560 TI 448 cores able to run BF3 at ultra 4X AA ?

[brandon888]

560 TI 448 cores able to run BF3 at ultra 4X AA ?
i mean sure it won't run with 60 FPS .... but on 570 there will be RAM bottlenecked with 4x AA ? need to lower to 2x ???
im 100% sure that 1.5 GB is enough for 4X AA .. but what about 1280mb? can it be bottleneck ?


thank you all.... i think it's a very simple question .... anyone answer me pelase

[skipsneeky2]

Having owned a gtx570 before,being nearly the same card,i would run ultra with only post aa enabled.

BF3 at 1080p assuming this is your resolution can run up major vram usage with 4x msaa enabled

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by skipsneeky2

Having owned a gtx570 before,being nearly the same card,i would run ultra with only post aa enabled.

BF3 at 1080p assuming this is your resolution can run up major vram usage with 4x msaa enabled

sorry forget about resolution ... yes im about 1080P ......


so you mean you can't even run on 2X aa with like 1.3GB vram ? :O

[aaksheytalwar]

It isn't about the VRAM only. A 560 ti 448 isn't fast enough to be playable at 1080p with msaa.

[Silverforce11]

Not in multiplayer, lots of chop when action is high.. not cool for a fps. But dont worry, MSAA does a poor job anyway in bf3. High also looks 99% identical to Ultra so don't fret over it.

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by Silverforce11

Not in multiplayer, lots of chop when action is high.. not cool for a fps. But dont worry, MSAA does a poor job anyway in bf3. High also looks 99% identical to Ultra so don't fret over it.

agree... MSAA is poor optimized in BF3 .... and high is too close to ultra ... even medium looks similar if switch SSAO to HBAO

[Keysplayr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlqm6auNNtk

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,17.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...yte-msi-5.html

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/...-Camera-3.png/

http://www.tomshardware.de/geforce-g...-240918-4.html

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by Keysplayr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlqm6auNNtk

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,17.html

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...yte-msi-5.html

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/...-Camera-3.png/

http://www.tomshardware.de/geforce-g...-240918-4.html

seems like you can run it on ultra but with 30-45 .... so vram is not problem? confused ..... maybe that is because of single player tests ...

on youtube video it's ultra bu with 2X AA .. not 4X ... so 2X AA will be fine as i get ... 4X impossable on multipalyer

[Keysplayr]

Originally Posted by brandon888

seems like you can run it on ultra but with 30-45 .... so vram is not problem? confused ..... maybe that is because of single player tests ...

on youtube video it's ultra bu with 2X AA .. not 4X ... so 2X AA will be fine as i get ... 4X impossable on multipalyer

The video creator indicated that he used FXAA with an injector.

[lehtv]

I've run BF3 with an overclocked 560 Ti that is roughly the same as a stock 560 Ti 448. CPU was i7 920 @ 3.36. I could get 60fps stable in Conquest only at High settings no MSAA

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by lehtv

I've run BF3 with an overclocked 560 Ti that is roughly the same as a stock 560 Ti 448. CPU was i7 920 @ 3.36. I could get 60fps stable in Conquest only at High settings no MSAA

nah we don't aim for 60 ... we aim for at least 30 with 45 avg for example .. but with 4x msaa.... it;s about ... will be there v ram problem or not ?


i know that even on 680 u can't maintain constant 60 fps ....

[aaksheytalwar]

With a 670 or 7950 stock you will maintain a constant 60+ fps very easily. With my 7970 oc I used to manage 80-100 avg and 70ish as lows. In single player that is.

[lehtv]

Originally Posted by brandon888

nah we don't aim for 60 ... we aim for at least 30 with 45 avg for example .. but with 4x msaa.... it;s about ... will be there v ram problem or not ?


i know that even on 680 u can't maintain constant 60 fps ....

Why aim for 30-45? The image quality between Ultra and High settings is very minimal, whereas the difference between 45fps and 60fps is enormous

[Silverforce11]

Originally Posted by brandon888

nah we don't aim for 60 ... we aim for at least 30 with 45 avg for example .. but with 4x msaa.... it;s about ... will be there v ram problem or not ?


i know that even on 680 u can't maintain constant 60 fps ....

There's no problem with vram with MSAA at 1080p, not at all. Its only a problem for 1gb cards.

