• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

BF3 (release) - 11 videocards reviewed

No surprises here. Seems to behave fairly similarly to the beta, with a reduced average frame rate,
 
570 gives 30 min frame rate? At max detail and 4x AA and 1080p? That's more than enough for me. I'll probably back off to 2X AA and call it a day.
 
lol @ the 6870 performing a bit better than the 560, which was the nvidia recommended requirement...while the 6950 was the ATI recommendation. A little biased, eh?
 
Well, it was nvidia's own website, of course they'd be biased. Anyone who knows anything about graphics would realise that comparing a GTX560 standard to an HD6950 was massively skewed...
 
Interesting. Doesn't appear that VRAM is an issue at 1920x1080, even with 4x AA and (presumably) AO.

I'd like to see some SLI/Crossfire numbers as well, for scaling comparison.
 
Tych-0 said:
Anybody seen any benchies done at 2560x1440 or 2550x1600?
Click to expand...

What I would like to see is not only that but crossfire/SLi performance benches. Obviously I'm curious about eyefinity specifically my resolution 3240x1920 and what type of performance can be expected and if they fixed many of the bugs that plagued the beta at my resoolution.
 
What is going to perform better on this?

5870 2GB Crossfire or 6950 2GB Crossfire?
 
This is one sweet review. They're using the new drivers that just came out this morning on the final release.

This is actually the first credible review i've seen for bf3 considering it's for the real deal
 
Lord_Exodia said:
What I would like to see is not only that but crossfire/SLi performance benches. Obviously I'm curious about eyefinity specifically my resolution 3240x1920 and what type of performance can be expected and if they fixed many of the bugs that plagued the beta at my resoolution.
Click to expand...

I think maxing out across 3 monitors is an impossibility at this point regardless of the setup.

Maybe next gen cards :(
 
inglewood78 said:
I think maxing out across 3 monitors is an impossibility at this point regardless of the setup.

Maybe next gen cards :(
Click to expand...

I'm sure 6970 Tri-fire or GTX 580 3-way SLI would do it. But it comes down to how much you want to spend on this one game. :cool:
 
inglewood78 said:
I think maxing out across 3 monitors is an impossibility at this point regardless of the setup.

Maybe next gen cards :(
Click to expand...

Depends on the game. You can run stuff like Left 4 Dead 2, Portal 2, Dead Space 2 and GRiD in eyefinity without too much trouble. It's just high-end titles that are a lost cause.
 
inglewood78 said:
I think maxing out across 3 monitors is an impossibility at this point regardless of the setup.

Maybe next gen cards :(
Click to expand...

I'll post back here sometime tomorrow after I do testing on SP and MP with my Rig. Hopefully I can achieve 60+ FPS on the 64-Player Gigantic Multiplayer Maps at 5760x1080. I sure as Hell hope a 2500k @5GHz and 2x 6990s clocked at 950/1435 can get the Job done. If not then :( :confused: :eek:. I'll be fine with minimal AA/AO settings as long as everything else is on Ultra, but I'll do a ton of testing to find the best possible IQ settings to stay above the 60FPS range. I had CF 6950s in the Beta and playing Caspian Border was unbearably slow.
 
SaViOr- said:
I'll post back here sometime tomorrow after I do testing on SP and MP with my Rig. Hopefully I can achieve 60+ FPS on the 64-Player Gigantic Multiplayer Maps at 5760x1080. I sure as Hell hope a 2500k @5GHz and 2x 6990s clocked at 950/1435 can get the Job done. If not then :( :confused: :eek:. I'll be fine with minimal AA/AO settings as long as everything else is on Ultra, but I'll do a ton of testing to find the best possible IQ settings to stay above the 60FPS range. I had CF 6950s in the Beta and playing Caspian Border was unbearably slow.
Click to expand...

Good lord, nice system you go there. Looking forward to your test!
 
my 5870 trifire wasn't even playable at 5760x1200 with all settings on low @ the start of beta. I hope it's gotten a little better since.
 
It'll likely have got worse, not better, but are you sure CF was actually working? On low, it should be fairly playable even at that res.
 
Wow. I'm really surprised by the low differential between the average and minimum FPS.

Hoping my system can handle this at 1080P with 2xAA. Also hoping for more driver improvements to be able to inch that up to 4xAA in the future.
 
friend'scatdied said:
Wow. I'm really surprised by the low differential between the average and minimum FPS.

Hoping my system can handle this at 1080P with 2xAA. Also hoping for more driver improvements to be able to inch that up to 4xAA in the future.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this benchmark was only a short 20 seconds of one of the more graphically demanding portions of the first mission.


pcgameshardware.com said:
We use "Operation Sword Breaker" and the benchmark consists of a 20 second confrontation with the troops of your enemies. You see many particle effects (fire, smoke), dynamic AI and numerous physical effects caused by explosions. This is for sure a stress test but we wanted to show a worst case scenerio.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting.
I just hope that when putting the game on minimum quality the performance will improve a lot, since I'm interested mostly in performance when I play multiplayer games.
 
Kardonxt said:
Or like Savior said the benchmark is only 20 seconds long. You're not going to see a real avg number in 20 seconds.
Click to expand...

That too, lol.

But if it is indeed a very intensive part of the game, it's nice that the framerate doesn't drop into the teens on the mid/high-end cards.
 
SaViOr- said:
I'll post back here sometime tomorrow after I do testing on SP and MP with my Rig. Hopefully I can achieve 60+ FPS on the 64-Player Gigantic Multiplayer Maps at 5760x1080. I sure as Hell hope a 2500k @5GHz and 2x 6990s clocked at 950/1435 can get the Job done. If not then :( :confused: :eek:. I'll be fine with minimal AA/AO settings as long as everything else is on Ultra, but I'll do a ton of testing to find the best possible IQ settings to stay above the 60FPS range. I had CF 6950s in the Beta and playing Caspian Border was unbearably slow.
Click to expand...

Haha all I want to do is just enjoy the game, but Jesus that setup just screams :eek:
 
Am I missing something or is Ambient Occlusion in multiplayer for morons?
 
2560x1600 - 2xaa 16af ultra settings = 30-45(average 35-38) with a 580@950mhz , Can't run 4xaa because I run out of vram with a 1.5gb card.
 
39 FPS is fine for me...1 GTX 580 seems enough to max things out at 1920 x 1200
 
Damn, I think I will wait until the new cards are out (I'm not in a hurry, still own games I haven't played yet). It's clear that a gtx460 won't be able to run this in all it's glory (or even a bit) @ 1200x1920.

It would be great if a couple of next gen cards can run this on 3 screens, maxed. It does look really good!
 
Two wouldn't. Four just might, if you could live with dips into the 50s for frame rate. 4800x2560 at max is going to be completely off the radar for Battlefield 3 until the 20nm generation around 2014, and even then it'll be a quad-SLI/crossfire setup to do it.
 
Yeah, I am just optimistic what they will double the performance from current gen + some driver optimisations might just pull it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top