GTX 460m vs. 470m vs. 560m (vs. 6970m)

Hello everyone, I'm thinking which one is best here: 460m, 560m or 470m. Planning to get Battlefield 3 when out. But for that I need to know which video card is the best. I'm planning to spend no more than, let's say, $1700, but for a quality laptop. I know that AMD is best for gaming, but still, PhysX won't let me go... And I like nVidia more. So, for a great and wonderful (and cheap) gaming laptop, I'm thinking somewhere like this:
Intel Core i7 2630 2 GHz
8 GB
GTX 470 (looks best for my case, though don't know the system requirements for BF3 yet (I don't think that even demo/beta will be out any time soon...) but it should hold at least 30 fps on 1920x1080, I think...)

By the way, what's the cheapest system builder? I mean, is it Sager, Cyberpower, Eurocom or any other?
47 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 460m 470m 560m 6970m
  1. 6970M is much faster than the other 3 options.Its like
  2. But I actually have read somewhere that 560m is worse than 460m... Is it like that? And what manufacturer would you recommend?
  3. By the way, a question off-topic, especially for you, my friend Maziar...

    Is it true that you can install Windows to a flash drive (or thumb if it differs. For me flash drive, thumb drive, USB flash is all the same thing - USB flash drive...) and it'll last for a long time, like, 10 years? If so, why would somebody want to install it on a hard drive or even more expensive SSD? I'm talking about big sizes now - 32 or 64 GB flash drives...
  4. 560M is faster,have a look at this link
    I strongly recommend installing the windows on either SSD or HDD.Installing it on a flash drive especially for a long time is kinda risky IMO
  5. I like taking risks. But still, my teacher said it is possible (for a long time), and that some people have actually installed it.
    About 560m - I've been there. I always go there to look at game benchmarks, as it's not an "artificial" benchmark like 3dmark.
  6. I never said it's not possible for a long time;however,flash drives are usually slower than HDD/SSDs and IMO have higher failure rates.
    As for 560M,there is no need to look at the benchmarks,compare the specs and you'll see it's slightly faster than 460M
  7. Agree. About 560m. But about flash drives: why are they slower? Are USB3 slower too? It should be about 3GBps, gigabytes, not gigabits, while SATA 2 works with 3 gigabits per second. Or am I wrong here? About failure rates - do you mean for a long time? What if the computer (in my case) will be on 24/7 and it'll be used for rendering?
  8. May I ask why don't you want to install it on the HDD ?
  9. one thing I wanted to mention, flash drives heat up during prolonged use. my manufacturing principle, they don't have any features to improve cooling as they arent meant for prolonged use.

    so as maziar said, it's possible to run windows from it, but the question is how long that flashdrive will last? from a reputable manufacturer, maybe year or two, from some 3rd party, you'll be good if you get 6 months out of it via having it run 24/7.

    I don't think having an OS run from flash drive is a longevity solution
  10. I didn't say I don't want to install it on the HDD, I want it to be as fast as SSD, but as cheap and reliable as HDD. That's the only reason.
    OK, so back to video cards: So, there are big companies that have powerful, but expensive laptops. I want something "cheap" - around $1700, but with SB (hope everybody here knows it's Sandy Bridge, look below), 8 GB (8 is better than 4, at least for me, as I might start rendering on my laptop first, and then on my desktop, look below), GTX 470m (or higher, if possible)

