Performance Evalution of BF3 on 6770M

Core i7 2630QM @ 2Ghz (stock)
6770M @ 725/800 (stock)
6 GB RAM
1366x768 (Native)

All settings low, except for post processing, which was set to high, and anisotropic filtering set to 2x. I also turned off motion blur, because I absolutely hate it.

I hit up a 64 player server with 64 players actually playing. Caspian border was the map. I benchmarked about 20 minutes of game play (using FRAPS) and the results are in:

34 minimum frame rate
44 average frame rate
51 maximum frame rate

Conclusion: Runs just fine. Very enjoyable. It should be noted that BF3 on low settings still looks really good. In fact, I almost dare say the difference between low and ultra is actually pretty slim when you consider the drastic performance hit. I run a 460 SLI at my main computer, so I know what Ultra looks like

Additionally, I am still running on the drivers that were supplied by HP when I first recieved the laptop (at least, I think they are). Catalyst Version=DNA-AMD GFX: 11.10.1-prev2 W7

Hope this information is helpful.

Edit ** After updated to 11.12 Catalyst

41 min
53 avg
81 max

Not a bad increase from a driver update. These were tested with the same settings and environment (as close as possible with a multiplayer benchmark).

 

I'm curious to know if you experience a considerable boost in performance with the latest graphics drivers.

I was under the impression the 6770M was capable of more than just low settings at the resolution you specified. I know the GT 555M fares better than what you've described, anyway.

 

i am pretty sure 6770m is more capable than that. i have a 6630m in my VAIO SA (the same GPU core but with different clocks and DDR3 memory instead of GDDR5). i OC'd the chip from the stock 485MHz/800MHz/900mV to 725MHz/945MHz/904mV, and according to 3DMark06 it gives me about 25% improvement in performance. i play Battlefield 3 on a mix of MEDIUM and HIGH settings, 1366x768, with FXAA enabled, and MSAA off. i get 30+fps consistently in multiplayer maps. a 6770m can do much better than that.

 

My 5730 plays the game on all low at 1366x768, your 6770 should be able to do better.

 

I'd strongly recommend updating to the latest available drivers as opposed to using those provided by the manufacturer of the system.
Let us know if you experience a considerable increase in performance.

Also, what does the card score on the Windows Experience Index?

 

Hell, I play at 1080p all low with my 6750m and AMD A8, although some maps and some instances fps can drop to about 20 making it annoying. I've dropped to 1280x720 and it runs like a champ with medium settings, low shadows, blur and HBAO off, PPAA high (although doesn't help much but also doesn't really affect fps).

 

When I get a chance, I will update the driver and see if there are any improvements.

I am sure it is. I didn't have 30 hours to play with each setting. I did what was logical. Set everything to low, and then on the things that absolutely matter the most. FXAA=HIGH, Motion Blur=Off

Do you have any actual data mined from a similar scenario on the GT 555M? A lot of people talk ____ all day on forums with no information to back it up. Here, let me try it. "Hey guys, I just turned all settings to Ultra and now I get a 30+ all the time! Plays great even when in huge fire fights of 64 people!! Never drops below 30!" See, that type of BS is all over the forums. I didn't do that, I provided data. So, I'd like to see the GT 555M results on a similar test environment, if they exist. BTW, not saying you are the one spouting off the BS, but just saying that I don't really care what others describe, I'd like to know their settings, environment and the results of an actual test.

 

Please see my response above. This applies to your post as well. I need data, not some 30+ arbitrary statement.

 

Of course, why wouldn't it? Seems a silly thing to post about. Do you have some data you should like to share with us? Or did you just come here to make an obvious statement? Yes, the 6770M is better than the 5730M. Glad we agree.

 

Gaming Graphics = 6.2

 

A reasonable post providing some good information. If I recall, the 6750M is a very similar to the 6770M. A slight clock speed difference, if I recall correctly.

 

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with everyone, if low settings are good enough for you not to bother tweaking them, that's fine with me. Normally people post things on forums to get others' input, so that's what I was providing. I get 35-40 fps on my 5730 with everything low, AF at 4x, and post processing at low. I suspect you could run higher settings on your 6770 but I obviously cannot provide numbers, as I do not have a 6770 of my own to test with.

I will agree with your sentiment that low settings still look good, though. It's probably the fact that my screen is much smaller, but playing on my laptop doesn't look much terribly worse than playing on my desktop (mostly high).

 

I do not mind input, but this thread was not created for the purpose of helping me. Where did you get the idea that my post was seeking advice? I thought it was pretty clear that I merely wished to provide some data to the community.

 

i was trying to be helpful by providing you with my system specs, game settings, and a semi-accurate average fps (based on what i see on the screen). if you don't find them informative, please ignore my post above. i don't have all the time in the world to benchmark games.

peace.

 

I guess we all have our pet peeves and this thread brought mine out. Now that I understand you were both just trying to help, I apoligize for my rush to judgement. I'll be updating my post soon with an updated driver set.

 

Updated to 11.12 Catalyst Drivers and reported a decent increase in frame rates.

41 min
53 avg
81 max

Tested on the same map with a full 64 player server. I'll update the OP.

 

I appreciate specifics rather than vague impressions much like yourself, and your efforts certainly haven't gone without merit.
I will provide results once I've had the opportunity to extensively test the game with the system seen in my signature.

Has your WEI score reflected the increase in performance? My GT 555M is rated 6.9 presently, without an overclock.

 

I just did a refresh and Game Graphics = 6.9. 3D Aero is also at 6.9.

Way back in April/May when I was one of the first to receive the 6770M we did some preliminary testing versus some of the users with the 555M and they basically were within 5% of each other. If I recall, the 6770M slightly edged out 555M (fast version of it) in 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 11. I believe the thread is archived in this forum if you do a search. I know google can link to it if you do "6770M versus 555M ArchAngel777"

 

All depends on which version of the 555m. The one in the M14x is the most powerful and overclocks decently too. And using WEI to determine graphics performance doesn't say much. It's a very unreliable benchmark.

 

nVidia did some weird things with the 555M. They created two different versions of it, which was absolutely stupid, IMO. But, going beyond that, I don't think ANYONE was using WEI to compare the two cards gaming performance overall. I think Bishie just wanted to know what it scored, to see if Windows updated it and it did.

Just like 3DMark, WEI, Games, etc... They are all just tools to gauge performance on that tool. No one is going to take DIRT3 results and attempt to say that AMD is better than nVidia. That would be silly.

As far as overclocks, I tend not to debate that side of it for a laptop. Overclocking is great, but just like I mentioned earlier, people talk a lot. They will clock it and watch the benchmark artifact and post the results. Not a fan of that. I'd say stick to stock benchmarks. If you want to overclock - great, nothing wrong with added performance, but because overclocking varies from chip to chip the same results cannot be expected.

Edit ** I just decided to take a look at www.notebookcheck.com and check out a review of the 14" Alienware with the 555M. Here is a summary they posted against the 6770M in their review.

So, stock for stock, assuming that you are correct that this is the fastest 555M out there, it would appear to take the back seat to the 6770M, at least in those two benchmarks. Of course games that favor nVidia's arch versus AMDs change the results and vice versa. I'd be ok with calling them on par with each other, to be honest. Not sure 6% is going to mean anything although the 16% is a bit surprising.

 

There's several 555m's:

(1) 128-bit / 16 ROPs / 144 Shaders / 590MHz GPU / 900MHz DDR3 ( link)
(2) 192-bit / 24 ROPs / 144 Shaders / 590MHz GPU / 900MHz DDR3
(3) 128-bit / 16 ROPs / 96 Shaders / 750MHz GPU / 785MHz GDDR5 ( link)

I believe there is a fourth gimped one out there somewhere too. In any case yes 555m and 6770m are comparable in many ways.

 

The GF116 revision of the GT 555M which accompanies the most recent XPS 17 models is significantly faster than the one listed in that particular review. (In fact, with an overclock it could probably approach the GTX 560M in terms of performance)

Performance carte Nvidia G5XXM (GF106, GF108, GF116) [en construction] - Portable - Ordinateurs portables - FORUM HardWare.fr