Tech Report's "Inside the second" graphics testing for BF3

[Will Robinson]

Some interesting results from TR's testing of GForce and Radeon cards in BF3.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21982/6

The GeForces crank out so many frames in 40-ms or more, it's not pretty. In fact, it's much, much uglier than the show the Radeons put on in Fear no evil. Even when we buff out the very highest peaks with our 99th-percentile calculation, the GeForces come out looking very weak. It's not just about numbers, either. Playing this section with a GeForce, the latency spikes were very palpable, causing animations seemingly to speed up and slow down wantonly. The game felt smooth, and we didn't notice any huge skips, but the illusion of motion was compromised—much more so than with the Radeons in Fear no evil.

 

[Silverforce11]

Their previous usage of fraps to identify frame time was invalid given their conclusions and observations. ie. the frame time of the 6870 setup was horrible but in gameplay it was perfectly smooth. Or for NV cards, measuring frame time with fraps is meaningless since their driver handles the final display to monitor differently.

But their observation of bad gameplay for the NV cards on outdoor maps with lots of vegetation correlates with fraps.. so, maybe its a driver issue.

Oh btw, check out their screenshots. High vs ultra, exactly what i noticed, no difference.

I'd also recommend post AA on medium rather than high, it removes jagged edges very nicely and does not blur textures as much as on "high". If you have any post AA on, enabling MSAA is pointless as there's no difference. They should have done MSAA by itself with full screenshots and compare. Too much jaggies everywhere.

Edit: There is a small difference in their high vs ultra, the receiver on top of the building to the top left is absent in high and present in ultra, suggesting that distance is the cutoff mark for the high preset streaming in best quality mesh/textures (culling/lod).

 

[3DVagabond]

I found this review interesting. I read it yesterday.

@Will,
You only posted the results for one setting. I'm by no means an nVidia fanboi, but fair is fair.

Comparing them on ultra->

...and comparing the 460 and 6850 on medium->

Of course, we know about MSAA, which is on by default in ultra, and AMD cards. That could have a lot to do with the 6950's drop off in these measurements in ultra. Not enough info to analyze the 6850's results compared to the 460. I think drivers or the cards in particular are the culprits or else one brand would just be better or worse all of the time. We do have different architectures within the same brands though. I wish they used more cards for the comparisons.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Ok so, if it makes it unplayable I care. If it's playable and maintains a good framerate then I don't care.

 

[3DVagabond]

Ok so, if it makes it unplayable I care. If it's playable and maintains a good framerate then I don't care.

This is another measurement. By itself, it's of no value. That's why they include FPS benches. It can explain though some IQ differences they noticed while playing the game.

Another reason, IMO, that canned benchmarks that the reviewers run while surfing the web and posting on forums, are not revealing enough. I don't care if you run 50 sets of them at six resolutions.

 

[cmdrdredd]

This is another measurement. By itself, it's of no value. That's why they include FPS benches. It can explain though some IQ differences they noticed while playing the game.

Another reason, IMO, that canned benchmarks that the reviewers run while surfing the web and posting on forums, are not revealing enough. I don't care if you run 50 sets of them at six resolutions.

Right but if you average 50fps on both cards lets say, but you can measure the frames above 40ms on one card being higher...that's all well and good but how does it affect gameplay. If it does not, why should I care? If I cannot see it or feel it I wouldn't know it unless I was staring at numbers all day which I don't do when playing a game lol.

 

[Silverforce11]

Thats why i really appreciate sites like [H] that give the full fps graph so you can see whats happening. They also go into detail of their gaming experience. This TR article is interesting and they may have found a driver issue with NV on certain map styles.

 

[3DVagabond]

Right but if you average 50fps on both cards lets say, but you can measure the frames above 40ms on one card being higher...that's all well and good but how does it affect gameplay. If it does not, why should I care? If I cannot see it or feel it I wouldn't know it unless I was staring at numbers all day which I don't do when playing a game lol.

You mean something like this? (You obviously didn't read the review. )

Yep. The GeForces crank out so many frames in 40-ms or more, it's not pretty. In fact, it's much, much uglier than the show the Radeons put on in Fear no evil. Even when we buff out the very highest peaks with our 99th-percentile calculation, the GeForces come out looking very weak. It's not just about numbers, either. Playing this section with a GeForce, the latency spikes were very palpable, causing animations seemingly to speed up and slow down wantonly. The game felt smooth, and we didn't notice any huge skips, but the illusion of motion was compromised—much more so than with the Radeons in Fear no evil.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You mean something like this? (You obviously didn't read the review. )

They say the illusion of motion was compromised...how? When you're busy shooting and ducking for cover etc and are not staring at FPS numbers you don't even notice this...so I don't get it.

 

[WMD]

No frame-times chart for multi gpus? I am disappointed.

 

[FalconHorse]

Oh btw, check out their screenshots. High vs ultra, exactly what i noticed, no difference.

To me, it looks like the shadows in urban environment are nicer on the ultra setting (better AO?) But yeah, they are pretty close.

http://techreport.com/r.x/battlefield3-midrange-performance/swordbreaker-high.png

http://techreport.com/r.x/battlefield3-midrange-performance/swordbreaker-ultra.png

 

[3DVagabond]

They say the illusion of motion was compromised...how? When you're busy shooting and ducking for cover etc and are not staring at FPS numbers you don't even notice this...so I don't get it.

How? By the uneven frame rates. The motion didn't look as good. How are you going to notice it? Because everything is moving. This has absolutely nothing to do with FPS. Looking at the FPS numbers won't reveal this at all.

 

[cmdrdredd]

How? By the uneven frame rates. The motion didn't look as good. How are you going to notice it? Because everything is moving. This has absolutely nothing to do with FPS. Looking at the FPS numbers won't reveal this at all.

The game felt smooth, and we didn't notice any huge skips, but the illusion of motion was compromised—

If it's smooth and you didn't notice problems then what IS the problem?

 

[3DVagabond]

The game felt smooth, and we didn't notice any huge skips, but the illusion of motion was compromised—

If it's smooth and you didn't notice problems then what IS the problem?

They didn't say there were no problems. They said that "the illusion of motion was compromised". That IS the problem they noticed.

At least you've gotten past the staring at FPS numbers. Since FPS wasn't the subject of the article. It's the even delivery of frames, much like micro-stutter.

 

[toyota]

every game is so different feeling and can even vary from spot to spot throughout a game. some games feel super smooth at 60 fps with vsync on while others feel choppy and stuttery with the exact same framerates. framerates themselves do not mean a whole lot. a properly done console game will usually feel great at a consistent 30fps while a poor port can feel choppy at twice the framerate.

 

[Grooveriding]

If you look at nvidia's or the forums on Battlelog, there are loads of posts from people who like myself are getting a good framerate but saying the game feels choppy and not smooth.

I would of liked to see them look at multi-gpu as well. There is definitely something strange going on with BF3.

The campaign feels very smooth and I get solid 95%+ gpu usage.

Multiplayer is another story. Gameplay feels choppy and messy, even with 100FPS.

 

[Skurge]

If you look at nvidia's or the forums on Battlelog, there are loads of posts from people who like myself are getting a good framerate but saying the game feels choppy and not smooth.

I would of liked to see them look at multi-gpu as well. There is definitely something strange going on with BF3.

The campaign feels very smooth and I get solid 95%+ gpu usage.

Multiplayer is another story. Gameplay feels choppy and messy, even with 100FPS.

I have the same issue. SP is very smooth, but MP is completely unplayabe, Im sure that is largely cause of my CPU. Yes, all those SP benches that claimed you could get away with a Dual core were complete BS, cause the game is meant for MP and it's much much more demanding.

