Battlefield 3 Performance Analysis

old gamer · 10 Nov 2011 at 10:05

with all the will my pc play bf3 threads i thought this article from bit tech might be of intrest, i was quite surprised by cpu and ram usage

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/1

lollyhayes · 10 Nov 2011 at 10:27

that is surprising actually, although the 6950 would have been the bottleneck there.

lollyhayes · 10 Nov 2011 at 10:27

At least it makes use of all the cores...

[WU-TANG]GZA · 10 Nov 2011 at 11:13

I'm really surprised by this. Especially the clock speeds.....

twist3d0n3 · 10 Nov 2011 at 11:47

weird; it almost seems completely pointless having an oc'd cpu for this game; especially a quad.

it taxes the **** out of my 920 @ 4.2GHz, so i might run it at stock and see if it makes any difference whatsoever myself. ultimately it should mean my gpu's will stay cooler thanks to having H2O

Final8y · 10 Nov 2011 at 13:17

twist3d0n3 said:
weird; it almost seems completely pointless having an oc'd cpu for this game; especially a quad.

it taxes the **** out of my 920 @ 4.2GHz, so i might run it at stock and see if it makes any difference whatsoever myself. ultimately it should mean my gpu's will stay cooler thanks to having H2O

That because most people are GPU limited first.
If your not GPU limited then you would see a difference, like when i set my Hex to 3.2 and notice it was not as smooth with stuttering more often.

sti007 · 10 Nov 2011 at 13:37

Very good read. I think Dice have done a good job with the Bf3 engine. Surprised that CPU cores and speed made zero difference. Bad Company 2 loved processor overclocks.

Geckovich · 10 Nov 2011 at 13:52

I think the fatal flaw of their benchmark is using the "Going Hunting" mission. It's a very on the rails level, with little in the way of physics or any kind of interaction.

It's almost an interactive cut scene.

francky · 10 Nov 2011 at 14:07

Very good job indeed by Dice, I can run on High/Ultra without AA at a steady 45-50 fps in multiplayer, with my GTX 470 oc'd to 750Mhz Core......looking forward to Nvidia's Kepler's to really see how good this game can look/perform.

Marine-RX179 · 10 Nov 2011 at 14:18

6950 2GB performance got trolled by 6950 1GB on 1920 res

Think this pretty much confirm peoples' theory of "games will use more VRAM if available, but doesn't mean that the game NEEDS it".

And to think people spent like extra £50-£60 for the extra 1GB VRAM or upgrading from 5870 1GB to 6950 2GB for the sake of "preparing for BF3"

sti007 · 10 Nov 2011 at 14:35

People were upgrading their systems after playing the beta. Was nuts!

tommybhoy · 10 Nov 2011 at 15:56

francky said:
looking forward to Nvidia's Kepler's to really see how good this game can look/perform.

You don't need to wait for Kepler or new Fermi?

Using 6950>70 Crossfire everything on ultra @1080p= ~@60fps minimums, another 470 will probably achieve the same results and be much cheaper than Kepler without the wait!

Walter Sobchak · 10 Nov 2011 at 16:00

Geckovich said:
I think the fatal flaw of their benchmark is using the "Going Hunting" mission. It's a very on the rails level, with little in the way of physics or any kind of interaction.

It's almost an interactive cut scene.

This! I don't understand why they would choose that section at all.

tommybhoy · 10 Nov 2011 at 16:15

Walter Sobchak said:
This! I don't understand why they would choose that section at all.

[H] used a 9 minute fraps test in the first level for their performance review compared to Bit-techs 90 seconds, but they didn't use ultra settings.

Marine-RX179 said:
Think this pretty much confirm peoples' theory of "games will use more VRAM if available, but doesn't mean that the game NEEDS it".

Other games are nowhere near as optimised for the PC as BF3 though.

BF 3 is a demanding game, other titles can have more IQ applied through the CCC panel to make it look better.

Higher IQ is achieved with my 6950 than when I had the 5870.

For example, the original Witcher with various mods including high res pack, was a slide show with everything in CCC panel maxed out it using the 5870, it just couldn't do it, this wasn't the case with the 6950.

That's not down to core differences, it's vram, it doesn't need to be maxed out in CCC, but it's a much better looking game when it is.

I'm not starting a 'Harmony' here, I'm just pointing it out.

PapaLazaru · 10 Nov 2011 at 16:19

twist3d0n3 said:
weird; it almost seems completely pointless having an oc'd cpu for this game; especially a quad.

it taxes the **** out of my 920 @ 4.2GHz, so i might run it at stock and see if it makes any difference whatsoever myself. ultimately it should mean my gpu's will stay cooler thanks to having H2O

Try it. I have had a bizzare stuttering problem with the game for the past week and took the overlclock off my CPU (Phenom x4 965). Stuttering has gone and the whole game is smoother.

francky · 10 Nov 2011 at 16:31

tommybhoy said:
You don't need to wait for Kepler or new Fermi?

Using 6950>70 Crossfire everything on ultra @1080p= ~@60fps minimums, another 470 will probably achieve the same results and be much cheaper than Kepler without the wait!

yeah I agree with what you are saying but.....it runs fine for me now, so I dont need to speand money as it stands......my next GC upgrade will be Kepler.

For now 1920x1200 on high/ultra at 45-50 fps is ok

tommybhoy · 10 Nov 2011 at 16:49

Just pointing out that Kepler/7 series won't make BF3 look any better.

Marine-RX179 · 10 Nov 2011 at 19:49

tommybhoy said:
Other games are nowhere near as optimised for the PC as BF3 though.

BF 3 is a demanding game, other titles can have more IQ applied through the CCC panel to make it look better.

Higher IQ is achieved with my 6950 than when I had the 5870.

For example, the original Witcher with various mods including high res pack, was a slide show with everything in CCC panel maxed out it using the 5870, it just couldn't do it, this wasn't the case with the 6950.

That's not down to core differences, it's vram, it doesn't need to be maxed out in CCC, but it's a much better looking game when it is.

I'm not starting a 'Harmony' here, I'm just pointing it out.

I'm afraid you are being a little bit of Harmony as well...as you concluded the extra performance is from the extra VRAM, but didn't stop to consider the fact that 6950 better than the 5870 on GPU architecture level...and honestly, comparing 5870 to 6950 is like comparing apple to orange. Let's not forget, the 6950 1GB deliver better performance than 5870 1GB as well.

I honestly don't think you can think you can claim the performance gain going from the 5870 1GB to 6950 2GB is because of the extra VRAM, unless you have actually tried a 6950 1GB and find that there are situations that it would struggle, but the 2GB version doesn't.

setter · 10 Nov 2011 at 20:17

francky said:
yeah I agree with what you are saying but.....it runs fine for me now, so I dont need to speand money as it stands......my next GC upgrade will be Kepler.

For now 1920x1200 on high/ultra at 45-50 fps is ok

Currently playing it with 470 sli, the game runs pretty well on ultra, cards at 750mhz. Running on high post aa setting, ssao on and blur turned off. Averaging 80fps.

kissenger · 10 Nov 2011 at 20:18

That performance analysis in OP's link is really good. I would recommend that anyone thinking of buying a new GPU anytime soon reads it.

Very pleasantly surprised by the 560Ti benchmarks.