Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

[Smartazz]

They'll also run smoother in smaller games like 32 players. Games that are really intense with tons of explosions, vehicles and gunfire slowed down my Q6600 considerably, whereas now GPU usage always stays at 99%. In 64 player games on my Q6600, GPU utilization would hardly ever get to 99%, let alone stay there. If you're reluctant to upgrade from a quad core to another quad core, just keep in mind that Ivy Bridge and Haswell will likely remain quad cores on the non-enthusiast platform. If you're debating another 560ti or a 2500k and Battlefield 3 is a big gaming focus for you, then I'd recommend getting the 2500K or waiting for Ivy Bridge if you want.

 

[ColtMaverick]

So, if I'm on Q6600 @ 3.0 ghz with gt 250 card and plan to upgrade to new gen card, could I use my 250 in the secondary sli spot as a physics card to help support the cpu? Would that solve the problem?

 

[96Firebird]

So, if I'm on Q6600 @ 3.0 ghz with gt 250 card and plan to upgrade to new gen card, could I use my 250 in the secondary sli spot as a physics card to help support the cpu? Would that solve the problem?

BF3 does not use GPU acceleration for their physics, it is all done on the CPU. I'm willing to bet you are still GPU-limited though, so that would be the better upgrade.

 

[suklee]

They'll also run smoother in smaller games like 32 players. Games that are really intense with tons of explosions, vehicles and gunfire slowed down my Q6600 considerably, whereas now GPU usage always stays at 99%. In 64 player games on my Q6600, GPU utilization would hardly ever get to 99%, let alone stay there. If you're reluctant to upgrade from a quad core to another quad core, just keep in mind that Ivy Bridge and Haswell will likely remain quad cores on the non-enthusiast platform. If you're debating another 560ti or a 2500k and Battlefield 3 is a big gaming focus for you, then I'd recommend getting the 2500K or waiting for Ivy Bridge if you want.

I just did a quick test online, on a 64 player server my GPU was between 84% and 99% on Seine Crossing. Is this enough usage of my GPU? I'm using 1920 x 1200 on mostly high settings.

 

[skipsneeky2]

CPU makes a huge difference in 64 player multiplayer. I say 15 to 20fps gains on min/avg/max in 64 player multiplayer with a CPU upgrade from an i7 920 to an i7 3930k.

With 64 people and destruction physics in a huge map, your CPU is constantly calculating all that out on top of feeding your GPU(s).

Would this be with a typical everyday 6950 ,6970 gtx570 or gtx580?

Or do you need like tripple gtx580s to see such a difference?

Those gains are huge if for a single gpu.

 

[Smartazz]

I just did a quick test online, on a 64 player server my GPU was between 84% and 99% on Seine Crossing. Is this enough usage of my GPU? I'm using 1920 x 1200 on mostly high settings.

Seine Crossing is one of the less demanding maps if I remember correctly. That's pretty decent GPU usage though. I upgraded to a 2500K for a host of other reasons, Battlefield 3 was just one of the bigger reasons. Skyrim also requires a fairly powerful CPU.

 

[GoStumpy]

In my opinion, if the GPU is anything BUT 99% then you are CPU limited. Every time the GPU goes off 99% it is due to the CPU not being able to keep up and forcing the GPU to wait.

At least that's my opinion

 

[skipsneeky2]

In my opinion, if the GPU is anything BUT 99% then you are CPU limited. Every time the GPU goes off 99% it is due to the CPU not being able to keep up and forcing the GPU to wait.

At least that's my opinion

Played my first 64 player packed caspain map this evening on this build.

This map is the only one tasking the cpu rather good,map was action packed and my gpu usage was dipping as low as 96% dipping my minimum into the low 30s.

Dropped all the settings down to medium and its perfectly playable butter smooth with good average and excellent minimum but caspian is the only one where my cpu bottlenecks the 6790 if its a 64 player packed server the other maps i pegg at 99%.

BC2 loves the set up with 2x msa hbao disabled i roll with excellent fps on high on all the servers.

