• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Q6600 and BF3?

UnrealCpu said:
im sure steam will put it on sale for 19.99 in 6 months.. no i am not talking about COD, talking about BF3
and yes i agree any new game coming out in 2012 will need more cpu power..
Click to expand...

Unlikely considering Steam doesn't even have BF3. And I didn't say 2012 games will require more CPU power I said MW3 will likely need a bit more than MW2 but less than Black Ops
 
i totally agree. However steam will pickup BF3 eventually. Until then i really dont care about the game.
 
RamonGTP said:
BF3 might not care... The person playing may though. There's no question an i5/i7 is going to provide you with significantly higher fps.
Click to expand...

Actually...significantly higher may be over stating the performance. don't hype him up only to gain 5 fps over overclocking his Q6600. My Q9550 does just fine and i'm not overclocking.


RamonGTP said:
Not enough to justify the upgrade. Sandy Bridge is the logical choice IMO if you're going to upgrade... Actually, the logical choice is to run it with your current setup and if you want more performance, then decide. I'll say it again, a Q6600, especially at 3.3GHz is more than capable of running the game.
Click to expand...

you would be correct. At higher resolutions and with a nicer video card then the Q6600 could hold you up.

UnrealCpu said:
I dont plane on playing BF3 until steam offers it as a download.

If it takes 6 months so be it.. Ivy will be out then
Click to expand...

and bf3 will run better then too 'cause right now it's barely playable.

HydroBudz said:
That will never happen with Origin being EA's new DD platform. So you can wait till the moon falls to the earth. ;)
Click to expand...

never say never.

Evi1d33d said:
Got a Q6600 @ 3.3Ghz and a HD6950 1GB and MSI Afterburner showed only 70% of the GPU is used. Probably gonna bump up the OC and see what happens.
Click to expand...


I've been thinking about benchmarking my 6850, 5870 and 6990 to see what type of gpu load and performance i get...just for fun. waiting on drivers to get better.
 
i run a q6600 at 1920x1080 on max settings i think... it is smooth. this is using the Asus ROG Matrix 5870 P/2DIS/2GD5 video card. I think you will be fine at that resolution. Maybe not max settings, but good enough
 
UnrealCpu said:
im sure steam will put it on sale for 19.99 in 6 months.. no i am not talking about COD, talking about BF3
Click to expand...


Let me guess. So though no one from EA nor DICE has said its going to steam you just know in your precious little heart that it is going to happen.



fausto412 said:
and bf3 will run better then too 'cause right now it's barely playable.
Click to expand...



If its barely playable for you that sucks. But you should know (if you don't already) that it is not that way for everyone. Runs very well for me with the only lingering problem (that I notice) is pings not showing up on the server list every now and then. Obviously still playable but I like seeing pings.
 
Wow this thread went to shit.

To check your cpu/gpu bottleneck in bf3 do the following:

Open the console (~ key)
Use command:
Code: 
render.perfoverlayvisible 1

BF3%20perf%20g2.JPG


Green bar is render time on the GPU,
Yellow bar is render time on the CPU.
The higher of the two is your bottleneck.
LOWER FIGURES IN THIS GRAPH IS BETTER. yes this is render TIME, not frames per second. Faster you can render frames the more frames you fit per second.


I run a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz, 4gb ram, AMD 6950(oc to 900/1350) @ 1080p resolution.
Settings at ultra, 4x MSAA and I run at 40-55 fps.

I get 99% usage on the gpu (monitored in GPU-Z during gameplay)
and my cpu cores are loaded ~75-90% each.

the Q6600 might be holding me back slightly, but it makes no difference to my real world gameplay experiance, and this is what matters.

Stick with your O/C'd Q6600. It's fine and wait till it causes you real world performance problems.
But if FPS gets your e-penis hard then by all means waste money on a new cpu
 
Adding my experiences with my system (see sig) and Battlefield 3:

I'm pretty shocked being able to run this at all at 1920x1080p. With some tweaking, messing with drivers, reading around forums I frequent, I am able to pull between 45-55 fps during firefights on 64 player Grand Bazaar and Seine Crossing. However I was forced to turn down settings from the regular high to a mixture of medium/high settings with shadows at low, turning off AA, and keeping anisotropic filitering at 2x. I'm testing the idea of turning Aero off completely, as I heard it can yield 10-20 extra FPS.

The game still looks great to me despite dropping my settings from stock high for single player - I value being able to adapt and respond to stuff. Playing at the Geforce LAN's demo systems made me really jealous but I look forward to my upgrade.

As a note and maybe this is hurting me more, I am using Catalyst 11.7's and I'll be testing 11.10's later this weekend. My reason for using 11.7's is that I play other games and I found this driver to be stable without giving my system a fit. I'm also using the stock 2.4ghz because I tried OCing but it didn't work out.
 
fausto412 said:
Actually...significantly higher may be over stating the performance. don't hype him up only to gain 5 fps over overclocking his Q6600. My Q9550 does just fine and i'm not overclocking.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm overstating it at all. When minimum fps drops to below 30 at times vs never dropping below 45, I consider that significant. You may not.

I'm on an overclocked Q6600 and if IB wasn't coming out at the beginning of the year, I'd have upgraded already.
 
Curious, not being a player of the genre, but does bF3 take advantage of multi threading?
 
needmorecarnitine said:
Ha, you wish. The only thing known so far is how big a fool you look for thinking such a thing. :p
Click to expand...

I am no fool.. I think you need to research how much money valve and steam make. It might be 6 months or a year but it will come. EA does offer games, blizzard doesnt.. They dont need too. EA does with their crappy programming. They will offer it eventually because they know once it stops making money on their crappy download service they will move it over to others.
Can you please stop with the insults you violating the rules of the forum.. No one is attacking you personally and calling you names
 
I still have a Phenom 9950 at 3.0ghz and it runs BF3 just fine(this would be a Q6600 equivalent). Fine for me is 30fps min and 50fps max, average is 40fps. 30fps doesn't happen any more since I turned off ambiance occlusion I don't remember seeing 30fps even on Caspian. One setting that was causing me trouble was audio, there's a checkbox for enhanced stereo that I turned off and also went from Hi-Def to War Tapes and my comp stopped having fps hiccups, hiccups I mean going down to the teens once in a while.
 
UnrealCpu said:
I am no fool.. I think you need to research how much money valve and steam make. It might be 6 months or a year but it will come. EA does offer games, blizzard doesnt.. They dont need too. EA does with their crappy programming. They will offer it eventually because they know once it stops making money on their crappy download service they will move it over to others.
Can you please stop with the insults you violating the rules of the forum.. No one is attacking you personally and calling you names
Click to expand...


How much Steam makes doesn't matter to EA. EA wants a similar service and has decided to try it with some exclusives. I'm sure EA thinks that they can improve the quality of it over time. And who cares if EA has crappy programming. Do you think they programmed BF3? Crysis 2 has been out for more than six months, is it on Steam?

As for the insults, try looking at your previous post to me. Are you going to claim that someone hijacked your account and you didn't post that?
 
What does fine mean? list FPS numbers you are getting and the situations for some fine is 30 fps for others 60, still others it must pass 100.

I am curious because a friend of mine has a gtx470 with an i7 930 and he had trouble getting the thing to go above 60 fps at 1920x1200, interestingly when he lowered the resolution it did not help much either.
 
Well the above post sure makes it clear, of the importance of the GPU....I'm doing way better than that w/ my sig. specs., and you have an i7.
 
So running that command, is the q6600 the bottleneck in bf3? at say 1920x1200?
 
Last night I tried playing Ultra settings with no MSAA on my 6950 1GB Crossfire and the system in my sig.

I would get massive stuttering and freezing in big multilayer maps like Caspian Border. Is this because of my 1GBVRAM limit? Should I try tuning off Hyper Threading? My CPU should be ok right? I'm going to try on High settings tonight and see how it does.
 
neokeelo said:
Last night I tried playing Ultra settings with no MSAA on my 6950 1GB Crossfire and the system in my sig.

I would get massive stuttering and freezing in big multilayer maps like Caspian Border. Is this because of my 1GBVRAM limit? Should I try tuning off Hyper Threading? My CPU should be ok right? I'm going to try on High settings tonight and see how it does.
Click to expand...

Core 2 quads don't have hyper threading.
 
My god get a bigger resolution monitor. At 1080p these days you can run any el cheapo cpu with a decent gpu
 
it would probably bottleneck that 295 at such a low-res. i have that problem with my phenom II x4(3.6ghz) and 6970. card hovers around 80% usage and FPS dips as lows as 30FPS at 1280*1024.

going to be upgrading to a 2500k soon...
 
Glyphic said:
So running that command, is the q6600 the bottleneck in bf3? at say 1920x1200?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it.

Consider that (until earlier today) I had an E3400 installed in the motherboard in Mighty Mouse, and, even with a mere 3 GB of RAM and an AMD HD5450 (a GPU more at home in notebooks than desktops) 1280x720 ran just fine. The motherboard itself is about to be passed down as a Yule prezzie, and, for precisely that reason, is now home to a Q6600 (purchased from a fellow member of the [H]orde) that arrived two hours ago. The Q6600 will be run at bone-stock (the original owner ran overclocked, and didn't use the stock cooler, which he included with it) - however, it's still quite capable of making molehills of information out of mountains of data, which Kentsfield is known for. I'm blanking both hard drives as I type this, and actually started one disk-wipe late (on the smaller-capacity drive).

This will be the first time in a major stretch of years that I've gotten extended time with any Intel quad-core (the last time, in fact, was the week that Q6600 launched); good thing I have the overnight to actually compile some hard test data. (Higher-end, though used, CPU and basic GPU - and I'm going to pass up the Search For Bottlenecks? The information will also make for a welcome contrast, as "Bridgewalker" will keep the same drives that are currently in the now quad-core-driven Mighty Mouse.
 
Q6600 is good enough for 32 player bf3 maps. I get a min of 35-40 on all high with post aa@high. As soon as I jump into 64 player my fps dips as low as 25. Now with the back to karkand maps with increased destruction I drop as low as 18-20 fps with 64 players. .my gourmet load hovers around 70-80%. Definitely looking to get into atleast a Phenom x2 980 or an x6 to Max out my 460 and keep fps above 40-45 no matter what.
 
Yeah on 64 player maps especially maps my Q6600 can dip kind of low at times but certainly isn't unplayable on 64 player maps. Though I find it hard to believe it can't max out your 460. My 5870 gets pretty high utilization and that's significantly more powerful than a 460
 
Yea I don't get it either. My CPU only gets to about 80% load. My gourmet never reaches 90%. On the karkand maps my fps doesn't improve much on low settings. I think that's the smoking gun for CPU bottleneck. I still dip to low 20s on all low settings. Though dropping the setting improved average framerate. Ill play a map with evga precision dropping clocks with bf3 windowed running fraps. Dropping the clocks as low as they go only get me a loss of 10-15 fps. I'm currently overclocked to 850/2110 from the factory 763/1800 and I don't get an increase in fps. This q6600 has got to go lol. Ill be putting my mobo /CPU/ram on F's/t soon lol
 
Though in all honesty I can complain. I thought my system would only be capable of 1280x720p on Med settings before I bought the game. My usual bf3 settings are 1920x1080p on all high settings, no msaa, no motion blur, high post aa and hbao occlusion. On 32 player maps I hover around low 40s. I've never dropped below 35. Its the 64 player games that kill me.
 
I finally gave up and bought an i5-2500K as I heard that the most recent silicone is an overclocking champ. Gave my Q6600 to my wife. So the i5-2500K is now running stable 24/7 overclocked at 5Ghz and I have to say that I see huge difference with my Q6600. Plus I got 16GB of Ram, which always helps when running 1000 things at teh same time. Now I don't have to close Firefox and other shit when I start playing a game.
 
35456.jpg

This is with textures on high, high post AA, 16x AF, HBAO

654.jpg

This is with all high settings

See my dilemma here? 50% gpu load??? wtf.
 
I can't :( once I get to 3.2ghz I start getting rebooted in bf3. Probably my psu topping out. But even now, should my bottleneck be this huge??
 
Yeah, crank up that Q6600 to 3.4 to 3.6. Your GPU load should jump up to the 80's. At least that's how it is on my wife's rig. Q6600 at 3.6 with a 560Ti.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top