How well will a 1GB 5870 run BF3?

No one really knows.

You'll have to turn eye candy down for sure but it will be playable.

Lots of people are freaking out because the alpha was horrible and the beta was a memory hog. No one has played the final retail version with benchmarks so no one can say how it's going to run on X Y Z hardware.

Just gotta wait one more week and then we'll know what kind of hardware is needed.
 
I ran on Medium fine w/ my 5870, 8gb ram, q9550, 1920x1200; but, it was hard to get an average fps above 60 AVG!, which is ideal...........I'm not going to worry about tweeking it till I get the game.
 
Last edited:
I only played the Alpha (Beta didn't work for me), for what it's worth, my 5870 was taking it in stride in 1 screen mode.

We'll see with final optimizations, but I expect to do well as long as you keep RAM usage below 1GB (read AA levels at 2x or 4x probably).
 
my OC'd CFX 5770s ran the beta pretty well on high (45-60fps), just had dips. I imagine a 5870 pulling its weight. or you can double it up!
 
Even though its was only a Beta........ my ran 45 to 60fps on 2aa everything on ultra(ran very smooth even with CB map and lots action going on)..but it was true it was a hog on my ram... 3.5 out of 4.0gigs of ram......went got 8gigs :D
Results:2011-10-08 21:49:40 - bf3
Frames: 5448 - Time: 116101ms - Avg: 46.925 - Min: 36 - Max: 80
 
Glyphor said:
Even though its was only a Beta........ my ran 45 to 60fps on 2aa everything on ultra(ran very smooth even with CB map and lots action going on)..but it was true it was a hog on my ram... 3.5 out of 4.0gigs of ram......went got 8gigs :D
Results:2011-10-08 21:49:40 - bf3
Frames: 5448 - Time: 116101ms - Avg: 46.925 - Min: 36 - Max: 80
Click to expand...
the game itself did not use that much ram. ram usage was only about 1.4 gb.
 
I bought a 5870 to play the beta. It did very well. Benchmarks of the beta show the 5870 as the best performance value by far. It's neck in neck with the 6950 and between the 580 and 570 gtx in multiple reviews of the beta.

It's definitely going to tide me over until ATI's 7 series.

UPDATE: I meant it's between the 6950 and 6970. The 570 has been ahead in all the reviews I've read.
 
Last edited:
larkin said:
I bought a 5870 to play the beta. It did very well. Benchmarks of the beta show the 5870 as the best performance value by far. It's neck in neck with the 6950 and between the 580 and 570 gtx in multiple reviews of the beta.

It's definitely going to tide me over until ATI's 7 series.
Click to expand...
did you really order an 8150?
 
cannondale06 said:
did you really order an 8150?
Click to expand...

Ouch, I hope not. Better amend that signature!

For 1920x1200 in BF3:
Ultra detail (Beta): average 33fps, minimum 24fps
Ultra detail [No AA or AO] (Beta): average 59fps, minimum 43fps
Using single HD5870 1GB.
 
dekruyter said:
How do you keep Vram below 1GB, exactly?
Click to expand...

First download the Afterburner Beta which now supports ATI cards for memory monitoring and add monitor memory.

Then choose your game & options and then look at your OSD from afterburner (or G19 LCD in my case) to see how much video ram the game is using. Fine tune your settings from there. AA really chews through video ram, so if needed, that is my first item to lower to fit in 1GB. [H]ard reviews are good this way because they give you a good starting point.

But it's REALLY easy to see once you pass the video card frame buffer... your FPS will drop to something like 6 or 10 FPS because of paging, it's like hitting a brick wall.
 
dekruyter said:
How do you keep Vram below 1GB, exactly?
Click to expand...

It doesnt use that much VRAM. I measured 850MB with Ultra settings 4xAA @ 1680x1050. 1GB will be fine fo 1080p as well. For higher resolutions dropping MSAA or textures to medium will help.
 
dekruyter said:
I ran on Medium fine w/ my 5870, 8gb ram, q9550, 1920x1200; but, it was hard to get an average fps above 60 AVG!, which is ideal...........I'm not going to worry about tweeking it till I get the game.
Click to expand...

Same CPU here, 5850 video card ran 50+fps on high in beta, no AA, in Metro.

In Caspian Border, 32 v 32, it was a different story. Averaged low 40's with dips into the low 30's.
 
I ran at 1920x1080 medium/high mix with the config in my sig---but at stock speeds, not my oc's as listed---without an issue. The 5870 should handle it at least as well. Ram usage peaked at 1.4gb for me, too.
 
