Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

[96Firebird]

This is probably the most vidmem dependent game I've seen. Huge performance difference between 580 3gb and 580 1.5gb.

I think you are misreading the GTX 590 as GTX 580, I don't see where the GTX 580 3GB is tested...

 

[RussianSensation]

This is probably the most vidmem dependent game I've seen. Huge performance difference between 580 3gb and 580 1.5gb.

??

HD5870 2GB VRAM is slaughted by a GTX570 with 1.28GB. In fact, every single NV GPU with < 2GB of VRAM is faster than an AMD card with 2GB.

This game is killer on the graphics cards at Ultra settings but unfortunately there is hardly any worthwhile visual quality difference to be had for this 2-3x frame rate loss penalty. The performance difference by going from Ultra to High is HUGE.

 

[amenx]

I think you are misreading the GTX 590 as GTX 580, I don't see where the GTX 580 3GB is tested...

Yes, thought the 590 was a 580 3gb (which is also sold).

 

[Termie]

??

HD5870 2GB VRAM is slaughted by a GTX570 with 1.28GB. In fact, every single NV GPU with < 2GB of VRAM is faster than an AMD card with 2GB.

This game is killer on the graphics cards at Ultra settings but unfortunately there is hardly any worthwhile visual quality difference to be had for this 2-3x frame rate loss penalty. The performance difference by going from Ultra to High is HUGE.

I don't think you can conclude from that benchmark that VRAM doesn't matter. It's already been shown that AMD is suffering under MSAA. The High setting benchmarks show the AMD cards, including the 5870, nearly matching the 570. Also, that 5870 dropoff you noted is strange. If anything, a huge dropoff like that would be caused by a VRAM limit, and that's apparently a 2GB model. I actually wonder if that's a mistake.

This page from Tom's suggest that big dropoffs on the 5870 do occur, but they are using the 1GB model: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-12.html

 

[amenx]

I see inconsistencies in the reviews (the MSAA?). Look at the 6950 vs the 570 at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 in the guru review:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6

VRAM in action.

 

[crisium]

BF3 really needs MSAA since it is so jaggy. Looks like this game is win for Nvidia for the moment.

 

[raasco]

Thanks - this will come in handy, as I'm getting my 5850 Xtreme today to crossfire with my XFX.

By the way, have you been playing the game? If so, what's your crossfire experience?

1920x1080 60-70 fps with ultra settings, MSAA off and 16xAF. 70-80 fps with 8xAF. I haven't noticed much of a difference between CAP3 and CAP4. Occasional hang, not sure if its crossfire or server issues.

 

[Termie]

1920x1080 60-70 fps with ultra settings, MSAA off and 16xAF. 70-80 fps with 8xAF. I haven't noticed much of a difference between CAP3 and CAP4. Occasional hang, not sure if its crossfire or server issues.

Great to hear you're able to run ultra settings, even without MSAA. Hope it works for me as well. When I tried ultra/MSAA, I was able to get off a FRAPS run at 30fps, but I exceeded the 1GB on my single HD5850 and it hit the system ram (jumped to 7.5GB used!). It crashed pretty quickly after that, and I gave up on the experiment.

 

[Jacky60]

Pretty much all 110-130 fps Ultra everything, CAT 11.9 Going to whack AA up to edge detect.

 

[Makaveli]

BF3 really needs MSAA since it is so jaggy. Looks like this game is win for Nvidia for the moment.

I don't find so at all.

If you are playing at lower resolutions then yes, but at higher resolutions I find the need for MSAA is less.

I play at 1920x1200 and have post processing at high and don't notice any jaggies.

 

[Termie]

I don't find so at all.

If you are playing at lower resolutions then yes, but at higher resolutions I find the need for MSAA is less.

I play at 1920x1200 and have post processing at high and don't notice any jaggies.

Agreed. In the past, AA was a necessity with Battlefield games. With BF3, I haven't spotted a single jaggie at 1920x1200/FXAA. Maybe I'm missing them, but frankly, I don't care, because if they're not distracting me in game, then they're not a problem.

 

[Jacky60]

Hardly seems worth the super high priced GTX580.
From [H]'s gameplay review...

Looks like the 6970 is trading blows with the fat old man of GPU's- Keep it up ATI!

 

[toyota]

just think how bad Nvidia would look if they had not gotten fermi under control with the gtx580 and gtx570 though.

 

[blackened23]

Its time for a thread hijack. I just realized how shitty and unoptimized the metro 2033 engine is, holy shit batman I was benchmarking/playing crysis 2 and I can run everything, DX11, HD textures, tessellation at ultra detail on a single GTX 580 and the framerate never dips below 60. (vsync is enabled). Whereas metro 2033 it drops to the 50s on occassion, even though the entire game practically takes place in doors in small confined areas. Crysis 2 on the other hand has huge outdoor areas with a ton of stuff going on and never drops below 60. The hell is wrong with this picture. Metro 2033 looks worse than crysis 2 dx11/tesselation/hd textures yet performs worse. What gives.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

??

HD5870 2GB VRAM is slaughted by a GTX570 with 1.28GB. In fact, every single NV GPU with < 2GB of VRAM is faster than an AMD card with 2GB.

