Is BF3 as GFX card intensive as we were told

~>Dg<~ said:
at 1980x1020 everything on max in single play i get 45 fps avg 6950 @ 6970

in multi i play on high everything except post processing off and blur off (why anyone likes blur i dont know :confused:) this gets me 60 fps lowest up to 100 ish
Click to expand...

I tried lowering down to High on my 6950 at 1920x1080 with vsync, but on Caspian Border and other large maps, I still get drops down to low 50's and mid 40's. Changing down from Ultra only seemed to gain me about 5-8fps for some reason. Don't have MSAA, Motion Blur or HBAO/SSAO on either. Tried restarting the game too.
 
I'm playing this at 1080p on Ultra Settngs with no AA on a Q6600 3.1GHz, 6GB with a 6950 (6970), get around 30-80FPS. During combat it is around 40-60FPS.

When am playing at 5670x1080 with the same settings, no AA again, I get around 30-60FPS on the Going Hunting mission.

Haven't tested it much more, because it blue screens me after a few minutes when using Eyefinity.
 
UKTopGun said:
Getting 15fps, everything low, 1280 x 720 (I know rubbish res).

I have a 9600M GT, 2.66Ghz core 2 duo, 4GB DDR2 RAM.

I know my laptop is pretty old now, but it ran Bad Company 2 really well. Anyone have any ideas why it's so low or if anyone with a similarish spec PC can't run it either?
Click to expand...

i think you are lucky it is displaying at all
 
'Wes said:
5870's are struggling to run this, really annoyed, might invest in a 580.
Click to expand...

This is only due to poor reviewers testing on rubbish setups.

People on this forum are playing the game very well on Ultra settings and 4x MSAA with a 6950 or GTX 560 ti, and even on whatever settings they used with a 5870.
 
I had a go at this to test out the new graphics card, every setting on max at 1080p I was going through the campaign and frames were fluctuating between 45-80, so it's pretty hard on the card, cpu though was sitting at idle. That's a single 580 3gb.
 
What can I expect from my Q6600 @ 3.3Ghz, 8Gb RAM, GTX 460 768Mb, 2004 BMW 530D at 2560x1440? Haven't bought the game yet but I imagine I'm looking at a gfx card upgrade to run at that res. If so, is the CPU fine as is?
 
5tephen said:
What can I expect from my Q6600 @ 3.3Ghz, 8Gb RAM, GTX 460 768Mb, 2004 BMW 530D at 2560x1440? Haven't bought the game yet but I imagine I'm looking at a gfx card upgrade to run at that res. If so, is the CPU fine as is?
Click to expand...

CPU is fine, all Q6600's over 3.2 ghz with a decent GPU run the game just fine. I say 3.2ghz because I believe they do bottleneck good GPU's below that. Mine did
 
voorhees1979 said:
Hmm you sure about that? I think it needs at least 1.5gb of vram to be maxed at a nice smooth 50+fps. I have everything maxed but no aa and I use just over 1.5gb of vram.
Click to expand...

No it definitely doesnt. Stop over valuing Vram, it makes no performance difference in this game (or any other up to 1920x1200) as is evident from the performance of a 1280 Mb GTX 570.

1920ultra.png


Plus people on these forums with 2500ks around 4.5 Ghz are getting a lot more performance than any review has shown.
 
Last edited:
Impressed with how it runs on a single 560 Ti

1680x1050
Everything set to high
4 X AA and the other AA on
16xAF
HBAO on

Depending on the scenario anywhere between 40 and 60 FPS with an average of around 50
 
bhavv said:
No it definitely doesnt. Stop over valuing Vram, it makes no performance difference in this game (or any other up to 1920x1200) as is evident from the performance of a 1280 Mb GTX 570.

1920ultra.png


Plus people on these forums with 2500ks around 4.5 Ghz are getting a lot more performance than any review has shown.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, I said NO AA then you go and show stats for AA :confused: Everyone knows that AMD drivers are rubbish with AA so we need it off to have everything on ultra to get 50+fps.

SO why did you show stats with AA when I said no AA? Those settings you showed are with ultra and aa maxed for the 6950. Also pretty funny how none of those are are 1gb< all seem to be about 1.5gb to me..............

And yes my 2500k is @ 4.6ghz. So you are saying when the game uses 1.5gb is has no performance increase at all?? I doubt that very much
 
Last edited:
voorhees1979 said:
So you are saying when the game uses 1.5gb is has no performance increase at all?? I doubt that very much
Click to expand...

Good for you, you are 100% wrong though :)

Look at 1280 Mb GTX 570 vs 1.5 Gb GTX 480 / 580 results. The diferences are due entirely to GPU speed, not Vram.

No single game increases in performance at least up to 1920x1200 resolution with more dedicated Vram, even when more Vram is used. Even in cases where it does, the difference is only 2 or 3 FPS.
 
Last edited:
DiscoDave said:
Feels quite stuttery though but I think ATI are working on it.
Click to expand...

Some of this stutter can be a server side issue, not just your graphics card. Agreed new drivers probably need to be made. A slower server, or a server far away is going to affect your gameplay too. Go UK servers!
 
bhavv said:
Good for you, you are 100% wrong though :)

Look at 1280 Mb GTX 570 vs 1.5 Gb GTX 480 / 580 results. The diferences are due entirely to GPU speed, not Vram.
Click to expand...

OK well we can't always agree :D It would make no sense why the game would even use that much vram if no good came from it. The real way to test is results from a 6950 1gb and a 6950 2gb. Or any card that has a 1gb and 2gb version to see if it does help.
 
voorhees1979 said:
It would make no sense why the game would even use that much vram if no good came from it.
Click to expand...

I didnt say that nothing good comes from more Vram used, I said that you dont get any performance increase.

All PCs have shared video ram to use when Vram usage exceeds your dedicated video ram. So far increasing the amount of dedicated Vram at 1920x1200 resolution in any modern game doesnt improve performance on a card with more Vram as opposed to the extra data simply going into your shared ram.
 
GTX560Ti

High textures because otherwise I get some stuttering.
No AA because it loses me ~20% FPS and the post AA setting on high removes most jaggies.
Everything else ultra

I get in the region of 45-65 FPS depending on map and where I'm looking. Very happy with it, considering BF3 was one of the main reasons I bought the card a few weeks ago.
 
I get no performance difference between Ultra and High textures which is where the extra VRAM will be used since it sets bigger buffers etc.

BF3 streams textures and meshes on the fly, since they state some of their maps have 1.5GB of textures alone, not including everything else.
 
voorhees1979 said:
CPU is fine, all Q6600's over 3.2 ghz with a decent GPU run the game just fine. I say 3.2ghz because I believe they do bottleneck good GPU's below that. Mine did
Click to expand...

Having no issues whatsoever with my Q8300 (2.5ghz*), given I'm using very much yesterdays tech as such, I'm blown away by how it runs.

1680x1050 rez certainly helps.

* I know my sig says @3.0Ghz but currently I'm running at stock.

As far as the OP's question -
Is BF3 as GFX card intensive as we were told
Click to expand...
looking at it running on Ultra, given the stunning (imo) visuals, I can't see how it could not be described as intensive, they seem to have done a first rate optimization on this and we can probably expect further performance boosts with subsequent patches.

Bring on the Expansion pack! - I want to see Wake Island! :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom