Well...Just got some free time and got to play a few hours of BF3....My rig is in my sig...Would like sum input from fellow [H] owners of 580gtx sli rigs and their experience with this game...I think with DX11 and at a resolution of 2560x1600, 1.5 vram just ain't cutting it for me...I get A LOT of chop and lagg...I hafta dial down to high settings and can ultra....any of you guys wanna chime in with how the game is running for u and any tweaks? Thanks!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
580gtx 1.5vram SLI owners and BF3-need some input please
- Thread starter Island
- Start date
jsut a follow up question...Would u guys say that tyrning down the graphics would be a better option for increase performance then lowering the resolution? I heard from a lot of gamers that dialing down from the monitors native is not a good idea in terms of picture quality and its better to drop the graphic quality of the game....
I know in most games if you want less memory usage you would have to lower your texture settings, because more detailed textures have to store more information into memory. And lower quality settings below ultra require less memory to store those textures.
Nvidia inspector program works good at showing Vram usage in MegaBit's. I would try running Nvidia Inspector with the show memory Usage graph enabled. Then set everything to Ultra except the textures to Low. Check how much your Vram peaks to. Let's say 400MB for low as guess, then try Medium see how much maybe 800MB, High maybe 1200 , Ultra maybe 1600MB. Just expierement until you see the Vram hitting 14XX or 15XX then you know the setting is to high for your memory size, back down one setting below that one the one that doesn't hit the memory ceiling and then it should all be on your GPU speed rendering + bandwidth determining your FPS. No more stuttering,hitching, gpu lag if your GPU is up to the game.
Nvidia inspector program works good at showing Vram usage in MegaBit's. I would try running Nvidia Inspector with the show memory Usage graph enabled. Then set everything to Ultra except the textures to Low. Check how much your Vram peaks to. Let's say 400MB for low as guess, then try Medium see how much maybe 800MB, High maybe 1200 , Ultra maybe 1600MB. Just expierement until you see the Vram hitting 14XX or 15XX then you know the setting is to high for your memory size, back down one setting below that one the one that doesn't hit the memory ceiling and then it should all be on your GPU speed rendering + bandwidth determining your FPS. No more stuttering,hitching, gpu lag if your GPU is up to the game.
You always want to run at native resolution, if you can. So turning down options is better than lowering resolution, except in extreme cases.
I am running the same configuration as you. What is your AA set to? This will have a huge diff in your FPS. I have my AA set to 4xMSAA and I am getting around 30-35 fps in a heavy firefight. Then around 50-70 in light to medium action. I have HBAO (I think that is what it is called) set to ON and everything else on Ultra.
I say wait another few weeks/months for them to patch the game and for Nvidia to update their drivers once or twice. You should def be seeing faster then what you are seeing.
I would also venture to say the server youa re connecting to could be lagged as well. ESP if it is one you are connecting to overseas...
I say wait another few weeks/months for them to patch the game and for Nvidia to update their drivers once or twice. You should def be seeing faster then what you are seeing.
I would also venture to say the server youa re connecting to could be lagged as well. ESP if it is one you are connecting to overseas...
I agree with what these 2 guys are getting at.
If your FPS is to low for your tastes you will have to lower AA or go without to increase your FPS.
And if you don't have the video card memory available and are bottlenecked, you will have to lower texture details in the game environment to circumvent the bottleneck.
Simple as that. Or upgrade graphics card(s) and hope for the best.
If your FPS is to low for your tastes you will have to lower AA or go without to increase your FPS.
And if you don't have the video card memory available and are bottlenecked, you will have to lower texture details in the game environment to circumvent the bottleneck.
Simple as that. Or upgrade graphics card(s) and hope for the best.
dual.
This is great advice. Use Post-Processing AA (FXAA) instead of MSAA. You are still going to easily be bumping up against the 1.5GB vram limit (I'm seeing 1.4GB+ vram usage @ 1920x1080 Ultra/High FXAA/HBAO Off), but it should help significantly. You could also try disabling hyperthreading, although I haven't had any stutter issues with it left on.
Yes. Running at a non-native resolution should be an absolute last choice.
pandora's box
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,846
just to throw a wrench in the machine:
1920x1080 ultra with high fxaa 4xmsaa 16xaf hbao on = 70-80fps and 1250MB vram usage on gtx 570 sli here.
running out of vram doesnt always impact performance. no stuttering either.
1920x1080 ultra with high fxaa 4xmsaa 16xaf hbao on = 70-80fps and 1250MB vram usage on gtx 570 sli here.
running out of vram doesnt always impact performance. no stuttering either.
