Several games benchmarked on the 6970m

Discussion in 'iMac' started by henrikrox, May 3, 2011.

  1. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #1
    Found this online

    Its a recently released laptop that uses the same gpu as the imac (6970m), it also has sandy bridge cpu, keep in mind that it uses mobile sandy bridge cpu. So you would get better fps from imac's cpu.

    The scores is in 1920x1080.

    Mafia 2
    Resolution Settings Value
    1920x1080 high, 0xAA, 16xAF 55.9 fps

    Call of Duty: Black Ops
    Resolution Settings Value
    1920x1080 extra, 4xAA, 8xAF 74.5 fps

    StarCraft 2
    Resolution Settings Value
    1920x1080 ultra 58.6 fps

    Battlefield: Bad Company 2
    Resolution Settings Value
    1920x1080 high, HBAO on, 4xAA, 8xAF 49.7 fps

    Need for Speed Shift
    Resolution Settings Value
    1920x1080 all on/high, 4xAA, triliniarAF 64.6 fps

    Very pleasntly suprised :) Do keep in mind this is tested on a laptop, we would get even better results on a desktop pc.

    More here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Eurocom-Racer-Gaming-Notebook-2720QM-HD-6970M.49198.0.html
     
  2. archer75 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #2
    Doesn't really tell you how it's going to perform at the native resolution of the 27" monitor which has the 6970m.

    Running below native resolution looks like ass and defeats the purpose of having a larger display and I refuse to do it.

    So your numbers will probably go down a bit.
     
  3. hipnotizer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #3
    Running in Native Resolution on imac you don't need to run AA because it looks stellar anyway. That will help with fps.
     
  4. smali macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    #4
    FPS will be a lot worse on the 27inch. Looking at almost a 30% increase in pixels to draw on that massive screen. I'd knock 20fps or so off and you'll get a more realistic number.
     
  5. archer75 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    That's entirely subjective but you'll still see jaggy lines. Maybe that's acceptable to you. For me i'm still going to run AA though likely at only 2x.
     
  6. kramjam macrumors 6502

    kramjam

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Location:
    California
    #6
    Is gaming in 1920x1200 really that bad on the 27 inch? I am upgrading from an older desktop that played on a 24" monitor but 1920 was native resolution
     
  7. glitch44 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    #7
    On my current (quite old iMac) I often play games windowed to a smaller resolution. I suppose most people are against this and want the whole screen filled, but I think I'd be quite happy with a 1920x1080 window with good eye candy.
     
  8. archer75 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #8
    It's subjective. IMO yes, it is bad. If I was going to game at a lower resolution then i'd just buy a lower resolution display, even if it was still 27".
    It's not about filling the screen so much as it is using the resolution you paid for. Playing at a lower resolution is like watching SD TV on your huge new HD TV. Might be ok on smaller screens but when you have a massive screen like I do SD really looks bad.

    Again, that's my opinion.
     
  9. mattcube64 macrumors 65816

    mattcube64

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    Missouri
    #9
    I would agree with this.

    That said, you could almost certainly knock AA/AF to ZERO in 90% of games, which will give you that difference back. The 27" screen is sharp enough, high enough res, and high enough DPI to not really need the extra AA.

    Or, you could always run at 1920x1200 in windowed mode; you'll still take a small dip in FPS (because your desktop is rendered).


    In any case, this is probably the best performing video cards ever put in an iMac (within the context of when its released). The last time Apple put something this decent in their all-in-one was with the 8800GS in the 2007 model. If you've always wanted an imac that was also a decent gaming rig, now is your chance! ;)
     
  10. sth macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Location:
    The old world
    #10
    Nope, at just 110dpi you do need AA.
     
  11. gdeputy macrumors 6502a

    gdeputy

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    It's going to be an upgrade from the current 5750.

    My 5750 runs SC2 on HIGH settings at 2560x1440 in bootcamp with about 40-60FPS, which is really quite nice. I would imagine the new card closer to 50-65/70.