This game is killer on the graphics cards at Ultra settings but unfortunately there is hardly any worthwhile visual quality difference to be had for this 2-3x frame rate loss penalty. The performance difference by going from Ultra to High is HUGE.

The scene they, and tom's, tested is not a good benchmark at all. It's not indicative of the rest of the single player nor the multiplayer performance, hence why you can't draw VRAM conclusions from their tests.

 

[happy medium]

HD5870 2GB VRAM is slaughted by a GTX570 with 1.28GB. In fact, every single NV GPU with < 2GB of VRAM is faster than an AMD card with 2GB.

SHHHHHH dont tell anyone the truth.

Another website to back that up.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6

2gb of memory is still worthless, read it and weap.

Who has the balz to spin this one? Hardocp benchmarks incomming.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Agreed. In the past, AA was a necessity with Battlefield games. With BF3, I haven't spotted a single jaggie at 1920x1200/FXAA. Maybe I'm missing them, but frankly, I don't care, because if they're not distracting me in game, then they're not a problem.

They are definitely noticeable and pretty bad at lower resolutions. Even the AA doesn't really take care of them too well at 720p resolutions.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

SHHHHHH dont tell anyone the truth.

Another website to back that up.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6

2gb of memory is still worthless, read it and weap.

Who has the balz to spin this one?

 

[toyota]

its certainly making a difference there but the gtx580 is below playable levels anyway. I do believe just 1gb is borderline in many cases but 1.25gb is enough for playable settings with a single gtx570 level of card.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

its certainly making a difference there but the gtx580 is below playable levels anyway. I do believe just 1gb is borderline in many cases but 1.25gb is enough for playable settings with a single gtx570 level of card.

To run those settings at playable levels you need at least two cards, and 1.2GB doesn't cut it.

This is more for happy, who still thinks 2GB is worthless. :whiste:

 

[happy medium]

only playable with the gtx590......proves what? Who cares besides the 2.5% who have a 1000$ monitor. Waste of a post.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

only playable with the gtx590......proves what? Who cares besides the 2.5% who have a 1000$ monitor. Waste of a post.

You forget triple monitors, and there are several people who run SLI/Crossfire. waste of a post.

 

[Termie]

I love it when you guys go at it!

Look, the truth is that BF3 can easily use more than 1GB of VRAM - I've seen it happen at 1920/ultra in multiplayer, not just at 2560 as today's reviews would have you believe. I actually ended up using 600MB of system memory in addition to the 1GB of VRAM at one point (I'm not saying you can just add those up to total 1.7GB used, but obviously it was over 1GB). It's a showstopper if those are the settings you want to play at. But the other half of the story is that most cards can't push that anyway.

@Toyota - I agree that at any settings the 570 can actually push, the 1.25GB of VRAM is not the limitation. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily call the 570 optimal, as it's on a razor's edge (I'm betting the game is using 1.2GB at those settings), and in some scenes, it could exceed the limit. Nothing wrong with the 570 generally, but I think 1.5-2.0GB cards are a safer bet. Until AMD fixes its MSAA performance, however, that pretty much leaves us with the overpriced 580 and the slightly unbalanced and overpriced 560Ti 2GB.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Look, the truth is that BF3 can easily use more than 1GB of VRAM - I've seen it happen at 1920/ultra in multiplayer, not just at 2560 as today's reviews would have you believe. I actually ended up using 600MB of system memory in addition to the 1GB of VRAM at one point (I'm not saying you can just add those up to total 1.7GB used, but obviously it was over 1GB). It's a showstopper if those are the settings you want to play at. But the other half of the story is that most cards can't push that anyway.

@Toyota - I agree that at any settings the 570 can actually push, the 1.25GB of VRAM is not the limitation. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily call the 570 optimal, as it's on a razor's edge (I'm betting the game is using 1.2GB at those settings), and in some scenes, it could exceed the limit. Nothing wrong with the 570 generally, but I think 1.5-2.0GB cards are a safer bet. Until AMD fixes its MSAA performance, however, that pretty much leaves us with the overpriced 580 and the slightly unbalanced and overpriced 560Ti 2GB.

jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. waste of a post!

I love it when you guys go at it!

You mean when happy says something without thinking, arrogantly denounces what is said, and then we have to correct him? I don't consider that going at him; it's more like fixing the problem.

 

[Remobz]

I love it when you guys go at it!

Look, the truth is that BF3 can easily use more than 1GB of VRAM - I've seen it happen at 1920/ultra in multiplayer, not just at 2560 as today's reviews would have you believe. I actually ended up using 600MB of system memory in addition to the 1GB of VRAM at one point (I'm not saying you can just add those up to total 1.7GB used, but obviously it was over 1GB). It's a showstopper if those are the settings you want to play at. But the other half of the story is that most cards can't push that anyway.

@Toyota - I agree that at any settings the 570 can actually push, the 1.25GB of VRAM is not the limitation. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily call the 570 optimal, as it's on a razor's edge (I'm betting the game is using 1.2GB at those settings), and in some scenes, it could exceed the limit. Nothing wrong with the 570 generally, but I think 1.5-2.0GB cards are a safer bet. Until AMD fixes its MSAA performance, however, that pretty much leaves us with the overpriced 580 and the slightly unbalanced and overpriced 560Ti 2GB.

Looks like I will have to wait next year to buy BF3 and get a new system. The dust needs to settle first.