Battlefield 3 Benchmarked, GPU and CPU Performance Tested

User Comments: 85

1. December 12, 2011 4:02 PM
   Guest said:

   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.

   Reply
2. January 5, 2012 2:52 AM
   Onyx2291 said:

   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.

   Reply
3. January 5, 2012 3:38 AM
   

   dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

   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.

   Reply
4. January 20, 2012 2:19 AM
   Guest said:

   Wait, wait, WTF?

   So first, you post THIS benchmark:

   http://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.

   Reply
5. January 20, 2012 2:46 AM
   Staff
   

   Steve said:

   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”.

   Reply
6. January 20, 2012 3:10 AM
   

   dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

   Wait, wait, WTF?

   *Yawn*

   You know what happens when you selectively highlight portions of the whole to make your argument?

   So first, you post THIS benchmark:

   http://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.

   Maybe you missed this part:

   Things to take into account here is that 46% of the AMD FX-8150 was utilized in our test, while the Core i7-2600K only reached 34%. Even the old and much lower clocked Core i7-920 only reached 40%. Meanwhile the AMD FX-6120 and Phenom II X6 1100T featured virtually the same CPU utilization result. Another interesting stat is that the Phenom II X4 980, Athlon II X4 645 and FX-4100 also had roughly the same utilization of ~70%

   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

   Reply
7. May 5, 2012 4:41 PM
   Guest said:

   Could you benchmark the cpu scaling with The Witcher 2 game please

   Reply
8. May 5, 2012 10:17 PM
   Staff
   

   Steve said:

   Could you benchmark the cpu scaling with The Witcher 2 game please

   For you anything....

   [link]

   Reply
9. May 29, 2012 8:22 PM
   Guest said:

   The specs of the Intel plattform were specified, and the AMD ones were missed...

   Reply
10. May 29, 2012 9:07 PM
    Staff
    

    Steve said:

    The specs of the Intel plattform were specified, and the AMD ones were missed...

    We only tested GPUs on the Intel platform.

    Reply

Recently commented stories