[nextpage title=”Introduction”]

AMD has released their new Radeon HD 6800 family, so far comprised of the Radeon HD 6850 and Radeon HD 6870 models. Let’s review the standard Radeon HD 6850 from XFX (HD-685X-ZNFC), which follows the AMD reference design.

The name given by AMD to this new GPU family is misleading. Since 6800 is a number higher than 5800, users may think that the two members of this new family are faster than their counterparts from the Radeon HD 5800 family, namely the Radeon HD 5850 and HD 5870, which is not the case. As you can see in the table below, while members of the 6800 family run at a higher clock rate, they have a lower number of internal processors (shaders). This makes members of the 6800 family to be actually slower – but more affordable – than members of the 5800 family.

To compete with the new 6800 family, NVIDIA has reduced the price of their GPUs. After this price reduction, the new Radeon HD 6850 competes directly with the GeForce GTX 460 with 768 MB. The Radeon HD 5850 is between USD 60 and USD 80 more expensive than the Radeon HD 6850.

Video Card	Core Clock	Shader Clock	Memory Clock (Real)	Memory Clock (Effective)	Memory Interface	Memory Transfer Rate	Memory	Shaders	Price
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	675 MHz	1,350 MHz	900 MHz	3,600 MHz	192-bit	86.4 GB/s	768 GB GDDR5	336	USD 170 – 185
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	675 MHz	1,350 MHz	900 MHz	3,600 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	336	USD 220 – 230
GeForce GTX 465	607 MHz	1,215 MHz	801.5 MHz	3,206 MHz	256-bit	102.6 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	352	USD 220 – 240
Radeon HD 5850	725 MHz	725 MHz	1 GHz	4 GHz	256-bit	128 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	1,440	USD 250 – 260
Radeon HD 5870	850 MHz	850 MHz	1.2 GHz	4.8 GHz	256-bit	153.6 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	1,600	USD 330 – 340
Radeon 6850	775 MHz	775 MHz	1 GHz	4 GHz	256-bit	128 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	960	USD 180 – 190
Radeon 6870	900 MHz	900 MHz	1.05 GHz	4.2 GHz	256-bit	134.4 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	1,120	USD 240 – 260

Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review. All graphics chip listed above are DirectX 11 parts.

XFX also has a factory-overclocked version of this video card, called “Black Edition.” In this card the graphics processor runs at 820 MHz and memory runs at 4.4 GHz.

You can compare the specs of these video cards with other video cards by taking a look at our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table and NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table tutorials.

Now let’s take a complete look at this model from XFX.

[nextpage title=”The XFX Radeon HD 6850″]

As mentioned, the XFX Radeon HD 6850 follows AMD’s reference design.

Figure 1: XFX Radeon HD 6850

Figure 2: XFX Radeon HD 6850

This video card has two DVI-D, one HDMI, and one DisplayPort outputs, for a total of four video connectors.

Figure 3: Video connectors

[nextpage title=”The XFX Radeon HD 6850 (Cont’d)”]

In Figure 4, you can see the video card with its cooler removed. Note how it requires only one six-pin auxiliary power connector. In Figures 5 and 6, you can see the cooler by itself. The heatsink is rounded, with a 730 mm fan in the middle and a copper base using vapor chamber technology, a technology similar to the one used by heatpipes.

Figure 4: Video card with the cooler removed

Figure 5: The GPU cooler

Figure 6: The GPU cooler

The reviewed card uses eight 1 Gbit GDDR5 chips, making its 1 GB video memory (1 Gbit x 8 = 1 GB). Each chip is connected to the GPU using a 32-bit data lane, making the video card’s 256-bit memory interface (32 bits x 8 = 256).

The chips used are H5GQ1H24AFR-T2C parts from Hynix, which support up to 1.25 GHz (4.5 GHz QDR) and since on this video card memory is accessed at 1 GHz (4 GHz QDR), there is a good 25% margin for you to increase the memory clock rate while keeping the chips inside the maximum they support. Of course you can always try to overclock the memory chips above their specs.

Figure 7: Memory chips

This video card doesn’t come with any accessory or games.

Before seeing the performance results, let’s recap the main features of this video card.

[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]

The main specifications for the XFX Radeon HD 6850 video card include:

• Graphics chip: AMD Radeon HD 6850 running at 775 MHz
• Memory: 1 GB GDDR5 memory (256-bit interface) from Hynix (H5GQ1H24AFR-T2C), running at 1 GHz (4 GHz, QDR)
• Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0
• Video Connect
  ors: Two DVI-D, one HDMI, and one DisplayPort
• Video Capture (VIVO): No
• Cables and adapters that come with this board: None
• Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: One
• Games included: None
• Programs included: None
• More information: https://xfxforce.com
• Average Price in the US*: USD 190.00

* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.

[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]

During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.

