Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

[happy medium]

I find it hard to believe that setting everything on High is the same as Ultra minus long distance IQ

Its not man,review the source.

Nvidia runs better at ultra settings = high setting run as well at ultra is just as good, because AMD dosen't run well at ultra.

Its called spin.

reverse the situation.......

If AMD ran better at ultra , the best settings would be ultra.

Only the best yo-yo's will tell you this theory.

 

[Silverforce11]

Yeah, review the DICE presentation. From the 7th minute mark. Try to comprehend.

Edit: I'm gonna show u with screenshots. No difference between high/ultra.

 

[Silverforce11]

Okay, screens and the selected graphics option. I'm starting on HIGH with no MSAA (this is my setting during MP).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now on ULTRA with no MSAA.

Notice any difference? Cos i don't, if you think its awesome and much better, you are high on something else.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's default (w/ HBAO) HIGH vs ULTRA with 4xMSAA. Guess which one has 4xMSAA enabled?

Is it this one??

Or this??

So you can enjoy your 4xMSAA crippling even a gtx580 in 64MP for no visual difference, just because you're a dumb NV fanboy. Go ahead.

And no, even if AMD hardware ran 4xMSAA better, i would still say the same, it's a very poor AA mode for BF3. If people want a fair performance comparison, it should be on default HIGH. Ultra will penalize cards with more vram since it will stream in high mesh/texture and additional objects further from your view distance causing extra strain on the GPU.


Personal attacks and insults are not acceptable. Re:

you're a dumb NV fanboy

Take some time to familiarize yourself with the following portions of the AnandTech Forum Guidelines:

1) No trolling, flaming or personally attacking members. Deftly attacking ideas and backing up arguments with facts is acceptable and encouraged. Attacking other members personally and purposefully causing trouble with no motive other than to upset the crowd is not allowed.

We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[notty22]

The speaker noted, they stream textures in and out of memory on the fly. He spoke of 1.5gb cards or more, but they are actually not the norm, so the engine copes with the card/settings. Meaning, the engine does load more in to Vram if it's available.
'reduced memory requirements'

edit: this post is based on the video Silverforce11 linked to. The speaker mentioned more game engines using this approach of streaming in to memory on the fly. Which I guess is true, Rage , possibly Skyrim. He mentioned it's more effective on dx11 game engines, because of better cpu/core usage, dx9 shows cpu spikes/stalls. The gamer ideally does not get stutter

 

[Silverforce11]

Watch the video i linked ealier, 7th minute onwards. Its streaming high mesh/texture based on your camera view distance. More vram = better IQ further away. Watch the part how they stream in objects as well, high vs ultra, extra details in the scene.

Some interesting points at 10:20 and especially at 12:05, ULTRA just reduces the culling to increased LoD based on view distance and if your card has 1.5gb vram it will stream in the max IQ quality, if not, well it can't.

 

[Clinkster]

Specs are below in my signature.

Settings: Ultra (with AA and all that)
Resolution: 1920x1080

Minimum: 53
Max: 62 (vsync at 60)
Avg: 58.6

The game is so fluid on this system it's awesome.

 

[RobertR1]

Okay, screens and the selected graphics option. I'm starting on HIGH with no MSAA (this is my setting during MP).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now on ULTRA with no MSAA.



Notice any difference? Cos i don't, if you think its awesome and much better, you are high on something else.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's default (w/ HBAO) HIGH vs ULTRA with 4xMSAA. Guess which one has 4xMSAA enabled?


So you can enjoy your 4xMSAA crippling even a gtx580 in 64MP for no visual difference, just because you're a dumb NV fanboy. Go ahead.

And no, even if AMD hardware ran 4xMSAA better, i would still say the same, it's a very poor AA mode for BF3. If people want a fair performance comparison, it should be on default HIGH. Ultra will penalize cards with more vram since it will stream in high mesh/texture and additional objects further from your view distance causing extra strain on the GPU.

See this is what I wanted from a site. To do a proper IQ analysis at different settings.

From what I can see from your pics, there doesn't seem to be any IQ benefits between settings on high vs ultra.

How's the performance gain?

 

[Termie]

Here's the latest review on BF3 performance: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/8

I've linked to the conclusion but you can read the rest. Basically, ultra without AA performs almost identically to high without AA, suggesting that the difference is quite minimal.

Also, another thing to keep in mind from the GeForce.com article is that many settings don't take effect until after a restart, so you can't just change the settings and hope to see the difference in quality.

