![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
7970 1920x1200 Ultra Preset in BF3 MP
- Thread starter mao5
- Start date
Evil Scooter
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2000
- Messages
- 8,170
Your own screenshots show well under 3GB vram being used. I'd say those are pretty good rates for a single card on ultra preset at that res. You could probably get a few more FPS by overclocking a hair, I notice you are still running at stock speeds.
pretty smooth, no more stuttering as crossfire did, so the main problem on my 5870cf's stuttering is the 1GB mem
but I wait for better driver, so I don't need to OC my 7970.
I have 7970 running at 1125/1575 and the fps im getting is just insane. I have motion blur disabled because i find it abit irritating. Rest is on ultra with 1920x1080 2xmsaa fxaa injector new version cant remember name + vsync on. Average is like 60 fps all the time. When all the intense firefights are going on and like heat battle the slowest would be 42 fps. But thats only like 3% of the time. Most is just solid 60 fps. This card is freaking beast. Vsync obviously locks down fps to 60 so without it would be like 80/100
Honestly man the card is a total waste if you don't overclock it. Most people hit mid 1000s or better on stock voltage. There is zero risk to this.
Although it is well under 3GB, I'm really surprised that BF3 is taking ~2GB of VRAM at only 1920x1200.
mao5, did you use a custom AA setting to go past the 4x MSAA in Battlefield 3?
Last edited:
addictedto60fps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,329
I am, too. Damn, that's crazy that it's using so much video ram. Nice pics - they look incredible.
no only the game AA setting
i7 950 OC 4.3GHz
with some tests, Brutal fact is that the performance of 7970OC (1125/1575) is 5-10% better than the performance of 5870CF (default clock) in BattleField: Bad Company2 (the beginning realtime animation 1920x1200 High Preset 8xAA 16xAF HBAO on, and almost the same as the performance of 5870CF (default clock) in Battlefield 3 the beginning of broken arrow level, 1920x1200 Ultra Preset, though I remember with 5870cf, I got Serious stuttering in the beginning of broken arrow level
will put the screenshots and data later
will put the screenshots and data later
Evil Scooter
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2000
- Messages
- 8,170
BF3 seems to eat up a good portion of the resources available to it... I love that. What makes you think his AA settings are higher than 4xMSAA + High post(FSAA)?
I was wondering if a high 8x or 16x AA(set in CCC) was why the VRAM was so high but after mao5's reply I figure it's probably multiplayer being so much more demanding than campaign where everyone usually does their BF3 benching.
Rattle
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,841
I would love a 7970, why not shut off deferred AA though? do you really need it? I play with 1 gtx 580 1.5gb here lately with a mild OC and I play all ultra bloom/blur/AO off and fx AA at high and I never get any slowdowns or choppiness. Uses about 1.25 of ram @ 1080p.
WANT A 7970 though lol
WANT A 7970 though lol
Evil Scooter
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2000
- Messages
- 8,170
IMHO it looks like monkey butt minus MSAA. Jaggies and white specs are very unappealing to me.
Right on brotha! Same here. I think the OP is CPU limited. BF3's framerate is so high for me that it might as well be called "real life" lol well, I'm using 3x7970s but still...
Your screenshots definitely prove one thing...how sexy this game is.
I still don't understand Frostbite 2's VRam usage though, but it seems to scale the amount of VRam used to the amount available to prevent hitting the VRam wall. I run at 1080p, Ultra Settings and 4xAA and sit at 1.4GB used like 90% of the time and have yet to hit "the wall". My buddy with a GTX 560 Ti 448 Core with 1.2GB VRam has Battlefield 3 using roughly 1.1GB's the whole time with the same settings and while he does get substantially lower FPS than my GTX 590 (understandably), he doesn't hit the wall either.
I still don't understand Frostbite 2's VRam usage though, but it seems to scale the amount of VRam used to the amount available to prevent hitting the VRam wall. I run at 1080p, Ultra Settings and 4xAA and sit at 1.4GB used like 90% of the time and have yet to hit "the wall". My buddy with a GTX 560 Ti 448 Core with 1.2GB VRam has Battlefield 3 using roughly 1.1GB's the whole time with the same settings and while he does get substantially lower FPS than my GTX 590 (understandably), he doesn't hit the wall either.
