BF3 @ 2560x1600 Ultra Preset Multiplayer FAIL

J

jpongin

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
143
Well, I'm playing on the Dell Ultra Sharp U3011. I have the 2600K, 8GB Dominators, and GTX 590 Quad SLIs (all stock speed - 285.62 drivers). I specifically built this rig for BF3 just two weeks ago - http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1646299

And guess what?

BF3 is not playable in 64/64 multiplayer in Ultra Settings preset on ANY map at 2560x1600. None, nada, ZIP. Unplayable. There's no network lag or anything like that. The four GTX 590 GPUs just struggle to render those damn frames at 2560x1600 on any multiplayer server with more than 50 players.

It's perfectly smooth in campaign mode, but who the hell plays BF3 in campaign mode? It's also butter smooth at ANY lower resolution. If you crank the resolution one notch down, it's very smooth.

The only way I'm able to play it at 2560x1600 on the "Ultra Settings" pre-set, is if I switch to "Custom", and then crank down the deferred antialiasing down to 2x instead of the 4x. 4x will kill at 2560x1600 even with the second most powerful Quad SLI setup. Even at 2x, it's only playable 90% of the time when you're not in a "dense" firefight.

The only way to play 2560x1600 at Ultra Settings is if you completely turn off "deferred antialiasing". Then it's constantly at 60FPS (0 frame drop) in any multiplayer situation. But this SUCKS - how can Quad GTX 590's not handle deferred antialiasing for BF3 at 2560x1600 in a 64/64 person server with Ultra settings?

I'd like to know if anyone has been able to keep BF3 above 60FPS (constant) @ 2560x1600 Ultra Preset in 64/64 Multiplayer. If so, I'd LOVE to know what you're running.

Should I have gone with the X58 chipset? GTX 580 Quad SLI's instead? AMD 6990 Crossfire? I have no idea. I honestly thought the GTX 590 Quad SLIs would handle it, but I was oh so wrong.
 
I would venture a guess that there is poor quad support. I think going 3 x 580 3gb would be the better choice or just 2x580 3gb.

It's a nice rig you have thought.
 
Drivers/poor quad support as mentioned above are my best guess.

You make me glad I went with 1080p at 120hz. :cool:
 
Any waythat you can disable 1 card and have 3 active and 1 for physx or just off. Then see how it plays
 
really? I'm running overclocked SLI 580 3gb, i72600k, 8gb ram, asrock extreme4 gen3 motherboard on a dell U2711 monitor ...so 2560x1440 ultra all settings and 2xmsaa (do you really need any more when running such high resolutions?)....and on multiplayer 64 player I dont go below 60 fps ever...smooth as.

gotta be something up?

EDIT: even on 4xaa it still runs good
 
Last edited:
really? I'm running overclocked SLI 580 3gb, i72600k, 8gb ram, asrock extreme4 gen3 motherboard on a dell U2711 monitor ...so 2560x1440 ultra all settings and 2xmsaa (do you really need any more when running such high resolutions?)....and on multiplayer 64 player I dont go below 60 fps ever...smooth as.

gotta be something up?

EDIT: even on 4xaa it still runs good
Click to expand...

2560x1440 runs GREAT for me too at Ultra Settings Preset - SUPER smooth. It's just when I crank it to my *native* resolution, it just becomes unplayable.

you are hitting the v-ram bottleneck with those cards, shoulda did more research brah. sli gtx580 3gb ftw.
Click to expand...

I thought that too. But if this is the case, then I'd like to hear from any GTX 580 3GB SLI owners who are running BF3 @ Ultra Settings Preset playing in a full 64/64 multiplayer server @ 2560x1600 and getting constant smooth gameplay. If so, I may need to sell my GTX 590s!
 
I know that you are hitting a vram bottleneck. You can hit 2.5gb vram usage at that resolution.

Hell, I saw my 480gtx hit 1.5 usage and lag at 1920x1440.
 
I know that you are hitting a vram bottleneck. You can hit 2.5gb vram usage at that resolution.

Hell, I saw my 480gtx hit 1.5 usage and lag at 1920x1440.
Click to expand...

Wow. What utility are you using to measure vram usage? I'll run some experiments tomorrow to conclude.
 
You need the 3gb 580s. 2 should be enough really. 3 at the most.

The 590s are neat but crippled. Maybe some serious driver optimization will happen and resolve this issue but......
 