 

[Silverforce11]

In beta settings did not change without restart, in retail it definitely changes (takes a second to "load" on my ssd). I can see low - > high changes and post AA off -> on (heaps of jagged edges -> almost none), even MSAA on off there's a small difference.

Performance wise, ultra textures/terrain/mesh vs high has no perf difference. The only difference being MSAA on or off essentially. HBAO also has a small perf hit in SP, but i notice a bigger hit in 64 player MP maps.

 

[Makaveli]

Here's the latest review on BF3 performance: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/8

I've linked to the conclusion but you can read the rest. Basically, ultra without AA performs almost identically to high without AA, suggesting that the difference is quite minimal.

Also, another thing to keep in mind from the GeForce.com article is that many settings don't take effect until after a restart, so you can't just change the settings and hope to see the difference in quality.

That bit tech review is pretty good but my only gripe with it is the testing was done in a single player setting which is not as demanding as multiplayer.

However I agree with most Playing at high vs Ultra i've been hard pressed to notice any difference at all while actually playing the game yet alone looking at screenshots. 4x MSAA which is hard on AMD hardware still has a pretty good performance hit on NV and I would play with it off regardless of the card.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Its not man,review the source.

Nvidia runs better at ultra settings = high setting run as well at ultra is just as good, because AMD dosen't run well at ultra.

Its called spin.

reverse the situation.......

If AMD ran better at ultra , the best settings would be ultra.

Only the best yo-yo's will tell you this theory.

I could see maybe terraign having longer draw distance but not everything else being equal on high vs ultra. Anyway i am content with my unlocked 6950's performance right now so it doesn't matter to me much. Further while it might look the same i can almost guarantee more is hapoening in ultra to enhance the experience that is hard to notice. I will take ultra and no msaa any time i can use it.

 

[Termie]

Reviving thread for some eye-opening CPU benchmarks from a Swedish site - don't think these have been discussed here.

Full story: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

First off, dual-cores are unplayable in BF3 multiplayer. Second, AMD hex cores and recent Intel quads and above can support an HD6990 at ultra settings, as the game is GPU-limited at that point.

But third, and perhaps most surprisingly, when details are turned down and cpu limitation becomes more of a factor, the 2600k (and the 975) absolutely run away from the 2500k. Even the X6 comes close to the 2500k. Could this be a sign that the game really prefers more than four threads?

Also interesting but not quite new information - VRAM limitations at ultra settings:

 

[toyota]

dual cores will choke a bit just trying to push a 6990 too though from additional cpu overhead in game that is already pushing the cpus hard. you can a easily see that because the dual cores are getting way less than half the performance of the quads. if they were using a 6970, performance could actually be a few fps better on the dual cards than with the 6990. still though, dual cores are not what you want to have in BF 3 multi player.

 

[skipsneeky2]

dual cores will choke a bit just trying to push a 6990 too though from additional cpu overhead in game that is already pushing the cpus hard. you can a easily see that because the dual cores are getting way less than half the performance of the quads. if they were using a 6970, performance could actually be a few fps better on the dual cards than with the 6990. still though, dual cores are not what you want to have in BF 3 multi player.

LOL but dual cores are so much fun online in BF3

No really your right dual cores and this game are almost a waste of time..i know been stuck on a e8200 @3.2ghz and i can't say it enough how much it sucks.

Can't wait for my new build in 2 weeks

Was gonna go with a x4 965 for this build so i could afford a new monitor as well but those chart numbers are terrible so screw it i'll hold off on the monitor and go 2500k .

 

[Fefster]

My new i3 2120 seems to do just fine in multiplayer bf3 @1080p.Coupled with an hd6870(oc'd to 1000/1175) my average fps are in the high 50s with a low of about 45 and cpu usage never goes over 80%.This on caspian border with 64 players.In operation metro with the same settings i average 70 fps.Everything on high-blur and msaa off,hbao on and fxaa on high.Gpu load is constantly between 99 and 100%,with lows of 95 when nothing happens on the screen.

 

[toyota]

My new i3 2120 seems to do just fine in multiplayer bf3 @1080p.Coupled with an hd6870(oc'd to 1000/1175) my average fps are in the high 50s with a low of about 45 and cpu usage never goes over 80%.This on caspian border with 64 players.In operation metro with the same settings i average 70 fps.Everything on high-blur and msaa off,hbao on and fxaa on high.Gpu load is constantly between 99 and 100%,with lows of 95 when nothing happens on the screen.

well your cpu is bit faster clock for clock than older dual cores and has HT which does help dual cores in many games especially this one.

