Battlefield 3 Armored Kill GPU & CPU Performance - GameGPU.ru

[Dankk]

Thanks for the links, RussianSensation. That performance looks about right for my 7870 @1080p. I put the MSAA on 2x though, it's a tiny bit slower, but I also really hate jaggies. At 4x the performance hit is too much. FXAA is turned off because I don't like FXAA. Everything else is set to High/Ultra.

Been playing Armored Kill for the past couple days and I'm loving it. That screenshot doesn't really do it justice; Alborz Mountains is absolutely gorgeous. Armored Shield is very pretty too.

 

[96Firebird]

Didn't even know there was an expansion pack out, guess I'll have to try it out soon...

Between work, gym, dog, going out, I have no time to play games anymore!

 

[RussianSensation]

There are 5 BF3 expansions:
http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/79716/green-man-gaming-battlefield-3-premium-pc-digital-download

Green Man Gaming has Battlefield 3 Premium (PC Digital Download) for $50 - 25% off voucher code GMG25-1BW0K-K1A3G = $37.50.

You get all of these expansion packs (but not the base game):

Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
Battlefield 3: Close Quarters
Battlefield 3: Armored Kill
Battlefield 3: Aftermath
Battlefield 3: End Game

Been playing Armored Kill for the past couple days and I'm loving it. That screenshot doesn't really do it justice; Alborz Mountains is absolutely gorgeous. Armored Shield is very pretty too.

The game BF3: AK uses hardware terrain tessellation, which allows the GPU to render more triangles at high level of detail without taxing the GPU memory as much. In a typical scene of BF3: AK, tessellates about 923,000 triangles for rendering the environment (i.e., mountains). Without tessellation, there are only 101 thousand algorithm LOD (level of detail in the tessellation). BF3: AK appears to use adaptive tessellation in screen space. Therefore, certain aspects of the environment are constantly being tessellated stage with a high level of geometry. LOD tessellation algorithm is continuous. Details vary smoothly between levels when moving. So, no big jumps when switching between levels of detail. ~ GameGPU

 

[96Firebird]

Oh boy... Guess when summer hit I neglected gaming. I have B2K, got that free with my pre-order, but had no idea there were more.

Going to be an expensive month, with Borderlands 2 coming out, expansion packs for BF3, I might just need a new video card as well.

 

[Dankk]

There are 5 BF3 expansions:
http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/79716/green-man-gaming-battlefield-3-premium-pc-digital-download

Green Man Gaming has Battlefield 3 Premium (PC Digital Download) for $50 - 25% off voucher code GMG25-1BW0K-K1A3G = $37.50.

You get all of these expansion packs (but not the base game):

Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
Battlefield 3: Close Quarters
Battlefield 3: Armored Kill
Battlefield 3: Aftermath
Battlefield 3: End Game

Well, 5 expansion packs total, but only 3 of them have actually been released so far (Armored Kill being the 3rd one).

And yeah, I got BF3 Premium from GMG for $37 too. That seems to be the best deal on it right now. It's really something to consider buying, since you get $75 worth of content for half price. Worth it for dedicated BF3 players, and even not-very-dedicated BF3 players.

It's funny because I laughed off "Battlefield 3 Premium" as another EA cashgrab (which, I mean, it still kinda is). Close Quarters came out and was targeted toward a CoD audience, so I thought it was pretty lame. Then they turned around and made Armored Kill... and when I saw the trailer, I then changed my mind and proceeded to give them my money. :awe:

Cool story, I know.

 

[Termie]

Well, 5 expansion packs total, but only 3 of them have actually been released so far (Armored Kill being the 3rd one).

And yeah, I got BF3 Premium from GMG for $37 too. That seems to be the best deal on it right now. It's really something to consider buying, since you get $75 worth of content for half price. Worth it for dedicated BF3 players, and even not-very-dedicated BF3 players.

