almost twice as fast as the graphics card that you have.
So does that give you an idea of the whole scale of everything? Please, to avoid making yourself look like an idiot next time, don't go making GPU threads when the brand spanking new GPU you just got is a bottom-tier, budget card. Or if you did all of this thinking your card is freaking fantastic... and you still think it is after reading this, then I'm sorry but you are a moron.
And I have a comparison of features of a 6150SE (integrated graphics) and the GT 610:
GeForce 6150SE + nForce 430
SPOILER
Launch: June 2006
Memory: 256 MB
Core clock: 425 MHz
Memory clock: 400-800 MHZ
Bandwidth (GB/s): 3.2-16.0 GB/s
Bus type: DDR2
Memory: 256 MB
Core clock: 425 MHz
Memory clock: 400-800 MHZ
Bandwidth (GB/s): 3.2-16.0 GB/s
Bus type: DDR2
GeForce GT 610
SPOILER
Launch: May 15, 2012
Memory: 1 GB
Core clock: 810 MHz
Memory clock: 1800 MHz
Bandwidth (GB/s): 14.4 GB/s (I didnt check the actual bandwidth of my integrated graphics, so I can't tell if there was an improvement in bandwidth or not.)
Bus type: DDR3
Memory: 1 GB
Core clock: 810 MHz
Memory clock: 1800 MHz
Bandwidth (GB/s): 14.4 GB/s (I didnt check the actual bandwidth of my integrated graphics, so I can't tell if there was an improvement in bandwidth or not.)
Bus type: DDR3
Oh god LOL it's ASUS
I hope you realize that ASUS has the best soundcards, some of the best motherboards and graphics cards out. Don't speak without knowledge.Kitsunemimi wrote:
Oh god LOL it's ASUS
This. Though, I think Kitsunemimi was referring to his username.JappyBabes wrote:
I hope you realize that ASUS has the best soundcards, some of the best motherboards and graphics cards out. Don't speak without knowledge.Kitsunemimi wrote:
Oh god LOL it's ASUS
I was, but I guess it wasn't obvious enough that I had posted immediately after the user in question.
And yes, I'm completely aware of Asus's quality standards and hardware
And yes, I'm completely aware of Asus's quality standards and hardware