-
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.
HD7850 + 1080p = BF on ultra?
- Thread starter weeroo
- Start date
Well you've got two nVidia users calling as Andy called it "shenanigans" on it due to what we're both seeing in reality. 
He from a single/SLI 1440 user and myself as a single/SLI 1080 user. If your friend is not getting the same level of performance he likely has issues with his machine somewhere...
He from a single/SLI 1440 user and myself as a single/SLI 1080 user. If your friend is not getting the same level of performance he likely has issues with his machine somewhere...
Last edited:
I too wili join the BS crowd on that graph.
With a i5 750@4GHz and a stock GTX680 at 1920x1200 (so basically similar to the rig used for that graph) I rarely go below 50FPS on the original BF3 maps, and that's at full ultra (inc 4xMSAA, FXAA high and blur on). Regular FPS is up in the 70+ region.
It's only since the advent of the AK maps that average is around 60FPS with minimums down at 45+, and even then it's got to be a full 64 player server with lots going on to see those figures.
With a i5 750@4GHz and a stock GTX680 at 1920x1200 (so basically similar to the rig used for that graph) I rarely go below 50FPS on the original BF3 maps, and that's at full ultra (inc 4xMSAA, FXAA high and blur on). Regular FPS is up in the 70+ region.
It's only since the advent of the AK maps that average is around 60FPS with minimums down at 45+, and even then it's got to be a full 64 player server with lots going on to see those figures.
Another gtx 680 user saying he has dips to 40-45
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1695215
He has a cpu with threads as well which really helps minimums in bf3. Maybe you and andy are different from everyone else.
670, which is within a few % of a 680 yeah?
Well even below full ultra with the intensive HBAO in bf3 disabled a 670 will see a minimum of 40, which would be a fair bit lower if HBAO is enabled.
670 user here, running overclocked, regular dips into 40's on an empty server, caspian. On a full server you can expect even lower fps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl9EeSOE-Tg
Finally, a 680 user captures his footage on caspian border with players in, exactly the same fps drops as i get on my 7970. Look at his fps drop below 60 constantly, again even on the loading screen just like i mentioned.
I guess thats a game thing i thought i was the only one. Even saw his fps dip down to 40's without any major explosions going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdB1YySTqCw
680gtx user in the comments says "I hate it that this game still drops under 25fps sometimes with heavy action. For christ sake, it's a GTX680 with a super quadcore CPU. I don't get it."
The fps drops in this game hits everyone. I suggest the guys that say we never go below 70 are not aware thats its happening or its actually your cpu's which are keeping your minimums up and not the gpu's as evidence has shown that the gpu's from both sides will suffer fps drops.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1695215
He has a cpu with threads as well which really helps minimums in bf3. Maybe you and andy are different from everyone else.
670, which is within a few % of a 680 yeah?
Well even below full ultra with the intensive HBAO in bf3 disabled a 670 will see a minimum of 40, which would be a fair bit lower if HBAO is enabled.
670 user here, running overclocked, regular dips into 40's on an empty server, caspian. On a full server you can expect even lower fps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl9EeSOE-Tg
Finally, a 680 user captures his footage on caspian border with players in, exactly the same fps drops as i get on my 7970. Look at his fps drop below 60 constantly, again even on the loading screen just like i mentioned.
I guess thats a game thing i thought i was the only one. Even saw his fps dip down to 40's without any major explosions going on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdB1YySTqCw
680gtx user in the comments says "I hate it that this game still drops under 25fps sometimes with heavy action. For christ sake, it's a GTX680 with a super quadcore CPU. I don't get it."
The fps drops in this game hits everyone. I suggest the guys that say we never go below 70 are not aware thats its happening or its actually your cpu's which are keeping your minimums up and not the gpu's as evidence has shown that the gpu's from both sides will suffer fps drops.
Last edited:
I'm sure if I scour the Internet I can find some interesting things to back up my eccentric points too .
The point is, 3 Kepler users above are calling BS on these results. I ran a FRAPS benchmark for a whole map and my minimum was... 63 ish from memory on 304.79 drivers.
Honestly, it isn't difficult to find somebody having poor performance when in reality PEBKAC is in full flow. That applies to AMD as well.
I don't know why you seem so keen to try and prove that AMD are faster in BF3 now - if you're that bothered do a like for like by watching an Operation Swordbreaker benchmark and then do the same yourself and compare against another end user rather than pulling graphs from anywhere
.
All of this pulling random quotes and graphs from a google search just really doesn't prove anything either way.
My main problem is that a few (not you) loud users on this forum keep shouting from the rooftops about AMD gains in BF3 and automatically assume it means they're now faster in BF3. While I have no real interest in wars as to who is faster what I will jump on is dodgy conclusions drawn from cherry picked sources.
. The point is, 3 Kepler users above are calling BS on these results. I ran a FRAPS benchmark for a whole map and my minimum was... 63 ish from memory on 304.79 drivers.
Honestly, it isn't difficult to find somebody having poor performance when in reality PEBKAC is in full flow. That applies to AMD as well.
I don't know why you seem so keen to try and prove that AMD are faster in BF3 now - if you're that bothered do a like for like by watching an Operation Swordbreaker benchmark and then do the same yourself and compare against another end user rather than pulling graphs from anywhere
. All of this pulling random quotes and graphs from a google search just really doesn't prove anything either way.
My main problem is that a few (not you) loud users on this forum keep shouting from the rooftops about AMD gains in BF3 and automatically assume it means they're now faster in BF3. While I have no real interest in wars as to who is faster what I will jump on is dodgy conclusions drawn from cherry picked sources.