    P.S.: look below starts here.
    When I speak about SB (Sandy Bridge), I mean least here should be 2630, or any other 4core...
    Now, about memory: As for games, 8 GB might be too much, but there's one big BUT: I like it when Firefox is up and running with LOTS of tabs open. Ehmm... Now, I'm playing BF with minimal settings (in window mode) and it eats up almost 1 GB of memory. Wow... And Firefox right now with 11 tabs (I usually have more than that) open, it eats up a little less than 500 MB. But who told you I don't like to render? So, I might just stop for a minute to play, then switch back to rendering (actually, I want to get laptop first, and then build a computer for rendering only, with a POSSIBLE upgrade to 6970, if it'll be possible to use Quadro for PhysX, but we'll talk about it later, IF I want to build a desktop at all)
  11. It's your call,but if I were you,I'd installed it on HDD and then when the SSD prices dropped(which will be soon),I would add a SSD and install the OS on it.
  12. "and then when the SSD prices dropped(which will be soon)"
    That's what I wanted to hear... Any known info on when it'll drop?
  13. I've heard that in 2012 we'll see a price drop.(I'm waiting for it as well :) )
  14. OK, so we're done with SSDs, let's switch back to the video cards... I couldn't find any laptops with 470m in stores, neither could I find 6970. But here's a tricky question: Are there any "official" laptops in stores I can find with a powerful video card at all? If no, what's the cheapest option would be for me?
  15. Just a note: Sager NP8170 has an option for 470M
  16. It does ? at least xoticpc doesn't show it
  17. according to clevo's manual for it... D:
    maybe nvidia no longer shipping 470?
  18. It's best to go to the official web sites. Well, they actually had an option, 470+8gb, for $1800, but now they have 6970 for $1900 or more
  19. So, what do you guys say here? I still want PhysX if possible, but if it's too expensive and 6970 would be less expensive, I'd take 6970... Or you'd recommend me to wait for nVidia's 6xx? I think it'll be out the next year or so... I can wait, though I want the laptop before release of Battlefield 3...
  20. No one knows how the next gen cards perform so if you need a laptop right now go for it.
    I choose 6970M over 470M because it's much faster and also PhysX is not a big deal,not all games support it and you'll get a notably slower FPS with it enabled
  21. I understand that, but Mafia II, Mirror's Edge and some other games support it, and I like all those broken glass, torn cellophane, and other. I might or might not get those games, but if I ever do, I'd want PhysX to be close...
  22. so if you want physx, get an nvidia card and stop trolling...
  23. I'm not trolling, I'm asking for the best laptop below $1800 or so...
  24. I am looking at the MSI GT683R with the GTX 560M or the Sager NP8150-S1 with the ATI 6970M. The Has much better sound and is just cooler but the Sager has the ATI 6970.
    Any Thoughts???
  25. I also am waiting for BF3 and I want to play Crisis 2
  26. So, what laptop are you thinking of?
  27. All right, so Sager now has their NP8170 with 560m for $1499. Should I get it, or rather with 6970 for $1800? I mean, are 560m+2630m+8GB+500GB+thermal paste+17.3" 1920x1080 screen worth of $1500?
  28. your not listening to everyones opinions at all so why ask? yes you should get the 6970 and yes it will be worth the extra money and you will NOT be able to play games will having 3ds max or maya open with a large fill open it just will not happen unless you have a SSD.

    also to elaborate on why you wouldnt want to install windows on a flash drive is because they have slow read/write speeds most if im not correct have a read/write speed less then 20mb/s while my hdd in my laptop has like a 65-70 read/write.(thats a hdd).

    until you start rendering things stick with 4gb then if you start to then max out that laptop. 8gb does not go far with large fills and highly reflective materials and the such.
  29. OK about 6970
    I was talking about USB3
    I'm talking about around 1000 polygons max. My C2D desktop with 2gb can handle about 500 polygons
  30. ive never priced a usb3 flash drive but i thought i read that they were expensive and still limited to relatively cheap and slow flash memory.

    and 1000 polygons is barely anything? are you sure your reporting the right number? i have a file open now with 1million polys and i have had some with up to 25mil? regardless your new comp will be able to handle about that range.
  31. I forgot to say thousands...


    So, anyway, what's the cheapest laptop with 6970 then? Other specs are at top post
    control + f and search for a 6970
  33. Threre's only NP8170 and 8150, but I'd like 17". Any other companies?
  34. Best answer
    Radeon HD 6970M laptop graphics card is roughly equal to a HD 5770 desktop graphics card.

    Almost any boutique laptop company will offer it's version of the Sager NP8170/8150. Most of them will price match any similar equipped competitors machine.
  35. miha2 said:
    Threre's only NP8170 and 8150, but I'd like 17". Any other companies?

    8170 is a 17"

    asus should offer analogous options in their G73
  36. Couldn't find Asus
  37. Asus Laptops and Pads Custom gaming, entertainment and geneal purpose configurations.
  38. you need to level up your googling skills
  39. To both:

    you both say that 6970 is better, and at the same time, trying to push me a laptop with 460/560. I'm not against it, as far as it can handle Battlefield 3 with no problems with all settings on.
  40. No one is pushing you toward anything.
    It's your job to decide what you want.
  41. noone is trying to "push" you anything...
    people are tying to help you make an informed decision, where you seem to be ignoring the information and expecting someone to make a decision for you on which machine to purchase ...
  42. You said Asus might have a laptop with 6970, I said I couldn't find it. All Asus laptops I could find are 460m/560m (I think there were 560m laptops). That's why I said you're trying to push me a laptop with 460m/560m.
  43. Best answer selected by miha2.
  44. I decided. It'll be either Sager NP8170 with 485 or Malibal Satori
  45. which is exactly the same machine in both cases
  46. asus g74sx i7 2630qm @ 2ghz (8 cpu) 16 gb ram nvidia gtx 560m 3gb got it for $1200
Ask a new question

Read More

Battlefield Laptops