I think it will still hit the ceiling w/ 2XMSAA. Really though, try playing with AA on and off and see what the difference is. At that resolution, you don't really need AA. At 2048X1536, my max res, I turn it off and don't notice the difference b/w it being on at 2 X msaa and off. Well, the fps is better and the game runs smoother. I just don't see a perceptible change in image quality. This is with a Sony G500 22" Crt btw.
 
uh.... the game was designed around the idea that you'd have a minimum of 1.5gb of vram at 1080p to get ultra settings around 60fps.

You seriously upped the resolution but not your vram? That was a bad choice on your part. Your cards are getting killed because of the vram bottleneck.
 
yea i was going to say it sounds like your running out of VRAM . my 1GB 560 Ti's in SLI will do the same thing you describe but at 1920 x 1080 for this very reason.
 
The guys that decided to show total VRAM over actual usable vram should be shot. It really throws people for a loop when they have a 3GB 590 and VRAM issues because they should advertise it as 1.5 GB usable not 3GB.

Question:
ASUS MARS II/2DIS/3GD5 GeForce GTX 580 x2 (Fermi) 3072MB 384-bit x2

Does this state there are 3GB 384-bit vram for each gpu on the card for 6GB of vram? Could it be saying there are two 384bit lanes to 1.5GB memory for each GPU? Pretty confusing for a product with a $1500 price tag.
 
noteworthy said:
The guys that decided to show total VRAM over actual usable vram should be shot. It really throws people for a loop when they have a 3GB 590 and VRAM issues because they should advertise it as 1.5 GB usable not 3GB.

Question:
ASUS MARS II/2DIS/3GD5 GeForce GTX 580 x2 (Fermi) 3072MB 384-bit x2

Does this state there are 3GB 384-bit vram for each gpu on the card for 6GB of vram? Could it be saying there are two 384bit lanes to 1.5GB memory for each GPU? Pretty confusing for a product with a $1500 price tag.
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, if you are going to lay out $1500 for a video card, you should probably do some research first.
 
I play ultra settings on my 30"... I just disabled AA because of the performance hit as well and at this resolution, I don't even notice it. The game is too fast paced for me to enjoy the scenery.
 
Nephren-Ka said:
(do you really need any more when running such high resolutions?)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. 2x MSAA at 2560x1440 on a 27" hardly makes a difference to the jaggies everywhere on brush and fences. Looking to go for a 6990 myself to turn up MSAA.
 
Quad SLI has very limited support. Even if i had the cash, i wouldnt go Quad with two 590s.
I run maxed setting at 1920 x 1200 and typicaly above 70+ fps. I use AIDA64 to monitor my vram. I only have 1.5gb available. My bet is if you got two 3gb 580s, instead of the 590, you would be fine.
 
jpongin said:
I'd like to know if anyone has been able to keep BF3 above 60FPS (constant) @ 2560x1600 Ultra Preset in 64/64 Multiplayer. If so, I'd LOVE to know what you're running.
Click to expand...
rig in sig, 80fps constant in eyefinity with 2x msaa and everything else @ ultra. fxaa is low (high is too blurry for me) and no motion blur.
about 100fps @ 2560x1600 as well.
 
Ankle said:
Absolutely. 2x MSAA at 2560x1440 on a 27" hardly makes a difference to the jaggies everywhere on brush and fences. Looking to go for a 6990 myself to turn up MSAA.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go for AMD cards if you want to run MSAA, particularly at that resolution. They take such a performance hit it's ridiculous. I'm happy with dual 6970s, but I keep MSAA off. Very off.
 
2x 6950 flashed to 6970s and I run everything maxed out at 2560x1600 except for AA and get 60fps 95% of the time.
 
XpediencY said:
I play ultra settings on my 30"... I just disabled AA because of the performance hit as well and at this resolution, I don't even notice it. The game is too fast paced for me to enjoy the scenery.
Click to expand...
This. My single 590 blasts thru BF3 at 2560x1600 at Ultra...just disable deferred AA and run post. Deferred AA is a completely unnecessary (at 2560x1600) resource hog.
 
jpongin said:
Well, I'm playing on the Dell Ultra Sharp U3011. I have the 2600K, 8GB Dominators, and GTX 590 Quad SLIs (all stock speed - 285.62 drivers). I specifically built this rig for BF3 just two weeks ago - http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1646299

And guess what?

