Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

[Termie]

Brand new benchmarks of BF3, from Hardware Canucks: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-dual-gpu-review-4.html

If anyone was still unconvinced that there is a VRAM bottleneck at 1920 with MSAA in this game, I think these graphs will put that to rest. The 560Ti SLI combo goes from being 50% faster than a GTX570 to being 7% slower at the flip of the MSAA switch, so to speak.

Same thing happens to the 570 at 2560. It goes from being 10% slower than the 580 to being nearly 60% slower when MSAA is engaged.

There are arguments being made that MSAA is not a worthwhile feature to run in this game. Well, if you want it, here's how it's going to work for you:

(1) If you're at 1920, you need 1.25GB VRAM
(2) If you're at 2560, you need 1.5GB VRAM (and preferably SLI). In fact, I'd argue that at 2560, 1GB of ram is even a problem without MSAA (look how the 560TI SLI only matches the 580 at this setting).

And, BTW, I'm ignoring AMD's poor MSAA performance here. I'm strictly talking about VRAM requirements.

 

[Termie]

I just finished dling the game. What in game graphic settings do you guys recommend for a i5-2500k and a Gigabyte GTX 570?

LOL...see above post!

You can run 1920 ultra, but I recommend you go into the manual settings and choose all ultra and shut off MSAA (called "antialiasing deferred").

 

[ArchAngel777]

LOL...see above post!

You can run 1920 ultra, but I recommend you go into the manual settings and choose all ultra and shut off MSAA (called "antialiasing deferred").

I found it interesting that they both looked the same to me. I turned them on and compared them to each other. I couldn't really tell a difference... Having them both on didn't change anything either (except a larger performance hit).

Some people say the post blurs the entire image, but I didn't experience that. It is also interesting the Crysis 2 uses less Vram and looks better overall.

BF3 is fun, but I don't honestly think it looks that much better than Bad Company 2.

 

[lehtv]

BF3 looks definitely better than Crysis 2 to me. Even Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2.

 

[ArchAngel777]

BF3 looks definitely better than Crysis 2 to me. Even Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2.

Did you install DX11 patch, and high res textures? I simply don't agree.... BF3 doesn't look better. Even the cars don't look as good in BF3. The bad part of Crysis 2 is some oddball poor quality textures in certain places.

 

[lehtv]

The DX11 patch and high res textures didn't really improve the looks much. A little bit of tessellation here and there, mostly it was not noticeable - and the normal textures were fine. BF3 has a lot better artistic style and lighting IMO.

 

[theattrox]

How do you check your fps in game?

 

[lehtv]

MSI Afterburner

 

[Termie]

How do you check your fps in game?

Hit "~", and then type Render.DrawFPS 1. I'm not at my gaming system right now, so if I got that wrong, sorry - others can correct me.

Edit: Afterburner works too, but the console command avoids having to install another program.

 

[ArchAngel777]

BF3 has a lot better artistic style and lighting IMO.

I agree with this part.

 

[Dustn311]

I want to touch on something someone said about 90fps feeling like 20. That's exactly what I've been think every time I play. I don't know if there's like a crossfire issue or what but I'm running everything on high no motion Blur no MSAA HBAO on and I honestly have 100+ fps most of the time and what's killing me is when it drops to like 92-95 it seriously feeling like 30 fps. I use the in-game fps counter and I am seriously starting to think its lying to me. Love to hear anyone else comment on this.

Intel core i5 2500k @ 4.2
ASRock P67 extreme4 gen3
8gb PC3-12800 DDR3
Crossfire Radeon HD 6950's latest 11.10 and cap4 from amd.com

 

[AtenRa]

I want to touch on something someone said about 90fps feeling like 20. That's exactly what I've been think every time I play. I don't know if there's like a crossfire issue or what but I'm running everything on high no motion Blur no MSAA HBAO on and I honestly have 100+ fps most of the time and what's killing me is when it drops to like 92-95 it seriously feeling like 30 fps. I use the in-game fps counter and I am seriously starting to think its lying to me. Love to hear anyone else comment on this.

Intel core i5 2500k @ 4.2
ASRock P67 extreme4 gen3
8gb PC3-12800 DDR3
Crossfire Radeon HD 6950's latest 11.10 and cap4 from amd.com

I tested in MP with 2x 6950 1GB CF and its horrible, fps bouncing all over the place. Drivers need a lot of work.

Single card its acceptable even at 1920x1200 ultra with no MSAA, no Blur and medium post.

Edit: Hmm, the Cards are HD6950 not 6850

 

[cmdrdredd]

I tested in MP with 2x 6850 1GB CF and its horrible, fps bouncing all over the place. Drivers need a lot of work.

Single card its acceptable even at 1920x1200 ultra with no MSAA, no Blur and medium post.

Have you tried without the CAP installed? It's worth a try.

 

[saratoga172]

I want to touch on something someone said about 90fps feeling like 20. That's exactly what I've been think every time I play. I don't know if there's like a crossfire issue or what but I'm running everything on high no motion Blur no MSAA HBAO on and I honestly have 100+ fps most of the time and what's killing me is when it drops to like 92-95 it seriously feeling like 30 fps. I use the in-game fps counter and I am seriously starting to think its lying to me. Love to hear anyone else comment on this.

