AMD Radeon HD 6970M Graphics Card Review
, Posted in
Review
,
0 Comments
In the contest for best notebook performance, there's been a lively ongoing fight for years now between the two GPU giants Nvidia and AMD (formerly ATI). While Nvidia has gotten in a few good hits in recent months with its powerful GeForce 400 series (Fermi architecture) and even outdid itself with the GeForce GTX 485M (see review), AMD is now putting its new top model, the Radeon HD 6970M, in the ring. So, how does this high-end graphics card fare against other AMD GPUs as well as the competition from Nvidia? Read the following comprehensive review to find out—the central focus of which is, of course, the graphics card's performance potential
.
The Test Laptop
The Test Laptop: Eurocom W860CU Cougar
Laptop Specs:
- Windows 7 Home Premium (64-Bit)
- Intel PM55 Chipset
- Intel Core i7 740QM Quad-Core CPU
- AMD Radeon HD 6970M High-End GPU
- 15.6“ Full-HD LED Display (Non-Glare)
- 4 GB DDR3 RAM (1333 MHz)
- Seagate Momentus ST95005620AS HDD (500 GB, 7200 RPM)
- Starting Price: 1034 Euro (Price Depends on Particular Configuration)
Links:
- News: AMD Radeon HD 6000M Series
- Video: Eurocom W860CU Cougar
- Video: AMD Radeon HD 6970M Montage
AMD Radeon HD 6970M – Technical Details
Features
Although AMD doesn't quite offer as many features as Nvidia in its graphics cards, the Radeon HD 6970M does have several interesting tricks up its sleeve.
• AMD HD3D Technology: Those interested in the 3D rendering of pictures, films or games had no way to go but Nvidia 3D Vision until now. AMD doesn't want to pass up one of the hottest trends in entertainment any longer and has therefore fitted the Radeon HD 6000M series with HD3D technology. HD3D is on an open standard and relies on the hardware of other companies. According to reviews, HD3D currently performs quite poorly, likely because the list of 3D displays that support this technology (Passiv-Pol) is very short. However, there should be 120-Hz monitors with AMD compatibility popping up in the future, which—like with Nvidia's 3D Vision—allow for 3D rendering based on the shutter-glasses technology.
• AMD EyeSpeed Technology: The formidable EyeSpeed supposedly contributes to higher performance and better picture quality in customized applications by having the processor and GPU work together, thus profiting from the advantages of each. AMD claims smoother multitasking and fluid HD playback.
• AMD Eyefinity Technology:The Radeon HD 6000M series contains the second generation of relatively well-developed multi-monitor technology. Eyefinity theoretically allows for the use of up to 6 monitors with one GPU, which not only increases the amount of screen space but also supposedly pushes the gaming experience to a new level. In our experience, though, notebooks are typically incapable of working with more than two monitors at once.
• CrossFireX: Using CrossFire technology allows for two graphics cards—like already seen in the past—to run in tandem, optimally leading to a doubling of performance. In addition to the high energy consumption and high capacity for cooling required, another disadvantage would be the propensity to a slightly choppy performance particularly noticeable at a screen refresh rate of under 30 fps.
• CrossFireX: Using CrossFire technology allows for two graphics cards—like already seen in the past—to run in tandem, optimally leading to a doubling of performance. In addition to the high energy consumption and high capacity for cooling required, another disadvantage would be the propensity to a slightly choppy performance particularly noticeable at a screen refresh rate of under 30 fps.
• DirectX 11: The Radeon HD 6000M series is AMD's second graphics card generation with support for DirectX 11. While multi-threading improves performance by making better use of the CPU cores, tessellation contributes to a detailed and smooth picture.
Benchmarks
Before we delve into the synthetic graphics benchmarks and real game tests, something important to keep in mind: Since its greatest competitor from Nvidia, the GeForce GTX 585M was equipped with a powerful Intel Sandy Bridge CPU, the differences in performance measured between the GeForce and our Radeon HD 6970M should not be considered the final argument in the matter. The comparison to the GeForce GTX 460M, GeForce GTX 480M and Radeon HD 5870 did not present the same hardware disparity because previously reviewed notebooks—just like the Eurocom W860CU Cougar—were fitted with i7 processors of the "old" Clarksfield line.
Gaming Tests
In the gaming benchmarks, we once again pitted the Radeon HD 6970M against the top model from AMD as well as the current high-end contender from Nvidia. Whereas the measurements for the GeForce GTX 485M came from the mySN XMG P501 (Core i7-2920XM) and those for the GeForce GTX 480M from the DevilTech Fragbook DTX (Core i7-720QM), we've chosen the data for the Radeon HD 5870—depending on the particular game—either from the values earned by the DevilTech Hellmachine (Core i7-720QM) or the Deviltech Devil 9700 DTX (Core i7-820QM). In order to minimized the influence of the CPU on the results, we chose (very) high graphics settings as well as a full-HD resolution 1920 x 1080 for the gaming tests.
Black Ops is based on the older, fairly rough Modern Warfare Engine, which even mid-grade GPUs can run with high detail settings. To really see what the Radeon HD 6970M can do, we set the graphics to very high, with 4x antialiasing and 8x anisotropic filtering on. Even with these demanding settings, the Eurocom W860CU Cougar managed an excellent 61.9 fps. The GeForce GTX 485M tops even this at 71.4 fps (+15%).
Call of Duty: Black Ops | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | extra, 4xAA, 8xAF | 61.9 fps | |
1360x768 | high, 2xAA, 4xAF | 65.3 fps | |
1024x768 | medium, 0xAA, 0xAF | 67.3 fps | |
800x600 | low (all off), 0xAA, 0xAF | 76.7 fps |
This third-person shooter doesn't present the Radeon HD 6970M any problems. 52.3 fps leaves nothing more to be desired. The GeForce GTX 485M performs better at 58.3 fps, but this 11% lead makes no difference to the naked eye. The GeForce GTX 480M (40.9 fps) and the Radeon HD 5870 (42.1 fps) fall a good deal back, however.
Mafia 2 | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | high, 0xAA, 16xAF | 52.3 fps | |
1360x768 | high, 0xAA, 16xAF | 67.4 fps | |
1024x768 | medium, 0xAA, 8xAF | 69.8 fps | |
800x600 | low, 0xAA, 0xAF | 71.6 fps |
Starcraft 2 is one of the few games, in which the GeForce GTX 485M was outdone by the Radeon HD 6970M. At 56.5 to 58.0 fps, the difference is fairly small. The difference to the GeForce GTX 480M turned out not to be quite as small 36.8 fps, and the Radeon HD 5870 didn't fare much better at 37.2 fps, making both refresh rates about a third slower than for the HD 6970M.
StarCraft 2 | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | ultra | 58 fps | |
1360x768 | high | 65.5 fps | |
1360x768 | medium | 66.1 fps | |
1024x768 | low | 178.7 fps |
It should come as no surprise that the Radeon HD 6970M ran the start of single-player mode at a slow 18.0 fps. The GeForce GTX 485M has an even harder time. At 16.1 fps (-11%) there's no fun in delving into Moscow's subway system. The GeForce GTX 480M (11.8 fps) and Radeon HD 5870 (10.9 fps) are likewise completely overwhelmed by the game.
Metro 2033 | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | DirectX 11 / very high, AAA, 4xAF | 18 fps | |
1600x900 | DirectX 10 / high, AAA, 4xAF | 47.9 fps | |
1360x768 | DirectX 10 / normal, AAA, 4xAF | 77.2 fps | |
800x600 | DirectX 9 / low / all of, AAA, 4xAF | 94.3 fps |
While Radeon HD 5870 managed a decent 33.1 fps, the GeForce GTX 480M achieved a smooth 38.0 fps. The Radeon HD 6970M and the GeForce GTX 485M both perform a good deal faster—47.6fps and 49.5 fps respectively—make for uncommonly fluid game flow. A large group of players in one game should present the Radeon HD 6970M no trouble at all.
