7970 + bf3

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 13:41

i really expected to see no less then 100fps on bf3 1080p with all settings on low. my crossfire 5850 just about managed it it would drop in to the 90's.. with my 7970 i'm seeing 80fps!! on a regular basis!! even when overclocked to 1250/1700.. feel i have made a massive mistake spending the money on this card i was under the impression it should be a lot faster then 2 x 5850s when overclocked.

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 13:50

i see up to 170 fps but minimum fps drops down to around 85, would really be expecting it to be at least 100fps solid with no fps drops.

my rig
i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz, 8gb 1866mhz, msi z77 gd65, corsair force3 120gb

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 14:29

vsync off, every graphic settings on lowest possible

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:16

psychodil said:
Are you talking about multi player maps?

yes.

PapaLazaru said:
Maybe because the OP is stuck in the past and still believes that playing a game on low (leet) settings somehow makes it easier to spot people and therefore give oneself an advantage?

its not about ganing an advantage, my main objective is to have 100fps constant when playing online

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:18

spixelspixel said:
Not gonna lie, I still play css on 640x480 on lowest graphics settings.

used to use 800x600 back in the day, moved on from pro cs days tho

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:20

PapaLazaru said:
But why? I assume in the first instance you have a monitor capable of 100FPS?

I guarantee you one thing, if you were tested on the difference you can see between 60 / 80 / 100 FPS you would have a hell of a job noticing any difference on BF3.

regardless of this argument, should my system be able to pull 100fps with my rig and stated res and settings?

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:21

spixelspixel said:
If I ever get around to playing bf3, chances are I'd play it on low settings like op so don't see anything odd about it tbh. I prefer higher more stable fps over graphics.

+1

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:22

dave_beast said:
Did you see my post?

i'll run it using the same settings see what i come back with.

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:23

Barry1987 said:
Yeah.

The other day I tried running The Witcher 2 on just high settings. I only got 43 FPS. I then did Ultra and was getting 50-55.

interesting i'll give it ago.

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:26

dave_beast said:
Just run BF3 Caspian Border 64 player, 2 minute benchmark, all settings on low, MSAAx2, SSAO, 85fov, vsync off 1920x1080:-

Min 103 Max 137 Avg 116.5

There's something awry on your system then.

i take it you just played for 2mins yeah ?

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 15:40

very similar min fps how ever its not the map which i was getting low fps on - if you get abit free time try it on gulf of oman and report back

2012-05-16 15:36:27 - bf3
Frames: 18897 - Time: 120000ms - Avg: 157.475 - Min: 109 - Max: 200

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 16:24

dave_beast said:
Yes mate, will do that this evening. Assuming your fps are higher due to a higher overclock?

i guess so buddy

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 18:59

where ever m8, just report back, i get similar fps on karkand

vonex · 16 May 2012 at 21:39

Westie said:
Karkland maps do decrease in fps a lot even on top end cards its not u its the game!

my 5850 crossfire didnt drop this low.

vonex · 17 May 2012 at 01:28

Barry1987 said:
Yeah.

The other day I tried running The Witcher 2 on just high settings. I only got 43 FPS. I then did Ultra and was getting 50-55.

doesnt work on bf3, as expected

vonex · 17 May 2012 at 11:25

chipachap said:
What sort of internet connection do you have? There's something seriously wrong with BF3 also in the sense that when I'm using Crossfire with 7970's on an empty server, GPU usage is 98-99% on both cards, but when the server is full it can go down to 85% on both cards even though CPU usage never goes above 75% average. It will probably take them until the next game to sort it out.

100mb virginmedia

vonex · 17 May 2012 at 11:28

dave_beast said:
Gulf of Oman, same settings as previous

Min Max Avg
80 177 115.42

same as me then, 5850 crossfire used to drop to like 95fps.. swapped them out for 7970 because i thought it could at least keep 100fps minimum, actually getting 15fps less then 5850's

vonex · 18 May 2012 at 02:09

dave_beast said:
It's probably just the odd map that's not properly optimised for the 79** cards just yet.

Might be worth filing a report to the Catalyst team to add it into a future driver? http://www.amdsurveys.com/se.ashx?s=5A1E27D27E29B0E3

amd should be releasing a new driver soon, i'll wait see what it likes... really disappointed in the performance on bf3 though was really expecting to see 15 (minimum)fps more then my 5850's... not less

vonex · 18 May 2012 at 02:19

dave_beast said:
It's a lot better than day 1 drivers, in some parts of Oman I was getting 50fps!!! That was sorted on the next driver though. Every driver release has seen a major increase, and after testing a few maps tonight it's only Oman that drops that low for me.

really? seems to be happening on a lot of maps for me, are you using 12.4 + caps?

vonex · 18 May 2012 at 12:41

gurusan said:
CF 5850s will be faster than a 7970 in most situations provided you aren't vram bottenecked.

And running any game on anything but ultra settings with a top of the line card = fail

performance is more important to me in bf3 all i want is 100fps solid with no drops. 100fps on low settings with top line card = fail.