Intel core i5 2500k @ 4.2
ASRock P67 extreme4 gen3
8gb PC3-12800 DDR3
Crossfire Radeon HD 6950's latest 11.10 and cap4 from amd.com

Try a single card. Seems to be better supported thus far. With one 6950 and an i5 750 I can max everything out. Stable fps, smooth gameplay and about 40-45 fps.

 

[GoStumpy]

Might as well post my findings here!

System:
Biostar TH67+
8gb G.Skill 1333mhz
i3-2100 3.1ghz
XFX Radeon HD6850 @ 800/1050
WD Blue 7200rpm HDD

These are at 1680x1050 resolution, online multiplayer on a full 64man server:

Medium Settings:
Min: 48
Max: 62
Avg: 58



High Settings:
Min: 41
Max: 60
Avg: 47

Temps:

CPU
Idle: 28-30C
Load: 45-47C

GPU
Idle: 30-32C
Load: 55-57C

GPU Usage:

CPU Usage:

 

[skipsneeky2]

Might as well post my findings here!

System:
Biostar TH67+
8gb G.Skill 1333mhz
i3-2100 3.1ghz
XFX Radeon HD6850 @ 800/1050
WD Blue 7200rpm HDD

These are at 1680x1050 resolution, online multiplayer on a full 64man server:

Medium Settings:
Min: 48
Max: 62
Avg: 58



High Settings:
Min: 41
Max: 60
Avg: 47

Temps:

CPU
Idle: 28-30C
Load: 45-47C

GPU
Idle: 30-32C
Load: 55-57C

GPU Usage:

CPU Usage:

Looks like a spot on deal for high 1680x1050 i would worry if anyone matched this cpu with a 2gb radeon and tried ultra but for high it looks like a perfect match.

 

[Grooveriding]

BF3 looks definitely better than Crysis 2 to me. Even Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 2.

It sure does look better than Crysis 2. If I were to rank best looking games in order of best downwards, it would be; Crysis, Warhead, BF3, Crysis 2, Metro 2033 and the rest.

You can take any one game and find something better than the rest, but taken as a whole package, these would be my rankings.

I would note that BF3, Crysis 2 and Metro are all fairly close to me. Crysis/Warhead with added texture mods, the POM+AF mod and custom extreme settings is still in a league of its own. A five year old game still being the cream of the graphics crop is either a testament to the work Crytek did, a sad comment on game developers not pushing things enough since then or a little of both. :\

Crysis on modern hardware also runs quite well, it performs better than Crysis 2 and Metro, but looks a lot better than either title. BF3 though, performs better than Crysis for me on my system.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There's one thing with these modern shooters that bugs me. WHy do bodies just fall statically? I mean there's some physics at work when they take the hit, but when the body falls it's like a flat texture. You can't kick it, can't shoot it and have it react naturally. Things like that bug me. It's not morbid or anything it's an observation I've had in modern shooters with all these effects etc. Once an enemy is dead that's it, you should be able to interact more with it.

 

[Silverforce11]

I think its partly because its built as a MP game first. That feature would really be insulting to dead players. 😛

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think its partly because its built as a MP game first. That feature would really be insulting to dead players. 😛

Well no modern shooter really has anything like this. I mean I would expect you to be able to drag a body to a hallway and wait for guards to come up and spot it, then maybe kick or poke at it with fluid and realistic physics. Something like Metal Gear Solid. You can knock a guy out and drag him into a locker and put him in, but only I'd like to see real time physics, not just canned animations.

 

[crisium]

It would be quite annoying on clusterfrak maps like Metro if dead bodies stayed there and could me interacted with.

 

[SickBeast]

With all settings at "ultra" except for "high" textures, I'm constantly pegged at 60fps in BF3 on my GTX 460 SLI setup (768mb).

It's performing way better than I had expected.

Graphically it's not quite as nice as Crysis 2 IMO.

 

[Carfax83]

Graphically it's not quite as nice as Crysis 2 IMO.

I would have to agree with that; especially when you use Maldo's texture mod.

Crysis 2 DX11 is really THE ultimate single player FPS experience of 2011.

At any rate, I finally got around to playing the BF3 single player campaign, and I'm honestly impressed. I've been playing it for approximately 4 hours straight, so for me to do that, it has to be good..

Which is what I don't understand, since most of the reviewers snubbed the single player campaign. 😱

The game play is very smooth for me at 2560x1600, everything maxed except MSAA which I have set to 2x and post processing which is turned off.

I can't tolerate the blur that comes with post processing, and while 4xAA is definitely playable on my rig, I get a huge performance boost by dropping it down to 2x.

Game definitely looks beautiful I must say, although it doesn't match the hype.....but then which game does?

 

[Red Hawk]

There's one thing with these modern shooters that bugs me. WHy do bodies just fall statically? I mean there's some physics at work when they take the hit, but when the body falls it's like a flat texture. You can't kick it, can't shoot it and have it react naturally. Things like that bug me. It's not morbid or anything it's an observation I've had in modern shooters with all these effects etc. Once an enemy is dead that's it, you should be able to interact more with it.

In Deus Ex: Human Revolution you can hit dead/unconscious bodies and drag them around indefinitely after taking them out.

 

[LoneNinja]

I haven't read every page of this thread so excuse me if this was already posted.

Does anyone know how crippling it is to only have 512mb of vram in this game?