Is BF3 as GFX card intensive as we were told

sharronjames · 30 Oct 2011 at 15:19

so does it make a big difference if i can get my I5 over 4 ghz ?

Scania · 30 Oct 2011 at 15:28

sharronjames said:
so does it make a big difference if i can get my I5 over 4 ghz ?

Depends on what rez your running at mate, as I imply in my above post though, I'd personally think it'll make little difference given how it runs - for me - with aged C2D Quad technology @ a lowly 2.5ghz.

50 - 90fps @ Ultra, 2xMSAA - 1680x1050.

sharronjames · 30 Oct 2011 at 15:56

so your getting 50 - 90 fps with a GTX 480 all ultra 1680x1050 . well that's reassuring.
just have to wait for a replacement GFX card and motherboard. currently RMAed

~>Dg<~ · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:13

lol cpus at over 3.2 ghz are basically the same as a i5 at 5.3ghz been proven many times.

its a gpu game . if you have a decent quad then they perform about same in game . buy a good card and enjoy.

from a lot of decent benchies i seen a lot are about right.

setter · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:16

Yep, this is more gpu dependant than cpu, unlike bfbc2 which was the opposite.

phil-k · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:33

With everything on Ultra I am getting between 40 - 60 fps, going down to 40 with lots going on doesnt seem to detract from the game or look jerky to me

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:39

voorhees1979 said:
Yes it does, I said NO AA then you go and show stats for AA Everyone knows that AMD drivers are rubbish with AA so we need it off to have everything on ultra to get 50+fps.

But you cannot dertermine Vram use with AA disabled. I said look at the difference between the following Nvidia cards:

1280 Mb GTX 570
1.5 Gb GTX 480
1.5 Gb GTX 580.

Vram isnt making a difference in any of these 3.

voorhees1979 said:
OK well we can't always agree 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.

You can get 6950s, GTX 560 tis, even 5870s in 1 Gb and 2 Gb variants, yet not one single person that thinks that Vram makes a difference ever compares or looks at these cards, all they do is look at the highest end 1.5 Gb GTX 580 performance and conclude that something like a GTX 560 ti must be slower because it has less Vram.

4Play · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:02

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.

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

Sorry but tht graph is pure bull****. I have a 480 and on ultra i get a lot higher then 45 fps. In fact its generally 60+.

KNiVES · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:05

4Play said:
Sorry but tht graph is pure bull****. I have a 480 and on ultra i get a lot higher then 45 fps. In fact its generally 60+.

It's likely using a slower clocked processor. A lot of the benchmarks on the net are using i5s at stock for example, even though a lot of people overclock to 4.5ghz and beyond.

I can find benchmarks that peg crossfire 6970s at average 57fps for example, but my system handles 65-70 with ease because of the fast CPU.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:13

4Play said:
Sorry but tht graph is pure bull****. I have a 480 and on ultra i get a lot higher then 45 fps. In fact its generally 60+.

I posted it as a comparison for cards with different Vram, not as a conclusion on how those cards perform in different setups.

I've already stated what you just did many many many times, but until someone shows me a valid comparison at 1920x1200 Ultra settings with 4x AA between:

1 Gb 6950 vs 2 Gb 6950

and

1 Gb GTX 560 Ti vs 2 Gb GTX 560 Ti

Then that graph is solid proof that BF3 is unaffected by Vram.

kedge · 30 Oct 2011 at 19:16

Cool engine is the Frostbite

. At 1920x1080 120Hz, Ultra, 4x AA, 16x AF, 90 FOV, maxed out my 17-860 @2.9ghz ht enabled - 8gb 1600mhz ram - gtx 580 1.5gb, 128gb m4 ssd gets some hammer, not much over 50 fps and dips below here and there. It's playable but would appreciate another gtx 580

Guru · 30 Oct 2011 at 19:19

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

Never got mine above 3ghz

Scania · 31 Oct 2011 at 09:33

sharronjames said:
so your getting 50 - 90 fps with a GTX 480 all ultra 1680x1050 . well that's reassuring.
just have to wait for a replacement GFX card and motherboard. currently RMAed

Yes indeed, its all @ Ultra bar motion Blur which I've turned off (don't like it tbh) @ 1680x1050, it runs way beyond my wildest expectations given ,as I say, my relatively old hat setup.

bhavv · 31 Oct 2011 at 11:14

4Play said:
Sorry but tht graph is pure bull****. I have a 480 and on ultra i get a lot higher then 45 fps. In fact its generally 60+.

Hmmm, so just to inquire about this, why is it that there are some people on this forum with great plyable FPS with a single GTX 480, and others who say their game is unplayable on a single GTX 580?

~>Dg<~ · 31 Oct 2011 at 11:53

just benched mine min avg and max

i play everything high on 1920x1080 6950/6970 slight overclock but 2xmsaa

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3903, 60000, 46, 98, 65.050

2nd run

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3768, 60000, 44, 102, 62.800

this was on tfu server just now playing normal running through smoke bombs the works.

so i keep to the magic 60 fps which is about perfect for me.

Strife212 · 31 Oct 2011 at 12:16

bhavv said:
Hmmm, so just to inquire about this, why is it that there are some people on this forum with great plyable FPS with a single GTX 480, and others who say their game is unplayable on a single GTX 580?

The people with 580's are BSing or have awfully configured machines

But equally I wouldn't like to play on Ultra with one 480.

Nymins · 31 Oct 2011 at 12:27

~>Dg<~ said:
just benched mine min avg and max

i play everything high on 1920x1080 6950/6970 slight overclock but 2xmsaa

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3903, 60000, 46, 98, 65.050

2nd run

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3768, 60000, 44, 102, 62.800

this was on tfu server just now playing normal running through smoke bombs the works.

so i keep to the magic 60 fps which is about perfect for me.

What map? Performance can vary a lot depending on the map. My 6950 averages around 60fps with Ultra (motion blur, MSAA, HBAO/SSAO off) at 1920x1080, but can go down to averaging around 50fps if its on say Caspian Border.

~>Dg<~ · 31 Oct 2011 at 12:50

Nymins said:
What map? Performance can vary a lot depending on the map. My 6950 averages around 60fps with Ultra (motion blur, MSAA, HBAO/SSAO off) at 1920x1080, but can go down to averaging around 50fps if its on say Caspian Border.

that is about my average on most maps 60 ish

mine is actually benchmarked are you just watching fps or benching it ?

im doing 1 minute runs on various maps not hiding or doing nothing right in action. at end of day i know my fps and thats all i need to know

on ultra at 1920x1080 i get about 40-45 fps. you have mssa off thats why aswell . that has quite a big effect on fps

EllisDJ · 31 Oct 2011 at 12:58

I thought this game might kill my 580 sli but my cards go along at between 50-75% maxed on Ultra 1920x1080 constant 60 fps
However my vram is maxed at 1450 99% of the time so a higher AA and it might murder them which is a shame as I think it needs more than 4xaa to removes the odd jaggies

Grafs are amazing tho - very immersive and runs great considering - by comparison, crysis maxed out at 16xqaa runs mboth my cards at 95-100% all the time

I think a few updates and the usual tweaks and it will run great on most gpus, but its a system killer more. i.e. a lot of work on your ram and cpu - upto 50% on my 2600k means a lot of work for other cpus I am sure

Guru · 31 Oct 2011 at 13:09

Is the game better optimised than the Beta?? I didn't think the Beta ran well on my machine so it's put me off buying the full game.