Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

[Majcric]

45-50 fps at 1680x1050 but like one poster said it doesn't feel that smooth at all. Something must be wrong on my end too.

Another thing I've noticed bumping down to high did increase the framerate, but it still felt laggy and jumpy.

single gtx 560 ti here

This morning I played the same map again with settings maxed and got my 45-50 fps on AVG... but I didn't notice the lag like last night, so hopefully it was just server causing it.

 

[kingsownall]

I get around 38 to 48 fps in multiplayer running 1920x1080, ultra (with 2x msaa, post aa on high, 8x af, and hbao off) on a single oc 5850. I could probably get a lot more on high. Can anyone tell the difference between high and ultra? I might just go on high if there is little difference between the two.

 

[RobertR1]

If you want/need more performance make sure teh following are set to:

MSAA = disabled
Motion Blur = off
HBAO/SSAO = off

That will skyrocket your FPS and the game will still look good.

 

[JAG87]

2x GTX 480 @ 800M, 2560x1440, all maxed out except 2x MSAA (+TRSSAA in NVCP), and SSAO. 60 fps for the majority, with a few dips within 50s.

4x MSAA dips as low as 30s on Caspian (TRSSAA is probably a good part of the culprit), and HBAO dips to 40s.

Blur causes a 3-5 fps hit, still trying to decide whether I like it or not.

Every other settings seems to have negligible effect on performance.

I was hoping for new graphic milestone in Gaming. Didn't happen.

That's just wrong. It look way better than any other PC game currently. Crysis 2 and Metro look worse and run worse in comparison.

 

[triarii3]

XFX HD 6870
i5 2500k @ 4.0 ghz
1920 x 1080p

playin' on High 45-55 fps outside in the open ground, 60 + inside buildings or subway
if ultra 40 +/- and 50 +/- insdie

 

[WMD]

If you want/need more performance make sure teh following are set to:

MSAA = disabled
Motion Blur = off
HBAO/SSAO = off

That will skyrocket your FPS and the game will still look good.

HBAO is what makes BF3 look good. Turning off will make the lighting look flat indoors and shadow areas outdoors.

 

[Skurge]

Can someone comment on how good SP looks like?

Screenies would be nice as well.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Can someone comment on how good SP looks like?

Screenies would be nice as well.

Same as Multiplayer, not as good as videos.

I'm looking forward to people's screenshots....can't wait to see how they compare to videos/previews. Cause from what I see is NOTHING like previews.

 

[hondaf17]

Resolution: 1920 x 1080

Average graphic settings in BF3: Ultra

Antialiasing deferred: 4x MSAA
Antialiasing post: High
Motion blur: On
Motion blur amount: Default
Anisotropic filter: 16x
Ambient occlusion: HBAO

Max fps: 77
Min fps: 22
Average: 38

Same settings as above, except MSAA is OFF:

Max fps: 76
Min fps: 22
Average: 52

Overall very pleased with how the 2GB 6950 is doing, much better than I expected.

 

[JAG87]

Same as Multiplayer, not as good as videos.

I'm looking forward to people's screenshots....can't wait to see how they compare to videos/previews. Cause from what I see is NOTHING like previews.

Dude what are you saying ffs... stop misleading people. Saying it's not quite like the previews is one thing. Saying it's nothing like the previews is a flat out lie, unless there is something really wrong with your computer.

 

[CVSiN]

Dude what are you saying ffs... stop misleading people. Saying it's not quite like the previews is one thing. Saying it's nothing like the previews is a flat out lie, unless there is something really wrong with your computer.

I already challenged him to show what he says is the vid.. as well as what his looks like..

he hasn't produced anything so far.

every single PC review out there is blown away by the graphics..
yet here we have 1 naysayer that says it looks like crap..

something tells me it's just him.

 

[mingsoup]

Kharg Island RU Army. Playtime 27minutes 11seconds. Primarily doing tank runs.

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
117931 1242142 51 185 94.942

Certainly doesn't feel like 51fps min. Feels quite a bit slower than that. I feel its server dependent. It seems to change.
i5-750@4.2Ghz. 2x6970. 11.10 Preview 3 w/o Cap 3.

All settings Ultra 1920*1200. No AA.

You'd think I'd be happy with 51min, but playing this game makes me want to upgrade.

 

[Grooveriding]

If you want/need more performance make sure teh following are set to:

MSAA = disabled
Motion Blur = off
HBAO/SSAO = off

That will skyrocket your FPS and the game will still look good.

MSAA and the AO settings are really impactful on performance. 4xMSAA really hammers the frames in a way 2xMSAA doesn't.

HBAO really makes the graphics shine in this game. Makes a big difference on the fidelity and quality of what you see. I am playing the single player with it on and it works for me, there are some slowdowns here and there but it doesnt matter; it's singleplayer. I leave it off in multiplayer, the game still looks good, but not as good. It's just not good for multiplayer from a FPS standpoint and that it makes shadows too impactful and you can't see if someone is hiding in one most of the time.

Dude what are you saying ffs... stop misleading people. Saying it's not quite like the previews is one thing. Saying it's nothing like the previews is a flat out lie, unless there is something really wrong with your computer.

Yeah I don't get it either. The game looks effing awesome on its highest settings. Crysis 2 didn't look as good and ran like a lamed pig once you used the DX11 patch. This game looks better and runs better.

