My rig for BF3, Video card dilema...

[M0RPH]

Because it is the season for games, building a PC now can't be a bad choice really. So many great games are coming out even if he doesn't enjoy BF3 I don't think it will matter. Anyways he was probably a BF2 fan so he already knows that he likes the game. The beta was amazing, the only people who didn't like it that I saw were scrubs who sucked at the game or people expecting it to be a solid release build (its a beta).

Anyways what is wrong with the GTX 570? It seems to run quite a bit faster than the 6950, and even the 6970 which it is cheaper than.

Admittedly I only played the BF3 beta on medium settings, but the graphics were not much better than BC2, main difference being the new cinematic art style with extreme contrast and bloom, and less color. Shadows are way too dark and it makes it harder on the eyes, IMO.

Despite DICE's claims that they are still focused on PC gamers, it's ovious they are putting more and more resources towards the console versions and less towards the PC. I would not be surprised if the PC visuals turn out to be disappointing.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

if you feel you have to play on Low settings with the GTX260 you're not going to be able to play Ultra with any current single GPU @ 1080p. Maybe 720p, otherwise you'll pretty much be forced to go dual GPU if you can't accept tweaking your settings and just blindly crank everything to Ultra.

dual 2GB 6950s would certainly be the most frugal route to take as they combine the best balance of price/performance and ability to run everything Ultra without compromise (ie enough memory buffer for ultra textures unlike a cheaper multi GPU solution with only 1GB of memory)

although I'd recommend going with just one at first to see if it was enough of an upgrade without resorting to being potentially disappointed with the downsides of going all out with 2 right away

 

[Madcatatlas]

Admittedly I only played the BF3 beta on medium settings, but the graphics were not much better than BC2, main difference being the new cinematic art style with extreme contrast and bloom, and less color. Shadows are way too dark and it makes it harder on the eyes, IMO.

Despite DICE's claims that they are still focused on PC gamers, it's ovious they are putting more and more resources towards the console versions and less towards the PC. I would not be surprised if the PC visuals turn out to be disappointing.

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say here....

This game played on high and some ultras (if applicable in beta at all)
on my 460, provided me with great graphics for a multiplayer shooter. Now admittedly there were some shortcommings, like the sandbags, but damn it is a beautiful game.

Ive played both this and bf2 and this blows away bf2.

You cant play this on "medium" settings and then say that it isnt much better than some game you played on "high" settings 2 years ago.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say here....

This game played on high and some ultras (if applicable in beta at all)
on my 460, provided me with great graphics for a multiplayer shooter. Now admittedly there were some shortcommings, like the sandbags, but damn it is a beautiful game.

Ive played both this and bf2 and this blows away bf2.

You cant play this on "medium" settings and then say that it isnt much better than some game you played on "high" settings 2 years ago.

I've messed around with the BF3 beta on medium settings and would be comfortable with sayings its just about on par with BC2 on high settings, and I'm a huge BC2 fan

 

[M0RPH]

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say here....

This game played on high and some ultras (if applicable in beta at all)
on my 460, provided me with great graphics for a multiplayer shooter. Now admittedly there were some shortcommings, like the sandbags, but damn it is a beautiful game.

Ive played both this and bf2 and this blows away bf2.

You cant play this on "medium" settings and then say that it isnt much better than some game you played on "high" settings 2 years ago.

No, I'm saying that I played BC2 on medium settings and BF3 on medium settings, and didn't think there was any significant leap forward in the graphics. In fact BF3 felt like it was running with around the same performance as BC2 (although I didn't measure the frame rate).

I'm just wondering if there's really enough improvement in the graphics to justify spending hundreds of dollars on hardware upgrades. Maybe I need to be running at settings higher than medium to see the great leap in graphics?

 

[Crap Daddy]

One card GTX570, if you have more money then crossfire 6950. Best options for bang/buck

 

[bunnyfubbles]

One card GTX570, if you have more money then crossfire 6950. Best options for bang/buck

For most games I'd agree, but for BF3 I think ultra textures might push the GTX570's 1280MBs to the limit, I think he'd be better off going with a single 2GB 6950 and overclocking before seeing if he needs to go with a second card or if one is satisfactory.

 

[AtenRa]

Prolly your 1gb is the problem running with ultra and 4xAA.

And "able to play" is very subjective.

I was running at 1920x1200 Ultra No AA No Blur, so vram was not the problem

My friend's system with a Phenom II X4 955@ 4GHz and GTX570 was running Caspian Border 64 player map with 30-32fps minimum and 40-45 max at 1920x1080 Ultra MSAA 4x and Blur On.

Definitely playable.

 

[AtenRa]

Just to add,

My cοusιn 's system with Core 2 Duo 8200 and HD4890 was not able to produce more than 20fps in Caspian Border 64 player maps in medium settings(no AA) and it was simple unplayable.

32 player map Metro was playable at medium settings producing 30 to 45 fps no AA.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I was running at 1920x1200 Ultra No AA No Blur, so vram was not the problem

My friend's system with a Phenom II X4 955@ 4GHz and GTX570 was running Caspian Border 64 player map with 30-32fps minimum and 40-45 max at 1920x1080 Ultra MSAA 4x and Blur On.

Definitely playable.

maybe for you, but a 30 min and 45 max would be torture for me

I hate having to put up with 45fps as a minimum, and I shoot for at least 60 (thus consider 45min and 60 average as merely "playable") although I'd prefer a minimum to be more in the 80fps range with averages well into the 100+ range.

 

[imaheadcase]

I noticed ZERO difference in beta with AA on max and it off on GTX 580. Even performance was not changed one bit. Maybe it was disabled?

The game was perfect on a single GTX 580, that was on my "lowly" Core 2 Quad 2.83ghz, 8gig ddr2 ram.

 

[lehtv]

I noticed ZERO difference in beta with AA on max and it off on GTX 580. Even performance was not changed one bit. Maybe it was disabled?

You need to exit the game and join a server in order for changes in graphics settings to take effect

 

[imaheadcase]

You need to exit the game and join a server in order for changes in graphics settings to take effect

yah i did that.

 

[7earitup]

I also found VSYNC to be very weird in the BF3 beta. With VSYNC off, I would get from 20-40 fps on low, but it felt very sluggish. With it on, I would hold around 30-40 fps on low and it never dipped. It was also much more playable than with it off - movement did not feel as delayed is it did with it off.

In most other games, my experiences with VSYNC have been the opposite entirely.

 

[WMD]

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say here....

This game played on high and some ultras (if applicable in beta at all)
on my 460, provided me with great graphics for a multiplayer shooter. Now admittedly there were some shortcommings, like the sandbags, but damn it is a beautiful game.

Ive played both this and bf2 and this blows away bf2.

You cant play this on "medium" settings and then say that it isnt much better than some game you played on "high" settings 2 years ago.

I have played in ultra and medium and there isn't much difference to the overall look especially the lighting if you keep HBAO on. My opinion is similar to Morph. It doesn't break any new grounds in graphics realism. Just overdone ambient occlusion and contrast makes it standout but it gets tiring after a while.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

You guys have got to be joking me! I went back and played BC2, the graphics are SO far behind BF3. Obviously, you guys have no idea what you are talking about. The graphics in BF3 are cutting-edge and are miles ahead of every game available today. Every time I played the beta, I was in awe and so was everyone else. I can't wait to see what the final game will look like.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

You guys have got to be joking me! I went back and played BC2, the graphics are SO far behind BF3. Obviously, you guys have no idea what you are talking about. The graphics in BF3 are cutting-edge and are miles ahead of every game available today. Every time I played the beta, I was in awe and so was everyone else. I can't wait to see what the final game will look like.

I didn't play the beta. If what you say is true then I'm gonna end up spending a little cash for a new card. I haven't been this excited for a game since I was a zit faced kid waiting for Mortal Kombat to release on super Nintendo.

 

[Grooveriding]

You guys have got to be joking me! I went back and played BC2, the graphics are SO far behind BF3. Obviously, you guys have no idea what you are talking about. The graphics in BF3 are cutting-edge and are miles ahead of every game available today. Every time I played the beta, I was in awe and so was everyone else. I can't wait to see what the final game will look like.

I agree, the game looks phenomenal The only gripe I have is the contrast is too overdone at times; making it hard to see someone in the shadows, they're a bit too dark.

Best looking game released since the original Crysis. Here is some commentary from one of the devs about the technology behind the new engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vuhEQsAhUjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9rqk2kL7zI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekktuRD5ao&feature=player_embedded

Three parts there, the sound is poor though, hard to hear him clearly.

The graphics settings were a mess in beta. You had to set them and restart to game to make it take effect. Vsync in game was not working. The whole ultra settings aren't working thing is not the case, they were working, the difference between high and ultra is just rather small.

Best looking game all year and second best to Crysis 1 imo. More than that it's also an amazingly fun game!

 

[Paul98]

Wait till the game actually comes out, results will be different than beta. Make your decision then after benchmarks and peoples results come out and when ultra is enabled.

 

[Silverforce11]

I noticed ZERO difference in beta with AA on max and it off on GTX 580. Even performance was not changed one bit. Maybe it was disabled?

The game was perfect on a single GTX 580, that was on my "lowly" Core 2 Quad 2.83ghz, 8gig ddr2 ram.

What are you using to measure fps. There is a huge difference in perf with 4xMSAA. Post AA there is little difference.

Also, your CPU may bottleneck in BF3. I think some tests show you need around 3.2ghz for C2Q and Ph2x4.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

He probably didn't know that you have to restart the game in order to apply new settings.

 

[7earitup]

BF3's graphics are definitely pretty, even on low settings. To me, BF3 is the most fluid game I have played in a while. The overall experience - the sound, the lighting, the animations, the gameplay itself - all superb.

 

[96Firebird]

This game played on high and some ultras (if applicable in beta at all)
on my 460, provided me with great graphics for a multiplayer shooter. Now admittedly there were some shortcommings, like the sandbags, but damn it is a beautiful game.

This sounds promising for me, as my new build should be done before BF3 arrives. But I am carrying my GTX 460 1GB over from my current build, and I wasn't sure what kind of performance I would get out of it. What resolution did you play at? I know I won't be able to max everything with tons of AA, but I'd like to get a ball-park of where the GTX 460 1GB stands. My E8400 held me back during the beta...

 

[Carfax83]

http://downloads.guru3d.com/Crysis-WARHEAD-Benchmark-Tool-BETA-download-2072.html

Not sure where I got the version I'm using, they all should turn up the same results though.

OK sorry it took so long to come back with the results, but I had some stuff to do yesterday and earlier today.

I think the main reason for the difference in the average framerate has to do with the fact that I'm using HDDs (2x 600GB Velociraptors) while you and Anandtech have SSDs.

SSDs can impact the minimum framerates in the Crysis benchmarks seeing as the game engine streams data off of the disk/SSD, and SSDs are much faster than HDDs in this respect, as seen here:

All the same, my minimum framerate (the most important number) is still higher than yours and Anandtech's, but I think the first run reduced my average since everything was being loaded from my HDDs..

I have texture filtering set to High Quality at all times globally, other than that my settings in drivers are at default. This would of reduced framerates though, rather than improved them, as the default is High.

If you had the high quality turned on as well as 16xAF, then it would have impacted your scores. You probably would have gained a few more FPS in performance mode, with AF set to application controlled.

I'm not into 3D, I've tried it and wasn't much of a fan, plus I prefer a high quality 30" monitor over a smaller low-quality TN panel. GPU Physx has been around a good four years or so and there are about 15 games that use it, of which about three were even worth playing

Yeah, but at least Nvidia tries to make PC gaming ascendant by creating new technologies that take advantage of the power of the PC platform.

Without options like physx, 3D vision, high resolution textures, mods etc, PC gaming is no different than console gaming, albeit with a much more expensive console.

And don't write physx off. Some big games (Batman Arkham City, Metro Last Light) have taken a habit of including it in their development cycles..

Batman Arkham City is already getting ludicrous amounts of praise from reviewers. The PC version when it comes out next month will be spectacular due to the extra additions, physx, dx11, 3d vision.

My 5870 Crossfire setup had no issues apart from the launch drivers not properly downclocking the cards in 2D mode.

Funny you should mention that, because thats one of the issues I had with my 4870s..

I saw that review. The results were not consistent across all the games, some showed gains, others showed no gains. There were some questions about consistency with the review as well, his X58 platform used a x16/x16/x4 pcie lane setup while the SB P67 was x16/x8/x8. x8 is not much of a performance loss from x16, but x4 on the pcie lane can be.

That may be, but either case, it's apparent that Nvidia hardware requires more bandwidth/CPU than AMD hardware.

I'm not a fan of the current SB platform for tri-SLI or tri-Crossfire. I think X79 is the platform to wait for if you are going for three GPUs or more and Z68/P67 is better for single or dual card setups.

Yep, thats the main reason why I've avoided the Z68/P67 platforms. Will the X79 chipset have native support for USB 3.0?

 

[Grooveriding]

OK sorry it took so long to come back with the results, but I had some stuff to do yesterday and earlier today.

I think the main reason for the difference in the average framerate has to do with the fact that I'm using HDDs (2x 600GB Velociraptors) while you and Anandtech have SSDs.

SSDs can impact the minimum framerates in the Crysis benchmarks seeing as the game engine streams data off of the disk/SSD, and SSDs are much faster than HDDs in this respect, as seen here:

All the same, my minimum framerate (the most important number) is still higher than yours and Anandtech's, but I think the first run reduced my average since everything was being loaded from my HDDs..

I agree not having SSDs may be the difference. They can have an impact on frames.

Yeah, but at least Nvidia tries to make PC gaming ascendant by creating new technologies that take advantage of the power of the PC platform.

Without options like physx, 3D vision, high resolution textures, mods etc, PC gaming is no different than console gaming, albeit with a much more expensive console.

And don't write physx off. Some big games (Batman Arkham City, Metro Last Light) have taken a habit of including it in their development cycles..

Batman Arkham City is already getting ludicrous amounts of praise from reviewers. The PC version when it comes out next month will be spectacular due to the extra additions, physx, dx11, 3d vision.

I'm looking forward to Batman: AC, I liked the first one. I didn't know it was going to support DX11. Could be why the PC version is delayed past the console release date.

That may be, but either case, it's apparent that Nvidia hardware requires more bandwidth/CPU than AMD hardware.

Yep, thats the main reason why I've avoided the Z68/P67 platforms. Will the X79 chipset have native support for USB 3.0?

Definitely true about nvidia needing more CPU power. There was a review I read that looked specifically a CPU overhead with nv vs amd and nv's cards/drivers needed more CPU horsepower to perform.

No native USB 3.0 on X79, although we will most likely see MB's with 3rd party chips on board to support it.

I am mostly looking forward to those 40 PCIE lanes vs the 16 on P67/Z68 and the 6 cores of the 3930K