 

[toyota]

I have the same issue. SP is very smooth, but MP is completely unplayabe, Im sure that is largely cause of my CPU. Yes, all those SP benches that claimed you could get away with a Dual core were complete BS, cause the game is meant for MP and it's much much more demanding.

um even the single player is probably not all that great with an older cpu like that. its not like they tested a cpu that old and slow now is it? and why on earth would you spend 60 bucks for hardware intense multi player game like BF 3 when you have cpu like that? not to mention buying a 6870 to pair with a cpu that barely even meets minimum requirements in many cases for newer games.

 

[Silverforce11]

Just overclock the CPU, 3.2ghz should be good enough.

 

[Skurge]

um even the single player is probably not all that great with an older cpu like that. its not like they tested a cpu that old and slow now is it? and why on earth would you spend 60 bucks for hardware intense multi player game like BF 3 when you have cpu like that? not to mention buying a 6870 to pair with a cpu that barely even meets minimum requirements in many cases for newer games.

SP is fine, The game cost me $39 not $60 on origin. Techspot has the athlon2 x2 at 3.3ghz doing ok. I know my E6600 is still at a lowly 2.4ghz, but I didn't expect it to be unplayable. I got the 6870 for free.

I'll OC it tonight and see how much that helps.

 

[DietDrThunder]

If you look at nvidia's or the forums on Battlelog, there are loads of posts from people who like myself are getting a good framerate but saying the game feels choppy and not smooth.

I would of liked to see them look at multi-gpu as well. There is definitely something strange going on with BF3.

The campaign feels very smooth and I get solid 95%+ gpu usage.

Multiplayer is another story. Gameplay feels choppy and messy, even with 100FPS.

I have the same issue. SP is very smooth, but MP is completely unplayabe, Im sure that is largely cause of my CPU. Yes, all those SP benches that claimed you could get away with a Dual core were complete BS, cause the game is meant for MP and it's much much more demanding.

I'm experiencing the same problem. Single Player is very smooth, but multi player is unplayable.

My system has MSI 890GXM-G65 AMD Motherboard with onboard ATI Radeon HD 4290,
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core, 8GB of G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM
DDR3 1600, OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC SSD (boot
drive), Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA
3.0Gb/s (data drive), COOLER MASTER Silent Pro M700 RS-700-AMBA-D3 700W ATX12V
V2.3 SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active PFC Power
Supply, Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.

I'm thinking I need a video card, but I haven't got a clue as to what to buy that will play
BF3. I'd like to keep it as low cost as possible.

 

[Genx87]

I turned off motion blur and it cleared up my issue. My issue was when fighting or people got close to me the motion blur became very noticeable and difficult to see what was going on the screen. Turning it off cleared this up big time and now the game is great.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I just don't get how you can say it isn't stuttering aignificantly abd then say it doesn't look good in motion. To me if it doesn't have good animation then i say it stutters...

 

[toyota]

SP is fine, The game cost me $39 not $60 on origin. Techspot has the athlon2 x2 at 3.3ghz doing ok. I know my E6600 is still at a lowly 2.4ghz, but I didn't expect it to be unplayable. I got the 6870 for free.

I'll OC it tonight and see how much that helps.

well thats single player in that review and the Athlon 2 X2 at 3.3 is probably well over 30% faster than your cpu too. depending on your settings that probably puts you in the upper 40s for an average at best in single player and then much worse at times in multiplayer. your minimums are probably in the low 20s quite often in multiplayer.

and yes overclocking your cpu will help tremendously because it is basically 100% limitation for you.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'm experiencing the same problem. Single Player is very smooth, but multi player is unplayable.

My system has MSI 890GXM-G65 AMD Motherboard with onboard ATI Radeon HD 4290,
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6-core, 8GB of G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM
DDR3 1600, OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC SSD (boot
drive), Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA
3.0Gb/s (data drive), COOLER MASTER Silent Pro M700 RS-700-AMBA-D3 700W ATX12V
V2.3 SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Modular Active PFC Power
Supply, Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.

I'm thinking I need a video card, but I haven't got a clue as to what to buy that will play
BF3. I'd like to keep it as low cost as possible.

What resolution? What does "low as possible" means - under $100, under $200, under $300 or more?