It's funny because I laughed off "Battlefield 3 Premium" as another EA cashgrab (which, I mean, it still kinda is). Close Quarters came out and was targeted toward a CoD audience, so I thought it was pretty lame. Then they turned around and made Armored Kill... and when I saw the trailer, I then changed my mind and proceeded to give them my money. :awe:

Cool story, I know.

Actually, I'm in exactly your situation - I laughed at the concept of "premium" and laughed some more when I saw how silly Close Quarters was, but this expansion has me interested. What are your impressions? Most of the folks on the BF3 thread like it, but then again, they are all premium players who paid for it 4 months ago, so they better like it...

 

[Yuriman]

my FX 4100 4.4GHz 1024x768 64mp

IMAGE

Extrapolating from the GameGPU chart, in the places where your framerate dipped to 17 and 18, you could have expected around 35 to 40 on an Intel quad, or 25-27 on a Sandy Bridge i3.

What clocks are you at right now?

EDIT: If you play a lot of BF3 it may be worthwhile to swap your FX-4100 for a 6100.

 

[Dankk]

Actually, I'm in exactly your situation - I laughed at the concept of "premium" and laughed some more when I saw how silly Close Quarters was, but this expansion has me interested. What are your impressions? Most of the folks on the BF3 thread like it, but then again, they are all premium players who paid for it 4 months ago, so they better like it...

Depends. If you enjoy huge maps and lots of vehicles, then you will enjoy Armored Kill. That's all I can really say.

They're billed as "the biggest Battlefield maps ever," which is technically correct. Bandar Desert is apparently the biggest map ever made in the history of Battlefield. If that sort of thing appeals to you, then go for it.

 

[Durvelle27]

Extrapolating from the GameGPU chart, in the places where your framerate dipped to 17 and 18, you could have expected around 35 to 40 on an Intel quad, or 25-27 on a Sandy Bridge i3.

What clocks are you at right now?

EDIT: If you play a lot of BF3 it may be worthwhile to swap your FX-4100 for a 6100.

4.4GHz and a FX 6100 isn't a big enough upgrade for me from an FX 4100

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Depends. If you enjoy huge maps and lots of vehicles, then you will enjoy Armored Kill. That's all I can really say.

They're billed as "the biggest Battlefield maps ever," which is technically correct. Bandar Desert is apparently the biggest map ever made in the history of Battlefield. If that sort of thing appeals to you, then go for it.

They are too big for 64 players. The action is disjointed, and the map designs aren't focused at all. Just huge expanses with flags dropped in willy nilly. Alborz Mountain is the only interesting map in the bunch.

 

[Rvenger]

Actually, I'm in exactly your situation - I laughed at the concept of "premium" and laughed some more when I saw how silly Close Quarters was, but this expansion has me interested. What are your impressions? Most of the folks on the BF3 thread like it, but then again, they are all premium players who paid for it 4 months ago, so they better like it...

All in all, I have about $70 invested entirely in this game. For the base game and premium, When you wait for the deals to show up, then you can make it a good value of a purchase. Thanks GMG lol.

 

[RussianSensation]

Extrapolating from the GameGPU chart, in the places where your framerate dipped to 17 and 18, you could have expected around 35 to 40 on an Intel quad, or 25-27 on a Sandy Bridge i3.

What clocks are you at right now?

EDIT: If you play a lot of BF3 it may be worthwhile to swap your FX-4100 for a 6100.

imo it's worth it for him to upgrade his videocard first. GPU is the first major bottleneck for BF3 on a modern CPU, especially since 6950 series isn't bottlenecking the FX. He would be better off getting a GTX670.

 

[Yuriman]

4.4GHz and a FX 6100 isn't a big enough upgrade for me from an FX 4100

Well, taking apart the charts, going from a 3.6ghz FX-4100 to a 3.3ghz FX-6100 (The 4100 is clocked around 10% higher stock), you get a total of 37.5% more total processing power.

From the BF3 chart, FX-4100 vs FX-6100 gives 72% higher minimum FPS.