 

[skipsneeky2]

well your cpu is bit faster clock for clock than older dual cores and has HT which does help dual cores in many games especially this one.

Match up that cpu with lets say a gtx570 and run ultra...think he could run into some problems?.

No reviews seem to be showing any multiplayer numbers with the i3....

Only user experience and he is the second forum member exclaiming a i3 and a 6800 series gpu is more then balanced for this game with high settings.

 

[toyota]

Match up that cpu with lets say a gtx570 and run ultra...think he could run into some problems?.

No reviews seem to be showing any multiplayer numbers with the i3....

Only user experience and he is the second forum member exclaiming a i3 and a 6800 series gpu is more then balanced for this game with high settings.

yeah in BF 3 multiplayer, I do believe that a 2120 would hold back a gtx570.

 

[Fefster]

I honestly can't say.Overclocking the gpu gave me a nice fps boost and i think there's still room for improvement.It could probably be paired up with a 6950 or a 560ti without holding them back.Either way i think that i3s belong in budget builds.The GTX 570 certainly does not.

 

[toyota]

I honestly can't say.Overclocking the gpu gave me a nice fps boost and i think there's still room for improvement.It could probably be paired up with a 6950 or a 560ti without holding them back.Either way i think that i3s belong in budget builds.The GTX 570 certainly does not.

for gaming, it makes more sense to spend a bit more and get an i5 quad even for a budget build. the i3 is already slightly slower than the i5 when using a current higher end single gpu so it will be even further behind on the next round of gpus. the next gen mid range cards will likely match or beat the current high end so the i3 will become a a limitation for sure.

 

[Fefster]

I completely agree with you and i wouldn't recommend anything other than a quad sb.Problem is that where i live there is a whopping 60(81$) euros price difference between the 2120 and the i5 2400.Also on a tight budget the i3 keeps power consumption extremely low giving me the chance to spend less on the psu.I know that my system won't have a bright future but right now it can definitely perform.

 

[Silverforce11]

Also interesting but not quite new information - VRAM limitations at ultra settings:

In MP 64 maps, you can leave everything on High but just turn on 4x MSAA and the game becomes a stutter mess on 1gb cards. It's a lot more intensive in general in MP, and CPU really matters.

Edit: LOL @ the FX, it actually manages to outperform PIIx4/6 in gaming for once!!

 

[Grooveriding]

Excellent benches.

Someone needs to do a comprehensive somehow repeatable set of benches on the big 64 player multiplayer maps with different player counts.

On Caspian Border if the map has only say 20 people, my cards are at 99% usage. If the map has 64 people, my cards drop to about 75-80% usage.

I'm assuming once the map is full my CPU is getting hammered and GPU usage is dropping accordingly.

So many of the benches out there are single-player, but most people are buying this game for multiplayer. Multiplayer does not perform nearly as well as single player does.

 

[nervx]

i have a e8400@stock, a 9800gtx and 4GB of ram. i played the beta and metro ran fine with a mix of low and medium settings at 1280x960. averaged about 30-45fps depending on the area of the map. caspian border on the other hand was 10-25fps with everything set to low and there were a ton of framerate and audio stuttering.

would swapping the video card for something like a 560ti be enough to maintain a solid 30+fps on say medium without the audio/framerate stuttering on the larger maps or is my cpu just too old to play online smoothly?

i dont plan to build a new pc until ivy bridge but also dont want to waste money on a video card if it wont help any. maybe i should just get the xbox version. advice and feedback is greatly appreciated. tanks in advance.

 

[Grooveriding]

i have a e8400@stock, a 9800gtx and 4GB of ram. i played the beta and metro ran fine with a mix of low and medium settings at 1280x960. averaged about 30-45fps depending on the area of the map. caspian border on the other hand was 10-25fps with everything set to low and there were a ton of framerate and audio stuttering.

would swapping the video card for something like a 560ti be enough to maintain a solid 30+fps on say medium without the audio/framerate stuttering on the larger maps or is my cpu just too old to play online smoothly?

i dont plan to build a new pc until ivy bridge but also dont want to waste money on a video card if it wont help any. maybe i should just get the xbox version. advice and feedback is greatly appreciated. tanks in advance.

You would see some improvement, but not what you are looking for.

You need a good CPU for multiplayer in this game. You could give it a go if you can buy the card at a big box store that allows returns.

I doubt you will see the gains you're after though.