Battlefield 3: CPU for 1440p?

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I've got a 960T unlocked to 6 cores, stock clocks, and a 3GB 7950, on an AM3+ mobo. Last christmas I treated myself to a 1440p monitor, and I've been playing just Battlefield 3 on it at all Ultra minus MSAA.

I'm wondering though, are there reviews out there that show min and avg FPS that include Haswell and a 7950 at 1440p?

I'm trying to figure out if I'd be better off for Battlefield 3 (and possibly 4) if I got another 7950 (and then opened myself up to potential Crossfire issues) if that would be better for the min and avg fps vs. getting a Haswell based setup and just keeping the one 7950.

Any advice?

Chuck
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,362
136
Install an FX8350 on that AM3+, OC to 4.6GHz+, sell the HD7950 and buy a new R9 290X and you will be more than fine at 1440p.
 

nurturedhate

Golden Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,767
774
136
Battlefield 4 retail release data will be available next week. BF4 beta shows the 8350 competing decently against haswell. BF3 is a different story as haswell would have a commanding lead.

My decision, based on what we have seen from the beta and your current system, would be to upgrade to an 8350+oc and another 7950. That route would be about equal in price as just picking up a 4670k and a mb and if I were to go that route I would spend the extra money on a 4770k instead for BF4.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
40
86
Battlefield 4 retail release data will be available next week. BF4 beta shows the 8350 competing decently against haswell. BF3 is a different story as haswell would have a commanding lead.

My decision, based on what we have seen from the beta and your current system, would be to upgrade to an 8350+oc and another 7950. That route would be about equal in price as just picking up a 4670k and a mb and if I were to go that route I would spend the extra money on a 4770k instead for BF4.

Only if you had an Nvidia card.

AMD cards tank horribly in those BF4 beta tests when paired with an 8350.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35558196&postcount=20
 
Last edited:

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
^ Pretty sure that is because AMDs graphics drivers do not support mutlithreaded rendering under the DX11 path.
 

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
BF3 is a different story as haswell would have a commanding lead.

Really? Can u link to a benchmark showing that? All the benches ove seen show most cpus perform the same @ 1080, not to mention 1440 (where the cpu is even less of a factor). BF3 was one of the gaming benchmarks AMD loved to use for marketing their FX line because it performed the same as sandy bridge & ivy bridge cpus. Frostbite is a very GPU dependant engine.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,596
136
The final mantle release for bf4 in dec would really use more cores on the cpu and use the cgn. Amd have more less solved the cf issues. There might be some month before bf4 is completely right here.
In your situation the far best value for fps in bf4 is no doubt a 8350oc with a second 7950. Get the 7950 while you can and oc it also. Its no brainer imho.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
The final mantle release for bf4 in dec would really use more cores on the cpu and use the cgn. Amd have more less solved the cf issues. There might be some month before bf4 is completely right here.
In your situation the far best value for fps in bf4 is no doubt a 8350oc with a second 7950. Get the 7950 while you can and oc it also. Its no brainer imho.

There is absolutely no indication that Mantle will increase the number of cores used. That's extremely unlikely as multi-threading and multi-core code has to be written from the ground up from an architecture standpoint. Mantle, at best, will reduce overhead on the existing distribution of cores which appears to be up to 6 (tentatively from BF4 beta) or add more effects to consume the performance gained. Whether AMD have solved CF issues is contentiously debated so I wouldn't say its "more or less solved" with a straight face. Some will agree and some will not.

OP: Getting an 8320 (or 8350) and overclocking it in your AM3+ socket is good advice. Overclock your 7950 too if you haven't, tons of headroom on that card. Going Haswell 4770k would get you even more FPS and better mins and averages, but would cost a whole lot more to get those last few FPS. Your call
 

AlNasty

Member
Dec 24, 2004
48
0
0
I've got a 960T unlocked to 6 cores, stock clocks, and a 3GB 7950, on an AM3+ mobo. Last christmas I treated myself to a 1440p monitor, and I've been playing just Battlefield 3 on it at all Ultra minus MSAA.

I'm wondering though, are there reviews out there that show min and avg FPS that include Haswell and a 7950 at 1440p?

I'm trying to figure out if I'd be better off for Battlefield 3 (and possibly 4) if I got another 7950 (and then opened myself up to potential Crossfire issues) if that would be better for the min and avg fps vs. getting a Haswell based setup and just keeping the one 7950.

Any advice?

Chuck

You are not going to find many comparisons regarding the 960T. You may be able to guestimate it by looking at some Thuban core x6 reviews. I think I remember some runs at 1050, 1600, 1200 but don't recall 1440.

I, not too long ago was in the same boat as you. I also had a 960t unlocked, a single Sapphire HD6950 Flex and playing BF3. Wanting better performance, I sought out another Sapphire HD6950 Flex (used) and bought it. Paid almost what I paid for the first one new(hard to find). I had to buy a new power supply. New/larger case. Anyhow, now that I had CF, I had more heat & micro stutter, but I did get better frame rates, though still not great.

Next, I bought a 8350...only to discover my MB was a AM2+/AM3, NOT a AM3+ (be sure yours is if you go for a 8350). After getting my 8350 from NE, and realizing I needed a board, I drove over to my local TD and got another board. I again improved my frame rates, but not greatly. Still had micro stutter.

Then I handed the rig to my oldest son (have two, both kids gamers). I bought a 3570k, MB and a GTX680 Twin Frozr. System is WAY faster. WAY cooler, WAY quieter.

The 8350 is not a bad processor, Its under water (CoolerMaster Siedon 240M $90 on sale). I can run it up to 4.7 stable Prime 95 and stays in the 60's maxed. If you go that route, its a nice upgrade for not much money. If you needed to change the board...I would say go Intel.(sell your board/cpu to offset some costs)

I would be hesitant to recommend a CF solution. If your power supply has enough power for CF, a 8350 (assuming you will OC it), as well as your case is large enough and flows air nicely...then I would say "maybe", if you can get the card used at a good price. CF works better now with the latest drivers.

However, if you need to buy a stronger psu, and/or a better case then it may be a smarter decision to upgrade to a new card (280x?). You could sell your current card to help offset the cost.

If I had known my board was not AM3+, I would not have spent the money on the 8350 & board. I would have just gone to Intel. The gaming performance increase is much better for the money spent.

Unless you have lots of money to outright buy an entire Intel system with a R9 290x or a GTX780 variant, I would recommend the 8350 upgrade if you do indeed have a AM3+ board. Get rid of the 7950, and get a minimum of a 280x.

Good luck with your decision
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,320
1,768
136
There is absolutely no indication that Mantle will increase the number of cores used. That's extremely unlikely as multi-threading and multi-core code has to be written from the ground up from an architecture standpoint.

Why? With dx11 AMD has no multi-threaded rendering. If mantle does have multi-threaded rendering -> more cores could be used.

Note that the new code is in mantle (eg the graphics driver) and not BF4 itself.