Recommended reading

GeForce GTX 580M SLI Vs. Radeon HD 6990M CrossFire

Features
By published

A flagship graphics launch is bound to fail unless it's the fastest game in town. Well, both AMD and Nvidia say their respective juggernauts have that title. Clearly, only one company can be right. Is the Radeon HD 6990M or GeForce GTX 580M quicker?

Benchmark Results: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat

CoP Benchmark loves Nvidia hardware (despite the fact that this was one of those games showcased by AMD for its DirectX 10.1 and 11 support), and the results are consistent through all resolutions.

A single Radeon HD 6970M tied to a slower Core i7-980X processor is the only solution not able to reach our target 40 FPS in this test's Ultra preset. And yet, some of the test scenes turn in scores far below the average, hurting the experience even on better solutions such as the single GTX 580M and single HD 6990M.

SLI rules the day, while CrossFire is good enough.

Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.
71 Comments Comment from the forums
  • mightymaxio
    Good to see that the performance of the SLI 580m lives up to the name.
    Reply
  • burnley14
    I'm amazed that this product even exists. The market for people willing to pay $7k for a behemoth gaming laptop has to be pretty miniscule.
    Reply
  • decembermouse
    Come on, AMD, I've seen too many articles like this declaring Nvidia's new solution to be the superior one. We know that AMD's cards tend to be more power-efficient, but that only goes so far for some people. Keep that advantage certainly, but become more competitive with overall performance as well.
    Reply
  • aznshinobi
    Do you really need this much performance in a laptop, I curious. A GTX 560M could run most games on medium-high anyways (on a laptop) those laptops run about $1100, the saved money could get you a beast SB-E or BD comp and then some left for the college fund.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    aznshinobiDo you really need this much performance in a laptop, I curious. A GTX 560M could run most games on medium-high anyways (on a laptop) those laptops run about $1100, the saved money could get you a beast SB-E or BD comp and then some left for the college fund.Do you really think so? Because 1920x1080 seems to be a fairly popular resolution for 17" notebooks, and a single GTX 580M appears barely-adequate for medium-settings at that resolution. Well, maybe a single HD 6990M would do. That's why the article suggested the HD 6990M might be a top solution for slightly smaller notebooks, aka "normal sized" 17" notebooks.
    Reply
  • _Pez_
    how long until battery run out of energy ? 25 minutes of gaming ? LOL
    Reply
  • Phyrexiancure
    Wow, this is light years better than my desktop.
    Reply
  • iam2thecrowe
    377W lol, that needs a big ass AC Adaptor!
    Reply
  • Crashman
    iam2thecrowe377W lol, that needs a big ass AC Adaptor!Remember that's input wattage FOR the adapter. The output was STILL less than 300W. These high-capacity power bricks are far from being 80-Plus Gold rated!
    Reply
  • Todd Sauve
    CrashmanDo you really think so? Because 1920x1080 seems to be a fairly popular resolution for 17" notebooks, and a single GTX 580M appears barely-adequate for medium-settings at that resolution. Well, maybe a single HD 6990M would do. That's why the article suggested the HD 6990M might be a top solution for slightly smaller notebooks, aka "normal sized" 17" notebooks.
    This entire article is eminently STUPID! Who is going to spend that kind of money on a notebook simply so they can play games on it?

    And is there a human being on this planet that can make use of a resolution like 1920x1080 on a 17" notebook screen in order to play games?

    It is little wonder that the rest of the world finds us degenerate when we will indulge ourselves with toys like this, and at such a scandalous price, while millions of our fellow human beings are simply starving to death as we speak ... ;(
    Reply