BF3 @ 2560 x 1440?

[zechs3]

As the title states, this resolution, AMD, what's it take?

I see alot of threads talking about 2560 1600, and getting sub 60fps with 6970 cfx, but how about if you shave off 200 pixels? If anyone has any first hand experience, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced.

Also how big is the IQ jump from 1080 to 1440, both at 27" and only in gaming applications.

I've heard it described as a constant zoom on the screen.

 

[Tych-0]

I'm playing it with my setup at 2560x1400, auto settings gave me high on most things, but ultra textures. Played well, but can't stand dropping much below 60fps for first person games, so I dropped down to high. Smooth as butter now, and looks incredible. Constant zoom? Certainly doesn't feel that way to me.

I can't imagine dropping down to 1080p to increase my settings, I like the extra/native res. I'm holding off for the 7000 series, then I'll get the ultra settings.

 

[crzykid71]

On youtube motherboards.org uses Dual Mars II Cards in SLI Running Battlefield 3 & it was a little choppy.. maybe two 6990's would be better because they have more vram

 

[Haiku214]

HardOCP just released a benchmark and it shows that gtx580 in SLI is needed at 2560x1600 to max out everything.

 

[zechs3]

yeah, with the 6970 flavor averaging 50's, I was curious if the 200 rows of pixels would set you at a steady 60fps. At any rate, it's probably not worth the $ [IMO (edit)]

 

[Calwen]

yeah, with the 6970 flavor averaging 50's, I was curious if the 200 rows of pixels would set you at a steady 60fps. At any rate, it's probably not worth the $ [IMO (edit)]

Dual 6970s only dip that low if you enable MSAA. Honestly, the extra setting doesn't change much, except certain objects at a distance (e.g., stairs and fences). If you look at the "Highest Playable Settings" page on [H]'s review, you'll see them averaging 80.9 FPS with just FXAA enabled. Their results are consistent with what I've experienced, and it looks spectacular. 56 is the lowest FPS I've ever seen, and that was on forested areas of Caspian Border. No other map gets close to that kind of performance hit. You could easily get away with 6950s -- again, as long as you don't "need" MSAA.

 

[zechs3]

Calwen, good news to hear. I agree MSAA makes pretty much no discernible difference, definitely not one to warrant a 20fps hit.

My question to you however, is what difference does the extra resolution make? Is it easier to spot snipers in the distances?

 

[Calwen]

Calwen, good news to hear. I agree MSAA makes pretty much no discernible difference, definitely not one to warrant a 20fps hit.

My question to you however, is what difference does the extra resolution make? Is it easier to spot snipers in the distances?

For discerning small objects like snipers or tanks off in the distance, it's a god-send. In general I don't bother with 4x scopes because, well, all I have to do is lean closer to my screen. Plus with those scopes the kick will send you flying while zoomed in, even while burst-firing. The main downside I've had with a monitor this large is that my fovea can't cover as much area, meaning I sometimes miss something in my peripherals. So this huge screen can actually make me less aware of my surroundings. It's more of a problem while playing infantry; while I'm in a vehicle it's not a problem.

On a side note, it's not as much of an advantage as it was in BC2 rush servers with the Blackhawk. I kinda miss having three soldiers to rotate between servers. I was forced to have multiple personas because I would frequently get banned for "hacking" as a gunner whenever I got a decent pilot. Heh, good times.