• 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.

Is my friend lying?

He didnt state which i3 it was, if it was the second gen I would have been happy with that.
But you said "BF3 aint dual-core friendly last time I checked". That's generalising, as dual-core would includes even the i3 2100, which is why I said it has nothing to do with the number of physical cores, but more to do with the speed/IPC of the CPUs.
 
It's very barely possible, I'd imagine he's probably telling the truth but embellishing the FPS figure a bit.

edit: just saw the i3 processor thing, I'd have to say no it's not possible at all. BF3 struggles on dual core processors and ultra is out of the question.
 
i'd say he's exaggerating fps a little. he might get around 20-30 most of the time with dips to lower than that. i doubt he's deliberately lying though. people tend to convince themselves that stuff they have is awesome, regardless of whether it is or not.
 
bf3 is a gpu dependant game .

any reasonable cpu will yield about same fps.

many benchmarks to prove it.


6870 = highish settings 40 ish fps with drops.

ultra probably about 25 fps ish
 
With your OC'd i7 920, though? He uses an i3 540. Surely this would make more than a 10fps difference at least?

If he's playing at 1920x1080 2xAA Ultra then it may not make a massive difference as the graphics card will be a major bottleneck.

Also in my experience when people say they are getting 35-40fps on slow hardware relative to settings what they actually mean is that when standing around doing nothing in an undemanding area they have 35fps. I suspect that their min fps is going to be more like 20 when it all kicks off.
 
ive just played bf3 @ 1080p all ultra on my 6990m which is equiv to a 6870, i got avg of 45+ fps. I must say though, the game is very dissapointing. i have an i7 2760qm though so that probably gives me an advantage regarding fps i also have 8gb ram
 
I'd say he's lying, a 6870 running on Ultra? I wouldn't have thought so.

I just ran this running the fraps benchmarks for 60 secs as requested. I deliberatley done the benchmark while in a heated battle. I used the settings in question apart from running @ 1920x1200 and my results were pretty interesting.

Frames : 2207
Time (ms) : 60000
Min : 33
Max : 45
Avg : 36

As you can see its definately playable. This bench was taken outdoors as well to make sure there was loads going on for the gpu to handle.

Was using 11.10 whql drivers.
 
Last edited:
I just ran this running the fraps benchmarks for 60 secs as requested. I deliberatley done the benchmark while in a heated battle. I used the settings in question apart from running @ 1920x1200 and my results were pretty interesting.

Frames : 2207
Time (ms) : 60000
Min : 33
Max : 45
Avg : 36

As you can see its definately playable. This bench was taken outdoors as well to make sure there was loads going on for the gpu to handle.

Wow, I didn't really expect them results lol :eek:
 
I figured i would do the same bit as before @1920x1200 full ultra settings without the 2xaa as it really makes no difference to the visuals. The results were pretty good.

Frames : 2715
Time (ms) : 60000
Min : 36
Max : 50
Avg : 45.25

So by taking the 2xaa away i gained 10 fps on the average. As i said above and has been said in reviews using 2xaa makes no difference to the visuals but makes a big difference in your fps.

I done a run through the same level with my card overclocked to 1000 core 1150 mem.

Frames : 2926
Time (ms) : 60000
Min : 45
Max : 54
Avg : 48.76

I gained 3.5 fps on my average which is not bad but my minimum shot up by 9 fps.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom