Suprising Battlefield 3 CPU benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
I played the beta in 1600x900 on my 1080p monitor, smooth 60fps on medium-high settings. It looked fine, and besides it's an online game so graphics don't really matter that much
 

Ben90

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,866
3
0
What I don't want to see is reviewers show us "true" cpu results and benchmark at 1368x768 on Low settings to "remove the gpu bottleneck". I mean yeah it shows us something but its like a car mag taking off two wheels on a car and then racing them ."See which car drags its axle the best!?"

I want to see CPU's compared at normal resolutions with everything turned on.

Hacked into their site and found the exact benches you were looking for! What are the chances?
unledxnv.png
 

snarfbot

Senior member
Jul 22, 2007
385
38
91
Anybody have a link to how a regular core 2 duo performs on a more modest card? eg. 6850/6870? Would it be cpu or gpu limited?

it ran pretty badly on my e5400 @ 3.3 w/ a hd4890.

performance wise there was little difference between maxed out settings and minimum settings on my pc. so that would seem to indicate it was cpu bottlenecked. even with 4x aa, it didnt make a perceivable difference on framerate.

hbao was the outlier, it made the game feel laggy, and took a perf hit when enabled.

that said the game was very jerky at times, it would be over 40fps until i got in a firefight, and then it would chug around 10fps for a second or 2 and bounce back up.

this was at 1280x800. it was such a pain in the ass to change settings i didnt bother testing other resolutions, but anyway thats my take.

hopefully the optimize it a bit more before release, or it looks like i need a new cpu.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
From everything I've been able to gather, the 'Beta' that has been out for a while is a very old build, EA/Dice has been testing various much newer builds internally, this Beta has only really served the purpose of testing the server loads.

We should see dramatic improvements in performance, stability, and scalability with the Gold release, and incremental improvements through the first few patches.

Cliffs is that what I was told by someone with access to the newer build is that the Beta is nearly useless to judge performance or graphics from.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
EA, delivering shitty performance with enthusiast hardware since 2001.

eh, I thought BF2 looked quite good and ran quite well on 2005-era hardware. I remember it being one of the first titles to really take advantage of 2GB of ram, and the view distances afforded by the top-end graphics cards were very nice. I also saw it running on a GF6200 (!!!!) quite well, shockingly. I had told a friend not to buy the card, but sure enough it ran it okay. Not great, but not too bad. If you had a 6600GT, you were pretty well set for a good experience.

I didn't care that much for 2142 or BC2 though.
 

Rvenger

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
Apr 6, 2004
6,283
5
81
Im surprised noone mentioned this was a repost!
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Beta test means nothing.

They striped the crap out of this game, can't you tell?

It is weird that AMD "all of the sudden" has an edge in 1 game (out of 100s).
The Phenom II is quite competitive in most games across the board. There are only a handful that require more than a Phenom II at 3.8ghz or so, provided that you game at 1920x1200 or higher.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I think the benches just shows this game isn't very cpu dependent, probably stress the hell out of the GPU component. But heck, the demo they show looks soooo good, I cannot believe it's a game, unbelievable realism. The frostbite is one heck of an engine!
 

swilli89

Golden Member
Mar 23, 2010
1,558
1,181
136
I didn't care that much for 2142 or BC2 though.

I actually liked 2142.. The Titans were action jam packed. Rocketing up to the massive floating battleships and fighting your way past laser shields to the core.. it was pretty intense!
 

xsilver

Senior member
Aug 9, 2001
470
0
0
it ran pretty badly on my e5400 @ 3.3 w/ a hd4890.

Really? ran ok on my 4850 with a q9450 @1280x1024 - around 35fps but never felt unplayable or had any drops to 10fps.

I know if I just upgraded my gpu it would be enough but I have people asking me if they just upgraded their gpu with a core 2 duo only would it be enough and I have no idea.

It may be cpu limited then?
 

gosh

Junior Member
Aug 13, 2008
1
0
0
It is weird that AMD "all of the sudden" has an edge in 1 game (out of 100s).

BF3 is using multithreaded rendering, a dx11 feature. Not many games that renders from more than one thread. BF3 is also using a lot of memory. The prefetchers on intel isn't that effective then
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Really? ran ok on my 4850 with a q9450 @1280x1024 - around 35fps but never felt unplayable or had any drops to 10fps.

I know if I just upgraded my gpu it would be enough but I have people asking me if they just upgraded their gpu with a core 2 duo only would it be enough and I have no idea.

It may be cpu limited then?

everybody that wants to run the best settings on their gtx580/6970 needs to have a quad core.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Beating it by 2 fps means it still beat it and I ment the 2600k.

2fps is insignificant but the fact that it gets anywhere close to the intel CPU means the game must use all six threads, a good trend in my eyes.

The game is still not CPU bound so it doesnt mean much.

2 fps is margin of error territory, and I completely agree with the above poster when he said we need the final retail version of BF3 tested.