Radeon HD 6950 Into a 6970 With a BIOS Hack

**Canada2005** · 12-28-2010, 08:07 PM

Cant go wrong with that free upgrade.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/rad...950,11852.html

**Ven** · 12-28-2010, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Canada2005

Cant go wrong with that free upgrade.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/rad...950,11852.html

my 6950 is enroute to the house as I type

**Chewy_Solo** · 12-28-2010, 09:30 PM

Not guaranteed stable. Thankfully there is dual BIOS.

**Ven** · 12-29-2010, 06:51 AM

well with a 100% success rate on the flashes performed.....I'll take my chances

**Canada2005** · 12-29-2010, 05:28 PM

Let us know how the flash goes.

**Chewy_Solo** · 12-29-2010, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by venman

well with a 100% success rate on the flashes performed.....I'll take my chances

Someone on OCN claimed to have artifacting.

**Ven** · 12-30-2010, 06:22 PM

Just installed my xfx 6950....bios flash was 100% success. I am officially rocking on a 6970

just ran 3dmark11 I scored 4844....don't know if thats good or not. I did like the temps though....my card never burped past 34C. Now I can add that 20% OC to it

....all in all very happy with the card.

**Ven** · 12-31-2010, 12:24 PM

update,

Ran call of duty black ops for around 4 hours last night settings as follows

1440x900 (max my monitor does)
all the eye candy on, shadows, etc....
AA 4X

averaged 165-200 fps.....330fps while spectating
temps never went above 32C.

Odd thing is everything looked ALOT crisper for some reason....my 4890 was very capable of running that game in the 55-70 fps range so I don't know what is causing that?

**jmaker** · 12-31-2010, 02:25 PM

Dude, you've got to get a bigger monitor. The game looks so much better at a higher resolution.

**UnDeaD** · 12-31-2010, 02:50 PM

Yep, it's time for a 1080p upgrade man.

**Ven** · 12-31-2010, 04:52 PM

I have been thinking about that...I am thinking maybe 22 or 24"......will 5ms or 2ms response time matter at that size? my 19" is 5ms response and everything has been fine with that for years. I just don't want any blurring.

**Acreo Aeneas** · 01-01-2011, 01:05 PM

The claims of 2ms and 5ms mean nothing as this becomes marketing crap. There was a good article a while back that tested manufacturer's claims of these response times. They found the "2ms" monitors actually performed at 8ms and the "5ms" performed at 12ms or more.

Note: These are GTG (gray to gray) response times. It's actually cheat since a truer measurement of pixel response time would be BTB (black to black), but it's "faster" if manufacturers used gray instead of black.

If you wanna test if your new monitor responds faster or slower than your old one, this page (and site) is the one I rely on: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/response_time.php

So in the end, no you will not see a difference between 2 ms and 5 ms. However, you will notice noticeably smoother motion video performance in games with a 120 Hz monitor vs. a 60 Hz. monitor.

**Wicks** · 01-04-2011, 09:16 AM

Oh 24 all the way, very easy to pick up a good 24 at a reasonable price. Personally don't see the point in going from 19 to 22 when you can get a 24 for nearly the same. I have a Samsung Syncmaster 24, only 60 mhz but 1920 by 1200. Very happy with it. A good monitor will put the extra gfx grunt to excellent use.

**VoodooIT** · 01-04-2011, 11:48 AM

I agree with Wickens, go for 24". Most of the 23" - 24" monitors carry a 1920x1080 resolution, but I personally prefer 1920x1200 24" monitors.

**Acreo Aeneas** · 01-12-2011, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by VoodooIT

I agree with Wickens, go for 24". Most of the 23" - 24" monitors carry a 1920x1080 resolution, but I personally prefer 1920x1200 24" monitors.

They're becoming increasingly harder to find. If you can't find a 24" 19x12 monitor you like, look at the slightly larger ones at 25.5" (like my current ASUS VW266H). It's only a 1.5" larger and you're not going to notice any degradation in image/video quality.