Right on brotha! Same here. I think the OP is CPU limited. BF3's framerate is so high for me that it might as well be called "real life" lol well, I'm using 3x7970s but still...
Is freakin breath taking no doubt! Night and day difference! I can run everything maxed out (of course) runing a single screen 1920x1080 at 120hz on my Quad 580 SLI but no way once i run it in surround vision at 6120x1080 (bezel corrected). I can run ultra but all the extras turned off which is what makes it awesome.
Was hoping runing 3-4 7970s would help me run 3 screens with everything maxed.
Really, My monitor is 120Hz..so I wouldn't be locked @ 60, I'm just wondering now what a pair of 7950 will do in BF3 ? or even a 7990 for that matter
I will be getting one of the two In Karkand last night 64-player server using my Sony FW900@1920x1200 with two 7970's@1225/1600 with the game set at max everything I reached a maximum of 2870MB VRAM! I almost am maxing out the VRAM with that resolution.
So yes, there is a reason for 6GB cards and I look forward to them for my Eyefinity setup.
So yes, there is a reason for 6GB cards and I look forward to them for my Eyefinity setup.
xSystemFailurex
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 650
Indeed... I wonder if people will finally shut up about 7970s being overkill for 1920x1080/1200. I game at 1080/120hz and I'm going to need 2 in order to get the most out of my beast rig. Ultra will be a lock, but I needs > 90 FPS solid or I'm not a happy camper.
addictedto60fps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,329
Yup - it's never, never ever overkill simply because developers will keep pushing the hardware beyond its limits. Holy shit at Battlefield almost reaching 3 gigs of vram, though! Did not expect that!
Yup, one 7970 isn't even enough for 1080P with everything maxed.
EquaLiZr
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 8, 2000
- Messages
- 5,841
a little OT, but what program are you using to display how much Vram you are using? Im using Afterburner and i see no option for that there. Just the other things.
ShuttleLuv
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,295
EVGA Precision and Afterburner, just go to monitoring, check memory useage, make sure to check show on screen display OSD.
B^gD^ddy~CF~
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 172
Don't know if all of you are using the same method of measuring VRAM usage but I've noted some oddities in VRAM usage reporting using AfterBurner 2.2.0 Beta 10 in crossfire and battlefield 3 in my thread about bad scaling for me @ 1920x1200 on my 7970's
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1666032
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1666032
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
its just the sheer amount of textures you are having to load. i'm not sure if they actually use load on demand(it only loads what you can actually see), but i'm guessing in ultra settings they aren't which is why the vram usage is so high. but hey at least its using it all which is nice.
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
I think 3D gaming is QUITE noticeable versus 2D gaming. It makes the screen seem like a window into a world versus a flat-object. I bought a 120Hz 3D monitor for the 3D specifically. I can't attest much to 120hz 2D though as once you get used to 3D its hard to go back to 2D for really any reason. For example, if your TV could play avatar in 3D or 2D and you had a disc that came with both versions, why would you play the 2D version apart from not enough glasses to share.
If you have a pair of red/cyan glasses lying around, ATI 5x,6x and 7xxx generations come with some option to download 3D software that lets you enable 3D via red/cyan glasses so you can get kind of a 'preview' at 60hz(30 per eye/color) what 3D gaming would be like --albiet-- half as potentially smooth.
I really have no interest in 3D gaming. Unless the version used with PC gaming monitors is wildly different from the movie/TV implementation, I probably will not enjoy it. It bothers my eyes and gives me headaches typically. I care more about 2D image quality (thus my preference for IPS panels) and I really am interested in more resolution, but if there is a great 120hz monitor that fits those needs I'd go for it.
addictedto60fps
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,329
I think so. I own both an Apple 27" Cinema Display and an Asus 23" 120 hz display, and for me, gaming is so much better on the 120 hz display. Not only are the games so much more smoother and clearer, but the precision much more accurate and tighter. At this point, I wouldn't even consider playing games on my Apple display anymore.
30" 120 hz IPS displays don't exist. The highest resolution 120 hz displays is 1920x1080, I believe. Yup, no 120 hz IPS displays in existence.
