• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Battlefield 3 total system resource benchmarks.

ALXAndy

ALXAndy

ALXAndy

Soldato
Joined
23 Apr 2010
Posts
12,175
Location
West Sussex
OK. So since people are again arguing over the importance/unimportance of vram I figured I would run some tests.

These are not just benchmarks, but, a complete overview of what a system does when Battlefield 3 is running. This includes -

GPU usage.

CPU usage.

Memory usage.

Paging memory usage, and the variables with it enabled/disabled.

I mentioned in a thread before that my GTX 470 was not good enough to run Battlefield 3 at the highest settings. The first issue I had was my paging file. I had disabled it to free up space on the 60gb SSD I was using at that time. When I first tried to play Battlefield 3 it crashed giving a paging error.

Now of course, by this time I had forgotten all about the paging file as it had been months since I did it. Quick Google search turned up the problem, the game was trying to page from my virtual memory and was not getting any.

Did that mean I had run out of physical memory? or, had it used all 9gb of my ram and tried to use the paging file also?

Well, the simple answer is no. Battlefield 3 will use your paging file when it runs out of vram. It will not at any time use your physical memory for the same purpose, and today I ran tests to confirm that.

Today's tests were based around the following hardware.

Intel I7 950 @ stock.
6gb 1600mhz DDR3 triple channel.
Corsair Force II 120gb SSD.
Resolution on monitor - 1920x1080.
7970@ stock.
Windows 7 Ultimate X64.

The settings used in the game were as follows.

settings-1.jpg


I chose those settings as they seem to be the ones that cause the most problems, and, lead to the vram argument/dispute in the first place.

So, let's get some scores out. This is based on Operation Swordbreaker (car park) 90 second FRAPS benchmark.

Run one. Paging file enabled.

MIN - 38 FPS

AVG - 52.333 FPS

MAX - 70 FPS

CPU usage (please note, this was only recording for maximum usage)

cpuusage.jpg


Physical ram usage

memoryusage.jpg


Vram usage - 1585mb

So, the game is only using around 50% of the memory in the computer. Funny, as when recommending memory I see people saying that you must have 8gb all the time. I have also seen plenty of people suggesting that BF3 will use up to 8gb also. As I suspected it does not.

OK. This second test is the more important one. Quite simply because I know for absolute certainty that Battlefield 3 will crash and give a paging error if the paging file is disabled in the same system, with the same hardware, running on a 1280mb GTX 470.

So the obvious test was to disable the paging file and see if I could cause the same crash. I disabled my paging file by going to the virtual memory settings here.

virtualmemory.jpg


I then ran the same tests, on the same level, using the same hardware monitoring. The results are, let's say, very interesting indeed.

Run two. Paging file disabled.

MIN - 45 FPS

AVG - 57.156

MAX - 79

CPU usage.

cpuusagedisabled.jpg


Physical ram usage.

memoryusagedisabled.jpg


Vram usage - 1785mb

Hmm ! how strange ! Suddenly we see there were no paging errors. Even more strangely we see FPS improve across the board, with pretty much exactly the same CPU usage and physical memory usage !

But how can this be? Well, put simply in a way that every one can understand, the game can not use the paging file if it is not there.

Please try to remember this is a single player map. And it's only a small square car park with some cars in.

So why are the FPS counts higher in the run with no paging file, and why no paging file error?

Put simply the game is no longer using the paging file. I would imagine with it enabled the game uses it no matter how much vram you have. It looks like a set percentage to me in the game code, just to make sure that *most* of the textures are being loaded into vram, but with a certain percentage being laid off into the paging file just to make sure there is no memory overflow stack error.

Basically what I am saying is this. When you disable the paging file and run BF3 you do so purely based on the vram you have on your GPU. If that vram runs out (which it didn't for me, and it wouldn't either unless it uses more than 3gb at peak) then it begins to use the percentage it has allocated in your paging file.

Disable that paging file however AND run out of vram?

Your game will simply crash. So, as far as I am aware that pretty much takes care of that. With the paging file enabled we see lower vram usage and lower FPS. With it disabled we see higher vram usage and higher FPS.

Coincidence? NAH.
 
I would obviously like to see these tests performed on more cards.

Most importantly - 1280mb cards. Would be interested to see if they run out of vram and crash with the paging file disabled.

Would also be very interested to see what the GTX 680 does in both scenarios. Obviously with the game liking faster CPUs the scores will be higher than mine would ever be if you had a new CPU, but would be very interested to see how much faster the game runs with paging disabled.

