Battlefield 3 Beta GPU & CPU Performance

By Julio Franco
Oct 4, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. Stupido

    Stupido TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 56

    I got invitation email few days ago but installed the game yesterday... unfortunately I was not able to start it - it just gives error in the origin (what a F#@$ joke is that origin...) and that is it... and I have the latest drivers... and re-installed the game twice... :(
  2. Stupido

    Stupido TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 56

    I had similar CPU load when I had GTX280 instead of 6850CF. I guess that now my setup is bottle-necked on the CPU side...
  3. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 461   +65

    you sir would be a ***** if you think the X6 is better than the 2600k after one game.
  4. Stupido

    Stupido TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 56

    if this is the case, than it would be better than BC2 because destructive environment was a bit too easily destructive in BC2...
  5. AlanCasseb

    AlanCasseb Newcomer, in training

    I found it to be a "less destructible environment" either. Maybe i'ts Operation Metro's fault. Let's see how the other maps go. Buildings falling around me on BC2 was a real turn on : )
  6. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 461   +65

    Easy answer steve that guy doesn't know what the hell is taking about.

    45-60 fps maybe standing in one spot lol all details maxed keep dreaming bud. Like I said about the other fool and as you also mentioned basing your decision off one game is foolish.
  7. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 461   +65

    it is in fact so funny I pity the fools :p
  8. RandyN

    RandyN Newcomer, in training

    Yes, I know it's a beta but overall have been disappointed with it. Very buggy and crashes frequently. Why does Origin use ~150MB when doing nothing and having no in-game server is ridiculous.
  9. My BF3 beta experience with my phenom ii 720 x3 @ 3.4ghz shows 85-90% utilization with 2 of the cores around 95% and one around 75%. Nice to know a cpu I paid $100 for over 2 years ago can will still run with the big dogs. Runs every console port with the best of them. ;) Thank you xbox 360. Frickn' love my triple core!
  10. Adhmuz

    Adhmuz TechSpot Paladin Posts: 877   +94

    Just one complaint about how you tested the CPU's in this benchmark, I know this may be due to time constraints but it would have been nice to see core scaling on one chip. As in disable cores one by one and see how it scales. Personally running on my 960 at 4.2 I get 50-60% usage during gameplay.
  11. amstech

    amstech TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 761   +178

    Looks like they have several loose ends to tie up.
    Poorly designed menu's are more of a minor complaint, but the above mentioned gameplay glitches and visual bugs need to be ironed out, and soon.

    I won't get this game till its $35-$40 but I look forward to playing it online.
  12. 1977TA

    1977TA Newcomer, in training Posts: 90

    I agree with you 100%.

    Thanks for the nice review. I don't know what the big fuss is about the CPU's. Games have always relied more heavily on the GPU anyways. You could have Intel's finest 6 core using an IGP and you wouldn't be able to play games on it ( very well ). Everyone knows Intel's Sandybridge owns AMD's offerings in pretty much every benchmark.

    It is nice to see my 945 X4 will be hanging in there for a little while longer though!
  13. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,272   +90

    It's not about CPUs being the most relied on, every body knows a proper video card is needed to play 3D games. What is known, however, is how an specific combination of a processor and graphics card would improve framerate in comparison to another set up.

    BC2 was known for taking advantage of quad core processors. In fact, so much, that benchmarks showed about 30 to even 40 percent improvements. The thing is, it just so happens some games don't take advantage of quad cores as much, and that doesn't necessarily mean we mean CPUs have always been primarily realied on,

    As for Battlefield 3, the graphics are crazy. But it needs a lot of work regarding mechanics. It has a lot of glitches here and there; the expected in a beta. I particularly hate when you hit somebody, and they kill you, their health says 100%; that's some serious game client latency issues. But what gets me the most though, is how ridiculous it is that the game doesn't have an in-game menu, or in-game server browser. Consoles do have one, and that's just an insult to the PC community.

    There's a thread with like 4000 votes already, which asks DICE to incorporate in game menu and server browser, and stop using battlelog as the sole server browser. Hopefully they listen and put it in by the 25th.
     
  14. 1977TA

    1977TA Newcomer, in training Posts: 90

    Dude, I hear ya! I'm not even playing the beta anymore. I tried it out for a few hours, bugs like this plus origins/browser setup just makes it not worth my while.

    I don't disagree that having a great CPU/GPU combo is ideal. But for gaming the general rule is:

    Top of the line CPU + budget GPU = Poor frame rates
    Budget CPU + Top of line GPU = Decent frame rates

    That's what my point was. I've been using the same CPU for 3 years, I just upgrade my GPU once a year.
  15. Relic

    Relic TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,392   +16

    Nice preview here Steve, but I was under the impression that true ultra and higher end textures were not in the beta. In any case, I've been experiencing pretty smooth gameplay minus glitches and lag. And so far my averages are pretty solid at 43 FPS with my 6850 on high-preset playing Metro, first MCOM's only. Bit higher than your reports too, anything special on your end?

    Regarding bugs, DICE says we are playing on an early beta build and most of these issues we are experiencing have been addressed in the final release. I'm hopefully, but they have a lot to fix before then and as Burty said we'll likely get a huge day one patch.
  16. Relic

    Relic TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,392   +16

    I can put up with a lot, but this right here is a deal breaker for me. I'm extremely disappointed that it hasn't improved at all since the alpha and feels worse than BC2.

    This youtube review pretty much sums up some of the major gameplay flaws not to mention the poor design issues (browser menus etc).
  17. The game needs some optimization before going to sale, because, looking at the graphics, it doesn't sincerely impress.Battlefield Bad Company 2 looks similarly good, and it runs miles better.
    I think they created so much hype on purpose, so that addicted gamers go and spend all of their money on expensive GPU's and CPU's.It's allright for me, because my 9600GT churns along the games for quite some years now, and it never failed to run everything on max.
    So no, nvidia and AMD, you won't see money from me!
  18. Red87

    Red87 Newcomer, in training

    For what it's worth, 25 FPS average with two GTX560Ti's in SLI at 2560x1440 and settings at ultra, while outside, 4x AF and no AA. Going to need beefier cards for higher than 1920x1080.

    Conversely, with the same setup I get 60-80 fps at 1920x1080 at ultra, and 50 fps outdoors.
  19. I hope you will include DX10 and DX10.1 cards when benchmarking the retail version, for example the GTX260 and HD4870

    It would also be interesting to see a GPU's 512MB model compared with its 1GB model, to see how badly low VRAM affects the performance
  20. Lionvibez

    Lionvibez TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 461   +65

    Having a browser based server is alot better than in game. They can now make changes to the browser without actually patching the game. Dice isn't known for having excellent ingame browsers. Just look at all previous BF games.

    Stop trying to resist change this is one you cannot control no matter how loudy you complain.
  21. blimp01

    blimp01 TechSpot Enthusiast Posts: 157

    this game uses up double the GPU power and half the CPU power compared to BC2, so older systems with newer cards will probably run it great
  22. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,847   +64

    You hear that all you fools that have purchased graphics cards over the past 4 years? You should have just got yourself a 9600GT ...it max's everything out.
  23. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,201   +229

    Is that better than my 8800? I thought that was the be-all and end-all of gaming?
  24. 1977TA

    1977TA Newcomer, in training Posts: 90

    Dude, obviously he is using an 8" monitor, 800X400res on ultra settings.

    you don't need new GPU's, just get smaller monitors!
  25. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,847   +64


    :haha:haha: right, in a couple years he will be able to max it out on his phone!...unless its an iphone, the resolution is too high


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.