Hardware Configuration

• CPU: Core i7 Extreme 965 (3.2 GHz, 8 MB L2 memory cache)
• Motherboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition (2101 BIOS)
• Memories: 3x 2 GB G.Skill F3-10666CL7T-6GBPK (DDR3-1333/PC3-10666, CL7-7-7-18)
• Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache)
• Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560×1600)
• Power Supply: SilverStone Element ST75EF
• CPU Cooler: Intel stock
• Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N

Software Configuration

• Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
• Video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz

Driver Versions

• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 10.10
• NVIDIA video driver version: 260.99
• Intel Inf driver version: 9.1.1.1019

Software Used

• 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
• Aliens vs. Predator + Benchmark Tool
• Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.7
• Crysis Warhead – Patch 1.1 + HOC Bench Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool 1.1.1
• Far Cry 2 – Patch 1.03
• Lost Planet 2

Error Margin

We adopted a 3% error margin. Thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.

[nextpage title=”3DMark Vantage Professional”]

3DMark Vantage measures Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supports PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Note that since we are considering only the GPU score provided by this program, physics calculations are not taken into account.

We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” values). The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.

[nextpage title=”Call of Duty 4″]

Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, exactly what will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.

To get accurate results we had to disable the 80 FPS limit in the game. To do this, input the command, “/seta com_maxfps 1000” (minus the quotes) into the console (` key). It can be set to any number greater than 200.

We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was set to the maximum values in the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the internal game benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo here for downloading if you want to run your own benchmarks. We ran the demo five times, and the results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each video card.

Call of Duty 4 – Maximum	1680×1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	155.8	24%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	138.4	10%
Radeon HD 6870	136.1	8%
Radeon HD 5850	132.1	5%
Radeon HD 6850	125.9
GeForce GTX 465	125.6	0%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	112.6	-11%

Call of Duty 4 – Maximum	1920×1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	136.2	26%
Radeon HD 6870	118.4	9%
Radeon HD 5850	114.5	6%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	110.6	2%
Radeon HD 6850	108.3
GeForce GTX 465	104.4	-4%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	95.3	-12%

Call of Duty 4 – Maximum	2560×1600	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	94.2	30%
Radeon HD 6870	80.8	12%
Radeon HD 5850	78.1	8%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	74.6	3%
Radeon HD 6850	72.4
GeForce GTX 465	70.2	-3%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	62.8	-13%

[nextpage title=”Crysis Warhead”]

Crysis Warhead is a DirectX 10 game based on the same engine as the original Crysis, but optimized (it runs under DirectX 9.0c when installed on Windows XP).

We used the HardwareOC Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool to collect the data for this test. We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, all at medium image quality (16x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering) and using the Airfield demo. The results below are the number of frames per second achieved by each video card.

Crysis Warhead – Medium	1680×1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	35	25.0%
Radeon HD 6870	32	14.3%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	31	10.7%
GeForce GTX 465	30	7.1%
Radeon HD 5850	30	7.1%
Radeon HD 6850	28
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	27	-3.6%

Crysis Warhead – Medium	1920×1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	31	29.2%
Radeon HD 6870	27	12.5%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	26	8.3%
Radeon HD 5850	26	8.3%
GeForce GTX 465	25	4.2%
Radeon HD 6850	24
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	22	-8.3%

Crysis Warhead – Medium	2560×1600	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	21	31%
Radeon HD 6870	19	19%
Radeon HD 5850	17	6%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	16	0%
Radeon HD 6850	16
GeForce GTX 465	15	-6%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	13	-19%

[nextpage title=”Far Cry 2″]

Far Cry 2 is based on an entirely new game engine called Dunia, which is DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10 compatible video card.

We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to High (x8 anti-aliasing) and running the “Ranch Long” demo three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.

FarCry 2 – Maximum	1680×1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	109.8	23.9%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	104.9	18.4%
Radeon HD 6870	101.2	14.3%
Radeon HD 5850	94.0	6.1%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	93.9	6.0%
GeForce GTX 465	90.4	2.1%
Radeon HD 6850	88.6

FarCry 2 – Maximum	1920×1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	98.4	26.0%
Radeon HD 6870	89.4	14.6%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	88.9	13.9%
Radeon HD 5850	83.3	6.7%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	78.5	0.5%
Radeon HD 6850	78.1
GeForce GTX 465	75.5	-3.3%

FarCry 2 – Maximum	2560×1600	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	70.2	29.9%
Radeon HD 6870	62.1	14.9%
Radeon HD 5850	58.7	8.7%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	57.8	7.0%
Radeon HD 6850	54.0
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	50.1	-7.3%
GeForce GTX 465	49.0	-9.3%

[nextpage title=”Aliens vs. Predator”]

Aliens vs. Predator is a DirectX 11 game that makes full use of tessellation and advanced shadow rendering. We used the Aliens vs. Predator Benchmark Tool developed by Rebellion. This program reads its configuration from a text file (our configuration files can be found here). We ran this program at 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600 resolutions, with low texture settings, x8 anisotropic filtering and x4 anti-aliasing.

Aliens vs. Predator	1680×1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	52	50.3%
Radeon HD 5850	41.3	19.4%
Radeon HD 6870	41	18.5%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	37.8	9.2%
GeForce GTX 465	35.5	2.6%
Radeon HD 6850	34.6
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	30.7	-11.3%

Aliens vs. Predator	1920×1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	42.5	50.7%
Radeon HD 5850	33.6	19.1%
Radeon HD 6870	33.4	18.4%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	30.2	7.1%
GeForce GTX 465	28.5	1.1%
Radeon HD 6850	28.2
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	24.5	-13.1%

Aliens vs. Predator	2560×1600	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	26.2	52.3%
Radeon HD 5850	20.6	19.8%
Radeon HD 6870	20.4	18.6%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	18.1	5.2%
GeForce GTX 465	17.5	1.7%
Radeon HD 6850	17.2
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	14.5	-15.7 %

[nextpage title=”Lost Planet 2″]

Lost Planet 2 is a game that uses a lot of DirectX 11 features, like tessellation (to round out the edges of polygonal models), displacement maps (added to the tessellated mesh to add fine grain details), DirectCompute soft body simulation (to introduce more realism in the “boss” monsters), and DirectCompute wave simulation (to introduce more realism in the physics calculations in water surfaces; when you move or when gunshots and explosions hit the water, it moves accordingly). We reviewed the video cards using Lost Planet 2 internal benchmarking features, choosing the “Benchmark A” (we know that “Benchmark B” is the one recommended for reviewing video cards, however, at least with us, results were inconsistent). We set graphics at “medium,” anti-aliasing at “2x” and DX11 at “full.” The results below are the number of frames per second generated by each video card.

Lost Planet 2	1680×1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	63.10	19.3%
Radeon HD 6870	60.60	14.6%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	55.30	4.5%
GeForce GTX 465	54.80	3.6%
Radeon HD 6850	52.90
Radeon HD 5850	50.90	-3.8%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	47.70	-9.8%

Lost Planet 2	1920×1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	55.00	36.8%
Radeon HD 6870	50.40	25.4%
Radeon HD 5850	47.10	17.2%
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	46.30	15.2%
GeForce GTX 465	42.60	6.0%
Radeon HD 6850	40.20
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	39.40	-2.0%

Lost Planet 2	2560×1600	Difference
Radeon HD 5870	39.80	34.5%
Radeon HD 6870	36.90	24.7%
Radeon HD 5850	31.80	7.4%
Radeon HD 6850	29.60
GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB)	28.90	-2.4%
GeForce GTX 465	27.60	-6.8%
GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB)	24.80	-16.2%

[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]

The new Radeon HD 6850 was faster than its main competitor, the GeForce GTX 460 with 768 MB, in almost all  games and simulations we ran. Therefore, if you are looking for an economic solution to the Radeon HD 5850, the Radeon HD 6850 is a terrific option.

Here is the breakdown. In most games and simulations, the Radeon HD 6850 was up to 19% faster than the GeForce GTX 460 with 768 MB. There were only two exceptions. On 3DMark Vantage, which simulates DirectX 10 games, the Radeon 6850 was faster only when image quality settings were disabled. Maxing out image quality settings made the GeForce GTX 460 with 768 MB to be up to 15% faster. And on Far Cry 2 (a DirectX 10 game), the GeForce GTX 460 with 768 MB was 6% faster than the Radeon HD 6850 at 1680 x 1050. At 1920 x 1200, both cards achieved similar performance, but at 2560 x 1600 the Radeon HD 6850 was 8% faster.

Of course if you want more performance you may pick the Radeon HD 5850 or the GeForce GTX 460 with 1 GB (always keeping in mind that the difference between the 768 MB and the 1 GB model isn’t only the amount of video memory, but the memory interface width). In our tests the Radeon HD 5850 was up to 25% faster than the Radeon HD 6850 (between 18% and 25% faster on 3DMark vantage, between 5% and 8% faster on Call of Duty 4, between 6% and 9% on Far Cry 2, between 19% and 20% on Alien vs. Predator, between 6% and 8% on Crysis Warhead, and up to 17% fast on Lost Planet 2), while the GeForce GTX 460 with 1 GB was up to 32% faster than the Radeon HD 6850 (between 8% and 32% faster on 3DMark Vantage, up to 10% faster on Call of Duty 4, between 7% and 18% faster on Far Cry 2, between 5% and 9% faster on Alien vs. Predator, up to 11% faster on Crysis Warhead, and up to 15% faster on Lost Planet 2).