-
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.
40% Xfire GPU usage bf3
- Thread starter NoobCannon
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'd probably sell the board too and go 1150 in your shoes, which I did myself as I'm pretty much always going to remain single gpu and ended up just buying a 4670k and a board, the upgrade ended up costing me about 40 quid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
It's a shame i don't have BF3 downloaded, would be nice to see how 6core SB-Es fair against being bottlenecked.
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 6,053
unfortunately that still wont help me as the 4670k is non hyperthreaded and would seemingly bottleneck me aswell.
and the i7 haswells are £260 ish then id need a new mboard etc so would work out more expensive in the end!.
as I said in my opening post I play bf with everything Ultra/ max [excl motion blur] and my frames drop to 80fps in some places, with more gpu usage id expect them to stay around the 120fps Im after. also im getting stuttering which is due to the CPU being unable to keep up with the cards
swaying towards sending the card back on DSR tbh.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I meant go for the 4770K for yourself lol.
Although it would indeed cost more.
Although it would indeed cost more.
Ok all testing with HT on, Caspian 64 man packed server...
4.0ghz, 2133 C9, 1200/1650 _-_ CPU Usage = ~80%, GPU Usage = ~75%
4.9ghz, 2400 C10, 1200/1650 _-_ CPU Usage = ~73%, GPU Usage = ~97%
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,331
- Location
- Orpington.
Thanks for that pgi.
So it's fairly conclusive that if anybody wants to crossfire a 7950/7970 they had better consider whether they have a CPU fast enough to help them stretch their legs in BF3 Multiplayer
My i7 @ 4.1 with HT on is not cutting it.
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 6,053
unfortunately it seems that way!
Possibly, 4.4Ghz+ on 920 // 4.3Ghz+ 26/2700K // 4.2Ghz+ 3770K. Just a guesstimate, but I doubt it would be far from that on average.
Sound advice, the problem with the ib chips and high oc's is keeping them cool enough. Saying that though my 3770k only worked out at £65.00 after selling my 3570k. Still pondering wether to de lid it or not.
Around that yeah
Though we must remember this is only a select few maps on a select few games, it hasn't suddenly rendered every single 4 thread chip useless
2500K's etc... still are very fast chips, especially if you're on a single card, heck, even if you game at 1080/60hz, CF 7900's is probably still quite effective. Only those (including my self!) using 120hz displays* and wanting to keep things north of 100fps should really be considering dropping to a more thread focused chip.
*and of course those on 1440/1600/5760 resolutions @60/120hz.
Told ya. Game engine is poorly optimized likely making any small bottleneck seem worse than it should be with a better optimized game. Hopefully AMD can get a hold of it and work some Crysis 3 typ optimization on it in time for bf4.
Last edited:
Told ya. Game engine is poorly optimized likely making any small bottleneck seem worse than it should be with a better optimized game. Hopefully AMD can get a hold of it and work some Crysis 3 typ optimization on it in time for bf4.
Well if they were using the FX 8350 with CF 7970's on the E3 BF4 stand, then I would think/hope that BF4 is optimized better than BF3, otherwise I am selling my kit and going to play pacman on my Atari 2600!
Exactly.
Around that yeah
Though we must remember this is only a select few maps on a select few games, it hasn't suddenly rendered every single 4 thread chip useless
2500K's etc... still are very fast chips, especially if you're on a single card, heck, even if you game at 1080/60hz, CF 7900's is probably still quite effective. Only those (including my self!) using 120hz displays* and wanting to keep things north of 100fps should really be considering dropping to a more thread focused chip.
*and of course those on 1440/1600/5760 resolutions @60/120hz.
Spot on.
Around that yeah
Though we must remember this is only a select few maps on a select few games, it hasn't suddenly rendered every single 4 thread chip useless
2500K's etc... still are very fast chips, especially if you're on a single card, heck, even if you game at 1080/60hz, CF 7900's is probably still quite effective. Only those (including my self!) using 120hz displays* and wanting to keep things north of 100fps should really be considering dropping to a more thread focused chip.
*and of course those on 1440/1600/5760 resolutions @60/120hz.
(Yeah, Crossfire/SLI/BattleField maniacs/hi-res eye candy people only)
I'm relating this only to BF3 currently and slightly projecting to BF4. If you play this game a lot and want your rig to run the best on something you spend a lot of time on, I'd say consider a CPU change. To the casual BF3 soldat, I'd say they would be happy playing it as long as it wasn't a slideshow but there's something else to think about now. With the new consoles having 8 cores and Battlefield using them more efficiently on the horizon, then for the Battlefield enthusiast, I'd be thinking of a CPU upgrade. Otherwise why waste all the hassle upgrading for one game, however, with the new consoles architecture being what it is, we can
In the current economic state, AMD can really cash in if more cores = better scores, as it's vastly different in price between the hex core 3930K and 8 core 8320/8350.