Thanks for all the replies fellas...After reading all your posts I really think that the 2560x1600 reso is what the issue is for me...I do think that a few more game patches and some driver updates should help out, but in the meantime, i'll drop the aa down a bit and perhaps change some ultra to high...sux as I only built this rig back in April, and already it is being taxed by the latest games...only a little over 6 months and it's "heading out to the pastures time"....sad...Upgrade itch time...c'mon Kepler
wow..and you are running at native res? If I play on a 64 player map with those settings, I definately, get some slow down...I will try some single player and see if it gets better but I know for a fact that it laggs for me with those settings at 2560....
Dont complain... I am running 2560x1600 witha Q6600 and GTX460 SLI
Kidding aside, look at the bright side, at least there is now a game worthy of your rig.
From what I understand of the Frostbite 2 engine, the game will allocate memory up to the limit on you cards - which is why I am seeing the same VRAM usage (1500MB) with 4X MSAA / High FXAA / HBAO on / Ultra settings as some of you are with lesser settings (Quote from above: "I'm seeing 1.4GB+ vram usage @ 1920x1080 Ultra/High FXAA/HBAO Off", and the guy seeing ~1270MB usage with 570 SLI).
Try just turning off 4X MSAA first, and only using High Post Process AA. Then adjust down from there as necessary.
Try just turning off 4X MSAA first, and only using High Post Process AA. Then adjust down from there as necessary.
2560x1600 = 4 Megapixels
4040x720 =3 Megapixels and gets you 2D Surround. I was running at this resolution on 580SLI.
The campaign ran well, often a consistent 60fps with everything set to maximum quality; multiplayer is another story. I can't get competitive framerates with 580SLI and I've dropped down to 1920x1080.
There are also issues with surround and BF3 (nVidia and AMD) such as giant lens flare/bloom, disappearing and distorted floating nametags, which make it unplayable in multiplayer.
4040x720 =3 Megapixels and gets you 2D Surround. I was running at this resolution on 580SLI.
The campaign ran well, often a consistent 60fps with everything set to maximum quality; multiplayer is another story. I can't get competitive framerates with 580SLI and I've dropped down to 1920x1080.
There are also issues with surround and BF3 (nVidia and AMD) such as giant lens flare/bloom, disappearing and distorted floating nametags, which make it unplayable in multiplayer.
It's highly subjective. For me it's the absolute first choice to improve framerates.
The way I see it is that 720p HD films look better than any computer game I've ever seen.
Compare watching, say.. Avatar at 720p with Battlefield3 at 2560x1600. Avatar wins, hands down and will continue to look better than computer games for another decade.
You throw enough post processing and AA at 720p and you will end up with a better looking image than some super crisp affair that lacks high quality lighting and shadows. It's the post-processing effects that separate this generation of games from stuff we were playing 5 years ago. We've had 2560x1600 for years but games have never looked as good as BF3. Sure, once we have enough GPU muscle to run everything at maximum AND native rez, then I'll take both but until we have that I'll run it at the lowest resolution I need to keep 60fps going with everything on maximum.
I agree with the AA comment at 2560x1600. That's already a crazy high resolution. Every level of AA at that rez is costing you dearly in performance whereas at a lower rez you can slap on tons of AA with much less impact.
wikidlad
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 447
I have the 580GTX 1.5mb and running on a 30" Dell screen, was getting low FPS. I tried changing some settings but found that dropping the res to 1920 worked best...now it looks good and runs smoothly. Each to their own I guess.
This. I have a GTX 590 on a 4.3GHz 2600k and it chews right thru the game at 2560x1600 while using (only) post process AA. I bet the MSAA is your issue. Personally, I don't mind the look of post process vs MSAA either.
inglewood78
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,465
Playing at non-native resolution causes distortion and blurriness. As some of said, drop down your AA and you be fine. Probably won't even notice the image difference at the resolution you are at.
This may be stupid and irrelevant, but did you update drivers and forget to reenable SLI? This happened to me yesterday on my 470's. I was playing and medium settings were the best I could do. Then I looked at my afterburner temps and one card was idle! Boom! Reenabled it and now I'm playing at Ultra settings with 4x AA. FPS are 60+ pretty much all the time. Average is about 75-80. Just a thought.
I'm playing at 1920x1080 though, which I know is significantly fewer pixels than 2560.
I'm playing at 1920x1080 though, which I know is significantly fewer pixels than 2560.
[email protected] with a single 580 1.5gb. I can run everything on ultra but I have to run 2x msaa. I get a pretty solid 35fps @ 2650x1600.
Lord_Exodia
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,008
Island set your settings to custom. Disable deferred AA and set post process AA to high. Set everything on Ultra and lower or disable motion blur (see what you prefer more with motion blur)
Seems like people with similar or lesser systems than yours are getting slightly more performance than you. BTW the way battlefield 3 uses vram I don't think a 3GB GTX 580 makes a bit of difference over a 1.5GB GTX 580 as far as fps goes.
Seems like people with similar or lesser systems than yours are getting slightly more performance than you. BTW the way battlefield 3 uses vram I don't think a 3GB GTX 580 makes a bit of difference over a 1.5GB GTX 580 as far as fps goes.
ya..I just got home from work so I will try every ones suggestions on the aa and the others..and report back....Yes I have the updated drivers installed and sli is enabled...will report back later...
cmon'....
seriously? 64 player map at 2560 with 1 580gtx and you are telling me you don't ever drop below 35 fps? with all ultra and 2x mxaa and 2560 res??
aight'....
Lord_Exodia
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,008
cmon'....
seriously? 64 player map at 2560 with 1 580gtx and you are telling me you don't ever drop below 35 fps? with all ultra and 2x mxaa and 2560 res??
aight'....
Shhhhh, his GTX 580 is magic or ignorance is bliss and he'll actually check his fps and realize he's not getting the performance he thinks he's getting and will them be unhappy.
Shhhhh, his GTX 580 is magic or ignorance is bliss and he'll actually check his fps and realize he's not getting the performance he thinks he's getting and will them be unhappy.
lol..no doubt
i dont know how anyone can play fps games across 3 monitors.
how are you people able to see all at once since the screen is so horizontal with physical black bars, when you get shot at do you ask yourself damn! which monitor is the shooter on? lol
how are you people able to see all at once since the screen is so horizontal with physical black bars, when you get shot at do you ask yourself damn! which monitor is the shooter on? lol
happymedium
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 886
How can your system not be playable? Something is wrong with your system if you have to dial down to high settings.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,690
This. My VRAM usage doesn't change if I lower settings much at all, from low to Ultra (minus the MSAA). I run 2560x1600 on 1280MB GTX 570 SLI and it runs beautifully on Ultra with medium post-process AA and HBAO on, keeps near/at my VRAM cap but never hitches/stutters/swaps in things causing hitches/etc. I too have heard it's like Win7... it loads what it is able to up to the max amount it can, regardless of if it needs it right then or not.
EDIT: By "beautifully" I mean 70+ fps average even on the 64-player maps.
Last edited:
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,690
Not sure if serious... the sides act as peripheral vision, and are angled inward to give a "surround" setup. You don't "look" for which screen an enemy is on, you turn your character towards them so they're on the center screen then shoot them in the head.
ALRIGHT!!! Ok...i'm frekkin' happy again After implementing the settings suggested by U [H} badasses, and actually reading the review by [H] on the sp/mp, I went ahead and set everything to ultra, set aa deferred to off and i'm pupmping along at 85-140 fps on the few maps I have been on...I appreciate all the help fellas...
After implementing the settings suggested by U [H} badasses, and actually reading the review by [H] on the sp/mp, I went ahead and set everything to ultra, set aa deferred to off and i'm pupmping along at 85-140 fps on the few maps I have been on...I appreciate all the help fellas...I have a 3GB 580 and after playing for a bit last night i saw my max memory usage at 2066MB. I'm playing BF3 at 1920x1200 with 2x msaa, no blur, everything else max. I really want a 2nd card for surround gaming, but those suckers are pricey... I know visuals would have to drop some more to play 5760x1200 but i think it might be doable. Anyone else doing it?
HotShotMedic
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 651
i dunno man, i have to play this game with FXAA off or on low or shit gets really soft and blurry after about 50-100yards. i just don't like the look of FXAA. i am playing it with rig in sig, 2xAA deferred, FXAA low, hbao off, ultra everything else, pulling 55-90 fps depending on map and location on map. keep in mind this is also at 1920x1200 res.
samuelmorris
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,506
Not sure if serious... the sides act as peripheral vision, and are angled inward to give a "surround" setup. You don't "look" for which screen an enemy is on, you turn your character towards them so they're on the center screen then shoot them in the head.
It's DualOwn. He's never serious...
Do U use motion blur? Try it with off and see if that helps...Even with a single 580 gtx, at that lower res, u should be able to get away with using higher quality aa...TBH- for me, fxaa and everything on ultra looks really good, and I can't tell the difference...I guess the higher res at 2560, probably keeps the jaggies down more though..I still think the look with fxaa looks really damn good
samuelmorris
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,506
FXAA High is still obvious to me in places, but miles better than no AA at all. Biggest problem is very thin textures, such as telegraph wires and chain-link fences.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,580
I just don't understand this. I get 1450 MB vram usage on my 590 at 1080p. Other people with more vram show more usage at the same resolution. Yet my frame rate is a solid 60fps. There is simply no performance issue/bottleneck. Is the game scaling back image quality to make up for the lack of VRAM, or is it simply utilizing the extra VRAM in a way that, perhaps, is more efficient but is not really needed?
samuelmorris
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,506
1450MB is just below the 1536 you get on GTX590s, so that's probably maxed out (assuming this is per GPU, not total). 1080p shouldn't use much in excess of 1.5GB, so it won't need to adjust much to fit that.