    Ultra at 2560x1440 is going to be difficult, but I also think the card will overclock nicely, so it could be done.

    Also, Battlefield 2 BC at 1920x1080 looks spectacular on the iMac... SC2 not so much.. it seemed blurry, but most games will look nice even though not native.

    The iMac isn't a gaming machine, but it can certainly play games well.
     
  12. gdeputy macrumors 6502a

    gdeputy

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    No, you don't. This is wrong. I can promise that at native res AA adds literally almost NO difference in clarity, the resolution is already ultra high the begin with.

    AA is cool at 720P, maybe 1080P, at 1440P? Not so much.
     
  13. archer75 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #13
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

    To add to the benchmarks, looking at notebookcheck.net they have the 6970m at 68fps on ultra settings on black ops. The previous 5750(5850m) got 37.

    Mafia 2 is showing 54 new card, 30 old card, ultra settings.

    Bad company2 49 new card, 22 old card, ultra.

    starcraft2 58 on 6970m and 23 on the 5750, ultra settings.

    I don't know what resolution they are testing at.
     
  14. netkas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #14
  15. henrikrox thread starter macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #15
  16. mattcube64 macrumors 65816

    mattcube64

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Location:
    Missouri
    #16
    Eh, I've played a few different games on a 27" monitor with the same rez as the iMac; and I gotta say, the necessity for AA just didn't seem nearly as apparent as it is on a 24" 1920x1200.

    Obviously, different strokes for different folks.

    But let it be known, I can be quite the snob when gaming. I fully intend to upgrade my single 5870 to dual 6970s (desktop variants) at the end of the year for Battlefield 3. Right now I can max just about every game out at 60fps on max settings at 1200p; save for BC2, Crysis, and GTAIV.

    That said, I think most people realize the iMac is not a "true" gaming machine. That resolution + a mobile GPU = not the greatest performance. However, it will easily play any game out at a constant 30+ fps at native resolution. Considering the PS3 and X360 struggle to keep 30fps at sub-720p in a lot of games, I'd say that's pretty decent for an all-in-one Apple computer.
     
  17. sanderwood macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    #17
    I have always considered people who play games fullscreen(when the game either is not at native resolution or takes huge fps hits at native resolution) instead of windowed as being the gaming equivalent of people that watch 4:3 programming in 16:9 because they "get annoyed by the black bars".
     
  18. archer75 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    Not even close. Why wouldn't you play full screen and native resolution? It's mind boggling. Playing at non native rez looks like ass.
    Playing full screen is more immersive then staring at the dock under the game.
     
  19. gdeputy macrumors 6502a

    gdeputy

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    New York
    #19
    Why? Windowed lowers performance substantially.

    Also, 1920 on a 16:9 screen scales perfectly, do the math. 1920/1080 = 1.77778, 2560/1440=1.77778, they are the same ratio.

    EDIT: yes I know there are a few more 7's in there, but regardless, the ratios are identical, it's meant to scale perfectly.
     
  20. ascii42 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #20
    That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it won't run at full resolution, it's better to run it in a smaller window.
     
  21. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #21
    Very impressive. I'll wait for the "official" benchmarks, but maybe i should rethink my 21.5 decision. I prefer the smaller screen, but that's hard to pass up. Let's see how the 6770 does at lower res.
     
  22. Hastings101 macrumors 68000

    Hastings101

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    K
    #22
    I don't think it is, I play most games on 1920x1080 on my last generation 27" iMac and they look fine to me. If you're a "hardcore" gamer though I'm sure you'll notice a loss of quality though.
     
  23. pogoyoyo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
  24. archer75 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #24
    On ultra settings notebookcheck shows the 6970m getting 25fps and the older 5850m/5750 getting 12fps
     
  25. henrikrox thread starter macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #25
    seems if you waited for an imac this is the one to buy, new cpu line and a big jump in gpu it seems.

    just sold my old 2010 model, and orderd the top 27" with the i7 and the 6970m with 2gb vram
     

Share This Page