680 SLI BF3 1080p

C

crawlgsx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
1,252
Does anyone know of any GTX 680 SLI BF3 benchmarks at 1080p out there?

I am pretty sure I am going to go 680 SLI and just want to see the performance difference between 1 and 2 680's in regards to 1080p but all the reviews I find are testing surround or 1440p.
 
Agreed.
There is very little need for SLi on a 24" monitor.

Any more or at least until someone builds a worthy game, the need for SLi or Crossfire tends to start with 30" monitors or triple screens.

I have an older system with SLi'd 470s and it can run nearly everything in Surround well, I'd say a single 680 could run circles around them.:D
 
Thank you for the link.

Pass on your terrible logic and tired of that stupid complete misunderstanding of overkill on BF3. If I was playing CSS then yes most certainly, BF3 is brutal especially in 64 man online.

Even the review you linked shows an average FPS of 57 in BF3 @ 1920/1200 with 1 680.

Try 1080p on ultra with Full AA on a 64 man with 1 7970/680 and when you are dipping in to low 30's and lagging come back and tell me it is overkill.

Some of us like eye candy, if your happy without it than by all means. Or if your happy with 50fps avg with dips in to the high 20's during explosions and a max of 70fps, then I'm jealous. Personally I prefer a fluid max beauty experience.

I'd rather play at max eyecandy @ 1080p without every seeing lower than 50fps than crapcandy @ 1440p/eyefinity @ 50fps average.

I played BF3 on CF 6970's and on a 7970 (current) and I am not even CLOSE to happy with the performance, 1 680 is not going to cut it for me. (even though It does look faster, its not by much over a 7970)

/endrant
 
Last edited:
If you turned down to 2x MSAA I'm sure you'd get 50fps min. My 7970 is smooth as butter at those settings on a single screen. So I guess the question is if you want to spend another $500 to go from 2x to 4x MSAA.

Anyway if you do decide to get a GTX 680 SLI setup then you should really have a 120Hz monitor to take advantage of it.
 
slh28 said:
If you turned down to 2x MSAA I'm sure you'd get 50fps min. My 7970 is smooth as butter at those settings on a single screen. So I guess the question is if you want to spend another $500 to go from 2x to 4x MSAA.

Anyway if you do decide to get a GTX 680 SLI setup then you should really have a 120Hz monitor to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Except it wouldn't. 2 x 680 SLI Would NEVER hold a min 120FPS in BF3, unless I went to HIGH AA off. maybe ultraish AA off.

I have a 7970 now and in order to keep it "smooth as butter" in my opinion I have to play on ultra no AA, and I STILL get some low drops on 64 man during explosions etc...

I realize we all have our own opinion of "playable" and "smooth". I'm actually quite jealous that you are happy with BF3 gameplay on 1 7970 with 2xaa, I wish I could be.
 
crawlgsx said:
Except it wouldn't. 2 x 680 SLI Would NEVER hold a min 120FPS unless I went to HIGH AA off. maybe ultraish AA off.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean 120fps min (awesome as that would be...) just that 80fps or 100fps on a 120Hz monitor would look better than 60fps on a 60Hz monitor.
 
slh28 said:
I didn't mean 120fps min (awesome as that would be...) just that 80fps or 100fps on a 120Hz monitor would look better than 60fps on a 60Hz monitor.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing back and forth on that, Multiple people have made posts about it being choppy under 120 so it kind of scared me off. I should probably do more research there.

I am heavily considering the Benq XL2420T but I just want to make sure I will benefit first :D
 
I have the Asus VG236H 120Hz 1080p monitor with two 3GB GTX580 Ultra Classifieds in SLI. I moved to this setup from a 5040x1050 Eyefinity setup and the improvement in fluidity is extremely apparent. Whoever says that you need to maintain 120fps on a 120Hz screen must be speaking from assumption because to me anything over 80fps is as smooth as butter. In my opinion a single 120Hz monitor is the ultimate for PC gaming, and that is without even taking the 3D capability into account which is much better than I expected it to be once it is properly set up.
 
teletran8 said:
Once you go 120 you never go back!
Click to expand...

This.

120hz is the way to game. A 120hz monitor at 60fps is smoother than a 60hz at 60fps.

I enjoy the eye candy, but it's actually easier to see people with settings on low, so that's what I use. However, I am in the competitive side of the game and rarely get pub time.
 
I play at 2560x1440 4X MSAA on my 680 SLI setup and I very rarely if ever see frames go below 55-60fps. You'll be fine at 1080p, that's a pretty small resolution for such a setup.
 
Not for nothin, but why all the big concern about 4xAA playing 64 person multiplayer?

You'd be running so fast to save your butt, you'd never have time to look at the surroundings.

To each his own. I still think one card would be fine, but I have no comparison, I use three monitor Eyefinity, BF3 is fine for me on Ultra and no AA......but a little jaggy here or there has never bothered me.:D
 
magoo said:
Not for nothin, but why all the big concern about 4xAA playing 64 person multiplayer?

You'd be running so fast to save your butt, you'd never have time to look at the surroundings.

To each his own. I still think one card would be fine, but I have no comparison, I use three monitor Eyefinity, BF3 is fine for me on Ultra and no AA......but a little jaggy here or there has never bothered me.:D
Click to expand...
I don't play competitively, I play because it's fun. I like having the extra eye candy on, and my game runs fast enough that I don't dip into frame rates low enough to bother me, so why not?
 
Rizen said:
I don't play competitively, I play because it's fun. I like having the extra eye candy on, and my game runs fast enough that I don't dip into frame rates low enough to bother me, so why not?
Click to expand...

Basically what he said. I play for fun, and I love the aesthetics of the game with AA, I however do not enjoy edges all over the place jagged as hell.
 
magoo said:
Not for nothin, but why all the big concern about 4xAA playing 64 person multiplayer?

You'd be running so fast to save your butt, you'd never have time to look at the surroundings.

To each his own. I still think one card would be fine, but I have no comparison, I use three monitor Eyefinity, BF3 is fine for me on Ultra and no AA......but a little jaggy here or there has never bothered me.:D
Click to expand...

AA makes a huge difference in MP because it's easier to see people when you are distracted by moving/shimerring jaggies everywhere. I find BF3 takes a big IQ hit from aliasing because of all the trees, bushes, fences etc. the maps are very dense in terms of geometry compared to other FPS games.

I personally play at 1920x1200 with everything on high except medium shadows, no AA, 16X AF, no AO to get a decent frame rate with my computer. I'm looking forward to IB + 680 so I can turn on AA and some ultra. Like an earlier poster, I like eye candy but also need decent performance (60fps with adaptive vsync and some dips to 40 is fine for me, I do not play in leagues anymore).

BTW how does competitive BF3 work? 10v10 conquest? Hardcore?
 
grambo said:
BTW how does competitive BF3 work? 10v10 conquest? Hardcore?
Click to expand...

All regular modes.
The most popular is 4v4 squad rush right now, but the 8v8 conquest Gigabyte tournament just finished (8x7970's+cash for first!) so we'll see how many teams stay in that format. 8's is still pretty common. 5v5 infantry only is my favorite and it's slowly becoming more popular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top