(Tested) ASUS Radeon HD 6670 Review





ASUS Radeon HD 6670 review index



4 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670 Direct3D Tests


4.1 Unigine Heaven (DirectX 11)

OpenGL tests have been finished on Unigine Heaven, what a better transition than starting Direct3D tests with Unigine Heaven 2.1, this time using the Direct3D 11 render path.

OpenGL 4 - Unigine Heaven 2.1



Settings: 1920×1080 fullscreen, tessellation: normal, shaders: high, 4X MSAA, 16X anisotropic filtering.

47.9 FPS, Scores: 1208 – EVGA GTX 580 SC
47.6 FPS, Scores: 1200 – ASUS ENGTX580
42.9 FPS, Scores: 1081 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970
41.6 FPS, Scores: 1048 – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
39.4 FPS, Scores: 991 – EVGA GeForce GTX 480
38.8 FPS, Scores: 979 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 DC2
38.3 FPS, Scores: 966 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
36.6 FPS, Scores: 9211 – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
26.8 FPS, Scores: 674 – ATI Radeon HD 5870
25.9 FPS, Scores: 653 – ASUS EAH6870
25.3 FPS, Scores: 637 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870
25.6 FPS, Scores: 646 – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5
16.6 FPS, Scores: 419 – MSI R5770 Hawk
12 FPS, Scores: 301 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
9.8 FPS, Scores: 247 – ASUS GT 440


4.2 3DMark11 (Direct3D 11)

3DMark11, Furturemark’s new Direct3D benchmark (see here for more details: 3DMARK11: New Gamer’s Benchmark for DirectX 11 is There (+ Big Pictures)), has been added in Geeks3D’s benchmarks suite for graphics cards reviews.

3DMark11



3DMARK11 Entry mode (1024×600)

E8463 – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
E7931 – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
E7598 – EVGA GeForce GTX 480
E7481 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970
E7287 – ASUS HD 6950 DirectCU II
E7137 – MSI R5770 Hawk 2-way CrossFire
E6957 – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
E6837 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
E6285 – ATI Radeon HD 5870
E6206 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870
E5270 – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
E4166 – ATI Radeon HD 5770
E3030 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
E2204 – ASUS GT 440



3DMARK11 Performance mode (1280×720)

P5947 – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
P5253 – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
P5174 – EVGA GeForce GTX 480
P5119 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970
P4980 – ASUS HD 6950 DirectCU II
P4887 – MSI R5770 Hawk 2-way CrossFire
E4627 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
E4521 – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
P4284 – ATI Radeon HD 5870
P4188 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870
P3251 – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
P2648 – ATI Radeon HD 5770
E1868 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
E1303 – ASUS GT 440



3DMARK11 Extreme mode (1920×1080)

X2020 – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
X1812 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970
X1717 – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
X1672 – EVGA GeForce GTX 480
P1651 – ASUS HD 6950 DirectCU II
X1594 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
X1565 – MSI R5770 Hawk 2-way CrossFire
X1565 – ATI Radeon HD 5870
X1518 – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
X1399 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870
X947 – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
X875 – ATI Radeon HD 5770
E573 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
X393 – ASUS GT 440


4.3 NVIDIA Island Demo: Tessellation (Direct3D 11)

NVIDIA Island demo is a D3D11 demo focused on, what a surprise, tessellation!

NVIDIA Island DX11 demo



Settings: windowed (default size: 1280×720) and default params (tess factor: 12).

FPS: 58 – EVGA GTX 580 SC
FPS: 57 – ASUS ENGTX580
FPS: 49 – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
FPS: 46 – EVGA GTX 480
FPS: 41 – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
FPS: 25 – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
FPS: 15 – Sapphire Radeon HD 6970
FPS: 13 – ASUS EAH6870
FPS: 13 – Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
FPS: 13 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
FPS: 11 – ASUS GT 440
FPS: 11 – ATI Radeon HD 5870
FPS: 10 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 DC2
FPS: 10 – MSI R5770 Hawk
FPS: 9 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670


4.4 NVIDIA Direct3D 11 SDK: SSAO

The SSAO demo features real time screen space ambient occlusion. This demo is included in NVIDIA Direct3D 11 SDK.

SSAO demo - NVIDIA D3D11 SDK

Settings: 1920×1018 windowed with default settings.

FPS: 185 – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 5850
FPS: 61 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670



ASUS Radeon HD 6670 review index




9 thoughts on “(Tested) ASUS Radeon HD 6670 Review”

  1. Luxembourgian

    This Full HD is a bit funny res, i will better wait for 16:10 LCD / 1920×1200 and prices to comedown.

  2. jK

    You say it competes with the GT440 (~75$) and GTS450 (>110$) and costs 100$. Still you only list the GT440 in the benchmarks (which obviously is slower).
    To me the numbers give the impression that a GTS450 is the better decision.

  3. JeGX Post Author

    @jK: you’re right, according to other tests over the Net, the GTS is a very nice alternative to the HD 6670. But I didn’t talk about the GTS 450 for two reasons: I don’t have a GTS 450 so I can’t compare performances, and the GTS 450 requires an additional power connector. Both GT 440 and HD 6670 do not have power connectors.

  4. Luxembourgian

    Yes and they both have about 12k in 3Dmark06 overall performance and they both have prices bellow 100$, so you won’t be running Physx on full HD so Radeon would be better choice here.

  5. ^^

    GTS 450 – 1Gb DDR3 99.90€
    GT 440 – 1GB DDR5 (slow card) 99.90€
    HD 6670 – 1GB DDR5 (fast card) 99.90€

    Now who winns?
    ^^ HD 6670 ^^ ABS THE BIG WINNER

  6. Sturla

    I feel that the power draw conclusion is a bit off.

    Idle, total power cons. 92W.
    FurMark, total power cons. 194W
    (194 – 92) * 0.9 = 92W

    That would mean that the CPU and the rest of the system does not use any more power when the GPU is stress tested. I think the 66W TDP is pretty accurate, as the manufacturers have no need to understate those figures. Also, I doubt that the PSU has 90% efficiency at sub 200W.

  7. Tudor

    @Sturla:

    Yes, you are correct about the efficiency number. It’s around 0.85 ~ 0.88 at that low wattage. Doing the calculations again, it results that the Radeon 6670 is about 87 ~ 89 watts in full load. Wich isn’t that far off from 92.

    But there is one thing you are wrong. Furmark stresses ONLY the GPU. You have normal 1~5% cpu usage while running Furmark so you can’t blame the system using more power during stress test. And even if there were some light usage of CPU, power draw would still be in the range of 80W, somewhat over the limit of what a PCi-Ex can handle. The only con I see to this is that you can’t overclock the card. Other than that, the numbers are perfectly fine :)

  8. Jim

    The review doesn’t speak about CrossfireX potential. I have an A10 based machine and want to know how this will perform in Crossfire. My understanding is that you have to master off the A10, but that you can get theoretical boosts equal to some percentage of this cards performance in cross fire mode, making the machine quite capable for low power and cost. Any attempt to evaluate Crossfire or expectations?

Comments are closed.