IAMEVIL said:
It doesnt use that much VRAM. I measured 850MB with Ultra settings 4xAA @ 1680x1050. 1GB will be fine fo 1080p as well. For higher resolutions dropping MSAA or textures to medium will help.
Click to expand...
you keep saying that and its NOT true. even at just 1280x960 I hit 1147mb on Ultra settings with 4x AA. 1 gb is NOT always going to be fine for 1080 in this game. and supposedly the beta was not even using the real ultra settings either.
 
cannondale06 said:
you keep saying that and its NOT true. even at just 1280x960 I hit 1147mb on Ultra settings with 4x AA. 1 gb is NOT always going to be fine for 1080 in this game. and supposedly the beta was not even using the real ultra settings either.
Click to expand...

1080p is not much more than 1680x1050. Others have tested it to run fine on 1gb cards. Its caching more memory than it needs which is why you are seeing that much. I can confirm the game uses only 850mb at max settings 1050p from gpuz readings.

About ultra not being ultra, we'll see about that.
 
They're really, really bad processors. The fact it said 'to come' suggested they were considering buying one but hadn't done so yet - we're imploring them not to do it!
 
IAMEVIL said:
1080p is not much more than 1680x1050. Others have tested it to run fine on 1gb cards. Its caching more memory than it needs which is why you are seeing that much. I can confirm the game uses only 850mb at max settings 1050p from gpuz readings.

About ultra not being ultra, we'll see about that.
Click to expand...
and you are the ONLY person reporting just 850mb of usage on Ultra settings and 4x AA. I got more than that without AA and at just 1280. your claim that 1gb is enough for ultra settings and 4x AA at 1920x1080 is simply not true from what I have seen. I do understand that it will use more memory if you have it so its hard to get an actual determination of how much is really needed.
 
Glyphor said:
Could it be my 1333mhz ram that is slow? cause i use aida64 to monitoring the usage.
Click to expand...
your ram speed would have nothing to do on how much is being used. BF 3 beta used right at 1.4 gb every time I checked. for instance I was at 2.4gb of ram use in task manager being used before starting the game and never went over 3.8gb during the game.
 
cannondale06 said:
and you are the ONLY person reporting just 850mb of usage on Ultra settings and 4x AA. I got more than that without AA and at just 1280. your claim that 1gb is enough for ultra settings and 4x AA at 1920x1080 is simply not true from what I have seen. I do understand that it will use more memory if you have it so its hard to get an actual determination of how much is really needed.
Click to expand...

I am the only person you read about. So that makes it fake? How many person reports running out of VRAM in ultra settings 1680x1050 with a 1GB card? And you know for a fact 1GB is not enough for ultra because you have a 1GB card and a 1080p monitor to test with?

6222166441_1da1c8ff4b.jpg


Edit: Just adding this for reference
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...cards-SLI-und-Crossfire-benchmarked/Practice/

If 1GB cards are running out of memory you wouldn't expect the 5870 1Gb to outperform the 6950 2GB. They also noticed extreme stuttering on 4870 512mb but not the 1GB cards. If you still believe 1GB is not enough at 1080p, well I just hope you are right.
 
Last edited:
IAMEVIL said:
I am the only person you read about. So that makes it fake? How many person reports running out of VRAM in ultra settings 1680x1050 with a 1GB card? And you know for a fact 1GB is not enough for ultra because you have a 1GB card and a 1080p monitor to test with?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6053/6222166441_1da1c8ff4b.jpg
Click to expand...
i did not say it was fake. I simply said you were the only person reporting such low ram usage for ultra settings and 4x AA. most of the 1gb owners completely maxed on their 1gb card with those settings. without AA, I was still at almost 1gb of vram usage in spots and turning on 4x MSAA shot that up to nearly 1150mb in spots and that was just at 1280x960.
 
The game does use over 1GB at low resolutions, sometimes.
Not in all cases. The fact that 1GB cards don't tank in performance is also not admissable as evidence here, because there is clear proof the game manages memory in such a manner that even when you run out it can still perform well by dynamically adjusting detail. Otherwise how do you think anyone would be running the game in eyefinity?
 
larkin said:
I bought a 5870 to play the beta. It did very well. Benchmarks of the beta show the 5870 as the best performance value by far. It's neck in neck with the 6950 and between the 580 and 570 gtx in multiple reviews of the beta.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right at all. Between the 570 and 580? I highly doubt it.
 
In Crossfire vs. SLI that would be true, in single card mode not so much. At 2560x1600 what he said is possible certainly, but at 1920x1200, nah, the HD6950 is very much second best to the GTX570 at resolutions that low.
 
MavericK96 said:
That doesn't sound right at all. Between the 570 and 580? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. It's up there but always behind the 570. I think I was thinking "between the 6950 and 6970".

In unrelated news, I didn't take the BD plundge. I indeed put that in my sig the night before the release in anticipation but have since gone a different route. Good read, cannondale06.
 
Last edited:
MavericK96 said:
That doesn't sound right at all. Between the 570 and 580? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

I have not seen this in any reviews.. the 6970 usually falls even .. a hair ahead or a hair below the 570 and what I have read. I have a 6970 and I can play on High with 4xAA and get 40fps.. 5870 should play great on Medium with no AA. I know my buddies 5850 plays fine on Medium with no AA.
 
MavericK96 said:
That doesn't sound right at all. Between the 570 and 580? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

I have only seen that happen in other games when I overclock my 5870 to 1ghz (which I will for BF3 :) ) and the frame buffer is under 1 gb. I guess that huge amount of shaders on the 5870 being overclocked help quite a lot.

Otherwise it runs slower than a 570 at stock in my experience.
 
samuelmorris said:
They're really, really bad processors. The fact it said 'to come' suggested they were considering buying one but hadn't done so yet - we're imploring them not to do it!
Click to expand...

Looks like he just hadn't updated his sig yet to me, but, did he ask for advice from either of you ?

Is there anyone left on the internet that could possibly be in the dark re: BD performance ?

If it had been any other product, would anything have been said ?

The worst thing about the BD release is you and everyone else like you, that even a week later still hasn't STFU about it, to the point of actually seeking out opportunities to shit all over it, whether it deserves it or not.

LET IT GO.
 
cerwinvega said:
Looks like he just hadn't updated his sig yet to me, but, did he ask for advice from either of you ?

Is there anyone left on the internet that could possibly be in the dark re: BD performance ?

If it had been any other product, would anything have been said ?

The worst thing about the BD release is you and everyone else like you, that even a week later still hasn't STFU about it, to the point of actually seeking out opportunities to shit all over it, whether it deserves it or not.

LET IT GO.
Click to expand...
get over yourself as you do not decide who gets to comment on what around here. heck the guy did not even mind one bit that we made comments about it. and if anything it is YOU that needs to let it go and stop making a big deal out of it.
 
cannondale06 said:
get over yourself as you do not decide who gets to comment on what around here. heck the guy did not even mind one bit that we made comments about it. and if anything it is YOU that needs to let it go and stop making a big deal out of it.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a yes then, to my original question, that open trolling of other members based on what they may or may not have in their sig is now the accepted norm, no matter how off-topic or unrelated it may be to the thread they post in. :rolleyes:
 
You're running all AMD CPU systems, this tells me why you're so outraged by that comment. And really? You think the entire world keeps up with benchmarks of CPUs within a week of their release? This may be [H] but not absolutely everyone who comes here is [H], keep that in mind.
 
cerwinvega said:
I'll take that as a yes then, to my original question, that open trolling of other members based on what they may or may not have in their sig is now the accepted norm, no matter how off-topic or unrelated it may be to the thread they post in. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I most certainly can comment on what I see in a sig especially if its related to hardware. after all this is a hardware forum, genius. the only person being out of line in this thread is YOU.
 
TheCommander said:
2500k with 8gb ram. Looking at a res of 1980x1200.
Click to expand...

Wait and see. From what I understand that have fixed some issues there were present in the beta with the final code. For myself, I am hoping I just have to turn off shadows and I am good to go :p My will power must not faulter for GTX 680 or the 7970 XT.
 
The new availability of dedicated and dynamic memory data from AMD GPU's (using GPU-Z, etc.) is interesting, and eye opening.....

but, it's also nice pr/marketing to get you to upgrade to a new GPU.

As was said above, I'll try and play BF3 with what I have 1st, w/ tweaks, and go from there.

Funny, 2.5 years ago, 1 GB was ahead of its time.

Now, 2 GB is necessary?
 
samuelmorris said:
You're running all AMD CPU systems, this tells me why you're so outraged by that comment.
Click to expand...

Lol, that is exactly the first thought I had when I read his original rant.

dekruyter said:
Funny, 2.5 years ago, 1 GB was ahead of its time.

Now, 2 GB is necessary?
Click to expand...

2 GB is necessary if you run resolutions higher than 1920x1080/1200 and/or if you run insane amounts of AA. Otherwise, not as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top