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | high, HBAO on, 4xAA, 8xAF | 47.6 fps | |
1366x768 | high, HBAO on, 1xAA, 4xAF | 82.9 fps | |
1366x768 | medium, HBAO off, 1xAA, 1xAF | 111.4 fps | |
1024x768 | low, HBAO off, 1xAA, 1xAF | 132.5 fps |
In light of the average refresh rate of 50.7 and 47.9 fps for the Radeon HD 5870 and GeForce GTX 480M respectively, either of these is more than enough to enjoy any of the intense firefights in the game. The Radeon HD 6970M reaches an even higher 67.1 fps, but the crown still belongs to the GeForce GTX 485M (76.3 fps).
CoD Modern Warfare 2 | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | all on/max vsync off, textures extra, 4xAA | 67.1 fps | |
1366x768 | all on/high vsync off, high textures, 4xAA | 94.9 fps | |
1024x768 | all on/med vsync off, normal textures, 2xAA | 105.2 fps | |
800x600 | all off/low vsync off, low textures, 0xAA | 172.9 fps |
The Radeon HD 6970M reproduces the realistic island setting of Risen remarkably smoothly at an average of 45.2 fps, which most notebooks can only dream of. This result places the Radeon HD 6970M between the GeForce GTX 480M (33.7 fps) and the GeForce GTX 485M (52.7 fps). The Radeon HD 5870 comes in as a close fourth with 31.6 fps.
Risen | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | high/all on, 0xAA, 4xAF | 45.2 fps | |
1366x768 | all on/high, 4xAF | 60.4 fps | |
1024x768 | all on/med, 2xAF | 78.3 fps | |
800x600 | all off/low, 0xAF | 97.6 fps |
Instead of performing at the level of the GeForce GTX 485M (70.7 fps), the Radeon HD 6970M (52.2 fps) refreshes more at the speed of the theoretically less powerful GeForce GTX 480M (52.6 fps). Compared to the older Radeon HD 5870 (41.5 fps), our graphics card manages an improvement of 26%.
Need for Speed Shift | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | all on/high, 4xAA, triliniarAF | 52.2 fps | |
1366x768 | all on/high, 4xAA, triliniarAF | 56.6 fps | |
1024x768 | all on/med, 2xAA, triliniarAF | 53.5 fps |
In the built-in benchmark, with very high detail settings, 4x AA and a resolution of 1920 x 1080, the GeForce GTX 485M manages to beat the die Radeon HD 6970M by a substantial 47% (70.3 gegen 47.7 fps). We see the same picture with the Radeon HD 5870 and the GeForce GTX 480M: at 30.9 fps to 46.9 fps, the latter lands a whole 50% ahead.
Colin McRae: DIRT 2 | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | Ultra Preset, 4xAA | 47.7 fps | |
1360x768 | High Preset, 2xAA | 73.2 fps | |
1024x768 | Medium Preset, 0xAA | 93.9 fps | |
800x600 | Low Preset, 0xAA | 95.2 fps |
Even the GeForce GTX 485M struggles with these demanding settings, producing a not completely smooth 22.6 fps. The Radeon HD 6970M overtakes the GeForce by a whole 9%, earning 24.6 fps—managing a higher value than any single GPU before. The GeForce GTX 480M and Radeon HD 5870, on the other hand, produce a very choppy, unplayable 16.1 fps and 17.1 fps respectively.
Crysis - GPU Benchmark | |||
Resolution | Settings | Value | |
1920x1080 | Very High, 0xAA, 0xAF | 24.6 fps | |
1024x768 | High | 57.9 fps | |
1024x768 | Medium, 0xAA, 0xAF | 67.6 fps | |
1024x768 | Low, 0xAA, 0xAF | 107.6 fps |
Gaming Summary
In addition to the benchmarks named in the text above, the Radeon HD 6970M was subjected to even more tests that you can see in the following chart (to find out the graphics settings just drag the cursor over the corresponding value). Other than that, no further information is provided here. In case you wish to find out more about the performance of various graphics cards, please take a look at our gaming performance chart.