I'm certain you can get 45-50 fps average if you run on high with 4x MSAA, put AO (HDAO, SSA) off and it should be easy.

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by Silverforce11

There's no problem with vram with MSAA at 1080p, not at all. Its only a problem for 1gb cards.

I'm certain you can get 45-50 fps average if you run on high with 4x MSAA, put AO (HDAO, SSA) off and it should be easy.

thanks for clear answer .. so you mean there is a GPU POWER problem ... not the vram ....


great ... i got answer now ... thank you all high with 4X msaa will be great

[skipsneeky2]

Op,if max fps is more important then anything in the world,do something crazy like i did ok?

Go out,find a super cheap monitor,in this case i found a $30 like new 1440x900 16:10 monitor to replace a 4:3 1280x1024 model,had no fear and purchased like a gtx670,enabled all the settings to their max and laugh when you realize your severely bottlenecked and laugh it up.

BF3 can still drop as low as the mid 50s STILL as a minimum on some maps and simply cause my processor is a bottleneck.

Budget wise,kill ultra for high,kill msaa,run post aa on high and run ssao instead of hbao and you should be pretty gravy for smooth gameplay.

[bunnyfubbles]

I wouldn't run BF3 on Ultra on any single GPU, including heavily overclocked 680 or 7970, let alone with AA

that is unless you're talking about single player which can easily run twice as fast as multiplayer...

for a competitive shooter like BF3, motion clarity >>>> image quality

although I suppose if you're hopelessly terrible at the game you might as well enjoy the view while you're getting curb stomped

[minitron]

Originally Posted by bunnyfubbles

I wouldn't run BF3 on Ultra on any single GPU, including heavily overclocked 680 or 7970, let alone with AA

that is unless you're talking about single player which can easily run twice as fast as multiplayer...

for a competitive shooter like BF3, motion clarity >>>> image quality

although I suppose if you're hopelessly terrible at the game you might as well enjoy the view while you're getting curb stomped

Exactly. You can run a i7+GTX 680 with all the settings max with decent frames, but the dips are unacceptable to anyone serious about shooters.

Then again BF3 doesn't really have much of a competitive scene.

LOL @ people aiming for 30-45 fps. Casuals.

[aaksheytalwar]

Most people play single player and for that even a 6950 stock manages 1080p max no AA with minimum fps 50-60ish or so.

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by minitron

Exactly. You can run a i7+GTX 680 with all the settings max with decent frames, but the dips are unacceptable to anyone serious about shooters.

Then again BF3 doesn't really have much of a competitive scene.

LOL @ people aiming for 30-45 fps. Casuals.

i even know people who can play with 20-30 fps lol ..... and some can't even if they see 55 fps ... they want constant 60 ...


560 ti 448 cores cost in my country like 190$ ... when gtx 660 costs 300$ ... so for that prices ... picking 660 is useless i think ....

[aaksheytalwar]

In our country a vanilla/stock 7970 costs about 700-750 usd. We still buy it. A 670 is like 500-600 usd. And 7850 for 250-300+ usd.

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by aaksheytalwar

In our country a vanilla/stock 7970 costs about 700-750 usd. We still buy it. A 670 is like 500-600 usd. And 7850 for 250-300+ usd.

so you think that gtx 660 for 300$ is better deal then 560 ti 448 for 190$ ? im asking serious ....

[Keysplayr]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/n...pler-family/10

GTX560Ti 448 is about 10% faster overall than a 560Ti. You can use this graph to compare GTX660 to 560Ti and add about 10% to the 560Ti.

Whether it's worth 300 is totally up to you.

[brandon888]

Originally Posted by Keysplayr

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/n...pler-family/10

GTX560Ti 448 is about 10% faster overall than a 560Ti. You can use this graph to compare GTX660 to 560Ti and add about 10% to the 560Ti.

Whether it's worth 300 is totally up to you.

there will be about 8 Fps difference between them ... for 110$ dollars .. but 660 has 2 GB vram so idk .... problem is really only VRAM ... if 560 ti 448 cores could be with 2 GB vram then i sure i will get it ...

[aaksheytalwar]

In our country 560 ti (not 448) and 7850 oc cost exactly the same. And 7870 and 570 cost the same.