Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Several games benchmarked on the 6970m

henrikrox

henrikrox

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 3, 2010
1,219
2
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
 
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.
 
Running in Native Resolution on imac you don't need to run AA because it looks stellar anyway. That will help with fps.
 
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.
 
hipnotizer said:
Running in Native Resolution on imac you don't need to run AA because it looks stellar anyway. That will help with fps.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
kramjam said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
smali said:
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.
Click to expand...

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! ;)
 
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.
 
sth said:
Nope, at just 110dpi you do need AA.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
sth said:
Nope, at just 110dpi you do need AA.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".
 
sanderwood said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
sanderwood said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
archer75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
netkas said:
numbers for 6850 with 2560x1600 res:

cod:blops - 39 fps, 4xAA

bf_bc2 - 28 fps, 4xAA

mafia 2 - 31 fps

SC2 - 63 fps

source - http://translate.google.com/transla...irovanie_Radeon_HD_6870_i_Radeon_HD_6850.html

6850 has greater clocks (775 vs 680) than 6970M, but 27" imac has 10% less pixels than 2560x1600
Click to expand...

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.
 
kramjam said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back