Battlefield 3 official performence/fps thread

[mattdallastx]

How will a 32" 1080P (assume 1920X1080) 120 Hz tv stand up against a 1920X1080 monitor? I get conflicting answers on the internet.

I love using my 42" 1080p tv as my primary display.

 

[Termie]

How will a 32" 1080P (assume 1920X1080) 120 Hz tv stand up against a 1920X1080 monitor? I get conflicting answers on the internet.

You should get the same performance, since they are the same resolution. What matters is the computer you are running the game on. Do you already have one?

 

[GoStumpy]

Just thought I would pass this on, found in a review on AMD A6-3650 Llano 2.6ghz CPU:

To my surprise however, it runs BF3 on medium/low settings without any hiccups.

-edit-

I should add, this is using APU, no discrete graphics card.... Onboard graphics with BF3??? I want to see it.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Just thought I would pass this on, found in a review on AMD A6-3650 Llano 2.6ghz CPU:

I have no proof but perhaps the a6-3650 can't deliver smooth gameplay on high.

Maybe much more to render versus other settings?

I found my dual core will usually max out more often if i had settings on high versus medium so maybe.

 

[GoStumpy]

I have no proof but perhaps the a6-3650 can't deliver smooth gameplay on high.

Maybe much more to render versus other settings?

I found my dual core will usually max out more often if i had settings on high versus medium so maybe.

Sorry, edited my post to include the fact that he is using the APU, no discrete graphics card installed.

 

[Termie]

Just thought I would pass this on, found in a review on AMD A6-3650 Llano 2.6ghz CPU:



-edit-

I should add, this is using APU, no discrete graphics card.... Onboard graphics with BF3??? I want to see it.

That's pretty hard to believe. An A6-3650 has 320 Radeon cores running at 443MHz: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4667/amds-a83850-up-to-26-faster-than-a63650

That's basically a detuned HD4650: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2616

And an HD4650 can provide around 20fps at 1680/low based on these 4670 numbers: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-9.html

In this case, the 3650 is not the problem - it's the graphics core. Oh well, people will say the darndest things.

 

[GoStumpy]

Well he didnt specify his resolution, so we can assume that playable (30) framerates are possible at 1280x1024?

 

[Termie]

Well he didnt specify his resolution, so we can assume that playable (30) framerates are possible at 1280x1024?

Maybe he'd be at 30fps, but I doubt it. Also, was this single-player? If so, 25-30fps might be tolerable. Heck, BF3 runs at 720p, 30fps on the consoles, and an A6-3650's GPU is about 50% faster than an Xbox's...so, it could be...

 

[hondaf17]

What would you do in this situation:

If I play on a single 1080p monitor, I can play with almost-max Ultra settings and have essentially rock-steady 60fps.

If I play with triple monitors, I get to enjoy a very expansive view when running around or holding a spot. Oh, and you really get to appreciate how cramped the first-person view of the tank really is, since the two side monitors are black at that time.
Problem is, current settings are mostly medium, a few settings on low, blur off and AO might be either off or on SSAO. It doesn't look pretty in comparison to Ultra, but I can't afford the horsepower to remedy that situation entirely. Worse still, it's a rare map and rarer still is the specific actors playing their parts in the right way that produces a steady 60fps even at those settings. Typical is around 50fps, sometimes mid and low 40s with minimums around 25-30fps. Sometimes I don't see those minimums often if at all, other times they are fairly prolonged moments. On some maps, I also don't go above 45fps (no vsync, but do have a 60fps cap applied in-game).

sidenote:
I do plan on using Step-up to upgrade to a better model, I'd love the 580 3gb (surround with 1.5gb is iffy) but the $600 price tag means I'm paying a total of around $600 to upgrade my 560 Ti 2gb SLI setup.



I'm just not sure. I feel overall I can perform better with surround, at other times I feel the lower framerate might become an issue to my reaction abilities. I've only been playing with surround in BF3 since the patch, as it fixed most of the issues in that regard.

Which would y'all end up picking.

In the end, even adding some more low settings to the mix, the game still looks terrific in comparison to older engines.

I'm in the exact same situation. I can run Ultra on 1 monitor or medium/low on 3 monitors. I've found 3 monitors to be especially awesome for tanks (thermal optics) and flying (helicopter gunning is amazing). But for infantry I don't find as big of a benefit. Also, I seem to get more eye strain with Eyefinity. It's like it's just too much and I get sensory overload. What did you end up doing?

 

[destrekor]

I'm in the exact same situation. I can run Ultra on 1 monitor or medium/low on 3 monitors. I've found 3 monitors to be especially awesome for tanks (thermal optics) and flying (helicopter gunning is amazing). But for infantry I don't find as big of a benefit. Also, I seem to get more eye strain with Eyefinity. It's like it's just too much and I get sensory overload. What did you end up doing?

I've got three monitors, when about a month ago I had one.... I feel I have to use them. :biggrin:

The game looks beautiful on a single screen, and still looks great with lower settings... so I'm still comfortable playing with the spanned resolution and lower settings.

I guess I was waiting to see what others would tell me to do.

I might have to load up the game on a single monitor from time to time... especially sometime soon just to remind myself what this engine can look like... that, and to see if it would be a bad idea to stick to one monitor, as I've only played in Surround since the patch was released.

 

[ColtMaverick]

You should get the same performance, since they are the same resolution. What matters is the computer you are running the game on. Do you already have one?

I was trying to decide whether to spend $300-400 on a smaller 3d capable monitor or a larger 32" tv (both 1080p). My comp specs are currently Q6600 (3.0Ghz) on Nvidia GT 250 and plan to upgrade to next gen Nvidia early next year. TV would follow after that. If the quality is lessened on the TV, I would just move towards 3d monitor.

 

[Termie]

I was trying to decide whether to spend $300-400 on a smaller 3d capable monitor or a larger 32" tv (both 1080p). My comp specs are currently Q6600 (3.0Ghz) on Nvidia GT 250 and plan to upgrade to next gen Nvidia early next year. TV would follow after that. If the quality is lessened on the TV, I would just move towards 3d monitor.

Ok - if you're getting this to sit on a desk, I'd get the 120Hz 3d monitor. A 32" LCD at 1080p is fine for watching TV from the couch, but not particularly good to put on your desk for gaming. It will look very grainy.

You'd get the same performance on both monitors, unless of course you enable 3D on the 120Hz monitor - that requires a lot more GPU power.

BTW, if you're looking to play BF3 now, you actually have enough CPU power, but your GPU won't really cut it. At 1080p, it will be under 40fps on low settings in single-player: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-4.html. It will likely be quite a bit lower in multiplayer. You might want to look into getting a card to tide you over until Nvidia's Kepler arrives 6-9 months from now. For 3D, you might want to read this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-3d-vision-hd3d-steroscopic,3050.html

You need a pretty high-end GPU to run in 3D - a $300 GTX570 seems to be the sweet spot for that today. Here's a forum discussing BF3 in 3D - http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?h...page=1#1335499

 

[ViviTheMage]

@Termie

"fooling W7 into thinking VRAM is running out. I'm no expert on this, so I'd love to hear others' opinions."

no expert here either , but for a long time now running games and sli I will do this.
-[had to do this in one of the stalker game [cop with complete mod.] to run sli.]

-once a game icon is loaded on the desktop I right click on it,
-go to properties
-click on the compatibly tab
-check \ disable desk top composition

-when you now click the bf3 icon ,it will turn the task bar a solid color ,turning off some windows eye candy , yours is not a solid color when running bf3 so thought I would mention it.
-some say it will save 100mb of vram. did not test that myself.

-

Just wanted to say this fixed my green flickering, and theme message popping up.

 

[Termie]

Just wanted to say this fixed my green flickering, and theme message popping up.

Nice. It fixed my theme problems too (of course, that's because Windows is already in basic mode, but at least it's not interrupting my gaming to switch to that anymore).

 

[Remobz]

Run BF3 on the default high settings, if i try ultra I run out of vram with my 1g GPU. Framerate is generally 60 and above at 1680x1050 res.

I have a 22 inch monitor that highest setting is 1680 X 1050 res.

Would getting a 6950 2GB card be a waste of money since I cannot play higher than 1680 x 1050?

 

[skipsneeky2]

New build:

1100t@ 3.8ghz
evga gtx570 stock
4gb single stick bad stick in a 8gb kit so running single channel
m5a99x

1600x1200 ultra hbao enabled blur off 2x msa everything else as max as it goes 55-61 average depending on map and enviroment with 41 as a min with frames hitting near 80 here.

Same settings above but with no msa of any kind it averages well over 60 on any map and min is about 45 max skyrockets above 90 often at these settings.

Perhaps if i wasn't stuck using single channel mode and 4gb my minimums can be higher but a theory at best but overall very solid gameplay.

 

[Termie]

I have a 22 inch monitor that highest setting is 1680 X 1050 res.

Would getting a 6950 2GB card be a waste of money since I cannot play higher than 1680 x 1050?

Need to know your CPU to give you an answer, as that could be the limiting factor. Most likely, however, a 1GB card would suffice. You won't be running on ultra anyway, and that's the only thing that takes VRAM over 1GB.

New build:

1100t@ 3.8ghz
evga gtx570 stock
4gb single stick bad stick in a 8gb kit so running single channel
m5a99x

1600x1200 ultra hbao enabled blur off 2x msa everything else as max as it goes 55-61 average depending on map and enviroment with 41 as a min with frames hitting near 80 here.

Same settings above but with no msa of any kind it averages well over 60 on any map and min is about 45 max skyrockets above 90 often at these settings.

Perhaps if i wasn't stuck using single channel mode and 4gb my minimums can be higher but a theory at best but overall very solid gameplay.

Sounds about right - I doubt your single-channel ram setup is costing you all that much, at least on the averages. Maybe on the min, but I wouldn't worry about drops to 45. Probably lay off the MSAA to keep it moving smoothly (and that's hitting the GPU, not the CPU/memory).

 

[skipsneeky2]

Need to know your CPU to give you an answer, as that could be the limiting factor. Most likely, however, a 1GB card would suffice. You won't be running on ultra anyway, and that's the only thing that takes VRAM over 1GB.



Sounds about right - I doubt your single-channel ram setup is costing you all that much, at least on the averages. Maybe on the min, but I wouldn't worry about drops to 45. Probably lay off the MSAA to keep it moving smoothly (and that's hitting the GPU, not the CPU/memory).

I honestly can't tell the difference between no MSAA and 4x MSAA so for now and in the future for this game its a option i'm not gonna even enable.

This card for 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 kills if anyone is trying to figure out which card is gonna offer fluid 1680x1050 gameplay their answer would be the gtx570.

Using 2x MSAA 5 mins into a metro conquest round video card memory usage got very close to using 1.2gb

Overall system memory usage with the essentials to get BF3 playing along with fraps and msi afterburner has not even hit 3.4gb out of 4gb so i think i am set there the game uses a little over 2gb for the exe.

Edit:All the other issues i had with BF3 mostly connection issues i raged about in my old build have disappeared if that's due to the new beta drivers or what cause besides the 1100t and the new drivers nothing else has changed but i still get the first initial bf3 crash alot of people get when they first attempt a server.

 

[Silverforce11]

I honestly can't tell the difference between no MSAA and 4x MSAA so for now and in the future for this game its a option i'm not gonna even enable.

Thought i mentioned that in the other post when you were deciding on a card for BF3. A cheaper 6950 2gb would have been a better deal.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Thought i mentioned that in the other post when you were deciding on a card for BF3. A cheaper 6950 2gb would have been a better deal.

Had the cash for the gtx570 and was able to get everything i wanted the 6950 would been my choice if i couldn't pull something together within a reasonable budget.

 

[Smartazz]

Switched from a 3.2GHz Q6600 to a stock 2500K and it's so much smoother. Definitely worth the upgrade. My 6870 is finally pegged at 99%. All high, no SBAO or HBAO at 1080p at around 60fps.

 

[suklee]

Switched from a 3.2GHz Q6600 to a stock 2500K and it's so much smoother. Definitely worth the upgrade. My 6870 is finally pegged at 99%. All high, no SBAO or HBAO at 1080p at around 60fps.

How much of an FPS increase did you get? (What did you have before?)
I have a Q6600 at 3.0 ~ 3.1GHz as well, with a GTX560Ti

 

[Smartazz]

How much of an FPS increase did you get? (What did you have before?)
I have a Q6600 at 3.0 ~ 3.1GHz as well, with a GTX560Ti

Unless you play with a lot of players, you likely won't notice a huge increase in fps. In Caspian Border with 64 players I used to get below 30fps during intense action, but now I can average around 50 in the same map, but now I'm GPU bottlenecked. My 6870 was almost constantly below 99% utilization, so I'd assume you 560ti is even more so, especially since Fermi cards have been known to be more CPU reliant than AMD cards.

 

[Grooveriding]

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).

 

[suklee]

Shoot, after hearing that it's tempting to get a current-gen quad core CPU. The other option was another 560Ti for SLI but sounds like I'll be severely CPU-limited with that upgrade, assuming I keep the Q6600.

So if I get a 2500K and keep my 560Ti, things should run smoother for only 64 player maps?