BF3 is not playable in 64/64 multiplayer in Ultra Settings preset on ANY map at 2560x1600. None, nada, ZIP. Unplayable. There's no network lag or anything like that. The four GTX 590 GPUs just struggle to render those damn frames at 2560x1600 on any multiplayer server with more than 50 players.

It's perfectly smooth in campaign mode, but who the hell plays BF3 in campaign mode? It's also butter smooth at ANY lower resolution. If you crank the resolution one notch down, it's very smooth.

The only way I'm able to play it at 2560x1600 on the "Ultra Settings" pre-set, is if I switch to "Custom", and then crank down the deferred antialiasing down to 2x instead of the 4x. 4x will kill at 2560x1600 even with the second most powerful Quad SLI setup. Even at 2x, it's only playable 90% of the time when you're not in a "dense" firefight.

The only way to play 2560x1600 at Ultra Settings is if you completely turn off "deferred antialiasing". Then it's constantly at 60FPS (0 frame drop) in any multiplayer situation. But this SUCKS - how can Quad GTX 590's not handle deferred antialiasing for BF3 at 2560x1600 in a 64/64 person server with Ultra settings?

I'd like to know if anyone has been able to keep BF3 above 60FPS (constant) @ 2560x1600 Ultra Preset in 64/64 Multiplayer. If so, I'd LOVE to know what you're running.

Should I have gone with the X58 chipset? GTX 580 Quad SLI's instead? AMD 6990 Crossfire? I have no idea. I honestly thought the GTX 590 Quad SLIs would handle it, but I was oh so wrong.
Click to expand...

It could be either:

a.) very poor quad fire support at the moment. (driver update)
b.) you've reached the VRAM limitation.

As a person who is currently gaming at 2560x1600 it's painfully obvious my 1GB video card is hurting me. Turning off AA helps but I need atleast a 2GB card.

I really don't know what your next step will be. The next gen cards are around the corner and will probably give you a nice jump in performance in BF3. Or you can play without some bells and whistles. It's almost painful to read how a quad setup like yours isn't provinding what you expected.
 
be advised, system is overkill and underkill at the same time


vram makes the game go vroom
 
I play 2560x1600 on a single 6950 set to 6970, with no AA and blur/hbao disabled most settings ultra some at high. 45+ fps all teh time, plays amazing.
 
noteworthy said:
The guys that decided to show total VRAM over actual usable vram should be shot. It really throws people for a loop when they have a 3GB 590 and VRAM issues because they should advertise it as 1.5 GB usable not 3GB.

Question:
ASUS MARS II/2DIS/3GD5 GeForce GTX 580 x2 (Fermi) 3072MB 384-bit x2

Does this state there are 3GB 384-bit vram for each gpu on the card for 6GB of vram? Could it be saying there are two 384bit lanes to 1.5GB memory for each GPU? Pretty confusing for a product with a $1500 price tag.
Click to expand...

The people who bought a MARS II don't even use it. It's in a glass display case. :p
 
really? I'm running overclocked SLI 580 3gb, i72600k, 8gb ram, asrock extreme4 gen3 motherboard on a dell U2711 monitor ...so 2560x1440 ultra all settings and 2xmsaa (do you really need any more when running such high resolutions?)....and on multiplayer 64 player I dont go below 60 fps ever...smooth as.

gotta be something up?

EDIT: even on 4xaa it still runs good
Click to expand...

Yes, I run at 2560x1440 just fine in Ultra Settings Preset in multiplayer as well, it's just when you bump it up to 2650x1600 it's unplayable. It does matter because games are best played at native resolution for the cripiest images.

you are hitting the v-ram bottleneck with those cards, sli gtx580 3gb ftw.

"the 3GB of GDDR5 memory is split between the two GPUs, so each GPU can still only address 1.5GB" <---taken from here http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...0-3gb-review/2

and i don't get it, why were you raving on your build thread about how awesome BF3 ran?
Click to expand...

Immediately after my build, the first thing I did was install BF3 and played the first mission (with Ultra Settings Presets) - and it's amazingly smooth as a single player. I then hopped on a server and assumed that the video settings carried through (it did not). It was set on "auto" (which was not full Ultra). It was very smooth, until I really questioned two maps - Firestorm and Kharg where even with FXAA there were slight jaggies as I was sniping. I wondered why these jaggies were there (even though they were slight), and to my surprise, I found that I wasn't running at Ultra Settings Preset. Once I changed that, that's when this whole investigation started.

