*16x Aniso and quad core Phenom II . I should have created an account to be able to edit my mistakes lol.

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/448/bench/Ultra_1920.png
that's your ultra results, and you're posting the 6950 at 28 fps - now that's fine if you've gotten access to final build settings which we aren't seeing in the beta, but you need to make that clear, because I ain't running any settings on the high that sees you guys get 41 fps

I know that there are other 'benches' showing the 69xx cards doing apallingly in the BF3 beta (though I hadn't seen those two before), but I trust only a handful of sites for this kind of info, and of those only [H] and you guys have taken a proper look at BF3, but your results are so divergent from what myself and [H] have seen that I'm just a tad pissed off

and of course I'm coming back, TS is the easiest techsite to read with a decent, but not overeaching array of news and clear presentation for benches and written jazz

.

and re:Metro benches - TS give the 6950 47 fps (iirc) maxxed @1200p, but if anyone can reproduce that with the in-game bench please post screenies, 'cause I'm hitting about 35, and so to [H], 3dguru, toms et al so... :/

He's right about hit detection; it's very bad. I experienced all the problems for myself (on multiple server clusters that I all pinged for 12-20ms). Instant deaths, getting shot by people not even on your screen, dying well behind cover and hits failing to register despite the game confirming them. Bluntly put: Caused me to quit.

I just checked the servers now and see they finally added Caspian Border. About damn time; may go back and try it on a higher ping server to see if I get a negative effect of the hit registration issues. If not, the game will be uninstalled (as I finally got to experience an actual Battlefield map) and I will not be buying it (until I hear about the netcode being improved).

For anyone who's interested in the details: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2826551139123655506/

Also: A multiplatform release is ruining the full potential of this game. Very disappointed.

Why in the world would you conduct a CPU test at 1080p? At that resolution the GPU, not the CPU, is the limiting factor. You're supposed to benchmark a CPU by turning down graphics settings and thus eliminating the GPU bottleneck, at which point the CPU becomes the limiting factor.

Your CPU chart is very misleading because at lower resolutions, AMD CPU's struggle against Intel.

To the guy claiming that the CPU isn't the limiting factor at 1080p: play some Caspian Border on a dual core and watch your CPU and GPU utilisation.

I think CPU demands have a lot to do with the number of people on the server.

I have a 560 TI & Core 2Duo @ 4GHz. I've noticed when I play Caspian Border servers with 48 players, my framerate is significantly better than on servers with 64 players... and I notice my card stays much closer to 100% usage on the 48 player servers whereas on the 64 player servers it tends to be in the 70-80% range.

Caspian is a load of fun... too bad about the lack of game menus/browser, but I suppose I'll get used to it and not think about it that much about it after a while.

@Guest about CPU utilization:

I don't disagree that CPU usage may be a bottleneck for some people (see post I just made on this topic), but I don't think CPU utilization is necessarily a meaningful stat.

I currently have my C2Duo @ 4Ghz... but for a couple years I had it at 3.17. When playing BC2, my CPU usage was generally about maxed out at 3.17. After I bumped it to 4GHz.... still generally maxed out while FPS stayed about the same.

I suspect the physics engine scales to use left over power for lower priority objects that otherwise would not be rendered/animated.

So basically my guess is that there is a certain amount of CPU power that is required to do the mandatory physics + general game code, and then a certain amount of additional CPU power that can be taken advantage of to do lower priority physics (if that CPU power is available).

Therefore, if I'm right, just because your CPU is maxed out, it doesn't mean its a bottleneck. OTOH, I think if your GPU usage is not maxed out, that is much more indicative that the CPU is a bottleneck. (In my case, GPU usage is basically 100% on 32 player metro, but only 70-80% on 64 player Caspian... and on 64 player Caspian, my FPS is 20-30% lower).

That is a very good point about CPU use you make. I've also noticed that I get better frame rates on servers with fewer people, which is why I said earlier that I suspect that physics calculations and modelling bullet ballistics is what chokes CPU's in this game.

Your point about the game using leftover CPU time for less vital things made me think. After playing a few rounds on servers with varying player counts it seems to me that there is higher quality building destruction on less populated servers - on packed ones, when I shoot an RPG at the wall it seems that a chunk of the wall vanishes in a puff of dust, whereas on smaller servers I can clearly see the wall break up to many chunks of various sizes flying off in different directions... Perhaps this is the kind of extra detail the game uses leftover CPU time to calculate. Anyway it would be nice if DICE entered the XXI century with their physics calculations and offloaded some of them to the GPU...

"Anyway it would be nice if DICE entered the XXI century with their physics calculations and offloaded some of them to the GPU..."

I whole-heartedly agree. Such a shame that this many years after GPU assisted physics became available that most major games still don't use it. But I think the problem is less with DICE (or the other developers) than it is the proprietary nature of the physics engines out there.

PhysX support would be great for those of us with Nvidia cards... but multi-platform support is not as good for PhysX and using it would likely leave the AMD crowd up in arms and possibly hurt BF3 sales as a result. Havok, which BF3 uses and which has excellent cross-platform suppport, was on track to support GPU off-loaded calculations until Intel bought it in 2007 (... hmm, I wonder why Intel bought Havok...)

Given the options, I can't wholly blame DICE for going with Havok. What we need is a major physics engine not owned by a hardware company. I'm thinking Bullet may become our knight and shining armor some day. Maybe for BF4....

"Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3"

It's not a current build, the beta is more aimed at having the online backend ready and able for the end of the month to help them not crash and burn at launch. People seem to misunderstand the difference between Beta and Demo. Many of the bugs and other problems have already been addressed in the final build. That being said, I am sure it will take 2 or 3 updates to fine tune the balance and other issues.

I played about 20 hours on the Caspian Border map, and a lot of that flying in the jets and my framerate was great. I never measured it, because I don't really care... for me, framerate is one of those things that you shouldn't ever notice, because when you do, it's usually a bad thing... like you don't notice the tires on your car, until one of them explodes at 70 mph...

Anyway, here's my rig:

i5 2500k OC to 4.5 Ghz
560 Ti (900 mhz core)
8 Gigs DDR 1600
Win 7 64-bit Ultimate

I played on max settings minus AA... I simply cannot afford a rig (at the moment) that can acceptably run the game with AA enabled. Had I noticed any choppiness or the need for AA, I would be talking with the missus about saving another $220 for another 560ti. As it is, I am completely happy with my setup and can't wait for the game to come out.

Also, I have to point out that the whole "I'm worried about the final product" crap needs to go away, especially from a website that is fantastic about providing empirical, objective data... we don't need your speculation, and all it does is fuel the trolls and pointless debates.

.....

Exactly. the Crysis2 debacle is a perfect example of why the "worried about the final product" should be out front. I would submit that the later arriving DX11 patch and Hi res package was a direct and proportional response to the voicing of anger and disappointment over "the final product". In other words, if everyone had just shut up and been quiet, C2 would still be a ****** looking DX9 affair. You can bet other software companies were watching that situation closely to see what they could get away with. Like Steve said, look at the last dozen or so releases. Maybe all but two or three looked/played like they came out of the oven too soon.

Hey Guys will i be able to run BF3 on my Alienware rig at the max settings..here is the config

Intel Core i7 3.4GHz
AMD RADEON HD 6870
1GB Video Memory
8GB RAM
1TB HD, 7200 RPM
875 Watt Power Supply
Liquid Cooling