Quick Question: For BF3 (1920x1200 res): Can buy ATI 6970 / nVidia 570 for same price

[Silverforce11]

Should have got the 6950 2gb. Absolutely no reason to get the 6970.

 

[notty22]

The OP , had a unique set of circumstances. Both options were used.
That adds another dimension to final selection.
Good luck OP.

 

[happy medium]

buy another 5770 and play on high settings for 80$ used is your best bet.

If you have to play on ultra settings the gtx570 is the best bet

 

[MangoX]

Nobody reads entire threads anymore?

 

[Mr. Lennon]

on Ultra settings the gtx570 beats the 6970. heck even at 2560x1600 with Ultra settings and 4x AA, the 1.25 of vram on the gtx570 is not an issue as it still beats the 6970 there too.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I can post canned benchmarks too....

Same performance for over $100 less.

OP wants something that is futureproof. 1.2 gigs of ram is not futureproof.

 

[toyota]

I can post canned benchmarks too....

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/13195237031TucoX3qBp_1_3_l.gif

Same performance for over $100 less.

OP wants something that is futureproof. 1.2 gigs of ram is not futureproof.

are those numbers I showed not real gameplay??? and future proof means squat if the card that has 2gb is SLOWER at the settings he wants to use which is what I showed.

 

[Silverforce11]

Nothing new, MSAA sucks in BF3. Does not effectively remove aliasing for a huge perf loss. It just so happens on AMD cards MSAA sucks harder.

Now, turn it off and play without it, no noticeable visual difference, there's still a shit load of jaggies everywhere with it on or off.

Off topic, but BF3 is doing very well in the sales. http://majornelson.com/2011/11/02/live-activity-for-week-of-october-24th/

One week in and its already registering 3rd on xbox live for unique users. One week.

 

[Larries]

it also wins on Ultra with no AA. either way, the op was wanting to use AA which gives the 570 an even bigger lead. he was worried about 1.25 gb of vram but as you can see its not an issue even at 2560. so based on what the op asked about, the gtx570 is clearly better in BF3.

Just curious, in the tomshardware benchmarking 30+ cards thread, it was mentioned that ultra automatically enables MSAA. Is this true?

 

[toyota]

Just curious, in the tomshardware benchmarking 30+ cards thread, it was mentioned that ultra automatically enables MSAA. Is this true?

I dont see how since there are benchmarks on Ultra with and without MSAA.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Silverforce11]

Guess which one is ULTRA and which one is HIGH. 1st or 2nd.

In effect, one has 4x MSAA and crippling performance, while the other does not.

 

[Silverforce11]

Btw, there's also no visual difference in high/ultra for texture/model/terrain settings if your card does not have more than 1gb vram, it cannot stream in higher res data at further view distance without at least 1.5gb vram.

It's no longer like in the old days, where high -> ultra actually used much higher res textures/models. In frostbite 2, at high, its already using the best resources, it just cutoff at a shorter view distance than if you have it on ultra (w/ >1gb vram).

 

[hellfire88]

Just curious, in the tomshardware benchmarking 30+ cards thread, it was mentioned that ultra automatically enables MSAA. Is this true?

Yea if you put the video settings on the "Ultra" preset it auto-turns on 4x MSAA. I had to use "Custom" and manually change everything to the max settings "Ultra" and leave MSAA off. In a 48+ man multiplayer server I was getting around 45-70FPS and it felt much smoother than before. Also going from Medium -> Ultra definitely looks way better and was more immersive. I'd say it was money well spent for me to upgrade to be able to play a more "true" PC game in all (most) of its glory (Ultra settings + 48-64man servers). Thanks again guys.