Battlefield 3 Beta GPU & CPU Performance

[Stupido]

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...

 

[Stupido]

sarcasm said:

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.

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...

 

[Lionvibez]

Guest said:
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$

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

 

[Stupido]

burty117 said:
I wouldn't say the enviroments are less destructable, they're just harder to blow up. At least that's how I've felt so far. I can blow through most walls with enough Rockets and c4's

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

 

[AlanCasseb]

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 : )

 

[Lionvibez]

Steve said:

Guest said:
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.

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.

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.

 

[Lionvibez]

artix said:

fpsgamerJR62 said:
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.

People expect a finished game/demo in Beta. Its laughable.

it is in fact so funny I pity the fools

 

[RandyN]

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.

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Adhmuz]

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.

 

[amstech]

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.

 

[1977TA]

amstech said:
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.

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!

 

[lawfer]

1977TA said:

amstech said:
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.

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!

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.

 

[1977TA]

I particularly hate when you hit somebody, and they kill you, their health says 100%; that's some serious game client latency issues.

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.

 

[Relic]

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.

 

[Relic]

I particularly hate when you hit somebody, and they kill you, their health says 100%; that's some serious game client latency issues.

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).

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Red87]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Lionvibez]

RandyN said:
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.

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.

 

[blimp01]

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

 

[red1776]

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!

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.

 

[LNCPapa]

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

 

[1977TA]

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.

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

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

 

[red1776]

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

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

: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