Battlefield 3 Benchmarked, GPU and CPU Performance Tested
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
G
Guest
Well I'm running a single GTX 275 with an Intel q9550 @ 3.8GHz and it runs just fine. I play on low detail for competitive play anyway and I'm generally over 60fps unless I jump in a 64 man clusterf*ck server so I'm happy with my performance.
I will say that overclocking my 275 by roughly 50MHz on the core/shader and memory gave me an additional 10fps which put me over the edge of wondering whether I should upgrade my card or not. Was playable before the OC, but now it's more than acceptable.
I will say that overclocking my 275 by roughly 50MHz on the core/shader and memory gave me an additional 10fps which put me over the edge of wondering whether I should upgrade my card or not. Was playable before the OC, but now it's more than acceptable.
So my current computer can't run BF3 playably. E6750 + HD 6850. My brother has an i5-750 + HD 5850 and I can play on that pretty well. I'll be upgrading my processor soon to an i7-2600S, hopefully the lower clock won't affect it too much and I'll be able to play it at high/medium 1920x1200.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
Number of cores generally beats core speed. You're gaining 2 physical cores in addition to hyperthreading, as well as a vastly improved microarchitecture.
8 threads @ 2.8G / 3.8G Turbo beats 2 cores/2 threads @ 3G hands down.
8 threads @ 2.8G / 3.8G Turbo beats 2 cores/2 threads @ 3G hands down.
G
Guest
Wait, wait, WTF?
So first, you post THIS benchmark:
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/458/bench/CPU_03.png
That benchmark shows that the AMD FX-4100 is getting ONE frame per second less than a 320$ i7 2600k at 1920x1080.
Then you have the balls to conclude your article with this:
"On that same note, we were surprised by the average performance of the FX-4100 (for a quad-core) or the 8-threaded FX-8150, which appeared to be considerably less efficient than the Core i7-2600K. As we recently found out when testing AMD’s new Bulldozer CPUs, the Core architecture of the Sandy Bridge processors remain faster and more efficient and this was again evident when testing with Battlefield 3."
WTF are you guys smoking over there? Since when does getting 1 FPS less on a benchmark at resolutions almost ALL of us actually use constitute a significant lack of performance? Considerably less efficient? Do you even know what "efficiency" means? Here, let me help you with a basic definition: Efficiency - "Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure."
Do you realize you just said that a 109$ CPU is "less efficient" than a 320$ CPU after it scored IDENTICALLY in performance testing? How can you spout this stuff with a straight face? That -ONE SINGLE SOLITARY- FPS must have really bugged your superhuman eyes.
So first, you post THIS benchmark:
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/458/bench/CPU_03.png
That benchmark shows that the AMD FX-4100 is getting ONE frame per second less than a 320$ i7 2600k at 1920x1080.
Then you have the balls to conclude your article with this:
"On that same note, we were surprised by the average performance of the FX-4100 (for a quad-core) or the 8-threaded FX-8150, which appeared to be considerably less efficient than the Core i7-2600K. As we recently found out when testing AMD’s new Bulldozer CPUs, the Core architecture of the Sandy Bridge processors remain faster and more efficient and this was again evident when testing with Battlefield 3."
WTF are you guys smoking over there? Since when does getting 1 FPS less on a benchmark at resolutions almost ALL of us actually use constitute a significant lack of performance? Considerably less efficient? Do you even know what "efficiency" means? Here, let me help you with a basic definition: Efficiency - "Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure."
Do you realize you just said that a 109$ CPU is "less efficient" than a 320$ CPU after it scored IDENTICALLY in performance testing? How can you spout this stuff with a straight face? That -ONE SINGLE SOLITARY- FPS must have really bugged your superhuman eyes.
I think it is you who is confused by the meaning of efficiency, since when does it have anything to do with the price of the processor? I think you will find that falls under the “value” heading.
I have to assume that since you quoted text from the article that you actually read it, but then based on your comments I am not convinced that you read it all.
To clarify we were talking about the efficiency of the processor in the sense that it is not as well utilized by the game as the Intel competition. As we said in the article the AMD FX-8150 saw a utilization level of 46% while the Core i7-2600K only reached 34%. The Core i7-2600K delivered more performance while working a lot less so what was the dictionary meaning you gave again … ohh that’s right “Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure”.
I have to assume that since you quoted text from the article that you actually read it, but then based on your comments I am not convinced that you read it all.
To clarify we were talking about the efficiency of the processor in the sense that it is not as well utilized by the game as the Intel competition. As we said in the article the AMD FX-8150 saw a utilization level of 46% while the Core i7-2600K only reached 34%. The Core i7-2600K delivered more performance while working a lot less so what was the dictionary meaning you gave again … ohh that’s right “Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure”.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
*Yawn*
You know what happens when you selectively highlight portions of the whole to make your argument?
Maybe you missed this part:
You know what that translates to ? Core efficiency. Now extrapolate that over a wide range of games.
Thanks for the trolling- hadn't seen any for twenty minutes- thought you guys might be dying out.
EDIT: Steve beat me to the punch
G
Guest
Could you benchmark the cpu scaling with The Witcher 2 game please 
Could you benchmark the cpu scaling with The Witcher 2 game please
For you anything....
https://www.techspot.com/review/405-the-witcher-2-performance/page8.html
G
Guest
The specs of the Intel plattform were specified, and the AMD ones were missed...
We only tested GPUs on the Intel platform.
kmo911
Posts: 352 +44
Now into the future we now got 2-12 gb vram memory in GPUs. so running out of vram could be difficult. lets take crysis 1- 3 thats needing alot of ram vram and lots of cpu cores too run . 4k is nice but many games are not made for gaming witout 4k textures support.
there are no bad GPUs. the only bug si that you paly games for that year your gpu came out not 10 years later and still games from those years should run like 30-100 fps. you all gonna need to upgrade from poor 1gb (far cry 1 2) to fc 3 4 5(4-16 gb vram) its just like gaming a 500 mhz game on a p60 mhz(I made it) I can accely run shadow man on p60 128 mb ram vram 128 and a good pci 128 sound card. is it crappy. nope its just like waiting for a train. its fast enough to run and since its not to heavy to run I ting many games thats needing a 800 mhz would run good on lower specs.
go to site can you run it and state game. remember hav atleast 129 gb free as it will ressult in cant play game bug in on that site. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri for ex sampla deus ex 20xx game
NOT out yet https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/fallout-76/17849
https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/battlefield-5-armageddon/13374 it can still be run on lower gtx 500 series
there are no bad GPUs. the only bug si that you paly games for that year your gpu came out not 10 years later and still games from those years should run like 30-100 fps. you all gonna need to upgrade from poor 1gb (far cry 1 2) to fc 3 4 5(4-16 gb vram) its just like gaming a 500 mhz game on a p60 mhz(I made it) I can accely run shadow man on p60 128 mb ram vram 128 and a good pci 128 sound card. is it crappy. nope its just like waiting for a train. its fast enough to run and since its not to heavy to run I ting many games thats needing a 800 mhz would run good on lower specs.
go to site can you run it and state game. remember hav atleast 129 gb free as it will ressult in cant play game bug in on that site. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri for ex sampla deus ex 20xx game
NOT out yet https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/fallout-76/17849
https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/battlefield-5-armageddon/13374 it can still be run on lower gtx 500 series
Last edited:
