Phenom II x6 BF3 Multiplayer Performance

N

naizarak

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
189
Just wondering how well this CPU handles Multiplayer, particularly large 64-player maps. My current X4 is bottlenecking my 6970 and 5970 and I need a new processor..but I'd like to avoid an entire platform change if possible.

So just asking x6 users to comment on their performance levels - please no SP benchmarks as they're completely irrelevant. Thanks in advance.
 
I play maxed out including two types of AA. VSYNC is on though, my framerate has NEVER gone below 60fps on my old 1050T at 4GHz at 1920x1200.

I haven't played it with my 1100T.
 
The 1100T is a great processor. I get 60+ fps in ultra at 1680x1050 with my 6950s in crossfire on a single screen. Eyefinity 5292x1050 I have to bump it down to high and I get around 50fps. BF3 is the only game out there right now that I know of can actually utilize up to 8 threads. That's why BF3 is one few apps that Bulldozer actually does better in then a 2600K, it's margincal but better none-the-less. So six physical cores is great for BF3 you should have better overall gameplay then an X4.
 
I had a unlocked X2 555 and upgraded to a 1090T, It gave me a decent boost in performance.

If I remember right I was getting about 55-59 FPS with the 555, and when tossing in the 1090t it when up to 65-70, While also bumping up the texture setting, Everything High, with Ultra textures. 1920x1080
 
running a 1055t and unlocked 6950 at stock speeds at the moment, game is maxed out, no stutters or slow fps, good stuff.
 
sounds good, thanks for the replies everyone. i was debating between a 1090t and a 2500k..looks like i'll be getting the phenom now. thanks again.
 
Bumping this thread to see if anyone can speak specifically about 1090T/1100T (or any OC'd x6) with 6950/6970 CFX in BF3.

I am running my x4 at 3.7Ghz and see pretty significant bottlenecking in BF3, and am looking for any information I can get from x6 users that are also running CFX.

I am most concerned with minimum framerate on 64-player servers. Right now, I often see dips into the low 40's for frames during heavy action, and rarely see GPU utilization break 60%.

Would a 1090T/1100T help me, and, for 1090T/1100T + CFX users, what are you getting for GPU utilization ?

Thanks in advance.
 
yeah 3.6Ghz with cfx seems to be the minimum for games that aren't as cpu intensive, but with games like BF3 you want to be around 3.8-4Ghz with high end crossfire. if you can get your 955 up to 3.8ghz you can try testing it, but the 1090T/1100T will help out since the majority of them have no problems hitting 4Ghz.

and yes i know 100mhz doesn't sound like a lot you will be surprised.. 100mhz is the difference between my cpu bottlenecking and not bottlenecking in pos games like crysis wars/crysis 2/sky rim.
 
3.7 is it for this chip if I have any intention of keeping vcore/power draw reasonable, it is not a very good OCer at all.

The reason I'd like more info from x6 + CFX users specifically, is that the one BF3 crossfire vs CPU test I've seen, the 1100T at 3.3Ghz improves quite nicely on the x4 980 at 3.7Ghz, especially on the minimum framerate side.

i70mw.jpg


What is providing for this performance difference ?
 
When I switched from a Phenom II X4 970 @3.9Ghz to a FX-8150 @4.4 Ghz my framerate significantly increased in 64 player servers. It also fixed all of my hitching and twitching problems in highly populated servers. BF3 uses up to 8 cores I believe, an AMD 4 core just isnt enough for the hectic multiplayer.
2x Powercolor 6970 PCS+
Phenom II X4 avg gpu usage: 45-55%
FX-8150 avg gpu usage: 80-95%
 
I have an 1100T and with 6950 xfire setup and I get 50-80fps depending on the map in ultra at 1680x1050 single monitor. 5040x1050 eyefinity in high I get between 20-40fps depending on the map. I'm looking to get either a 7990 or 7950s because I want to run my three 1680x1050 monitors in eyefinity at ultra. I cannot currently do that with 6950s.
 
How do I run this Caspian Border Benchmark? I can provide benches on my 920 4.0 setup, 6950 unlocked crossfire.
 
Just play 64MP and monitor your actual in game GPU usage, using the MSI Afterburner OSD or something; that really is the key value in determining whether or not your CFX setup is being bottlenecked.

I see around 45%-65% on average with my x4 at 3.7, making CFX barely even worthwhile.

If an x6 with a decent OC could push that up to a solid 80% or so, then I'd consider it a worthwhile upgrade. If not, then it would probably be best for me, in lieu of switching over to SB, to just sell one of my 6950's and run single card. That is what I need help with, before I make any decisions.
 
I switched from a 1090T to a i5 and saw a night and day improvement in usage, quality, etc.

I would say save your money and put it into an Intel setup
 
Bulldozers have been shown to faster than i7 2600k in BF3. The ONLY bench I've seen this. So I don't know how going from 6 fully used to cores to 4 could provide an improvement.
 
OFaceSIG said:
Bulldozers have been shown to faster than i7 2600k in BF3. The ONLY bench I've seen this. So I don't know how going from 6 fully used to cores to 4 could provide an improvement.
Click to expand...

I think the OP wants to switch from 4 to 6 cores.

Edit: NVM, I'm guessing you are referring to the 4 core I5.
 
