Read the full article at:
https://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/
Please leave your feedback here.
https://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/
Please leave your feedback here.
Battlefield 3 Beta GPU & CPU Performance
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
G
Guest
WTF? Did Intel just sucked compered to AMD CPU, or what? I just made a big lol. 
Intel i7 2600k = 300$
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T = 160$
Intel i7 2600k = 300$
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T = 160$
Newegg has 2600k $315, X6 = $190. Still a big difference.Wtf? Did Intel just sucked compered to AMD CPU, or what? I just made a big lol.
Intel i7 2600k = 300$
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T = 160$
Plus this is an AMD "Gaming evolved" title, much like Nvidia's "The way it's meant to be played" so I'm not surprised the AMD CPUs gain a very minor boost.
Not sure if Matthew was a player of BF2:BC2 but the gameplay isn't that different.
It's not the same run and gun style as MW2/Black Ops or a lot of the other shooters. I particularly like the way they have balanced the re-introduction of prone by bringing in reflections of light off of sniper scopes giving away snipers positions more easily so the game doesn't devolve into 16 prone recon vs 16 prone recon. Glitchy crawling through the ground. Haven't found the hit detection to be too off. Little bit latency of based issues when I die and see my enemy has 100% but saw hit indicators from my shots during the fight.
G
Guest
CPU is not a GPU where you can make better drivers or else. It got the title because of the Radeons.
G
Guest
Well I run this on a 2500K @ 4.8ghz with a single GTX 480 at a resolution of 1920x1080 and I get between 45 - 60 fps with every setting on it's maximum.
As for the CPU part what do you expect really seeing as they tested them at the stock speed's both the AMD and Intel CPU's were at stock speed, but apparently even overclocking the CPU (2600K) only gives a 3fps boost and personally I would say that is rubbish and it would have given more than that, unless this game does require more core's rather than speed which is where the AMD will have the upper hand considering they are 6 core cpu's rather than 4 cores.
Notice though that there is no 6 core Intel CPU's tested?
I wonder why that is or maybe they just didn't want to show how much better they are than the AMD 6 cores are.
As for the CPU part what do you expect really seeing as they tested them at the stock speed's both the AMD and Intel CPU's were at stock speed, but apparently even overclocking the CPU (2600K) only gives a 3fps boost and personally I would say that is rubbish and it would have given more than that, unless this game does require more core's rather than speed which is where the AMD will have the upper hand considering they are 6 core cpu's rather than 4 cores.
Notice though that there is no 6 core Intel CPU's tested?
I wonder why that is or maybe they just didn't want to show how much better they are than the AMD 6 cores are.
Indeed, but still means that the game has been developed working with AMD. I still wouldn't put it out of the question that it's somehow optimized in some small way for the AMD CPU architecture, or perhaps its just incidental that the AMD processor works better with this title. In almost all gaming benchmarks I've seen an i5 2500k on the Sandy Bridge platform beats the AMD solution, hence why I'm trying to suggest what the reason for the AMD lead here might be.
As Skystar says, will be interesting to see how the eight cores bulldozer FX cpus will do on this game.
R
RH00D
The AMD quad-core beats the Intel quad-core.
The AMD six-core beats the Intel quad-core.
What on Earth leads you to take the assumption that an Intel six-core would beat an AMD six-core?
Based off the evidence we ACTUALLY have, from the charts, any rational assumption would be that a Intel six-core would be beat by an AMD six-core for this game.
At best, I'd assume the Intel six-core would be equal to, or at best have a minor improvement on the AMD six-core, based off the evidence shown in the charts. So where do you get off saying "maybe they just didn't want to show much better" the Intel six-cores are?
Firstly you do not get between 45 - 60fps with the ultra settings at 1920x1200 using a single GTX 480, no one is reporting performance remotely like that.
I like how you are calling my CPU results rubbish with no prior testing to back it up. I also find it odd that when clocked at its default frequency the game uses just 40% of the Core i7 2600K yet you are saying overclocking would make more difference.
Intel has no affordable 6-core processors and in any case the Core i7 2600K has 8 threads to work with.
In no way are we bias towards AMD, we simply report it as it is.