 

[suklee]

In my opinion, if the GPU is anything BUT 99% then you are CPU limited. Every time the GPU goes off 99% it is due to the CPU not being able to keep up and forcing the GPU to wait.

At least that's my opinion

I've seen as low as 70% GPU usage on the 64 player maps. If I got a 2500k, you think I'll be able to turn up the settings on the 560Ti, or is 'high' the best I'll get?

 

[Smartazz]

I've seen as low as 70% GPU usage on the 64 player maps. If I got a 2500k, you think I'll be able to turn up the settings on the 560Ti, or is 'high' the best I'll get?

Depends on what kind of frame rates you're looking for. However, the 1GB frame buffer on your GTX 560 would likely become an issue with things set to ultra. The game still looks phenomenal on all high anyway.

 

[Termie]

I've seen as low as 70% GPU usage on the 64 player maps. If I got a 2500k, you think I'll be able to turn up the settings on the 560Ti, or is 'high' the best I'll get?

Depends on what kind of frame rates you're looking for. However, the 1GB frame buffer on your GTX 560 would likely become an issue with things set to ultra. The game still looks phenomenal on all high anyway.

Yeah, you won't be able to turn up the settings on your 560Ti - high is really all it's good for. But what you'll see is that you weren't really getting all of its performance at high using a q6600. Once you move to a 2500k, you should get 99% GPU usage, and you'll be at around 45fps all high at 1920x1200, or closer to 50fps at 1080p. Basically, while high would have been maxing out your GPU already, it maxed out your CPU instead.

You'll also open up the possibility of 560Ti SLI, which will offer amazing performance at high (probably 90fps), but don't expect to run all ultra - the frame buffer is still too small for either MSAA or ultra textures. You would, however, be able to turn everything else up to ultra. That's how I run my 5850 crossfire.

 

[destrekor]

Yeah, you won't be able to turn up the settings on your 560Ti - high is really all it's good for. But what you'll see is that you weren't really getting all of its performance at high using a q6600. Once you move to a 2500k, you should get 99% GPU usage, and you'll be at around 45fps all high at 1920x1200, or closer to 50fps at 1080p. Basically, while high would have been maxing out your GPU already, it maxed out your CPU instead.

You'll also open up the possibility of 560Ti SLI, which will offer amazing performance at high (probably 90fps), but don't expect to run all ultra - the frame buffer is still too small for either MSAA or ultra textures. You would, however, be able to turn everything else up to ultra. That's how I run my 5850 crossfire.

With a few things turned down, my 2600K (@ 4.8GHz) and my SLI 560 Ti 2GB cards (@950/1900/2004MHz) could run 64p maps on almost-maxed Ultra settings. I think I turned down World Mesh to High, and no Deferred MSAA (Post AA at top setting though). It became not a memory issue though, simply one of GPU performance. It's a lot, but it's not super top of the line.
Oh, and yeah, those settings kept me pegged at 60fps in vsync @ 1080p.

I have since turned off vsync to avoid input lag (though does it matter, since I am running SLI as well as using ASUS IPS monitors, versus faster TN panels?) and have the game itself cap at 60fps. Never new what the max average was, I think typically 80s. Sometimes it did drop below 50fps though, but never below 45fps iirc.

Not that it matters anymore - now that multimonitor support is fixed, I've been running with that the whole time. 6060x1080 (bezel corrected) is a ton of shit to render on these cards, and they hate me for it. My settings are a mixture of Medium and Low settings, and I can't remember if I ended up settling for no AO (HBAO looks gorgeous in this game).
The game still looks gorgeous, and I knew I'd have to settle for lower settings at this resolution for some games, as I have no desire to spend $1200+ on GPUs alone.

I thought I'd mostly run this resolution for iRacing and other racing games, and keep the new FPS releases on 1 monitor to get the best graphics with a smooth framerate.
But BF3 multiplayer is a blast in full surround. And this engine scales beautifully, it really does look great at lower settings. Not a home-run like the Ultra settings, but still it's a fair trade for the resolution.