In Darksiders, I Am Alive and Sleeping Dogs, there's no significant difference.

In Guild Wars 2, the FX-6100 has a 26% minimum fps advantage and a 28% average fps advantage.

I suppose it depends on what games you play.

 

[The Alias]

imo it's worth it for him to upgrade his videocard first. GPU is the first major bottleneck for BF3 on a modern CPU, especially since 6950 series isn't bottlenecking the FX. He would be better off getting a GTX670.

if he was gonna shell out $400 he's better off getting a fx6100+7950 rather than a 670 so he doesn't have to worry about fps dips

 

[exar333]

Look's like SB-E is really strong in terms of MP performance for BF3. Almost no loss in FPS from no players to 64. Most everyone else dropped a good 15% in minimums and almost as much in average FPS.

 

[exar333]

Also would love to see performance and memory usage at 8x MSAA.

 

[exar333]

I don't even understand why the core i3 2100 is tested so much. The core i3 2120 has 200 extra MHz (which is quite significant when you have IPC this high), and the ivy bridge version of it is out now (5~% higher IPC). This may seem petty, but considering how close the core i3 2100 is to the "ultimate" bulldozer, it seems those 200 extra MHz would make the difference.

Impressive nonetheless. The FPS numbers for the 2100 i3 was very impressive.

 

[RussianSensation]

if he was gonna shell out $400 he's better off getting a fx6100+7950 rather than a 670 so he doesn't have to worry about fps dips

Ya, that's fair. My point is with a 6950, he should upgrade the GPU first. Even a GTX670 still dips to 36 fps at 1080P (so FX4100 is still a decent CPU for this game). Also, if he is going to upgrade, might as well wait to get Vishera CPUs.

 

[The Alias]

Ya, that's fair. My point is with a 6950, he should upgrade the GPU first. Even a GTX670 still dips to 36 fps at 1080P (so FX4100 is still a decent CPU for this game). Also, if he is going to upgrade, might as well wait to get Vishera CPUs.

true trinity on desktop is already more powerful than bd and that's without an l3 cache !

 

[Durvelle27]

Well, taking apart the charts, going from a 3.6ghz FX-4100 to a 3.3ghz FX-6100 (The 4100 is clocked around 10% higher stock), you get a total of 37.5% more total processing power.

From the BF3 chart, FX-4100 vs FX-6100 gives 72% higher minimum FPS.

In Darksiders, I Am Alive and Sleeping Dogs, there's no significant difference.

In Guild Wars 2, the FX-6100 has a 26% minimum fps advantage and a 28% average fps advantage.

I suppose it depends on what games you play.

rather get an FX 8120 or FX 8150 and HD 7950

 

[brandon888]

idk but i have better framerates on my gtx 670 msi power edition .... it runs 65-70 average with 40-45 dips .... :/ 36 minimum is realistic but average is too low i guess :/ im getting 62-65 fps when i face whole map and render a lot of deatails

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Even I get 1.5-2 times the fps here on my 7970 oced, but that is single player.

 

[Yuriman]

Remember that those dips average into the average. Call it 65-70 median, or maybe mode. Your average including dips will probably be lower.

Also remember that some games will be more intensive than others, you need to compare apples to apples.

 

[Arkaign]

Is the 670 the vanilla one in those benches? My 670 FTW has been extraordinarily good in BF3 at 1920x1200. I'd probably still recommend the 7970GE 3GB cards for a similar price today, but when I got this card, the 7970 were still very expensive and not that fast.

 

[brandon888]

Is the 670 the vanilla one in those benches? My 670 FTW has been extraordinarily good in BF3 at 1920x1200. I'd probably still recommend the 7970GE 3GB cards for a similar price today, but when I got this card, the 7970 were still very expensive and not that fast.

+1 !

my msi power edition 670 is almost as fast as 670 FTW .... maybe we get better fps couse our cards match 680 at stock