Batman: Arkham City

After a rocky launch last month, Rocksteady finally got their DirectX 11 problems sorted out for Batman: Arkham City earlier this month. Batman: Arkham City is loosely based on Unreal Engine 3, while the DirectX 11 functionality was apparently developed in-house. With the addition of these features Batman is far more a GPU demanding game than its predecessor was, particularly with tessellation cranked up to high.

Batman: Arkham City

Batman: Arkham City

Batman: Arkham City

At Extreme settings Batman is quite daunting for our entire GPU lineup at 2560. Nothing except the GTX 590 can crack 60fps, though the 7970 begins to come close at 52fps. Relative to NVIDIA’s lineup Batman ends up being one of the weaker games for the 7970, with the 7970 only taking an 18% lead over the GTX 580 at 2560. As for the 6970, the 7970 has another very strong showing opposite AMD’s previous generation, beating the 6970 by 44%.

At 1920 we’re still using Extreme settings and the story is much the same, though the 7970’s lead drops a bit more. Against the GTX 580 it’s now only 14% faster, and against the 6970 it’s 35% faster. Things do eventually pick up at 1680 when we back off to Very High settings and stop using MSAA, at which point the 7970 takes a surprising 32% lead over the GTX 580 while the lead over the 6970 jumps back up to 47%.

Looking at all of our cards it’s really the 5870 that tells the whole story. Tessellation plays a large factor in Batman’s performance, and as a result the partially tessellation-constrained 5870 absolutely struggles even at 1920. Consequently this is further proof that AMD was able to get a great deal of additional performance out of their geometry engines even with the 2 tringle/clock limit.

Total War: Shogun 2 Portal 2
Comments Locked

292 Comments

View All Comments

  • RussianSensation - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    That's not what the review says. The review clearly explains that it's the best single-GPU for gaming. There is nothing biased about not being mind-blown by having a card that's only 25% faster than GTX580 and 37% faster than HD6970 on average, considering this is a brand new 28nm node. Name a single generation where AMD's next generation card improved performance so little since Radeon 8500?

    There isn't any!
  • SlyNine - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    2900XT ? But I Don't remember if that was a new node and what the % of improvement was beyond the 1950XT.

    But still this is a 500$ card, and I don't think its what we have come to expect from a new node and generation of card. However some people seem more then happy with it, Guess they don't remember the 9700PRO days.
  • takeulo - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    as ive read the review this is not a disappointment infact its only a single gpu card but it toughly competing or nearly chasing with the dual gpu's graphics card like 6990 and gtx 590 performance...
    imagine that 7970 is also a dual gpu?? it will tottally dominate the rest... sorry for my bad english..
  • eastyy - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    the price vs performance is the most important thing for me at the moment i have a 460 that cost me about £160 at the time and that was a few years ago...seems like the cards now for the same price dont really give that much of a increase
  • Morg. - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    What seems unclear to the writer here is that in fact 6-series AMD was better in single GPU than nVidia.

    Like miles better.

    First, the stock 6970 was within 5% of the gtx580 at high resolutions (and excuse me, but if you like a 500 bucks graphics board with a 100 bucks screen ... not my problem -- ).

    Second, if you put a 6970 OC'd at GTX580 TDP ... the GTX580 is easily 10% slower.

    So overall . seriously ... wake the f* up ?

    The only thing nVidia won at with fermi series 2 (gtx5xx) is making the most expensive highest TDP single GPU card. It wasn't faster, they just picked a price point AMD would never target .. and they got i .. wonderful.

    However, AMD raped nVidia all the way in perf/watt/dollar as they did with Intel in the Server CPU space since Opteron Istanbul ...

    If people like you stopped spouting random crap, companies like AMD would stand a chance of getting the market share their products deserve (sure their drivers are made of shit).
  • Leyawiin - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    The HD 7970 is a fantastic card (and I can't wait to see the rest of the line), but the GTX 580 was indisputably better than the HD 6970. Stock or OC'd (for both).
  • Morg. - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    Considering TDP, price and all - no.

    The 6970 lost maximum 5% to the GTX580 above full HD, and the bigger the resolution, the smaller the GTX advantage.

    Every benchmark is skewed, but you should try interpreting rather than just reading the conclusion --

    Keep in mind the GTX580 die size is 530mm² whereas the 6970 is 380mm²

    Factor that in, aim for the same TDP on both cards . and believe me .. the GTX580 was a complete total failure, and a total loss above full HD.

    Yes it WAS the biggest single GPU of its time . but not the best.
  • RussianSensation - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Your post is ill-informed.

    When GTX580 and HD6970 are both overclocked, it's not even close. GTX580 destroyed it.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/...

    HD6950 was an amazing value card for AMD this generation, but HD6970 was nothing special vs. GTX570. GTX580 was overpriced for the performance over even $370 factory preoverclocked GTX570 cards (such as the almost eerily similar in performance EVGA 797mhz GTX570 card for $369).

    All in all, GTX460 ~ HD6850, GTX560 ~ HD6870, GTX560 Ti ~ HD6950, GTX570 ~ HD6970. The only card that had really poor value was GTX580. Of course if you overclocked it, it was a good deal faster than the 6970 that scaled poorly with overclocking.
  • Morg. - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    I believe you don't get what I said :

    AT THE SAME TDP, THE HD6xxx TOTALLY DESTROYED THE GTX 5xx

    THAT MEANS : the amd gpu was better even though AMD decided to sell it at a TDP / price point that made it cheaper and less performing than the GTX 5xx

    The "destroyed it" statement is full HD resolution only . which is dumb . I wouldn't ever get a top graphics board to just stick with full HD and a cheap monitor.
  • Peichen - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    According to your argument, all we'd ever need is IGP because no stand-alone card can compete with IGP at the same TDP / price point.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now