BF3 (release) - 11 videocards reviewed

You won't see double the performance, I'm pretty confident of that. There has never been a generational leap as big as 100% other than the HD3 to HD4 series, and the HD3800s didn't exactly represent the high-end of the market. For ref, the statement I made above considers the game's performance after nvidia's first performance driver update. I doubt things will change too much beyond that point.
 
I'm hoping with my single 6950 2GB I can play at HIGH settings with AA off and AO off and 16xAF and get a good 50-60 FPS
 
honestly for how beautifull it is im amazed it isnt more demanding.. I MUST HAS!!
 
On my i7 [email protected] and tri 570's

2560x1600
texture ultra
Everything else on high
2x msaa
aa on high
16af

Playble :( I thought i can do more hope better drivers come soon.
 
Last edited:
Has anybody seen any Eyefinity benchmarks yet? Curious as to what it will take to run this game on high @ 5760x1080
 
For an average of 60fps, I would say three current high-end cards, 570 or 6950 and above... This is of course high and not ultra, and with no AA or AO.
 
Is crossfire fixed?

Last time I played the beta, there was enormous amounts of tearing in game that I could not resolve with 11.9/11.10 drivers or CAP.
 
GTX 570/HD 6970 are neck and neck on the benchmark.

Ordering one of those today for next day delivery. The GTX 570 are nearly sold out on amazon so I gotta make up my mind :confused:

This game is going to create a shortage of cards lol :D

[edit]
ordered a GTX 570 :)
 
Last edited:
6870x2 Crossfire 1GB's
Ultra all settings, HBAO, 16x AF, 0x AA
i7 @ 3.5ghz
8gb RAM
1920x1200

Don't have solid FPS numbers (was busy enjoying game), but it was very smooth, drops during really complex scenes/explosions, but much less often than during Caspian Beta.
 
My Single 6950 at 1920x1200 runs like butter, I'm at default graphics (didn't yet check to see settings) and slightly overclocked with unlocked shaders from memory.

What I'm curious to know is, is gtx460 SLI worth it over a single 4870x2 on my spare rig; bear in mind the 4870x2 only cost $115 and the gtx460 SLI will be grand total about $250; I don't mind spending more for future proofing but is it futile to SLI the cards when I can just throw in another 6950 or equivalent??
 
Not at very high it isn't. Metro 2033 is twice as demanding as Battlefield 3, it's in a completely different league. Granted, if you turn depth of field off, things get a bit more even, but the game's still way ahead.
You have to remember, the game's still less demanding than Crysis, despite postdating it by 4 years.
 
Anyone here is actually playing?
I really need to know if the scalability is acceptable. I'm hearing rumours of only 10fps difference between max settings and min settings around... :eek:
 
samuelmorris said:
Not at very high it isn't. Metro 2033 is twice as demanding as Battlefield 3, it's in a completely different league. Granted, if you turn depth of field off, things get a bit more even, but the game's still way ahead.
You have to remember, the game's still less demanding than Crysis, despite postdating it by 4 years.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen that to be the case in terms of framerates. And yes, I meant with DoF off in Metro 2033.
 
DoF off I'd probably say metro 2033 (using AAA, not MSAA) is about 50% more demanding (as in, get 2/3 of the frame rate) as Battlefield 3 when it uses MSAA.
 
I want to pick up a 560ti to throw in the system in my sig to play this and skyrim. Do you think I'll be ok with the rest of the system and just the new vidcard? I'll be playing at 1680x1050.
 
Maybe my gtx 580 is magic but im getting 60-75 fps at 1080p with everything on ultra and fxaa instead of msaa not sure why people are using msaa as it incurs way more overhead for zero improvement in visuals.
 
kinjo said:
Maybe my gtx 580 is magic but im getting 60-75 fps at 1080p with everything on ultra and fxaa instead of msaa not sure why people are using msaa as it incurs way more overhead for zero improvement in visuals.
Click to expand...

60fps is fairly reasonable, but you will see dips into the 50s, maybe high 40s in demanding sections. Using FXAA over MSAA does give a fairly substantial performance boost, but normally speaking I would only expect to see 50fps ish on average across all scenarios.
 
Dr. X said:
I want to pick up a 560ti to throw in the system in my sig to play this and skyrim. Do you think I'll be ok with the rest of the system and just the new vidcard? I'll be playing at 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

You could even play right now with your 8800gt. My GTX 570 is arriving today and I was playing for a few mins today with my 8800gt. I let the game download and install overnight. I hesitated as I thought it might blow up my card but it was playable on everything low. Probably looks like xbox 360 quality but very much playable.

Don't know about the rest of your system though. Maybe someone else can chime in.
 
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...

Of course you will. FPS is just a meaningless/worthless measurement, because we don't care how many frames I do get on a second...but the evenness of them. So, the most realistic way to measure smoothness (and, thus, playability) is by comparing the average frame process time, and also by looking at the max. frame process time (and how many times do you get those high figures).
With those 2 figures you have a good idea about how playable is the game, because having 50fps means squat if you don't know wether they are even or not.
 
wow afterburner is saying that im using 1900 mb of vram on my 6950s cf at 1920x 1080p every thing maxed, getting 60+ fps on the 2nd sp map
 
I run 1920x1200 with everything on ultra on my single GTX580 (non-oc) and i7 2600k @ 4.4GHz with 16GB DDR3 and it's flawlessly smooth. The only time i have problems is when the server lags and there's nothing i can do about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top