Can I get an opinion from someone who owns the 1055t playing this game? Not benchmarks blah blah, but real world performance. I have a 5850, but right now I am stuck with an old C2D e6750 2.66ghz and DDR2 800mhz. For those playing this game with the 1055t and possibly a 5850/5870, how is your performance playing in 1920*1080? Is it smooth or does it stutter? What settings do you play at? Is it high or medium? I am not worried so much about the highest settings (I know I need a new videocard to get the best performance with ultra settings), but anything is better than this god damn dual core.

I was going to go with the i5 2500, but right now I am on a tight budget and the 1055t/mobo/DDR3 combo I am looking at would save me $120 over the i5 setup I was looking at. Now, the only game I have issues with is BF3 and GTA4 and other games that need more than 2 cores. Everything else is fine for me, I don't need a system just to give me a neat signature to post, I just want to be able to play BF3 and other games at my native res with smooth frame rates.
 
My Q6600 at 4Ghz rarely goes over 90% usage in 64man servers.....running a single GTX460.

My mate bought an X6 and OC'd it to 3.6ghz yet his cpu is pegged at 100% almost entirely during gameplay.
 
THOMO said:
My Q6600 at 4Ghz rarely goes over 90% usage in 64man servers.....running a single GTX460.

My mate bought an X6 and OC'd it to 3.6ghz yet his cpu is pegged at 100% almost entirely during gameplay.
Click to expand...

Is your friend running CFX or SLI?
 
THOMO said:
My Q6600 at 4Ghz rarely goes over 90% usage in 64man servers.....running a single GTX460.

My mate bought an X6 and OC'd it to 3.6ghz yet his cpu is pegged at 100% almost entirely during gameplay.
Click to expand...

4ghz q6600? 1.8 volts?
 
So whats people frame rates playing this game on their 1055t's? With a single videocard/1080p res?
 
Had a 1055 @ 3.9 crossfired 6950 and pretty much only play 64 player maps when I can @ ultra + AA. Overall smooth, except when there were some explosions or extreme lots going on (subjective feeling). Without AA (4xmsaa ?) it was noticably smoother, but I like the loof with AA on.

Upset about bulldozer, just went intel (see sig). Noticably smoother performance, not like 2x framerate increase, just smoother, feels faster. Better performance with AA maxed out. Upgraded machine for @$400, was it worth it from AMD 1055 overclocked? Probably not for gaming...but gotta admit overall the whole system is much snapper outside of gaming and little bit faster in gaming.
 
I get great performnace with my X6 on 64 player maps. My 6870s would both be over 90% many times.
 
I've been doing a lot of testing over the past few days using the in game perf display, and have definitively proven for myself that a solid 60fps just isn't even remotely possible on an x4 in BF3 64p, even pushing the OC up to 4Ghz.

In order to steady the CPU frame times I have to limit fps to 45.

Playing it that way, the performance is very consistent, which to me is more important than anything else. I would prefer to be able to run a solid 60 of course, but it's just not gonna happen, and I really have my doubts that an x6 will make up the difference.

I'd love to be proven wrong though, so, if any x6 + CFX users want to provide some hard numbers and screenshots of your frame times in BF3, that information would be most appreciated.
 
If you would be willing to do just a bit more testing, could you run with "render.perfoverlayvisible 1" enabled in the BF3 console next time you play, maybe get a few screenshots during heavy action ?

Whenever you have time, and thanks.

EDIT: Just to say, I only ask for such specific information, as by all accounts moving from a decent x4 to an x6 is pretty pointless for MOST things. BF3 may be an exception, and by the screenshot above, it certainly seems to be using the extra cores well. My main concern is, does this translate into being able to move from a solid 45-50fps to a solid 60fps ? If the answer is NO, then I have no other reason to consider an x6, and I'd like some hard numbers before I spend the $$$.
 
Last edited:
Here is a worst case. Ultra everything except MSAA. It was 60fps on the ground constantly. On high its 60fps all the time, even high up.

http://i.imgur.com/CgPCc.jpg

The graphs lines were half the height on the ground. I got knifed shortly after that pic so you better be happy :p
 
for shits and gigs
Ultra Settings
1080p 2x AA
FX-8150
64 player
Strike at Karkand

 
So we can conclude that the X6 does give better min fps which imo is the most important performance area in BF3. Looks like even a X4 clocked would have to be clocked around 4.4 4.5 to achieve better min fps.

On my 64 player tests upping 300mhz adds about 3-5 fps
 
Worst case 59fps cap: (shots resized from 19x12)

bf320120101185241013.jpg


CPU is all over the place, and it feels horrible.

45fps cap (after I get owned, hope this somewhat makes up for the earlier knifing :p ):

bf320120101190320111.jpg


Unfortunately the 2nd capture is of a relatively low demand scene, but in practice that graph ALWAYS remains as it is in the 2nd shot, no matter what is going on. The little blip in the line is from accessing the TAB screen.
 
Battle f 3 absolutely hauls ass on my 3930k 6 core. I have no doubt a 6 core phenom will haul butt too. FB2 is an amazing graphics engine
 
I have an 1100T coming in either tomorrow or Monday, so I guess we'll see once and for all.

I will get some hard numbers after I make the swap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top