bf3 is spanking my pc, 5850 is gonna have to go, aiming at gtx570..

[happy medium]

Sli and xfire is not working right yet and either is eyefinity.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Also, guys, you need to give more than "running fine" as that's a subjective result. For some running fine is 30fps with dips in the teens, and others its doesn't dip below 60fps.

Wow, kinda surprised at the CPU results. Sandy Bridge should be a big help.

Why is there such a big difference between the 5850 and 5870? The 6870 and 6850 also have a pretty big difference, much more than usual (could be wrong though).

 

[DirkGently1]

got an invite to the bf3 alpha test :biggrin: :whiste:

wo, does fb2.0 eat my graphics!

running 5850, q9400, 4gb, ssd

backed away from high details 1920x1200, ALL the way down to settled...wait for it, 1400x900 on low details!

OMG, time to go shopping..looked at one "superclocked" 570 which was a MASSIVE 12mhz over the 785mhz stock! lol


..is it worth spending extra on a 'clocked' 570 or stick to a basic one, do some basic oc'ing meshelf and pocket the extra? (oc'ing the 5850 to 800/1200 with afterburner did some good, but oc-ing never does much!)

Stock is 732Mhz btw.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD HD5850 stock frequency is 725MHz for core

Edit: sorry i though you were talking about the 5850

 

[TheUnk]

2xGTX480 @ 1920x1080 with high settings never seemed to dip below 60fps and was usually in the 70's+.

Any multi-monitor res is currently unplayable and buggy though. 5760x1080 would sometimes be a slideshow and others it would be in the 30s, same map area and same quality settings.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

Considering the price of the 570s its about same as the ASUS z68-le board + 2500k. If you have DDR3 ram then you would be set and the 2500k would likely hit 4ghz easy.

 

[Kenmitch]

got an invite to the bf3 alpha test :biggrin: :whiste:

wo, does fb2.0 eat my graphics!

running 5850, q9400, 4gb, ssd

backed away from high details 1920x1200, ALL the way down to settled...wait for it, 1400x900 on low details!

OMG, time to go shopping..looked at one "superclocked" 570 which was a MASSIVE 12mhz over the 785mhz stock! lol


..is it worth spending extra on a 'clocked' 570 or stick to a basic one, do some basic oc'ing meshelf and pocket the extra? (oc'ing the 5850 to 800/1200 with afterburner did some good, but oc-ing never does much!)

I'd say hold off on any upgrading of the GPU for now. The games in beta anyways and I'm sure performance will improve for both AMD and Nvidia as the game gets closer to release. Let's just hope niether of them reaches too deep in the cookie jar!

Looking at the charts Happy linked it looks more like your gonna be cpu limited to me.

Performance for AMD and Nvidia looks about what you'd expect price vs performance....Throwing out the 6990 and the 590 of course although the 6990 does seem to fair a tiny bit better currently.

On another note it does kinda make me wonder how my 5850 @ 1000/1300 pushed by my 2500K at 4.5ghz or higher would perform.

 

[seaotter2]

I wonder how this will scale to the 8 cores of Bulldozer.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I do think it is your CPU. Try overclocking it and see if it helps. Alpha is over anyway.

 

[Stuka87]

I wonder how this will scale to the 8 cores of Bulldozer.

The above chart shows the Phenom II x6 being quite a bit ahead of the x4's with similar clocks, so it looks like it should scale well?

 

[Termie]

...

Wow, kinda surprised at the CPU results. Sandy Bridge should be a big help.

Why is there such a big difference between the 5850 and 5870? The 6870 and 6850 also have a pretty big difference, much more than usual (could be wrong though).

Yeah, the CPU results are interesting. The OP's stock-clocked q9400 is definitely his problem. He should be glad he doesn't have a Core 2 Duo, though. At least he can fix part of the problem by overclocking.

The 25% difference seen in the case of the 5870 vs. 5850 and 6870 vs. 6850 is likely the result of a memory bandwidth bottleneck. The 5870/6870 were only 18% faster than the 5850/6850, respectively, in BC2: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/...enewing-competition-in-the-midrange-market/14

On another note it does kinda make me wonder how my 5850 @ 1000/1300 pushed by my 2500K at 4.5ghz or higher would perform.

Probably equivalent to a GTX480, i.e., enough for BF3, but I figure that's not really what you want to hear, right? We all want an excuse to upgrade!

 

[x1222]

Sli and xfire is not working right yet and either is eyefinity.

Awesome looks like I won't have to upgrade. I5 750 at stock and 5850 OCed seems to get very decent frames. I'm surprised the frame hit is so low.

For those playing alpha, how much better looking is it than BC2?

 

[happy medium]

For those playing alpha, how much better looking is it than BC2?

Just watch some videos on youtube for BF3 and you can see for yourself.

Here is the video from the benchmarks I posted and yes its FB 2.0 version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tpbEwuYm9E&feature=player_embedded

Look at the memory usage in the video.

 

[Stuka87]

Just watch some videos on youtube for BF3 and you can see for yourself.

Here is the video from the benchmarks I posted and yes its FB 2.0 version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tpbEwuYm9E&feature=player_embedded

Look at the memory usage in the video.

Is that GPU memory? damn...

 

[badb0y]

Good thing I opted for 2 GB 6950. I might even upgrade to 7xxx when it comes out.

 

[x1222]

Doesn't look too much different BC2. But Lighting is a lot better and some actual AA, or at least looks like.

 

[toyota]

sorry but that is an ass ugly game to be using that much resources.

 

[ctark]

Mine was running slow on 580gtx. I downloaded a new config file on the bf3 forums and it fixed everything. Its something in the graphic settings.

 

[beany323]

Yeah, the CPU results are interesting. The OP's stock-clocked q9400 is definitely his problem. He should be glad he doesn't have a Core 2 Duo, though. At least he can fix part of the problem by overclocking.

The 25% difference seen in the case of the 5870 vs. 5850 and 6870 vs. 6850 is likely the result of a memory bandwidth bottleneck. The 5870/6870 were only 18% faster than the 5850/6850, respectively, in BC2: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3987/...enewing-competition-in-the-midrange-market/14



Probably equivalent to a GTX480, i.e., enough for BF3, but I figure that's not really what you want to hear, right? We all want an excuse to upgrade!

I recently came into possesion of a 30 monitor and have a dell xps 720 with a

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo (dual-core processor).. was trying to upgrade my video card.. besides not having a 8 plug in.. how do i figure out what options i have? doing my research just so far the dell works for me.. so far..

and reading all these limitations.. bottlenecking.. ect ect how do you know what works? (vs buying and trying.. lol)

thanks!

 

[notty22]

NO Windows XP, time to upgrade !
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/.../-FPS-/-TPS/Battlefield-3-Alpha-test-GPU.html

Frostbite 2.0 was originally created to work with DirectX 11, but DirectX 10 is also supported. DirectX 9 is not supported, so the Windows XP operating system is not suitable for the game. Old cards already precisely remain, and all those who have tried to delay the transition to a new operating system will have to change their biases.

The minimum version of Microsoft Windows for the game is Windows Vista, but we believe the best use of Windows 7. Many graphical elements have been removed from the alpha version and below we give a small technological movie features Frostbite 2.0

The destruction in Battlefield 3 Alpha available practically everything, but it also depends on the type of weapon used. According to DICE in theory they could "Destruction 3.0" to simulate the destruction of a model skyscraper Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

 

[Termie]

I recently came into possesion of a 30 monitor and have a dell xps 720 with a

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo (dual-core processor).. was trying to upgrade my video card.. besides not having a 8 plug in.. how do i figure out what options i have? doing my research just so far the dell works for me.. so far..

and reading all these limitations.. how do you know what works? (vs buying and trying.. lol)

thanks!

Looks like that's a Dell from 2007. Are you sure it's a dual-core and not a quad-core model? If it's a dual-core, I wouldn't spend a bunch of money on a video card for it.

As for the PCIe plugs, your system likely has two 6-pin PCIe plugs, since one of the configurations shipped with an 8800gtx, which needed two such plugs. You'd be safe upgrading to any card that only required two 6-pin connectors, like an HD6950, for instance. Here's a well-priced 2GB model: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102945. It's twice as fast as an 8800gtx (which may be what you have). Most cards above this require an 8-pin and 6-pin connector.

If you have a dual-core CPU, I'd drop down to an HD6870 and save almost $100: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102948. It's only about 20% slower, and will still be bottlenecked by a dual-core.

 

[Stuka87]

If you have a dual-core CPU, I'd drop down to an HD6870 and save almost $100: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102948. It's only about 20% slower, and will still be bottlenecked by a dual-core.

If he has a dual core, the game won't be playable anyway. Yes the final release will be faster than the Alpha, but I highly doubt the frame rates will double. The above benchmarks have an i3 pulling 25 FPS average. A C2D is not going to cut it.

 

[Troll Trolling]

Yeah, the CPU results are interesting. The OP's stock-clocked q9400 is definitely his problem. He should be glad he doesn't have a Core 2 Duo, though. At least he can fix part of the problem by overclocking.

How the hell did you arrive to this conclusion?

An q9550 is doing 60fps min.
His Q9400 shouldn't be doing less than 40.

Also, there is something going on with the engine. An Q9550 should be no way in hell 3x as fast as an E8400, neither should an Phenom X4 be 2,5x as fast as an Athlon X4 (I doubt the L3 could explain that giant discrepancy).

 

[Termie]

How the hell did you arrive to this conclusion?

An q9550 is doing 60fps min.
His Q9400 shouldn't be doing less than 40.

Those benches are at 640x480, low quality. Hard to say how that translates to 1440x900/low, or 1920x1200/high, for that matter.

Anyway, most folks around here know that a q9400 would badly bottleneck an HD5850 in BC2, so it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to make the same conclusion about BF3.

 

[OCGuy]

Dude...it is a Alpha version...relax.