BF3 Upgrade Choices

[lehtv]

Does that generate a log? I am not at my PC right now, but I know how to get the FPS to display while I'm playing. I've been using it with every new driver release to eyeball the fps changes, so that's what I am basing my anecdote on.

It will create a graph in the graph panel, and you can detach the graph panel and expand it to the width of your monitor which allows you to see a graph history of 30 minutes or more. In addition, you can enable logging to file in the monitoring options if needed.

 

[MrK6]

Answer was, GPU is at 100% the entire time.

So, running things at 1680x1050 on an i3-2100 3.1ghz and HD6850 @ 825/1150:


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


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


Not sure how to record the CPU %, but if the GPU was 100% then I can assume the CPU wasn't 100%

Glad you did some real world testing :thumbsup:. Note that the CPU is going to be pegged differently than the GPU, and might even be more dynamic in it's load and heavily dependent on the gaming environment. Did you test on a full 64 player server or something less? Was there a lot of action going on if you were in a 64 player server (e.g. middle of a battle, physical destruction from tank shells, etc.). If you didn't do these, try it out again. I play on my laptop which has a dual core i5-580m @ 3.3GHz and the game stays around 35-40FPS in heavy action 64 player servers. It also has a 6550m and both the CPU and GPU can bottleneck the game depending on the minute.

Not sure why everyone says this. I had a 460 GTX @ 822/1644/4000 (roughly the same performance of a 470 GTX) and it was severely crippled by this game on Ultra @ 1680x1050. I purchased another one, put them in SLI and is now smooth as butter. The game scales around 85-90%, which would put it above the 6970 by a substantial margin.
BTW, I used to be anti multi-GPU, my post history proves that, but I don't really notice any microstutter or input lag over my single GPU setup. I merely went SLI even expecting these problems and found that if they exist, I certainly don't see them and to be clear, I am rather picky.

Ultra Settings, Vsync, Motion Blur turned off (I hate it), 4X AA (deferred) @ 1680x1050 on a 460 GTX SLI Setup @ 822/1644/4000 is smooth as butter.

Edit BTW - I am not saying the 6970 is a bad card. That wasn't the reason for the post, the reason was that people think it is overkill for 1680x1050 which I don't agree with. It allows smooth as butter gameplay.

Not really, GTX 460 SLI is ~ GTX 580, which is actually slower than a 6970 in BF3 unless you turn on MSAA. To put more perspective on it, I run the game on everything on Ultra but without MSAA @ 2560x1600 on my unlocked and overclocked 6950 (same as an overclocked 6970) and runs great (45-80FPS).

 

[ArchAngel777]

Glad you did some real world testing :thumbsup:. Note that the CPU is going to be pegged differently than the GPU, and might even be more dynamic in it's load and heavily dependent on the gaming environment. Did you test on a full 64 player server or something less? Was there a lot of action going on if you were in a 64 player server (e.g. middle of a battle, physical destruction from tank shells, etc.). If you didn't do these, try it out again. I play on my laptop which has a dual core i5-580m @ 3.3GHz and the game stays around 35-40FPS in heavy action 64 player servers. It also has a 6550m and both the CPU and GPU can bottleneck the game depending on the minute.
Not really, GTX 460 SLI is ~ GTX 580, which is actually slower than a 6970 in BF3 unless you turn on MSAA. To put more perspective on it, I run the game on everything on Ultra but without MSAA @ 2560x1600 on my unlocked and overclocked 6950 (same as an overclocked 6970) and runs great (45-80FPS).

Stock clocked 460 SLI is in the same ball park as a 580 @ 1680x1050, not a 22% overclocked 460, which nearly every single 460 GTX can do (without voltage increase).

I am also not sure where you are getting results that the 6970 is faster than the 580 @ 1680x1050 either. Can you post a graph from a reputable site? I could possibly see it being faster on 2560x1600 due to the greater fill rate of the 6970 however.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Well so much for that.... copy of my post from the PC gaming forum:

Anyone else getting this error?

I did google it. Triked to run it in "compatability mode". No luck.

Been running fine since launch on 285.62 driver.

Only thing I noticed today is that Origin had forgotten my login details and the PING function was actually workikng on the server list (first time ever). Then this error everytime it goes into 3D render mode.

 

[Termie]

...
Not really, GTX 460 SLI is ~ GTX 580, which is actually slower than a 6970 in BF3 unless you turn on MSAA. To put more perspective on it, I run the game on everything on Ultra but without MSAA @ 2560x1600 on my unlocked and overclocked 6950 (same as an overclocked 6970) and runs great (45-80FPS).

I tend not to doubt your findings given your very extensive analyses in the past, but then what do you make of these 2560 numbers on a 6970, at the settings you play at: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-dual-gpu-review-4.html

Something clearly doesn't compute there...

Well so much for that.... copy of my post from the PC gaming forum:

Anyone else getting this error?

I did google it. Triked to run it in "compatability mode". No luck.

Been running fine since launch on 285.62 driver.

Only thing I noticed today is that Origin had forgotten my login details and the PING function was actually workikng on the server list (first time ever). Then this error everytime it goes into 3D render mode.

I've had driver errors on my 5850s. What were your settings? Were you trying to push ultra or still on high as you described previously. I get a driver dialog error box almost every time I try to alt-tab while on ultra settings. But mine specifically says it's run out of video memory. Just thinking nVidia's driver error reporting isn't quite as specific, but I know you have 1GB of VRAM like I do.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I tend not to doubt your findings given your very extensive analyses in the past, but then what do you make of these 2560 number on a 6970, at the settings you play at: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-dual-gpu-review-4.html

Something clearly doesn't compute there...



I've had driver errors on my 5850s. What were your settings? Were you trying to push ultra or still on high as you described previously. I get a driver dialog error box almost every time I try to alt-tab while on ultra settings. But mine specifically says it's run out of video memory. Just thinking nVidia's driver error reporting isn't quite as specific, but I know you have 1GB of VRAM like I do.

I havent changed a thing from the last time I played.

BTW. Love EA tech support. First response was: "try directly connecting your computer to the modem". Response 2 was: "Let me see if I can get you a different code to resolve the issue" (furious paper shuffling). When I asked for an upper level tech, they hung up on me. And oh yeah, it was a girl. LOL.

 

[Silverforce11]

Hardware cannucks did something wrong, numbers are way too low on radeons with MSAA off, not representative vs other reviewers and users. Without MSAA, even on ULTRA for every other setting radeons have an advantage.

 

[Termie]

Hardware cannucks did something wrong, numbers are way too low on radeons with MSAA off, not representative vs other reviewers and users. Without MSAA, even on ULTRA for every other setting radeons have an advantage.

That definitely could be. They were really focusing on nvidia performance here.

 

[MrK6]

Stock clocked 460 SLI is in the same ball park as a 580 @ 1680x1050, not a 22% overclocked 460, which nearly every single 460 GTX can do (without voltage increase).

Overclocking is never a guarantee and the GTX 580 can overlcock too, the point is moot.

I am also not sure where you are getting results that the 6970 is faster than the 580 @ 1680x1050 either. Can you post a graph from a reputable site? I could possibly see it being faster on 2560x1600 due to the greater fill rate of the 6970 however.

You are correct. I was thinking my resolution, not the OP's.

I tend not to doubt your findings given your very extensive analyses in the past, but then what do you make of these 2560 numbers on a 6970, at the settings you play at: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-dual-gpu-review-4.html

Something clearly doesn't compute there...

Thanks for the vote of confidence :thumbsup:. I can only comment on my experience and in multiplayer at that as that's all I've played. If anything I'd say "sure, why not" as performance in this game is all over the place. Sometimes I can get dips into the 20's, sometimes I'll stare at a wall and get 120FPS. Even on the same map but a different server my FPS can be different, so I can't really say.