Soldato
AFAIK, BF3 can utilise the extra threads of a 2600k, plus there's extra L3 ram
-
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.
680 SLI owners + BF3
- Thread starter chipachap
- Start date
AFAIK, BF3 can utilise the extra threads of a 2600k, plus there's extra L3 ram
Associate
I get very smooth gameplay with everything at Ultra and 2MSAA I have a 2600k @4.4
Gaming at 2560 x 1600
Gaming at 2560 x 1600
It would seem the extra logical cores seem to 'drive' the extra GPU so they're both at max potential, pity BF3 MP is going to cause me to change CPU :facepalm:
I never thought it would happen but I doubt an extra 2 mb of L3 RAM is doing it so it must be the extra cores!
So who wants a 2500K? lol
Soldato
Not me, but
*No selling outside of the MM*
I wasn't actually attempting to sell it! lol, twas more humorous than anything!
Hmm that graph would suggest it is a 'bottleneck' but I don't see how 2 extra logical cores can make such a difference in balancing out GPU's usage. It does look to be the case from that chap's afterburner shots though.
BF3 MP is the only place it happens
Guess I'll be investing in a 3570K Thanks for the inputs
Soldato
Associate
Both the 2500k and 2600k have the same number of cores.
The 2600k can run twice the threads due to HT. From experience, I have yet to see HT make a notable difference in games.
Wonder what the cpu usages on all cores for a 2500k and a 2600k during a MP session look like.
Also, at resolutions over 1080p, the gpu start becoming the main bottleneck, rarely the cpu (within reason).
Can anyone with a decently clocked 2500k + 680sli/7970cf kindly check the fps and cpu usage of BF3 at low resolutions (1024p or lower) and compare it to 1080p?
Soldato
Common misconception - there's not really any benefit to being 120 FPS capped so to speak. Obviously the more frames generally the better but your performance still looks a bit ****py compared to my 1x680 and 2500k combo. Also my CPU is nowhere near 100% usage (50-60 ish) so there's definitely more GPU power to be utilised (say SLI) in the future although I'd say I won't get 100% GPU usage on both with this CPU.
I have everything maxed - MSAA and FXAA on as well
Last edited:
Soldato
Sorry not read the whole thread either but get the 12.4 drivers as well if you can. They're meant to improve performance.
Sorry I'm lost, what's a common misconception? Being capped at 120 FPS? I'm not looking to cap it to 120fps, I'm looking to turn down settings to reach a MINIMUM 120FPS to keep it smooth, although if I could maintain 120FPS after turning down settings I would probably cap it to this to minimise tearing.
I had the 12.4's in but they f up Fifa on me, and I refuse to switch between drivers for individual games.
The most annoying thing is I've sent 4 or 5 tickets to AMD support asking for help or tips or an explanation and haven't heard anything back yet.
Care to put up some screenshots showing me?? You're the only person I know to get 100% usage on 3 cards with a 2500k.
Rusty was going on about this in another thread. Don't think he understands the benefit of running 90-120fps on a 120hz monitor.
It seems that way alright his post confused the hell out of me!
I couldn't go back to 60fps to be honest, I tried it today to see the difference and the amount of tearing is immense, next gen consoles should support 120hz IMO, the difference is substantial!
Soldato
Just a thought but have you tried the 12.4's in BF3 and switched CrossFire off in the profile for Fifa?
Surely Fifa doesn't need 7970 CrossFire?
Surely Fifa doesn't need 7970 CrossFire?
Associate
My 680SLI's in BF3 with a 2500K @ 4.8GHz utilise between 92-99% of the GPU
FPS in BF3 in a 64 player map are around 86-130.
Soldato
It's not confusion you idiot - I was simply saying that if you can actually tell the difference between 90 and 120 then you're lying. I have a 120hz monitor as well??
It seems that way alright his post confused the hell out of me!
I'm not on about going back to 60hz either am I? 120hz is the pinnacle in my eyes but 120 FRAMES PER SECOND ain't no difference to 90-100. Don't get caught up. Put the settings up and enjoy the IQ.
My 680SLI's in BF3 with a 2500K @ 4.8GHz utilise between 92-99% of the GPU
FPS in BF3 in a 64 player map are around 86-130.
Are they at max settings? If you turn down settings to high do they stay at 92-99 or does it drop? Just curious.
I can actually notice the difference between 90 and 120, it's a fairly big gap. I couldn't tell the difference between 110 and 120. After looking at the screen for so long you just know what FPS your getting, well maybe it's just me.