(Tested) ASUS Radeon HD 6670 Review





ASUS Radeon HD 6670 review index



5 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670 Gaming Tests

Synthetic benchmark are cool (from a developer point of view) but many readers are not developers and then wish to see benchmarks based on real video games. I mainly used benchmarks included in game demos and then, dear readers, if you know other game demos that include a benchmark, just let me know.


5.1 Crysis (DirectX 10)

I used the integrated GPU benchmark (64-bit) option provided with Crysis demo.

Crysis, DirectX 10

Settings: default resolution (1920×1080 fullscreen)

Results: Average FPS for the TimeDemo Run 0.

77.87 FPS – ASUS HD 6950
76.19 FPS – ASUS HD 6950 DC2
74.46 FPS – Sapphire HD 6970
73.60 FPS – Sapphire HD 6870
73.55 FPS – Radeon HD 5870
71.00 FPS – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
69.37 FPS – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
69.34 FPS – GeForce GTX 480
67.95 FPS – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
65.20 FPS – MSI N460GTX Cyclone
49.76 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
35.02 FPS – ASUS GeForce GT 440


5.2 DiRT 2 (DirectX 11)

I used the benchmarking option provided with DiRT2 demo.

DiRT2 DX11 benchmark

Settings: 1920×1080, 4X MSAA.

151.4 FPS – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
129.91 FPS – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
123.44 FPS – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
121.6 FPS – GeForce GTX 480
94.26 FPS – Sapphire HD 6970
88.74 FPS – MSI N460GTX Cyclone
88.14 FPS – Radeon HD 5870
85.54 FPS – Sapphire HD 6870
85.33 FPS – ASUS HD 6950 DC2
85.09 FPS – ASUS HD 6950
41.84 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
32.90 FPS – ASUS GeForce GT 440


5.3 Resident Evil 5 (DirectX 10)

I used the benchmarking option (DX10 version) provided with Resident Evil 5 demo.

Resident Evil 5, DirectX 11

Settings: 1920×1080. 4XMSAA

120.5 FPS – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
118.0 FPS – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
116.6 FPS – GeForce GTX 480
116.0 FPS – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
115.6 FPS – Sapphire HD 6970
107.8 FPS – ASUS HD 6950
107.6 FPS – ASUS HD 6950 DirectCU II
104.5 FPS – Radeon HD 5870
99.9 FPS – Sapphire HD 6870
86.4 FPS – MSI N460GTX Cyclone
49.6 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
37.4 FPS – ASUS GeForce GT 440

Remark: the GTX 570 ahead of the GTX 580? Certainly an optimization in the recent drivers R266.58 (if so, I have to re-test the GTX 580) or a wrong reading of the score…


5.4 Aliens vs Predator (AvP) Benchmark (DirectX 11)

Aliens vs Predator or AvP is a Direct3D 11 benchmark with a touch of tessellation. See here for more details:
AvP DX11 Tessellation Battle: GTX 480 vs GTX 470 vs HD 5870 vs HD 5770.

 Aliens vs Predator DirectX 11

Settings: Resolution: 1920 x 1080, Texture Quality: 2, Shadow Quality: 3, Anisotropic Filtering: 16, SSAO: ON, Vertical Sync: OFF
DX11 Tessellation: ON, DX11 Advanced Shadows: ON, DX11 MSAA Samples: 1.

71.6 FPS – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
64.3 FPS – Sapphire HD 6970
61.4 FPS – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
58.3 FPS – GeForce GTX 480
58.2 FPS – Radeon HD 5870
56.8 FPS – ASUS HD 6950
56.6 FPS – ASUS HD 6950 DirectCU II
53.9 FPS – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
47.4 FPS – Sapphire HD 6870
37 FPS – MSI N460GTX Cyclone
20.1 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
14.7 FPS – ASUS GeForce GT 440


5.5 Lost Planet 2 (DirectX 11)

Lost Planet 2 has been used for the test.

Lost Planet 2, DirectX 11



Settings: 1920×1080 fullscreen, test A.

79.9 FPS – ASUS ENGTX580
75.7 FPS – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 SC
70.4 FPS – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
60.2 FPS – EVGA GeForce GTX 480
55.36 FPS – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
48.8 FPS – MSI GeForce GTX 470
47.8 FPS – Sapphire Radeon HD 6970
46.9 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 DirectCU II
44.7 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
42.3 FPS – Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
39 FPS – ASUS EAH6870
38 FPS – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
37.3 FPS – ATI Radeon HD 5870
23 FPS – MSI R5770 Hawk
15.3 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
15.0 FPS – ASUS GeForce GT 440


5.6 Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. 2 (DirectX 11)

HAWX2 is a Direct3D 11 benchmark, promoted by NVIDIA, with tessellation.

HAWX2, DirectX 11



Settings: 1920×1080, tessellation ON, AA: 4X

Avg FPS: 185 – EVGA GTX 580 SC
Avg FPS: 185 – ASUS ENGTX580
Avg FPS: 183 – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
Avg FPS: 181 – EVGA GTX 480
Avg FPS: 175 – ASUS GeForce GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II TOP
Avg FPS: 137 – Sapphire Radeon HD 6970
Avg FPS: 137 – ASUS EAH6870
Avg FPS: 136 – ATI Radeon HD 5870
Avg FPS: 134 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 DirectCU II
Avg FPS: 133 – ASUS Radeon HD 6950
Avg FPS: 132 – Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Avg FPS: 108 – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
Avg FPS: 98 – MSI R5770 Hawk
Avg FPS: 70 – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
Avg FPS: 60 – ASUS GeForce GT 440


5.7 MAFIA II (DirectX 9)

MAFIA II DirectX 9


MAFIA II is a Direct3D 9 game, that includes a benchmarking tool. I used the high settings:

MAFIA II high settings


106.5 FPS – EVGA GTX 580 SC
93.4 FPS – EVGA GTX 480
91.7 FPS – ASUS GTX 570 DirectCU II
89.5 FPS – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970
88.9 FPS – ASUS GTX 560 Ti DirectCU II
85.1 FPS – ASUS HD 6950 DirectCU II
72.5 FPS – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870
63.9 FPS – MSI GTX 460 Cyclone
50.2 FPS – MSI R5770 Hawk
48.9 FPS – MSI GeForce GTX 260
31.7 FPS – ASUS Radeon HD 6670
26.8 FPS – MSI GeForce 9600 GT Diamond
25.6 FPS – ASUS GT 440



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.