Battlefield 3 RETAIL Performance Thread

elrasho · 16 Dec 2011 at 17:53

harenzo said:
So is an OC'ed q6600 a bottleneck or not?

Getting 30-40fps~ with my rig (in sig) on 32 player maps - All on High, HBAO off, AA off.

Is that about right for my setup?

Would I see an improvement in fps if I tried to push my Q6600 up to 3.4ghz+?

probably add another 5fps

decto · 16 Dec 2011 at 18:05

After OCing the CPU a few days ago I decided to see how well SLI performance had scaled

An average of 76.5 FPS over 11 minutes of Capsian Border - Large 64 player server, fully manned. The odd minor dip below 60FPS.

This is full Ultra, nothing disabled, 90 degree FOV inc 4x MSAA, Motion Blur etc etc.

Significantly faster that the average of 50 FPS I posted with the CPU at stock settings, who says this game doesn't scale with CPU.....

Once I have the side fan cut and installed, I may even be able to clock the cards ....

AD

decto · 16 Dec 2011 at 18:13

harenzo said:
So is an OC'ed q6600 a bottleneck or not?

Getting 30-40fps with my rig (in sig) on the big multiplayer maps with dips down to 20 at times - All on High, HBAO off, AA off.

Is that about right for my setup?

Would I see an improvement in fps if I tried to push my Q6600 up to 3.4ghz+?

Others will disagree but I found a single 560TI wasn't that smooth with a Q6600, with I5 it's far better. If I'd been less impatient, I wouldn't have got the second card as a single GTX560 is more than ample at high with the I5.

Problem I had was that scaling back from High to medium and even low didn't make full use of the GPU so at medium the GPU was only 60-70% loaded and frame rates didn't really improve.

You'll get a playable experience with the Q6600, but a much better one with the I5.

See above post .... Performance scales with CPU.

AD

decto · 16 Dec 2011 at 21:26

Here are some single card 560Ti 2GB benchmarks with graphs using a I5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz and 16GB of 1600Mhz DDR3 (Kingston Grey)

Now compare this to a Q6600 @ high which managed 42 FPS and utilisation of ~70%, this is 30% slower than the I5 and that's with a midrange GTX560Ti..... it will only be worse with a GTX570, GTX580 or any other high end GPU solution.

Click to make it bigger

Would love to see a Q6600 and GTX580 graph @ 1080P......

The Q6600, even at 3.6Ghz cannot saturate a 560TI

Look at the graphs, with the Q6600 it's at 30ish FPS far too often ..... BOTTLENECK !!!!

TNGL · 16 Dec 2011 at 21:34

Sorry if this has already been posted, but what is everybody using to measure the FPS and create graphics with? I don't really fancy searching through 29 pages to find out.

decto · 16 Dec 2011 at 21:37

I use MSI after burner then open the graph in Excel and trim out the bits where you're loading (30fps ish) an in the equip screens (atypically high)

You can import the afterburner by setting the delimiting to comma

AD

TNGL · 16 Dec 2011 at 21:58

decto said:
I use MSI after burner then open the graph in Excel and trim out the bits where you're loading (30fps ish) an in the equip screens (atypically high)

You can import the afterburner by setting the delimiting to comma

AD

Okay, thanks for your help

kalyyy · 17 Dec 2011 at 10:32

andybird123 said:
from my own testing, platorm is a [email protected] with 8gb RAM, 1920x1080

GTX560ti 1GB - High Preset - fine and smooth - Ultra preset - turns in to slide show
GTX560ti 1GB SLI - High preset fine and smooth - ultra preset = slide show

Any combination of settings that keeps the VRAM usage below 1GB (e.g. 900mb ish) is fine but ultra textures or msaa push it over that and fps falls off a cliff

GTX 580 1.5gb High preset - 70-80FPS Ultra preset 40FPS with stutters, on large maps like caspian border 64 I can see objects appearing out of nowhere (VRAM usage over 1.5gb), not internet/ping related as dropping msaa lower VRAM usage and everything is then smooth with no issues (objects appearing out of nowhere also doesn't cause FPS drop but it is noticeable and annoying).

GTX 580 3GB - ultra preset - 50fps avg. with occaisional drops to 40, no problems with textures loading on the fly, no stutter (VRAM usage 1800-1900mb)

new system build put on hold until a 2nd GTX580 3GB can be nabbed

change your cpu, i haven't any issues with 1.5gb with ULTRA don't say BS or make some proofs of that, because i tested myself with 3gb and sam performance, same texture loading...

Locky · 17 Dec 2011 at 10:37

480 SLI 900mhz core 2200 ram, I7 970 @ 4.4ghz.

2560x1600

(everything on ultra)

4x aa

OC high

basicly everything maxed,

Vsync on 60fps no more no less.

liamcrane · 17 Dec 2011 at 10:46

jmp_78 said:
Thought it was about time I got in on this multi-player thing, so bought a copy and dived in - wow.

1920x1080 / 64-player map
HD5850 @ 875MHz / High Settings, no AA

Barely drops below 60FPS - seriously impressed!

Hi matey

Is you 5850 clocked at 875 on stock volts? Mine will only go to 810 on stock. Im running at 810/1000 with everything on high with no AA and i get the odd dip to around 45fps on casapian border

Efour · 17 Dec 2011 at 10:52

Caspian is one of the smoothest maps for me. Mix of ultra and high now.

The Bf2 ones really lag me down in some parts. <40fps

using a 2500k at 4.4ghz and a HD6970 2gb 1080p.

titaniumx3 · 17 Dec 2011 at 12:39

I'm noticing lower performance in the Back to Karkand maps, especially on Gulf of Oman, when you're viewing the entire cityscape from near the beach head. I think it's mainly due to the fact that they are larger and more packed out with buildings.

TNGL · 17 Dec 2011 at 12:41

Efour2 said:
Caspian is one of the smoothest maps for me. Mix of ultra and high now.

The Bf2 ones really lag me down in some parts. <40fps

using a 2500k at 4.4ghz and a HD6970 2gb 1080p.

This. Apart from I have an i7 930 @ 2.8ghz and a HD6950.

andybird123 · 17 Dec 2011 at 12:53

kalyyy said:
change your cpu, i haven't any issues with 1.5gb with ULTRA don't say BS or make some proofs of that, because i tested myself with 3gb and sam performance, same texture loading...

changing GPU was cheaper than changing CPU - I will change CPU when I need to and I want to go 580-SLI (and an LGA2011 processor is available for < £300)

@decto, here you go - caspian 64 15-20 minutes
AVG 56.4 FPS MIN 36 Ultra Preset nothing changed (blur on min) inc. 4x msaa
VRAM is X10

http://s1096.photobucket.com/albums/g339/andybird123/GTX580%20FPS/?action=view&current=q6600GTX580BF3.jpg

kalyyy · 17 Dec 2011 at 13:46

andybird123 said:
changing GPU was cheaper than changing CPU - I will change CPU when I need to and I want to go 580-SLI (and an LGA2011 processor is available for < £300)

@Decto, here you go - caspian 64 15-20 minutes
AVG 56.4 FPS MIN 36 Ultra Preset nothing changed (blur on min) inc. 4x msaa
VRAM is X10

http://s1096.photobucket.com/albums/g339/andybird123/GTX580%20FPS/?action=view&current=q6600GTX580BF3.jpg

ok thx but i have same fps (min-avg-max) with 1.5gb and no stutters or lag spikes and i max 1500mo of vram so it means that the extra of 300mo is useless because we have the same gameplay for the same settings (ultra 4*msaa on caspian map with 64 players)

elrasho · 17 Dec 2011 at 14:27

Did some testing last night and found the 11.11c drivers with the current CAP profiles give me the best performance.

LtMatt · 17 Dec 2011 at 14:28

ust dropped another 6950 unlocked and running at 6970 speeds into my rig. I can now run bf @1080p @ ultra with aax4 and never go below 50 fps. 50 fps is during the most intensive parts, but it still feels smooth.

Running on a P8P67 thats x16 and x4. Micro stutter? None.

Rofflay · 17 Dec 2011 at 14:47

titaniumx3 said:
I'm noticing lower performance in the Back to Karkand maps, especially on Gulf of Oman, when you're viewing the entire cityscape from near the beach head. I think it's mainly due to the fact that they are larger and more packed out with buildings.

They did update destruction and maybe they added in some extra requirements for calculations and thats where your fps is going? Maybe they upped draw distance or tweaked a setting who knows.

Does it look better?

andybird123 · 17 Dec 2011 at 16:27

kalyyy said:
ok thx but i have same fps (min-avg-max) with 1.5gb and no stutters or lag spikes and i max 1500mo of vram so it means that the extra of 300mo is useless because we have the same gameplay for the same settings (ultra 4*msaa on caspian map with 64 players)

I'm very happy for you, obviously my q6600 (LGA775) platform was causing me an issue with a 1.5GB... I could have solved the issue by upgrading to a 2500k, however it was cheaper for me to solve it by swapping to a 3GB because I wanted to wait for X79 / i7 3820 to come out before I upgrade my PC (and also because I want to go 3GB SLI at a later date)

I'm not telling you you should upgrade anything on your rig if you're happy with it, I'm just pointing out that you needn't tell me to upgrade my CPU (or in fact entire PC) either, because I don't think i need to

decto · 18 Dec 2011 at 00:59

andybird123 said:
changing GPU was cheaper than changing CPU - I will change CPU when I need to and I want to go 580-SLI (and an LGA2011 processor is available for < £300)

@Decto, here you go - caspian 64 15-20 minutes
AVG 56.4 FPS MIN 36 Ultra Preset nothing changed (blur on min) inc. 4x msaa
VRAM is X10

http://s1096.photobucket.com/albums/g339/andybird123/GTX580%20FPS/?action=view&current=q6600GTX580BF3.jpg

Interesting, what's the rest of the system?

I couldn't get above around 40FPS even at medium with a Ti and the Q6600, same card is much faster with the I5. In my case a faster card wouldn't have helped as dropping the detail gave few gains while reducing card utilisation to 60-70%

AD