Last edited:
I'm sure if I scour the Internet I can find some interesting things to back up my eccentric points too
The point is, 3 Kepler users above are calling BS on these results. I ran a FRAPS benchmark for a whole map and my minimum was... 63 ish from memory on 304.79 drivers.
Honestly, it isn't difficult to find somebody having poor performance when in reality PEBKAC is in full flow. That applies to AMD as well.
I don't know why you seem so keen to try and prove that AMD are faster in BF3 now - if you want to do like for like then watch an Operation Swordbreaker benchmark and then do the same yourself and compare against another end user.
All of this pulling random quotes and graphs from a google search just really doesn't prove anything either way.
I'm not trying to prove AMD are faster, im saying you can expect fps drops regardless of which card you have.
Another gtx680 user recording his footage, only using 2xaa this time but he registers minimum fps below 55.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzgqZU4r9sM&feature=youtu.be
Record a round Rusty, 64 man multiplayer, full ultra, have fraps running and we can check out your minimum. If yours doesn't drop below 70 as you say (single card) then i guess the cpu does make a big difference.
Play a round, do some tank driving, get in some heavy action and we'll see.Scouring the internet simply meant typing in 680 gtx battlefield 3 minimum fps. Everyone else seems to be getting a lot of fps below 60 from what ive seen.
Last edited:
Agree but that was just part of the point.
I'm really not trying to claim one is faster than the other, Nvidia probably are faster but to get fps drops seems fairly common.
I'm happy to be proved wrong if one of you wants to record a round.
It seems to affect everyone else though, maybe you guys are just lucky or have killer machines!
Can't find the one I did a full Caspian round on but from memory it was around 60 minimum and average 86 maybe?? Definitely no more than 2-3 either way of these numbers.
Last edited:
I'll see if I can record a round later today...
...erm, how do I do it?
I know you're not trying to prove one is faster than the other, neither am I (or Rusty or Andy I think), but we are all calling nonsense on 35 FPS minimums.
...erm, how do I do it?
I know you're not trying to prove one is faster than the other, neither am I (or Rusty or Andy I think), but we are all calling nonsense on 35 FPS minimums.
Record a round rusty, video footage.
That 680 has a massive overclock.
That sounds like far too much effort to prove a point
. My FRAPS numbers are there as requested.Yeah my 680 WF is a beast. I'm sure it would go higher as well if I could be bothered to flash the BIOS.
And these minimums don't affect everyone else - they're affecting everyone else that you've uncovered from an internet search which by its nature is going to turn up people having problems.
Last edited:
I'll see if I can record a round later today...
...erm, how do I do it?
I know you're not trying to prove one is faster than the other, neither am I (or Rusty or Andy I think), but we are all calling nonsense on 35 FPS minimums.
Well you might be right mate, maybe something really hectic happened, the biggest explosions in bf3 can cause that.
But to claim that fps will never drop below 70/60 just doesn't seem to be what every other user says.
I will record a round myself seeing as you're going to the effort to do it as well. Lets try to match up our settings in afterburner video quality so they are not very demanding on our pc's, lets also match our bf3 settings etc.
That sounds like far too much effort to prove a point
Yeah my 680 WF is a beast. I'm sure it would go higher as well if I could be bothered to flash the BIOS.
And these minimums don't affect everyone else - they're affecting everyone else that you've uncovered from an internet search which by its nature is going to turn up people having problems.
Furry muff but without the video to back it up i turn my nose up to you rusty.
Its not an issue, seems fairly common from the review and video evidence ive seen.
I can't claim, or shouldn't that everyone is getting it. Just that it seems to be a common reported problem from both sides with this game.
Well as MP can be quite CPU bound it makes it next to impossible to compare data unless you're using the same CPU.
As 3 people that have cared to respond don't get this phenomenon I would say it is an issue either with a CPU bottleneck or some other localised issue.
Edit: of course I'm guessing but my CPU is the only difference to people who are apparently getting minimums much lower than I am.
I'm sure gregster with his i5 2500k will respond to either confirm the same or he'll say he doesn't get minimums like that either.
As 3 people that have cared to respond don't get this phenomenon I would say it is an issue either with a CPU bottleneck or some other localised issue.
Edit: of course I'm guessing but my CPU is the only difference to people who are apparently getting minimums much lower than I am.
I'm sure gregster with his i5 2500k will respond to either confirm the same or he'll say he doesn't get minimums like that either.
Last edited:
If that was the case wouldn't i see less than 99% constant usage on the video card though?
Don't know mate. An obvious bottleneck yes, but a sudden one due to a sudden spike in CPU load, maybe not.
Its a real shame thee isnt a benchmark utility for BF3 
Ive yet to see evidence of peformance gains in BF3 for the latest AMD drivers. Just because a few people say its true and jump on the bandwagon doesnt make it so. I'm not saying there arent improvements but we need to see them before we can call it fact.
Its also possible that nvidia drivers have improved and they are seeing better minimum frame rates than they used to.
Ive yet to see evidence of peformance gains in BF3 for the latest AMD drivers. Just because a few people say its true and jump on the bandwagon doesnt make it so. I'm not saying there arent improvements but we need to see them before we can call it fact.
Its also possible that nvidia drivers have improved and they are seeing better minimum frame rates than they used to.
Its a real shame thee isnt a benchmark utility for BF3
Ive yet to see evidence of peformance gains in BF3 for the latest AMD drivers. Just because a few people say its true and jump on the bandwagon doesnt make it so. I'm not saying there arent improvements but we need to see them before we can call it fact.
Its also possible that nvidia drivers have improved and they are seeing better minimum frame rates than they used to.
I agree mate.
A benchmark utility would be great.
The problem with multiplayer is something different happens every time making it very hard to produce consistent results.
The problem with single player is it doesn't stress your components at all compared to multiplayer.