I think it will still hit the ceiling w/ 2XMSAA. Really though, try playing with AA on and off and see what the difference is. At that resolution, you don't really need AA. At 2048X1536, my max res, I turn it off and don't notice the difference b/w it being on at 2 X msaa and off. Well, the fps is better and the game runs smoother. I just don't see a perceptible change in image quality. This is with a Sony G500 22" Crt btw.
Click to expand...

You'd really need to play it on a native 30" @ 2560x1600 to understand. At those resolutions, every little detail and flaw pops out. At least for me it does. Kharg, Firestorm, Bazaar, and Caspian are the maps that really come to mind when Ultra Settings on a native 30" really make a difference because the map has so many places where enemies cover behind pipes and other vertical structures.

I play ultra settings on my 30"... I just disabled AA because of the performance hit as well and at this resolution, I don't even notice it. The game is too fast paced for me to enjoy the scenery.
Click to expand...

MSAA at 4x + FXAA on HIGH really make a difference on Kharg, Firestorm, Caspian, and Bazaar. Just try it, and see for yourself.

rig in sig, 80fps constant in eyefinity with 2x msaa and everything else @ ultra. fxaa is low (high is too blurry for me) and no motion blur.
about 100fps @ 2560x1600 as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, I've spoken with a few people, and it *feels* like a combination of VRAM and driver issue. No one I spoke with so far will play BF3 multiplayer at Ultra Settings preset with 4x MSAA @ 2560x1600 becauses it simply cannot run it smoothly. I'm also assuming anyone with a 30" native res is playing with VSync on (the image tear is magnified at that res and it's super ugly).

This. My single 590 blasts thru BF3 at 2560x1600 at Ultra...just disable deferred AA and run post. Deferred AA is a completely unnecessary (at 2560x1600) resource hog.
Click to expand...

I disagree. At 2560 x 1600, HIGH FXAA + 4x MSAA makes Firestorm, Kharg, Caspian, and Bazaar SO MUCH better. . . especially Firestorm. It's so much easier to spot enemies hiding behind the pipes from a distance.

I really don't know what your next step will be. The next gen cards are around the corner and will probably give you a nice jump in performance in BF3. Or you can play without some bells and whistles. It's almost painful to read how a quad setup like yours isn't provinding what you expected.
Click to expand...

You and me both! I thought NVidia's top line cards would take care of this - especially in Quad setup.
 
Like everyone else says, you're hitting the VRAM cap. I'm running two 3GB 580s in SLI at 5970x1200 with some tweaks and I'm consistently over 1.5GB. VRAM consumption is 1.5-2.5GB

You chose the wrong cards for your setup.
 
So I ran some Single Player experiments and it's conclusive that VRAM is maxed at Ultra Settings Preset. The three biggest suspects are:
1) Resolution
2) MSAA
3) Ambient Occlusion

It's a zero sum game with those three settings - if you want MSAA, you need to lower your resolution and/or ambient occlusion. If you want Resolution, then you need to crank down your MSAA or ambient occlusion. The biggest factor, just as in [H]'s BF3 performance review is MSAA. VERY VRAM expensive.

So now the issue is: Memory Management. Can NVidia optimize memory management by clearing the addresses of ALL immediate unused references to make room for the next frame? Can 4 GPUs help make that process go faster? One would think so.

Here were my results (VRAM was taken as a rough average)

SINGLE PLAYER VRAM EXPERIMENT

Swordbreaker - APC and Sniper Scene - 4x MSAA + HIGH FXAA - LOW SETTINGS (max motion blur + VSync ON)
SMOOTH at no drops below 60FPS
MEM1: 1360
MEM2: 1360
MEM3: 1360
MEM4: 1360

Swordbreaker - APC and Sniper Scene - 4x MSAA + HIGH FXAA - MEDIUM SETTINGS (max motion blur + VSync ON)
SMOOTH at no drops below 60FPS
MEM1: 1405
MEM2: 1405
MEM3: 1405
MEM4: 1405

Swordbreaker - APC and Sniper Scene - 4x MSAA + HIGH FXAA - HIGH SETTINGS (max motion blur + VSync ON)
VERY LAGGY not playable. VRAM is maxed. ~23FPS
MEM1: 1525
MEM2: 1525
MEM3: 1525
MEM4: 1525

