6870M 1GB (900p) vs. 560M 3GB (1080p)

As the subject line compares, which would be better SWTOR performance (given same game settings at high)?

I just turned in my Alienware M17X R3 with 6870M for repair. For now, I have a loaner Asus G74SX-A1 with 560M. Would I notice a difference in FPS?

 

They both are equal in performance. Use the G74SX like you did with the R3.

 

Ok, played SWTOR last night on the G74 with the 560M. The FPS rate was averaging the same at around approx. ~55FPS. This is on all game settings at high btw.

However, one thing I noticed is that on the 560M the FPS would dip much lower in certain environments. Down to the low 10s! It did also, go up much higher in certain spots up to over 90FPS. Seems the 560M is more variable in FPS.

On the other hand, the 6870 in the R3 was more stable and stayed within a tighter range of FPS (lowest would be mid-20s and highs up to 80FPS). So its more consistent.

 

That is due to drivers and also the stability of coding for TOR. TOR was known at launch to be ridiculously FPS-unstable for even high-end GPU's that will sure run the game with absolutely no issues. Hardware wise, the 6870M and the 560M are pretty close to being equal in performance. It looks like you are down to the drivers then. However both should do 1080p easily.

 

How can they be equal in performance, the 560 has 3G vm

 

Judging a card by VRAM is pointless. A common newbie mistake is to judge GPU's by VRAM. Fellow NBR veteran members will keep stressing that most if not all current generation laptop GPU's can't even use more than 2 GB VRAM MAXIMUM. The 560M and the 6870M are no longer top-tier current generation cards. Even at their time in 2009-2010 of being top-tier, they barely used over 1 GB of VRAM maximum. The 3 GB VRAM Asus added to the 560M is nothing more than a marketing stunt to trick unfamiliar and inexperienced buyers to think their card is top-tier and great. In reality it isn't and 3 GB VRAM is totally overkill and pointless. The 560M usually is able to max out its VRAM usage at around 1 GB, especially at only 1080p.

You can also look at it this way. The new, just-released Radeon HD 7970 only has 3 GB VRAM maximum. One would expect it should have more, but the thing is, even the currently best desktop GPU in the world doesn't need more than 3 GB to get the job done and that card is like 3x better than what the best laptop GPU can do right now.

 

Same reason a Ferrari with a 10 gallon gas tank outperforms a minivan with a 20 gallon tank.

 

Is that 560m a gimped ASUS version? (128-bit bus?)

 

No, the 3GB one is a proper 192-bit one.

 

As Star Forge already mentioned, you cannot judge a gpu based on it's VRAM.
The 'type' of VRAM can definitely play a part in performance which would be based on it's bandwidth (GDDR3 has lower bandwidth which makes it inherently slower than GDDR5).
The amount of VRAM on the GPU (in this case, 3GB) says NOTHING on how well a card with perform in games.

These days (and speaking of 1080p) 1.5GB is MORE than enough... the gpu simply won't reach the point where it will use that much VRAM (even in the case of 580M which is more powerful than 560M).

What predominantly dictates gpu's performance is a combination of factors:
Bus size (128bit, vs 190bit, vs 256bit - the larger numbers providing higher bandwidth), clock speeds, core count and VRAM type.

If you ask me, the manufactures could have reduced those 3GB to 1.5GB comfortably and used the rest to increase the bandwidth for the same cost.
The only reason they slap extra VRAM onto the chips is to drive the prices the up and mislead those who know little about how gpu's work (thinking that more VRAM means a higher performing gpu) and to get rid of the excess VRAM chips (which I repeat could have been recycled and just used as raw resources during production to increase the card's bandwidth instead).

 

stock for stock, the 560m is only a tad faster than a 6870m.

So, I have no doubt that a 6870m on a 900p screen will yield a much smoother gameplay experience compared to a 560m at 1080p

The vid card has to render almost 50% more pixels in a 1080p screen compared to a 900p screen

 

This is what I was also thinking, SlickDude80.

In this case, for smoother gameplay:

slightly slower card (6870M) w/ lower res (900p) > slightly faster card (560M) w/ higher res (1080p)

On the other hand, I guess I could lower the resolution on the Asus G74 560M to 900p and I would get smoother gameplay (compared to R3 6870M at 900p)!

 

^^^^ yes exactly . You can lower the resolution on the G74 for higher fps. But it might look slightly blurry because it won't at native resolution.

 

That's the best VRAM analogy I've heard. I'll be using it from now on.

 

Just keep the 1080p because it is so much more rewarding plus way more beautiful. Nvidia will release optimized drivers very soon