Anyone here use a 4890 for bf3?

[BS Dave]

I'm interested in using one for a 2nd rig/htpc but want to know what sort of fps i could expect in the big bf3.

Obviously i'm talking about turning the settings RIGHT down. not sure what res i'll be aiming for 1680 or 1920 i guess, though i do have an old 1280x1024 monitor hanging around.

Any replies greatly appreciated.

 

[MouseMat2004]

I ran it briefly on a 4670 with 512MB, everything on low @ 720p and barely cracked 30FPS, sometimes as low as 15FPS. Not sure how much better a 4890 is, but should give you a starting point.

 

[vonex]

a friend of mine has 1 with Q6600 @ 3.2ghz, gets about 30-40fps on low settings dropping as low as 17-18fps

 

[BS Dave]

4670?? i think at 4890 is quite a lot better, cheers vonex, i'll be running it with a 750 i5 at 4Gz so that should help i think

 

[opethdisciple]

I had a 5870 not so long ago, it managed BF3 on high easily, ultra (what ever top setting) with dips, low level of AF and AA.

I reckon a 6970 will manage ultra with a few AA AF concessions.

 

[Havana_UK]

I started running BF3 on my i5-750 (4GHz) with a GTX260 Core 216, which is about 25% slower than a 4890. To get decent FPS I had to run at the Low preset, which gave me about 40-50 FPS, so I'd say with the 4890 you might manage the Medium preset and playable FPS.

 

[arc@css]

I started running BF3 on my i5-750 (4GHz) with a GTX260 Core 216, which is about 25% slower than a 4890.

No, more like 10%.

 

[weehamish]

I think a 260 is more then 10% slower then a 4890?

 

[LtMatt]

You should be able to run low details ok.

 

[setter]

Yup, low details should be ok. Ran it on an 8800gt, (i7 930) 1680x1050 res. Cant remember the exact fps, but it was playable enough. Currently redownloading bf3 for both my systems, ill give it another blast on the second rig once it's reinstalled.

 

[arc@css]

I think a 260 is more then 10% slower then a 4890?

I don't. Though, if it is more than 10%, which I doubt, I can't see it being much more at all.