Swordbreaker - APC deployment and Sniper Scene - 4x MSAA + HIGH FXAA - ULTRA (max motion blur + VSync ON)
VERY LAGGY not playable. VRAM is maxed. ~23FPS
MEM1: 1530
MEM2: 1530
MEM3: 1530
MEM4: 1530

Swordbreaker - APC and Sniper Scene - 2x MSAA + HIGH FXAA - ULTRA SETTINGS (max motion blur + VSync ON)
SMOOTH at no drops below 60FPS
MEM1: 1400
MEM2: 1400
MEM3: 1400
MEM4: 1400

Swordbreaker - APC and Sniper Scene - NO MSAA + HIGH FXAA - ULTRA SETTINGS (max motion blur + VSync ON)
SMOOTH at no drops below 60FPS
MEM1: 1360
MEM2: 1360
MEM3: 1360
MEM4: 1360
 
Your best option is to sell the two 590s.

Buy two EVGA 580 3GB Hydro Classifieds and be happy. If that isn't enough add a third.
 
Okay, after some SLI technology research, I've concluded these points:

1) SLI works as a master / slave pattern. The master sends frames ( or part of a frame depending on if you're using split or alternate methods ) to the slaves to render. When the slaves are finished rendering the frames, it then sends the results back to the master, the master then sorts everything out and outputs it to the screen, and then the process repeats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Link_Interface

2) According to NVidia, each GPU manages it's own frame buffer memory (VRAM). There really is no "mirroring" ( as mirroring implies replication - which would be ridiculous ). So GPU1 uses MEM1, GPU2 uses MEM2, GPU3 uses MEM3, GPU4 uses MEM4, and so on. MEM1 does not replicate or mirror across MEM2, MEM3, and MEM4. That wouldn't make sense. http://www.slizone.com/page/slizone_faq.html#c26

So if QUAD SLI cannot smoothly run BF3 @ 2560 x 1600 at Ultra Settings Preset at the native 60Hz refresh rate ( constant 60FPS ), what it means is 1 GPU with a 1.5GB frame memory buffer is struggling to render @ an effective 15FPS.

To really conclude this, I'm going to run these settings with SLI disabled. If the hypothesis holds, I should see one GPU handling BF3 with these settings at around 10-12 FPS with VRAM maxed. If it's higher, then the processing overhead can be attributed to the scaling costs of communication / processing between the master and the three slaves.
 
I'd sell your 590s. Buy an evga card, take advantage of their trade up program, and get a couple 600 series cards. Question is can you run lower settings till feb? If not get a couple 580s with 3gb VRAM and rock out with your smock out???
 
Stupid_Newbie said:
I'd sell your 590s. Buy an evga card, take advantage of their trade up program, and get a couple 600 series cards. Question is can you run lower settings till feb? If not get a couple 580s with 3gb VRAM and rock out with your smock out???
Click to expand...
I would strongly consider this. This option gives you the ability to upgrade later at a reduced cost if you are not satisfied with your performance. It also allows you to sell your 590's now while they still have more value as when the 600 come out they will go down. It might be cheaper to wait in the long run but then you have to deal with the lack of performance for that amount of time and decide if that is worth it to you. If I was in your your position I would spend a while weighing your options as you don't have one right answer. Also I would at least consider playing with the lower settings for at least a week and see if you can even tell the difference. If you can then make a change. If not, stick with what you have and save yourself some cash. I cant tell you what you think looks better, neither can anyone else here, only you can.
 
Evga Setup Program does not include larger vram models, only base models. So if their next generation has for reference design 2GB you still could be limited on extremely high resolutions with AA enabled. Plus there is a window of 90 days, are the cards going to be released by February 20th for certain?

His cards cost $750 each, plus a $100 waterblock. Evga Hydro Classified 580 3GB costs $730 with a block and could be overclocked pretty crazy. Not as fast as the quad sli but it could get close. Vram would also not be an issue. Pretty much an even trade cost wise for less gpu power but plenty of vram.
 
That seems really unnecessary - I also play at 2560 with a single 590, which rips through the game without MSAA, and I also can't tell the difference with MSAA on or off - but if you can really tell the difference you dont have many other options that arent quite expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top