• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

BF3 Gaming at 2560x1440 - ATI 6990 + 2700K

Metalface Mark said:
Battlefield is almost entirely GPU intensive, overclocking CPU wont make much difference at all.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html
Click to expand...

If your running a 7970/6990/590 you will have a better fps in demanding situations (tonnes of stuff going on like vehicles, bullet, projectiles, construction all at the same time) if your CPU is at 4.5gz rather than just stock for example... it may only be a few fps or it may be 6 fps but in the demanding situations you will get a more stable improvement and better lower fps.

I was running at stock myself even on a 6970 and playing on demanding maps switching between 4.5 ghz and stock on the desktop it was a 7fps difference.

Yes BF3 is very GPU limited, but its also very CPU intensive and while the i5/i7 are good enough at stock to run it if you overclock it does improve stabilty and higher fps in bf3 in demanding situations.


Just because your GPU is running at 99% doesnt mean you CPU cant do better by being faster in certain situations.
 
"I do need to make a note here as especially for BF3 it counts, this is a single player benchmark test. In massive online environment your CPU will become increasingly more important and stressed much worse. However, of we purely focus on the graphics engine versus the processors used, the difference remains rather small."

SP doesnt even stress the CPU, MP is a whole diffferent story and it has to calculate tonnes of stuff including real time vehicles, projectiles, effects, construction ect on huge maps with big draw distances.

Try it yourself, go on BF3 on to a demanding map with lost going on and go to desktop to your utility (I have Asus AI and can change clock on the fly) and clock your CPU to stock go back on BF3 watch the fps go lower and be less stable, then change back to your overclock and you will see a difference online in demanding situations.
 
I have a 6970 sitting on desk (got it when RMA'd a 5XXX card) but havent tried TRI-Fire yet to see any performance gains with the 6990. .. the thoughts of the increase in electricity bills is a bit off putting - both cards are power hungry from what I have read , with the 6990 using over 400W at 100%

Regarding FPS , when I view the FPS in game I am getting anything from 65-110FPS and maybe as low as 35 (rare) in some scenarios but it just doesnt FEEL smooth as it should.

Would suggest turning off the cpu parking feature in Windows 7. It seems to make Bf3 feel choppy on i7 cpus when enabled.
Click to expand...

Anyone else confirm this ?
 
PCplod said:
If your running a 7970/6990/590 you will have a better fps in demanding situations (tonnes of stuff going on like vehicles, bullet, projectiles, construction all at the same time) if your CPU is at 4.5gz rather than just stock for example... it may only be a few fps or it may be 6 fps but in the demanding situations you will get a more stable improvement and better lower fps.

I was running at stock myself even on a 6970 and playing on demanding maps switching between 4.5 ghz and stock on the desktop it was a 7fps difference.

Yes BF3 is very GPU limited, but its also very CPU intensive and while the i5/i7 are good enough at stock to run it if you overclock it does improve stabilty and higher fps in bf3 in demanding situations.


Just because your GPU is running at 99% doesnt mean you CPU cant do better by being faster in certain situations.
Click to expand...

Its not CPU intensive at all, did you read the article?

" And no wonder—Battlefield 3's single-player campaign doesn’t care if you’re using a $130 Core i3 or $315 Core i7. It doesn’t care if you come armed with two Hyper-Threaded cores or four Bulldozer modules. It just. Doesn’t. Care."

gareth170 said:
everything at max??

if so. maybe theres trifire issues with it.

what do u get on one 6950?
Click to expand...

Yeah, everything at the absolute max, I didnt bench with a single 6950 but it wasnt particularly great, about 40fps or so I think from memory.
 
Metalface Mark said:
Its not CPU intensive at all, did you read the article?

" And no wonder—Battlefield 3's single-player campaign doesn’t care if you’re using a $130 Core i3 or $315 Core i7. It doesn’t care if you come armed with two Hyper-Threaded cores or four Bulldozer modules. It just. Doesn’t. Care."
Click to expand...

Did you not rerad another article?

"I do need to make a note here as especially for BF3 it counts, this is a single player benchmark test. In massive online environment your CPU will become increasingly more important and stressed much worse. However, of we purely focus on the graphics engine versus the processors used, the difference remains rather small."


I can do it right now... anyone can who has an on the fly overclock utility... I go on a demanding map with tonnes going on yes my GPU is at 99% but thats doing a completely different job from the CPU and rendering everything, the CPU is calculating everything thats going in in the map with 32+ players and the frame rate goes lower and isnt as stable when the CPU it at stock.

With the CPU overclocked BF3 doesnt touch it, but at stock it does make a differcne and is not as stable and as high fps in demanding situations.

Single player is completely different from MP where the draw distances are huge with up to 64 active players lots of effects construction, projectiles ects all at the same time having a faster CPU does help but going up to around4.5ghz is all you need and you cant get better.. but at stock it isnt as stable and better low fps... fact.
 
PCplod said:
Did you not rerad another article?

"I do need to make a note here as especially for BF3 it counts, this is a single player benchmark test. In massive online environment your CPU will become increasingly more important and stressed much worse. However, of we purely focus on the graphics engine versus the processors used, the difference remains rather small."


I can do it right now... anyone can who has an on the fly overclock utility... I go on a demanding map with tonnes going on yes my GPU is at 99% but thats doing a completely different job from the CPU and rendering everything, the CPU is calculating everything thats going in in the map with 32+ players and the frame rate goes lower and isnt as stable when the CPU it at stock.

With the CPU overclocked BF3 doesnt touch it, but at stock it does make a differcne and is not as stable and as high fps in demanding situations.

Single player is completely different from MP where the draw distances are huge with up to 64 active players lots of effects construction, projectiles ects all at the same time having a faster CPU does help but going up to around4.5ghz is all you need and you cant get better.. but at stock it isnt as stable and better low fps... fact.
Click to expand...

Well, you said fact at the end so i guess it must be true. ;)

"Overclocking your Core i7 processor is not going to help deliver more performance in Battlefield 3 according to our test using a single GeForce GTX 580 card. We observed that a 49% increase in clock speed for the Core i7 allowed for a mere 6% increase in frame rates, For the most part Battlefield 3 doesn’t appear to be all that CPU demanding, at least this is what we can tell from testing the multiplayer portion that the beta allows us to test. We'll be keen to revisit these results once the full version of the game is released."
 
flopper said:
personally anything under 4.5ghz cpu is slow IMO.

However
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/9
shows its tends to be the GPU in BF3 as the game utlize the horse power pretty good.
Click to expand...

It's only GPU limited IF the CPU is limiting information to the GPU. I can run 2x6990's and still not super high fps... because the CPU graph is all over the shop and can't send information through to the GPU's quick enough. a lot of the sites saying BF3 won't be better with a faster CPU are basing it on single player, not MP, which makes one massive difference. Go into an empty server, then go into the same map full, your fps will drop bigtime if your'e running a slow CPU.
 
Thats single player mate, as said and it is indeed a fact Multiplayer is a whole different story and a faster cpu with 4 cores makes a nice difference over a slower CPU with 3 cores, unlike the single player which has environments 1/16th of the size with pre rendered construction and no random real time construction, vehicle usage or 64 players shooting random projectiles everywhere with lots off effects.

Your basing your argument that 'BF3 insnt CPU intensive atall' on the Single player, when that is completely different from the multiplayer and BF3 is indeed CPU intensive and you benefit from having more up to 4 cores or up to overclcoking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom