Those benchmarks were for singleplayer. On 64 player multiplayer maps Sandybridge CPU's blow anything AMD has away.
Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
- Status
Those benchmarks were for singleplayer. On 64 player multiplayer maps Sandybridge CPU's blow anything AMD has away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,217
- Location
- RG8 9
Got anything I can read regarding this? Just interested as holding off a CPU upgrade as what I have read previously.
ok show benchmarks of it please with avg framerates 
ive done the benchmarks myself in about every situation on bf3
fps difference is like a few fps in real world difference from a quad phenom to the highest oc intel .
a decent quad will still last you for atleast another year year and half yet easy.
ive done the benchmarks myself in about every situation on bf3
fps difference is like a few fps in real world difference from a quad phenom to the highest oc intel .
a decent quad will still last you for atleast another year year and half yet easy.
ok show benchmarks of it please with avg framerates
ive done the benchmarks myself in about every situation on bf3
fps difference is like a few fps in real world difference from a quad phenom to the highest oc intel .
a decent quad will still last you for atleast another year year and half yet easy.
Benchmarking multiplayer is not possible as there is no way to accurately keep the tests exact. It's been widely agreed on that 64 player is heavy on the CPU thus with Sandy being clock per clock much better than the Phenom 2's and also able to acheive higher overclocks it easily wins. Max framerate I agree the difference is maybe 10 fps max but minimum fps is greatly improved.
i said you may gain a small amount 5-10 fps max maybe but like said with a decent gpu overclock hed prbably get same or very close fps wise in bf3.
is it worth it for 3-5 fps difference ?
that is upto him
benchmarking is possible run fraps 1 minute run with same settings show min avg max . adjust cpu speed youll see not much difference to be honest in bf3
is it worth it for 3-5 fps difference ?
that is upto him
benchmarking is possible run fraps 1 minute run with same settings show min avg max . adjust cpu speed youll see not much difference to be honest in bf3
Last edited:
i said you may gain a small amount 5-10 fps max maybe but like said with a decent gpu overclock hed prbably get same or very close fps wise in bf3.
is it worth it for 3-5 fps difference ?
that is upto him
The rise in minimum fps alone is worth it. I've just upgraded last week and my phenom 2 was at 4.2ghz and still BF3 feels much smoother on my 2500k.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,875
- Location
- Hastings
I'd be very surprised if there is much difference in multiplayer between AMD - Intel.
I have run my 960T @ Quad 3ghz / 4ghz no noticable difference still runs smooth as silk.
@ Hex 3ghz / 4ghz no noticable difference.
I'm 80& confident that with the same GPU, I'd get the same FPS as intel boys.....
I have run my 960T @ Quad 3ghz / 4ghz no noticable difference still runs smooth as silk.
@ Hex 3ghz / 4ghz no noticable difference.
I'm 80& confident that with the same GPU, I'd get the same FPS as intel boys.....
in a couple of games you might say like skyrim but in bf3 nope
No in BF3 I have actually seen the biggest performance jump
especially in 64 players maps Does anyone actually SOFLAM, well yes they do, but it's usually the opposite team.
Whenver I get SOFLAM'ed and Javelin'ed I feel like I'm driving this.
And another addition, why does nobody repair anymore?
Since the patch it's got even worse. DICE sort it the hell out!
Whenver I get SOFLAM'ed and Javelin'ed I feel like I'm driving this.
And another addition, why does nobody repair anymore?
Since the patch it's got even worse. DICE sort it the hell out!
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,838
- Location
- Nottingham
lol
How are Dice responsible for the people you are playing with?
Me thinks you may need to find some new team mates....
Well I play on Pub Servers, none of my friends play Battlefield at all nowadays.
DICE are responsible because they nerfed the repair tool considerably, now it takes a good 1~2 minutes to get from 5% to 100% where as it only took half that pre-patch.
That in itself is a good thing. Having the repair tool work so quckly was stupid. I remember watching a ridiculous tank battle on Kharg where two tanks were slugging it out with each other at a range of only 100 metres or so, each one with an engineer stood behind repairing. This exchange of fire went on for almost two minutes and would have gone on indefinately if someone hadn't broken cover, sneaked around the back of one of them and killed the engineer.
That's the way it should be?
Seriously?
You think the ability to have infinite tank battles isn't completely ridiculous? You think a guy with a blowtorch should be able to repair damage more quickly than another tank can inflict it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,217
- Location
- RG8 9
You have a 2gb 5870 so I would keep it tbf. CPU will not make too much diffeence.
I myself only have a 1GB 5870 and I have just agreed with a deal with a mate to buy it for £90 so am probably going to get a 7850.
Need more VRAM.
If you're going to spend some cash, buy a second hand 7970. Some great bargains to be had at the moment.
Im currently running a user.cfg with the following set.
Renderdevice.forcerenderaheadlimit 1
renderdevice.triplebufferingenable 0
Game capped at 65fps, high settings, i did run it on ultra, with the fxaa injector, no msaa or post, currently on driver ver 301.24 beta with built in fxaa, never drops below 65fps much, but anytime ive used msaa i soon hit the vram limits of my gpu's. The above config file really helped though with the intense stuttering i was getting.
- Status