Edit. I should add that the error you will get when you have your paging file disabled and run out of vram will be a Windows low memory error. It may or may not point to a paging file error.

As an example, though, and where I started to discover that BF3 was eating vram was a post my friend made ages ago. He does post on this forum, so I haven't edited out his name. I have edited out the guy he was speaking to though, and any rude words (we don't have moderators on our local forum).

Basically a few chaps I know were switching to SSDs, and we were talking about how to free up loads of space on them by disabling certain Windows functions like hiberfil ETC.

Echo (who goes under the same name on here) disabled his paging file in 2009. He posted before BF3 came out with this.

echo1.jpg


Note. Echo runs a 5870 1gb. After BF3 came out he returned to the thread and posted this.

echo2-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hmmm interesting observation. I think I will try that although I have 1GB 5850 and play on high settings with few tweaks (shadow medium, motion blur, ambient occlusion disabled) at 1080p res.

Btw How to bing up that virtual memory tab? :o

AlxAndy can you please do similar test on caspian border 64 player as you have beefy setup compared to mine ([email protected], 1GB 5850, 4GB ram)
 
Respect to you for doing the tests, you are taking the argument very seriously, and good for you.

So you are saying if I run this test at same settings with my 1280MB card and paging file disabled I will crash to desktop?
So the paging file is filling in for my card when it runs out of vram correct?
Its interesting you get a FPS boost by disabling the paging file though, looks like poor optimisation to me.
 
psychodil said:
Respect to you for doing the tests, you are taking the argument very seriously, and good for you.

So you are saying if I run this test at same settings with my 1280MB card and paging file disabled I will crash to desktop?
So the paging file is filling in for my card when it runs out of vram correct?
Its interesting you get a FPS boost by disabling the paging file though, looks like poor optimisation to me.
Click to expand...

You will get a BF3 Appcrash (you've probably seen that one a few times before, being that the game has needed constant patching !) and a yellow ! window pop up in the bottom right corner of your screen, warning you that you are low on memory.

But, as we have clearly seen, BF3 does not even use anywhere near to 6gb. Max usage showed around 4gb. Thus, as we know (well, those of us who understand it) BF3 DOES NOT cache from your physical memory when you run out of vram. It caches from your paging file.

So, I would like to see some one stand up and tell me that caching from a hard drive is ideal, and won't hurt performance.

Because AFAIK a SSD is a lot faster than a hard drive, physical ram is a lot faster than an SSD, and Vram is faster than all of them, by a long chalk.

If any one wanted an explanation of how this caching relates back to the game? no worries.

FPS show playable levels. However, delays between you (the keyboard and mouse) soon become evident. Aiming the sniper rifle in the hostage shopping mall level for example is a nightmare on a GTX 470. It just totally ruins the game, making sure that your accuracy goes to pot.
 
Might be able to test it for you tonight on my gtx 570 if I can ship the mrs. and my little boy off to bed at a reasonable hour. I'll tell her she looks tired or something :-)
 
WingZero30 said:
Hmmm interesting observation. I think I will try that although I have 1GB 5850 and play on high settings with few tweaks (shadow medium, motion blur, ambient occlusion disabled) at 1080p res.

Btw How to bing up that virtual memory tab? :o

AlxAndy can you please do similar test on caspian border 64 player as you have beefy setup compared to mine ([email protected], 1GB 5850, 4GB ram)
Click to expand...

Type "Virtual memory" in your search bar and a help file will pop up explaining how to do it :)

I don't play MP mate. TBH I don't even really play Bf3 at all. I play L4D2 in co op as my main game, and play for around 5 hours a week with friends. We've got a troop going, and play all of the 3rd party campaigns :)
 
Good test tnx!
Interesting results.

But ur tests raises more questions than it anwsers.

So ur saying that extra textures that go over your video ram limit go into page file?

Why page file? It should be main ram.

Also second run uses 200MB extra video ram. Which is strange...
 
homeless.hobo said:
Good test tnx!
Interesting results.

But ur tests raises more questions than it anwsers.

So ur saying that extra textures that go over your video ram limit go into page file?

Why page file? It should be main ram.

Also second run uses 200MB extra video ram. Which is strange...
Click to expand...

If your system runs out of memory it will crash. Either that, or a long pause whilst it clears the ram and loads in the next set of instructions. THAT is how a CPU/memory work. The more cache you have on the die of your CPU the faster in theory your CPU can pick off, set up, and execute instructions.

This became so much better when the cache was no longer running at a set speed. IE - on say, a Pentium 3 the cache ran at 133mhz (as an example) and the CPU @ say, 600mhz. With the introduction of the Xeon however the cache was full speed. Cache memory however? the price would make your eyes water mate. That's why you get like 16mb a core on a high end server part.

Thus, as of right now (and not bringing up the argument again !) the 680 is going to be very clever with BF3. Why? because, the drivers for the 680 allow it to cache physical memory in the event that it runs short of vram. This is, let's say, far from ideal. However, it beats a hard drive any day !

*THAT* is probably why Nvidia only put 2gb on the 680. However, one day in the future (could even be three years from now) there could come a game that will highlight the shortcomings and thus, the 7970 will perform FAR BETTER in that game.

I know guys who bought the 2gb toxxic version of the 5870, and they have reported no problems whatsoever in BF3. You will also note the distinct lack of those cards for sale, or the 4gb 5970s.

If BF3 was to use your system memory instead of paging it could end up with you running out of memory. Remember : not every one has 8gb or even 16gb+ in their PC ! Windows has to have a suggested spec list, IIRC it's like 1gb ram for X86.

I personally ran a gaming rig with 2gb in it a while back and never saw any issues. Thus, when a game is coded it needs to be coded to remain within acceptable limits (allowing for apps and proggys to run under it without causing a memory stack overload).

Memory stack overload? basically when an application uses more than the ram it has and can't get it elsewhere. It will basically crash the computer it runs on. Not just the game, but the whole computer will become unstable.

Is 3gb overkill? yes. Right now it is. However, given that we have seen how BF3 operates it is clear that the more the merrier with vram and BF3.

I do believe that BF3 looks at how much vram you have, then allows a percentage of cached hard drive paging file to be used on top, just to make sure it has enough space to load in what it needs to. Disable it though?

That is why vram usage is higher with it disabled. As it now needs to load everything into the vram with no buffer. Thus, if you disable it with a card that doesn't carry enough vram to run the game and all of the textures it will simply crash to desktop, and Windows will give you a low memory warning.
 
One correction - no one on this forum has once said that BF3 uses up 8 Gb system ram, they said it used around 4.5 Gb physical ram plus caching on top.

Its advisable to also have a full 1 Gb extra on top of program and caching use for Windows 7.

That makes 6-8 Gb recommended, not that you need all that for a single game.

When I had 24 Gb ram installed, within a few hours of using my PC windows would have filled all of it up with caching, but it was still slower than 12 Gb of faster ram.

Same issue with 12 Gb, windows will manage to fill it up with caching.

Same issue with Vram, windows will manage to fill it up with caching.

None of this supports the Vram argument, all it shows is that Windows will try to fill up all available memory with caching if it can, something that plenty of people already knew long before you only just discovered this today.

And you still have an unhealthy obsession with BF3 and trying to make up nothing but complete BS again and again to defame the GTX 680. Nice trick, but everything you have shown in this this thread is not a negative for the GTX 680.

Graphics cards have cached Vram data to the physical memory for many generations now, this is exactly why cards with lower Vram manage to not crash or lag in better optimized games when their Vram limit is exceeded.
 
Last edited:
Andy,

If you want to see more numbers, have a 1GB 5850 here which I can plug into my main rig and bench against.

Gulf Of Oman 64 Player looks like a good test.

Maybe 90 seconds is too short though ?
 
kmax86 said:
good read. i wonder if it will definitely happen to my 4870 512mb
i might try this for fun :D
Click to expand...

I can absolutely guarantee it. Please be sure to take a screenshot too.

The game will run on your card with it enabled, DICE have made sure of that. It just won't run very well at all, given that it will be chewing up the page file.

Disable the page file? I absolutely assure you it will CTD and give you a Windows low memory warning.
 
Besty said:
Andy,

If you want to see more numbers, have a 1GB 5850 here which I can plug into my main rig and bench against.

Gulf Of Oman 64 Player looks like a good test.

Maybe 90 seconds is too short though ?
Click to expand...

90 seconds is enough tbh. Please, if you're using a different level, make sure you bench using both settings for the paging file.

However, I strongly suspect that with it disabled (especially in a heavy map like that) you will most certainly crash to desktop with a low memory warning.

I guess it depends on whether you can make it use that much vram in 90 seconds. It isn't hard with BF3 :D

Also, your GPU will only show 1000mb being used as that's all it has. I would be interested to see though if Afterburner shows more, because if it does then I suspect that the caching is happening at a driver level, and not with BF3.

As I mentioned, Nvidia have come up with a way to let the card cache physical ram. Which whilst less than ideal beats a page file hands down any day :)

So, another answer can be gained from you running the test, simply by looking at your vram usage in GPUZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom