• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Because SP didn't even exist in BF2. BF3 is under no obligation to even include SP, they added it as a afterthought, if you played through it, you will realize how tripe the storyline is and short.

Frankly i would have preferred if they didn't waste all their time on SP and added more MP maps and fine tune it better.

BUT, because of their "war" vs COD i guess they felt they needed something to pull in the console crowd.
 
Silverforce11 said:
Because SP didn't even exist in BF2. BF3 is under no obligation to even include SP, they added it as a afterthought, if you played through it, you will realize how tripe the storyline is and short.

Frankly i would have preferred if they didn't waste all their time on SP and added more MP maps and fine tune it better.

BUT, because of their "war" vs COD i guess they felt they needed something to pull in the console crowd.
Click to expand...

I agree the sp is bad. Its terribly scripted to the point there's no decision to make except choose which bad guy to shoot first. But if we are talking about graphics, its the SP that impressed us with its pre-release footage. In MP you don't really have time to look at the environments.
 
Been playing the single player myself and its not bad but some parts are like a stupid movie.

Most you must watch then you can continue and i like the mix of stuff to do unlike in BC2 which sucked with repeative gameplay .

Loved Thunder Run and while it was kind of short it was pretty awesome basically my favorite mission so far .

Saw this bug on youtube but i experienced it too with the a.i sucking so bad enemies walk right pass you and no matter how many you kill they don't see you which is stupid.
 
Actually, some of the models in the SP game (perhaps just the early ones that reviewers would include???) are simply awesome. The military vehicles, vans, blown out buses, etc., just look amazing. Those cars in the screenshots on the previous page look really, really bad, and it looks like they skimped on the models where they weren't in the center of the action. A cheap move, but hey, the graphics in the "main event" areas are great.

As for gameplay (which is a bit off topic here), I agree it's heavily scripted, in part so they could orchestrate the big movie-style set pieces (building coming down with an RPG, climbing into humvee machine gun turret right before earthquake, etc. The animations are nice, but you aren't in control of the character a lot of the time.

Back on topic, I'm amazed at the performance given the quality of the graphics overall, and in the MP game, textures, water, etc. almost force you to stop and "smell the roses" once in a while.
 
Last edited:
cmdrdredd said:
You're assuming everyone keeps up with every driver release and everything. The general public does NOT exist on this forum. Go check the Battlefield official forum and you'll see literally hundreds of the same posts. The general PC gamer who might have been playing BF2 for a while or whatever other online game they enjoy might be interested in BF3 now. Generally speaking they are ignorant of drivers other than the idea that it should just work. I never once said problems will never be fixed. You're saying things that were never mentioned. Again most people have very little understanding of drivers. They just want the card to work. Heck, I know people who still install drivers off the CD and don't understand why things don't work all the time.

There's still people who can't even get the game to launch and they basically just blame EA for it without considering figuring out why.
Click to expand...

Casual users that don't follow the tech don't get crossfire setups. If you think for one moment someone who is able to install another card in their machine, make sure that the PSU provides sufficient power delivery and knows enough to enable crossfire in the drivers, somehow won't know about driver updates in general and have the ability to Google problems they may have...

Really? I mean come on.
 
Bobisuruncle54 said:
Casual users that don't follow the tech don't get crossfire setups. If you think for one moment someone who is able to install another card in their machine, make sure that the PSU provides sufficient power delivery and knows enough to enable crossfire in the drivers, somehow won't know about driver updates in general and have the ability to Google problems they may have...

Really? I mean come on.
Click to expand...

who told you to bring logic into this 😛
 
Termie said:
Back on topic, I'm amazed at the performance given the quality of the graphics overall, and in the MP game, textures, water, etc. almost force you to stop and "smell the roses" once in a while.
Click to expand...

It is jaw dropping, especially during flight you realize how detailed everything below you is and look at the FPS counter and its not low and ask "How?"

On the other hand, analysts estimate BF3 have already contributed billions in hardware upgrades.
 
Termie said:
Actually, some of the models in the SP game (perhaps just the early ones that reviewers would include???) are simply awesome. The military vehicles, vans, blown out buses, etc., just look amazing. Those cars in the screenshots on the previous page look really, really bad, and it looks like they skimped on the models where they weren't in the center of the action. A cheap move, but hey, the graphics in the "main event" areas are great.

As for gameplay (which is a bit off topic here), I agree it's heavily scripted, in part so they could orchestrate the big movie-style set pieces (building coming down with an RPG, climbing into humvee machine gun turret right before earthquake, etc. The animations are nice, but you aren't in control of the character a lot of the time.

Back on topic, I'm amazed at the performance given the quality of the graphics overall, and in the MP game, textures, water, etc. almost force you to stop and "smell the roses" once in a while.
Click to expand...

Yeah that car was where you stray like 10m from your pre-destinated path. I have learned my lesson from that. LOL.

But still some of the gun models looks worse than those in BF2. They never even bothered to add a simple reflection to the scope. Not too happy with that. Another thing I noticed the indoor areas doesn't have true dynamic lighting and shadows. If you turn off HBAO, everything just looks very flat.
 
I tried in the game to show FPS with Control + alt + S but this only shows it while you hold it. is there a more permanent in game way to show it? (or should I be using nvidia software to show it?)
 
notigg said:
I tried in the game to show FPS with Control + alt + S but this only shows it while you hold it. is there a more permanent in game way to show it? (or should I be using nvidia software to show it?)
Click to expand...

Press ` to open console...

Render.DrawFps 1
 
Silverforce11 said:
On the other hand, analysts estimate BF3 have already contributed billions in hardware upgrades.
Click to expand...

Damn, that's a stunning achievement, but I'm not surprised. I've spent a fortune so far (but not just for BF)

A lot of businesses have Dice to thank.

Hopefully other developers will take note and we see more titles take the lead on PC again.

Overall, I'm really happy with the performance so far. Battlefield 3 has more than met my expectations. Definitely holding off on another card. I listened to your advice - twice lehtv! Multiplayer is more for steady framerates and single player for eye candy.

I'm using auto settings at 1920x1200, everything high apart from terrain textures at ultra with triple buffering on
- constant 60fps.
 
Last edited:
I'm still getting random huge drop in fps. Even though I've lowered my graphic settings I'll still get a huge drop. I'm playing @ 1080 and I'll just just huge slowdowns that come out of no where that drop my fps to one. I don't know if I'm the only one but I'm thinking maybe it might be a driver problem.
 
zerocool84 said:
I'm still getting random huge drop in fps. Even though I've lowered my graphic settings I'll still get a huge drop. I'm playing @ 1080 and I'll just just huge slowdowns that come out of no where that drop my fps to one. I don't know if I'm the only one but I'm thinking maybe it might be a driver problem.
Click to expand...

I'd think that if you're hitting close to 1fps, something else must be wrong besides drivers. Maybe texture loading or hitting a memory limit? I'm using 6GB of system memory during MP matches, so I think your 4GB of ram might be an issue. I'd try to run a graph of memory use during the game to see what's happening there.

I haven't seen 1fps, but I've seen some slowdowns. In one round earlier today, I actually saw my CPU top out and my frames plummet - my GPUs weren't anywhere near max, but the 4 cores hit 100% a couple of times (I've since upped the speed by about 150MHz). Again, the recent professional benchmarks on single-player levels are really doing a disservice to people trying to buy hardware for BF3. A strong quad-core is really a necessity for high/ultra levels in multiplayer MP BF3. After investing in a second GPU, I'm now CPU-limited. That and VRAM limited (but I knew about that problem ahead of time).
 
Last edited:
GoStumpy said:
Opinions on a Radeon HD6790 @ 1680x1050 resolution?
Click to expand...
I'd generally say you should be good to go with a 6970 for 16x10...but it obviously depends on the rest of your specs. For a little perspective, I'm running @ 1680x1050 at max settings and getting consistently smooth gameplay with my HD 6950 (shaders unlocked and OC'ed to ~6970 clocks) and a Core i5-2500K OC'ed to 4.0ghz with 8gb RAM.

Rarely dips below 30 and hovers around 40-60 average with highs into the 80's.
 
Last edited:
i7-920 @ 3.6
1680x1050
GTX 570 @ 850/2200 (16% core OC)
everything maxed out

min observed FPS in the low 30's, about 33-34...mostly in long draw distance situations with lots of foliage. I would say a stock clock GTX 570 would be pretty close to a minimum for complete max out @ 1680x1050 and 30+ min FPS in every possible situation. The game also utilizes all of the 1.3GB VRAM, but its hard to tell how much is actually in use and how much is just buffer, but if 1GB cards haven't reported issues at even 1080p, I suppose its safe to say the actual usage doesn't exceed 1GB at 1080p and lower...I'd still opt for a card with more than 1GB if people are in the market for a new card though. Its also worth noting after seeing most of the benchmarks, that nvidia holds a commanding min fps lead at low resolutions, and by that I mean 1680x1050 and under. This, my low resolution, and the expensive pricing of 560ti 2GB, is the reason I went for a 570. Just some of my 2 cents from shopping and researching for a card the last two weeks for this game.
 
GoStumpy said:
Opinions on a Radeon HD6790 @ 1680x1050 resolution?
Click to expand...

cjbee said:
I'd generally say you should be good to go with a 6970 for 16x10...but it obviously depends on the rest of your specs. For a little perspective, I'm running @ 1680x1050 at max settings and getting consistently smooth gameplay with my HD 6950 (shaders unlocked and OC'ed to ~6970 clocks) and a Core i5-2500K OC'ed to 4.0ghz with 8gb RAM.

Rarely dips below 30 and hovers around 40-60 average with highs into the 80's.
Click to expand...

Wait, is Stumpy referring to the 6790 or 6970? Totally different cards? The 6790, which is a ~$100 card, will offer playable performance at medium settings at 1680x1050. It would not handle 1920 very well. But medium looks fine, so it's not a bad deal. If you can get a 6850 for only a bit more, however, I'd look at that.
 
Heh, for sure I meant 6790 not 6970... I am running a 6850 and I am very impressed with the performance... I can run ultra settings with AA off with 30+FPS at 1680x1050.. So I'm wondering if my not-as-gaming-savvy friend would be fine with a 6790. I don't think he'd mind medium or medium-high settings 🙂

Plus 1680x1050 is pretty much the weakest resolution people use nowadays, no?

Basically the dilemma is:

HD6790 for $109.99 after MIR
HD6850 for $129.99 after MIR

$20 extra worth it?
 
Last edited:
hmm the game or the latest nvidia drivers have some 580 SLI issues on some MP maps. GPU usage is above 90% all the time on some maps while others they drop as low as 60% and FPS drops from 70+ to 30-50. CPU never breaks 80% usage on all 4 cores. 5760x1080.
 
GoStumpy said:
Heh, for sure I meant 6790 not 6970... I am running a 6850 and I am very impressed with the performance... I can run ultra settings with AA off with 30+FPS at 1680x1050.. So I'm wondering if my not-as-gaming-savvy friend would be fine with a 6790. I don't think he'd mind medium or medium-high settings 🙂

Plus 1680x1050 is pretty much the weakest resolution people use nowadays, no?

Basically the dilemma is:

HD6790 for $109.99 after MIR
HD6850 for $129.99 after MIR

$20 extra worth it?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top