low | med. | high | ultra | ||
Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark (2005) | 204.8 | fps | |||
Call of Juarez Benchmark (2006) | 83.3 | fps | |||
Crysis - GPU Benchmark (2007) | 107.6 | 67.6 | 57.9 | 24.6 | fps |
Crysis - CPU Benchmark (2007) | 137.5 | 65.5 | 55.8 | 22.8 | fps |
Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare (2007) | 188.5 | 117 | 103.4 | fps | |
Far Cry 2 (2008) | 120.9 | 91.4 | 61.6 | fps | |
Left 4 Dead (2008) | 157.3 | 120.5 | fps | ||
F.E.A.R. 2 (2009) | 156.5 | 106.3 | 101.1 | 85 | fps |
Anno 1404 (2009) | 133.4 | 82.2 | fps | ||
Colin McRae: DIRT 2 (2009) | 95.2 | 93.9 | 73.2 | 47.7 | fps |
Need for Speed Shift (2009) | 53.5 | 56.6 | 52.2 | fps | |
Resident Evil 5 (2009) | 102.6 | 80.1 | 75.7 | fps | |
Risen (2009) | 97.6 | 78.3 | 60.4 | 45.2 | fps |
CoD Modern Warfare 2 (2009) | 172.9 | 105.2 | 94.9 | 67.1 | fps |
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2010) | 132.5 | 111.4 | 82.9 | 47.6 | fps |
Metro 2033 (2010) | 94.3 | 77.2 | 47.9 | 18 | fps |
StarCraft 2 (2010) | 178.7 | 66.1 | 65.5 | 58 | fps |
Mafia 2 (2010) | 71.6 | 69.8 | 67.4 | 52.3 | fps |
Fifa 11 (2010) | 301.2 | 229.7 | 200.6 | 168.3 | fps |
Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010) | 76.7 | 67.3 | 65.3 | 61.9 | fps |
Accelerated Video Decoding
Energy Consumption
It's already obvious that high energy consumption will accompany high performance. Under heavy use, the Radeon HD 6970M really shows its greedy nature. The Eurocom W860CU Cougar (Core i7 740QM) ate up between 131.5 and 182.6 watts during the testing. The Radeon HD 5870 drains substantially less power, e.g. in the MSI GX660R (Core i7 720QM) 117.2 – 150.6 watts as well as the DevilTech Devil 9700 DTX (Core i7 820QM) 124.5 – 165.4 watts. Even the GeForce GTX 480M doesn't consume as much as Radeon HD 6970M, the DevilTech Fragbook DTX (Core i7-720QM) came out having spent 123.0 – 172.0 watts.
In idle mode, however, AMD shows an improvement in energy efficiency, 34.5 – 46.6 watts (notebook as whole) is fairly reasonable. Even the Radeon HD 5870 (48.0 – 52.1 watts in MSI GX660R & 53.9 – 61.9 watts in DevilTech Devil 9700 DTX) or the GeForce GTX 480M (44.9 – 50.1 watts in DevilTech Fragbook DTX) can't keep their consumption this low.
Regardless of this, the battery life for the Eurocom W860CU Cougar was quite disappointing. The weak, 3-cell battery (3800 mAh, 42.18 Wh) stayed on for only 25 minutes in the Classic Test from Battery Eater (max. screen brightness & energy saving settings off). Even in the Reader's Test from Battery Eater, the Eurocom W860CU Cougar couldn't make it past the one-hour mark (min. screen brightness & max energy saving settings). Without a powerful battery no graphics-card-switching technology in place, a notebook with the Radeon HD 6970M will suffer from very limited mobility.
Current consumption
Off / Standby | 0.4 / 1.2 Watt |
Idle | 34.5 / 41.5 / 46.6 Watt |
Load | 131.5 / 182.6 Watt |
Key: min: , med: , max: Voltcraft VC-940 |
0 Response to "AMD Radeon HD 6970M Graphics Card Review"
Post a Comment