Looking for GTX 670/680 BF3 benchmarks - 1080p low settings, no AA

[Tisca]

I'd like to know how capable a single 670 or 680 would be with a 120Hz monitor. Most reviewers only care how much detail they can run with keeping it playable above 60Hz and on single player which no one plays.

I prefer playability/smoothness over looks when it comes to FPS gaming. I'm currently running low quality on all except mesh quality on high. AA off, AF 1x (lowest). AO and the rest off.

I want to know if one card would be "enough" if I decide to upgrade GPU and buy a 120Hz monitor. If someone with a 670 or 680 could test multiplayer with those setting that would be awfully helpful.

My current system: 3770k, HD6950, 1920x1200.

Btw: isn't BF4 going to be running the same engine as BF3?

 

[cannondale06]

sorry I dont want to even fool with multi player but my slightly oced 660ti can easily stay above 120 fps in single player on those settings. I tested it for about 15 minutes during action and it only dipped below 120 fps twice with a low of 111 fps and average was about 135 fps. an oced 670 will do even better of course but your cpu will need to be oced for multi player as that will likely hold you back from hitting 120 fps before a gtx670 on low settings would.

 

[Tisca]

Thanks, that's a start.

 

[Shadohh]

I have a 2500k at 4.9ghz and a gtx680, I use an asus 3d vision ready 120hz monitor. 1920x1080

I got between 70 and 90fps on caspian border on a fully loaded server 64 player. I usually was a heli gunner. This was back in October so I imagine the frames may have gone up slightly with patches to bf3 and new nvidia drivers.

Is it worth it? <shrugs> I like 120hz more for 2d windows and web browser scrolling.

 

[Tisca]

Thx!

Is it worth it? <shrugs> I like 120hz more for 2d windows and web browser scrolling.

That would be my next Q. Is that 70-90 FPS "enough" for justifying a 120Hz monitor? Do you notice increased smoothness going "indoors" maps?

 

[Kor]

I'm just drunk enough to care... give me a minute.

 

[Kor]

So 64 player Caspian will average around 120-130 fps. Lowest I saw was 90fps @ Hilltop in heavy combat, it was however fairly brief.

 

[Shadohh]

I feel the gpu power would be better spent at utilizing a higher resolution then running 120hz vs 60hz

Like I would rather have 2560x1440 at 60hz vs 1920x1080 at 120hz.

 

[Brackle]

I feel the gpu power would be better spent at utilizing a higher resolution then running 120hz vs 60hz

Like I would rather have 2560x1440 at 60hz vs 1920x1080 at 120hz.

Not me. Those extra 60hz make a huge difference.

Plus 120hz is REALLY taxing on the GPU, specially if you want to run 120hz all the time.

Have you even used a 120hz monitor before? You have no idea how much GPU power is needed for 120hz.

 

[cesium666]

Btw: isn't BF4 going to be running the same engine as BF3?

No one knows for sure, but most likely (and hopefully) not as it'll be coming out on next-gen consoles and the BF series have always put out a new or modified engine for each major release (BF 1942 was refractor, BF2 was refractor 2, 2142 was modified version, BFBC2 was frostbite 1.5, BF3 is frostbite 2).

 

[The Cobra]

Btw: isn't BF4 going to be running the same engine as BF3?

I can't remember where I read the information, I think it was bf3blog.com with a link to the EA/Dice (A project manager at Dice) website/blog that said it would still be using Frostbite 2, however, it would def be somewhat modified because of newer technology coming out and advances to the current engine...

 

[Shadohh]

Not me. Those extra 60hz make a huge difference.

Plus 120hz is REALLY taxing on the GPU, specially if you want to run 120hz all the time.

Have you even used a 120hz monitor before? You have no idea how much GPU power is needed for 120hz.

sure I do. I use one now The Asus VG236H

Not that impressed to be honest.

 

[Tisca]

So 64 player Caspian will average around 120-130 fps. Lowest I saw was 90fps @ Hilltop in heavy combat, it was however fairly brief.

Thx! That's a lot better than I expected.

 

[Warrior]

So 64 player Caspian will average around 120-130 fps. Lowest I saw was 90fps @ Hilltop in heavy combat, it was however fairly brief.

at low settings? If it is... hm. The 64 Player servers are quite taxing...

In all honesty, why the fuck would you want to run this game at low settings? The point of 120Hz is not a big enough point... You mind as well just go play BC2, you'll stay at 120+FPS at max.

My 670/120Hz setup averages 80-90fps at max 2xaa, no HBAO, and works out perfect.

Oh, and I'll never game without 120Hz again...

 

[SHiZNiLTi]

at low settings? If it is... hm. The 64 Player servers are quite taxing...

In all honesty, why the fuck would you want to run this game at low settings? The point of 120Hz is not a big enough point... You mind as well just go play BC2, you'll stay at 120+FPS at max.

My 670/120Hz setup averages 80-90fps at max 2xaa, no HBAO, and works out perfect.

Oh, and I'll never game without 120Hz again...

So that 80-90fps with 2xAA and no HBAO is with everything else on ULTRA? What about motion blur and FOV, is it off and set to 90?

Can you add me to battlelog..
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/SHiZNiLTi_OG/

I average a solid 120fps right now on low/medium, but that's with AA off and Post AA set to High, I'd like to be able to run with 2xAA as it helps smooth the jaggies out much better.

I'd like to join the same server with you and compare fps, I'm thinking of upgrading to a gtx670, but unsure if it's really worth it.

I play with a Asus Matrix Platnium gtx580 @ 1000mhz right now, it's 100% stable on air, have 400hrs of playing BF3 and never any crashes, max temp is only 70c also...
http://www.pictureshack.us/images/5201settings.png