As for the other comments about the AMD vs. Intel CPU battle, yes the AMD processors perform well in BF3 but you cannot base their value on this single title alone. In fact you cannot base their value on gaming alone, simple fact is you get what you pay for with these processors. Right now Sandy Bridge rules.
I found that when changing settings they did not seem to be applied until the game was completely restarted, this led me to believe that I was getting higher performance with AA when it hadn't been activated properly. I think this can be blamed for the erroneous results people have reported. Also have to be careful of any video driver settings that might be set to override AA/AF settings set within the game.
AA was a big performance hit for me. At 1920x1200 I don't value it as much as when I played at lower resolutions in the past. Therefore I currently have it turned off in favor of having everything else set to Ultra for decent FPS (outside 50/60+, inside 80-100). No idea what the impact of bigger maps, 64 player mode and vehicles are going to have, guess we'll have to wait and see if they open up Caspian Sea for the beta.
G
Guest
Thanks for the review. I can only think about all the work going into it.
I'm a little dissapointed though that you didn't do GTX 480 SLI / GTX 570 SLI / 6950 Crossfire and I think a lot of other people
I'm a little dissapointed though that you didn't do GTX 480 SLI / GTX 570 SLI / 6950 Crossfire and I think a lot of other people
fpsgamerJR62
Posts: 489 +0
Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3 with just 21 days before launch day. I'm thinking of replacing my old GTX 275 with an EVGA GTX 580 SC just for this game. I hope I won't have to go through weeks and months of downloading patches before I can get the gaming experience that DICE promised.
Sarcasm
Posts: 381 +48
I found the best balance when it came to AA for me at 1920x1080 was to use 2xMSAA and either Low or Med post processing. It helped give me a decent boost with my GTX 580 while still doing a decent job of hiding aliasing. Indoors it's a rock solid 60fps, while outdoors it's more around 45-50. 4XMSAA definitely takes a huge toll on frame rate.
Sarcasm
Posts: 381 +48
Oh and here's where it says they state the code is a month old.
"The blog post also reiterates that the main purpose for the beta is to stress test the servers and backend, and that the game on show is based over a month old code, so bugs are to be expected; ?the code you are now playing is actually quite early and not representative of the final game.?"
http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/10/04/battlefield-3-beta-attracts-12-million/
"The blog post also reiterates that the main purpose for the beta is to stress test the servers and backend, and that the game on show is based over a month old code, so bugs are to be expected; ?the code you are now playing is actually quite early and not representative of the final game.?"
http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/10/04/battlefield-3-beta-attracts-12-million/
Stupido
Posts: 66 +5
less destructible environment?! that would be stupid! I really like playing BC2 mainly for that. Otherwise it would be yet another military shooter...
I was thinking to upgrade my CPU (Q9650@4.2GHz driving 2 x 6850 in CF) because BC2 is constantly using 90-98% during game play while the GPUs are arround 60% load...
But if BF3 is not so CPU demanding, probably I could just keep current setup...
I was thinking to upgrade my CPU (Q9650@4.2GHz driving 2 x 6850 in CF) because BC2 is constantly using 90-98% during game play while the GPUs are arround 60% load...
But if BF3 is not so CPU demanding, probably I could just keep current setup...
Sarcasm
Posts: 381 +48
Stupido said:
less destructible environment?! that would be stupid! I really like playing BC2 mainly for that. Otherwise it would be yet another military shooter...
I was thinking to upgrade my CPU (Q9650@4.2GHz driving 2 x 6850 in CF) because BC2 is constantly using 90-98% during game play while the GPUs are arround 60% load...
But if BF3 is not so CPU demanding, probably I could just keep current setup...
Actually I just got off a recent session. I've been seeing 80% usage on my Phenom X4 965 3.7Ghz.
In BC2, I used to see around 65-70%.
So I don't know if the claim of less CPU usage is accurate, at least on my machine.
GPU Usage though, pftt.. BF3 definitely hits 100% even on my GTX580 at 900/2200mhz. Insane. I'm curious how the final game will look.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
The Best Handheld Gaming Consoles- HeeeF replied