It's easy to nit-pick at every single texture, but taking the game as a whole and its visual impact; these are the best graphics since the first Crysis.

And the sound is incredible. Playing with headphones in this game is unbelievable.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Anyone with a dual core and perhaps a 6770 will to post some results at maybe 1680x1050 medium?

Everyone with $200 intel cpus are posting but the game should run medium 1680x1050 or 1080p on anything less then a $200 intel i5 right?

 

[Smartazz]

With a 6870 and a 3GHz Q6600 I get around 60fps in smaller games and around 40fps i 64 player matches in huge maps. Settings are everything set to medium and 1920 by 1080. I'm thinking I can raise the graphics quality since I'm definitely hitting a CPU bottleneck in the bigger games.

 

[Termie]

1920x1200, all High, no MSAA

45fps.

Looks really good to me, and I can live with the post-processing AA for now, although I'm going crossfire shortly.

Adding a fraps run on an outdoor 64-person level:

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
2624 60000 33 78 43.733

The key issue for a lot of people will be VRAM use. I'm using 930MB, and that's on high, no MSAA.

Here are my numbers on ultra with 4xAA:
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1092 35521 11 45 30.742

I'm using 1GB of ram, 400MB shared ram, which must slow it down, and an astounding 6.5GB of system memory. Never seen that before!

 

[GoStumpy]

I'll benchmark mine tonight, played at about 1am last and it looked FANTASTIC. Everything "high", can't remember AA settings though.

i3-2100, 8gb ram, XFX HD6850

I'll update tonight!

 

[NTAC]

Anyone with a dual core and perhaps a 6770 will to post some results at maybe 1680x1050 medium?

Everyone with $200 intel cpus are posting but the game should run medium 1680x1050 or 1080p on anything less then a $200 intel i5 right?

From what I've read as far as the BEta was concerned, CPU wasn't really a big issue.... the i5 should not be a bottleneck, its the GPU that needs to be able to handle it.

 

[Maverick]

Thinking about upgrading my current rig i7 920 /w a 9800GTX+ for this game. The downside is that I'm now running at 2560x1600 as I've been using this machine to write code more than play games for the past 2 years.

Any recommendations on somewhat affordable video cards that could push BF3 at 2560x1600? I don't need to turn up all the settings, just play around 40-50 fps at medium settings with no AA would be fine by me.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

Thinking about upgrading my current rig i7 920 /w a 9800GTX+ for this game. The downside is that I'm now running at 2560x1600 as I've been using this machine to write code more than play games for the past 2 years.

Any recommendations on somewhat affordable video cards that could push BF3 at 2560x1600? I don't need to turn up all the settings, just play around 40-50 fps at medium settings with no AA would be fine by me.

A 6950 or GTX 560Ti might fit the bill. Without AA and a mixture of Ultra and High settings you should be able to get playable framerates at that resolution. Moving up to a 6970 or GTX 570 should allow you to set everything at Ultra and maybe even some Post AA.

 

[NoSoup4You]

Game runs great on my rig, I'm shocked since I figured a GTX570 would be more than likely necessary for all High @1080p. It's not 60fps or even close to that, but it's definitely playable. I may get a 570 anyway, but this little GTX460 is still an amazing little card. Couldn't be more impressed.

 

[tweakboy]

This BF3 has horrible performance. Its a nice engine, but theres no way Crysis 2 should be capped @ 60fps no matter what scene or action and BF3 be 30fps.

Just for that Im not going to touch the game, and get Modern Warefare 3 ,,, better optimized engine,, graphics are good enough,, and it will run at 60fps capped just like black ops does. with 8xAA CSAA 16xAF vsync on triple on, high quality,, gamma on, multisample.....

The 580 cant even handle BF3, heck with that.

 

[Makaveli]

I playing at 1920x1200 All high but Textures on ultra MSAA is off but post AA is on high HBAO is on and motion blur off

I see lows of around 30fps

Average is the 40-55 range

My card is shader unlocked and at 900/1325

I think it runs better than the beta but i'm also on Cat preview 3 now instead of preview 1 as the beta.

I will update this post with a fraps run.

**These numbers are from multiplayer on a 32 player map.

** Another interesting thing I noticed I got on a 48player Metro map and my fps were 50-60 at all times I don't think I ever saw it drop below that. I'm watching the numbers from my G15 LCD as I play.

 

[Makaveli]

This BF3 has horrible performance. Its a nice engine, but theres no way Crysis 2 should be capped @ 60fps no matter what scene or action and BF3 be 30fps.

Just for that Im not going to touch the game, and get Modern Warefare 3 ,,, better optimized engine,, graphics are good enough,, and it will run at 60fps capped just like black ops does. with 8xAA CSAA 16xAF vsync on triple on, high quality,, gamma on, multisample.....

The 580 cant even handle BF3, heck with that.

If my card can handle this game a 580 surely can so I don't know what you are going on about.

As for Call of Recycle 3 good luck with that!

 

[toyota]

If my card can handle this game a 580 surely can so I don't know what you are going on about.

As for Call of Recycle 3 good luck with that!

he thinks that he runs all games at max settings with 8x AA vsynced and never goes below 60fps. of coarse that is not true as I cant even do that with my slightly faster system. he especially loves to talk about Crysis 2 yet there is no way in hell he is staying above 60fps on Ultra DX11, AA and high res texture pack.