• 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.

** Single, Dual & Triple Card 7970 - BATTLEFIELD 3 - HIGH RESOLUTION BENCHMARKS **

707970.jpg

Scaling with 3 cards seems better on the 7970's, although lack of VRAM may be coming into play for the 1.5GB 580's.

edit: Scaling seems too good to be true for 3x 7970's. Adding the 3rd 7970 sees scaling of more than 60%, when the theoretical max should be 50% or less?
 
Last edited:
rjkoneill said:
server was 40/60
benchmarking was activated when I was around capture points so quite a similar action scenario on each run.

its impossible to be subjective without a proper time demo for the game but i did the best I could.

still have a bit of work to do with the 7970s before we test the 580s :)

and Cupra, you are not allowed to buy 7970s because I refuse to listen to you moaning about the drivers in vent :D
Click to expand...

the thing is rich

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
3829 60000 47 80 63.817

min is 47 fps
max is 80 fps
avg 63.817
thats sli 480's overclocked using the same settings as you running round getting blatted by tanks

we do need the 580 3gb comparison as without comparison in the same rig by the same person the benchmarks are usless

also i need to know what happens when u sit in a pile of smoke (u know i like my smoke nades as you do)

also if these are as good as there ment to be i shouldnt have driver issues all i play is bf3
 
Last edited:
Cupra said:
the thing is rich

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
3829 60000 47 80 63.817
thats sli 480's overclocked using the same settings as you running round getting blatted by tanks

we do need the 580 3gb comparison as without comparison in the same rig by the same person the benchmarks are usless

also i need to know what happens when u sit in a pile of smoke (u know i like my smoke nades as you do)
Click to expand...

Overclocking skews the whole thing. Understand you're getting basically same FPS as the 7970's CF'd @ stock, but who knows what overclocking those beasties might give us. Appreciate the numbers though, and agree we need the GTX 580 3GB comparison.
 
Code: 
Frames	 Time (ms)	 Min	 Max	 Avg
3829	60000	         47      80	 63.817

exact same settings, map time demo and rich.

SLI 480's at 890core and 2.1 memory.

Intel i7 970 @ 4.3ghz.
 
DamoTourettes said:
Overclocking skews the whole thing. Understand you're getting basically same FPS as the 7970's CF'd @ stock, but who knows what overclocking those beasties might give us. Appreciate the numbers though, and agree we need the GTX 580 3GB comparison.
Click to expand...

rich had the cards overclocked there not stock?
 
cards were at

1100 core
1450 on the mem

these are a smidge above stock tbh. not put them higher. grand scheme of things? this will make about 2-3fps difference.

580 3GB edition comparison coming tomorrow
 
IMO thats a bit dissapointing @ 1080p

For 120FPS average (assuming perfect scaling) i'd need tri-fire. :-(
 
555BUK said:


edit: Scaling seems too good to be true for 3x 7970's. Adding the 3rd 7970 sees scaling of more than 60%, when the theoretical max should be 50% or less?[/QUOTE]

Indeed should be 90fps with 3 cards, but you never know, 3 cards may of overcome some other bottlenecks and i have had that scaling phenomenon with 3x3870 in GRID.
Click to expand...
 
Final8y said:
Indeed should be 90fps with 3 cards, but you never know, 3 cards may of overcome some other bottlenecks and i have had that scaling phenomenon with 3x3870 in GRID.
Click to expand...
More likely that 3 cards or driver bug disables or reduces some of the graphical affects, resulting in scewed results.
 
Last edited:
Using the same ultra settings as the original post with 470's in sli oc'd at 750/1500/1674, res at 1920x1200. I was getting the following.

2011-12-29 14:31:37 - bf3
Frames: 3825 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 63.750 - Min: 47 - Max: 79

2011-12-29 14:34:38 - bf3
Frames: 2565 - Time: 39983ms - Avg: 64.152 - Min: 60 - Max: 70

2011-12-29 14:42:53 - bf3
Frames: 4297 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 71.617 - Min: 60 - Max: 87

Vram usage maxed at 1263mb, so i wouldnt envisage running 2560 res on 470's with ultra settings, they simply lack the vram. Even at 1920x1200 the game felt choppy. Benches above were ran on a 64 player server with 57 players in game.
 
There is no way that 3 cards in x-fire should produce >3x fps than that of a single card. With one 7970 producing 33fps, and two cards 63fps, how can 3 cards equal 104fps without a driver bug of test error?
 
555BUK said:
You need both sets of cards at stock to be totally subjective. Either this, or overclock both by the same percentage.
Click to expand...

Well, overclockability is a feature of the GPU - so a 'fair' comparison would be either to have both cards at stock, or to compare scores using the maximum stable overclock. From an end-user perspective anyway.
 
555BUK said:
There is no way that 3 cards in x-fire should produce >3x fps than that of a single card. With one 7970 producing 33fps, and two cards 63fps, how can 3 cards equal 104fps without a driver bug of test error?
Click to expand...

More time between rendering for each card you add can sometimes give you better scaling if there is a bottleneck somewhere holding up the GPU.

On GRID i had 10fps 30fps 80fps on some settings at 2560x1600 going from 1-3 cards 3870.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom