• 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 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Seriously considering crossfiring my existing 6870 with another, as it looks like scaling and performance would be pretty good. I just need to research crossfire some more to see what issues I might encounter. I may just hold out for the 7000/600 series and go for the top dog there.
 
tweakboy said:
Benchmarks don't mean a thing my friend. Actual game play matters not a benchmark scene with 30 tanks and 40 people. Thank you

gl, and gb You guys need some klonopin
Click to expand...

Not sure what specs you're playing with, but on my 6950 and i5-750 I've got everything maxed and its smooth as butter. So what if I get 45-50fps. I can't tell the difference. Anything over 25-30 is smooth anyways. That's ok bf3 is better without you ruining it.
 
Zstream said:
<snip> Not to mention the browser doesn't even work with the latest version of Firefox. It barely works with IE9....

**EDIT**

I apologize for the rant, it seems punkbuster kicked me out for some reason twice. So it comes down to one crash, and two punkbuster kicks. *sigh*
Click to expand...

I couldn't get it to work with ie9. Every link I clicked on it would block the content and I couldn't figure out how to just let it display. I just went back to chrome. Much easier.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Seriously considering crossfiring my existing 6870 with another, as it looks like scaling and performance would be pretty good. I just need to research crossfire some more to see what issues I might encounter. I may just hold out for the 7000/600 series and go for the top dog there.
Click to expand...

I would just hold out. Especially if the game is good right now. I find there are less issues with just having a single stronger card. Plus you could crossfire that card down the line.
 
96Firebird said:
I played it with my GTX 460 and E8400 just fine... It had it's moments where it would slow down, but it was definitely playable. Are you sure your system is stable otherwise?
Click to expand...

Any sort of bottleneck with the e8400 at stock or overclocked with your gpu?

Wanna match up a oced e8200 with possibly a gtx460 and what kinda fps you getting?🙂
 
skipsneeky2 said:
Any sort of bottleneck with the e8400 at stock or overclocked with your gpu?

Wanna match up a oced e8200 with possibly a gtx460 and what kinda fps you getting?🙂
Click to expand...

I just retired my E8400 system last night in favor of my new i5-2500k system, but I was definitely getting a bottleneck with the E8400. I was only at 50-60% GPU usage, which should normally be at close to 100%. With my E8400 at 3.6GHz, I was getting around 30-40 FPS, which is playable considering I was getting first and second place quite a bit. 🙂
 
96Firebird said:
I just retired my E8400 system last night in favor of my new i5-2500k system, but I was definitely getting a bottleneck with the E8400. I was only at 50-60% GPU usage, which should normally be at close to 100%. With my E8400 at 3.6GHz, I was getting around 30-40 FPS, which is playable considering I was getting first and second place quite a bit. 🙂
Click to expand...

Had a i5 2500k system that a idiot friend of mine ruined by water damage so now stuck with my backup e8200 setup.

Looks like matching up a dual core with a gtx460 is a waste mind as well slap in a 5770 assuming it offers the same performance on the bottleneck and hold out for ivy bridge and 28nm to mature before i jump on the gravy train.

Think a gtx460 and a 5770/6770 would perform the same with this cpu?
 
On CPU bottleneck. I've got an i5-750 that will 100&#37; my 2 6970's if i let it. Thank god for v-sync. Its actually very smart to turn on vsync in this instance. In my mind anything greater than 60fps is waste anyway, and I can have less noise power draw , but mostly just noise. Some people say that >30fps can't be felt....I don't feel that way at all. However >60fps is waste imoho. 60fps is grAVY.!.
 
1920x1080 PostFX set to High, 16xAF, MSAA is off, ultra settings = 90fps minimum in multiplayer.

GTX 570 SLI, i5 750 4GHZ.

I can run with MSAA at 4xAA but it doesnt add that much to the game and takes my fps down into the 50's with it on.
 
For those of us with a 22 inch 1680 x 1050 monitor does that mean we are limited to certain types of graphic cards? Monitor bottleneck?

So a radeon 6950 2gb would be a waste of money?
 
Remobz said:
For those of us with a 22 inch 1680 x 1050 monitor does that mean we are limited to certain types of graphic cards? Monitor bottleneck?

So a radeon 6950 2gb would be a waste of money?
Click to expand...

Not at all, assuming you have a decent quad-core CPU to drive it. A 6950 would certainly be held back by a dual-core at 1680x1050.
 
Remobz said:
For those of us with a 22 inch 1680 x 1050 monitor does that mean we are limited to certain types of graphic cards? Monitor bottleneck?

So a radeon 6950 2gb would be a waste of money?
Click to expand...
with a good enough cpu there is no such thing as too much gpu power if you want to crank all settings in every game and stay anywhere near 60fps the whole time. there are still a few games that I cant fully max with a gtx570 and stay above 40-50 fps even at just 1280. to be fair though most games like that are poorly ported or optimized.
 
Last edited:
mingsoup said:
On CPU bottleneck. I've got an i5-750 that will 100% my 2 6970's if i let it. Thank god for v-sync. Its actually very smart to turn on vsync in this instance. In my mind anything greater than 60fps is waste anyway, and I can have less noise power draw , but mostly just noise. Some people say that >30fps can't be felt....I don't feel that way at all. However >60fps is waste imoho. 60fps is grAVY.!.
Click to expand...

I too have an i5-750 and 2 x 6950s in the mail, should be here tomorrow. Are you at stock speed with that 750?
 
I'm pretty pleased with performance I get on BF3, finally got my settings tweaked to where I get between 50-60 fps at 1680x1050. All ultra with MSAA off. 8x

But I gotta say battlefield still needs a lot of work with their servers, otherwise, it doesn't matter what system your running. I have however, been fornate enough to find a couple that allowed smooth gameplay all the way through
 
A lot of ISP which have gaming servers just convert their old CS or TF servers to host BF3 matches but they struggle hard esp on big 64 player maps. Should improve over time as new hardware upgrades are made.

In my region, there's a lot of great servers but also a lot of laggy as hell choking every few seconds.
 
TheUnk said:
So the SLI scaling is excellent, but what about when you add a 3rd or 4th GPU? Whats the scaling like then?
Click to expand...

Triple SLI scaling is excellent. I am showing consistent GPU usage across my 3 GTX 260's in this game. That is with the newest 285 WHQL's that came out this week.
 
Termie said:
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?
Click to expand...

i had to RMA my memory so right now i'm using a gigabyte board with 1 pci-e slot and ddr2.crossfire was awful on xp but it works well on win 8,a lot better than i was expecting.no i haven't played the game,i'll wait until it comes down to around 20 dollars.I refuse to pay 50 dollars for any game
 
Last edited:
This is probably the most vidmem dependent game I've seen. Huge performance difference between 580 3gb and 580 1.5gb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top