Battlefield 3 Beta GPU & CPU Performance

By Julio Franco · 95 replies
Oct 4, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. This is a flawed conclusion since it looks as though the game is getting GPU limited at ~ 50 fps on your GTX 580 and the settings you used.

    For a CPU benchmark you need to bench the game at a lower resolution and/or lower settings (medium settings) to make sure the benchmark is CPU limited rather than GPU limited. With the GPU limitation holding back frame rates on the quad cores it's impossible to tell how much faster the quad cores are over the dual cores CPU's. At lower graphic settings the Phenom II X2 may be much slower than 20% compared to the quad core Phenom II X4.
  2. nice review but you should use a 1gb version of hd 5870 as most of us have 1gb version rather than a 2gb version.
    and i am very sad that my hd 5870 is slapped by BF3 as it got only 27 fps on ultra at 1920x1200 i think turning aa off will increaee my rps atleast to 30+.
    now i have some questions
    1. in graphic settings menu which settings changes tesselation?
    2. will my phenom 2 x6 2.7 ghz will perform as good as 3.3 ghz x6?
    3. what is antialiasing post?
  3. What setting was used on the ATI catalyst drivers? Were they set to HQ from the default Q?
  4. 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$

    How do you come to a tech site and make a comment like that? BTW, did you also notice the overclocked intel CPU's weren't much help? Any real techie could tell you the game relies more on GPU than CPU. Hence a single 6950 scoring 28fps on Ultra, but two 6970's get 98fps on HIGH. If a techspot writer or anyone else with a brain (besides myself), read your post and didn't *facepalm* I'd be real surprised... and disappointed.
  5. Ohhh man, both AMD Phenom II X6 1100T and AMD phenom ii x4 defeat Intel i7 2600k
    i wonder what the upcoming monster, amd eight cores bulldozer FX 8150p will do with this amazing game.

    A whole 3fps more?! WWWINNING! Too bad they used a GTX 580 in that test, which costs more than your whole computer (Athlon II and 9600GT).

  6. DanUK

    DanUK TS Booster Posts: 211   +9

    I'm personally not too fussed about the current bugs in game as I think they will fix these (if you check out their twitter feed you can see they are personally replying to peoples tweets about bugs). Remember guys - this is a beta.

    Also the CPU/GPU requirements seem reasonable enough for a game of this generation.

    The thing I think that really bothers me is some of the functionality. The web client front end is just horrible, such a huge mistake imo. The kit customisation isn't user friendly and a step backwards from BC2... as is the way you can't choose what squad to be in (maybe this will change). Not being able to access the menu unless you're spawned is just crazzyyy stupid. I hope this is changed.. and the chat box too feels very primitive, i'm guessing this is just for beta only as it's so bad.
  7. en0nym0us

    en0nym0us TS Member Posts: 65

    That is because Origin is sending data reports of everything on and in your PC to EA.
  8. en0nym0us

    en0nym0us TS Member Posts: 65

    DICE is forcing you to use the new web-client in order to test the new functionality fully.
  9. I just hope we'll see an improvement on frame rates in the final build. Fingers crossed
  10. Fix C4 Glitch , Under the map Glitches, Weapon glitch
  11. I'm sorry techspot, but you're losing readers with trash performance reviews like this.

    I have a 2500k and a 6950 and run the BF3 beta with all settings maxxed including AA but with no motion blur @1080p and after running fraps benchmarks in half the games I play I have not yet seen a minimum fps below 30
    My avg fps is more like 40 or 45 and the game is very very smooth at these settings

    [H] agree with me on the 6950, so I just wanna say I ain't coming back here again

    Oh yeah, and re: AMD vs Intel CPUs, who gives a **** if BF3 gives 4% better performance to AMD when every single last game else gives at least 10% to Intel

    fanbois make me sick
  12. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,276   +461

    Was that the equivalent of a forum rage quit?
  13. 1977TA

    1977TA TS Rookie Posts: 89

    I think so lol, I think TS shouldn't allow Guest (trolls) to post. But oh well...
  14. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,869   +2,039

    Haha I think it was ;)

    We always run the risk of losing readers when we post these performance articles, it’s just part of the game.

    If we did that I would lose a great source of comedy ;)
  15. This performance test is spot on for me. I have a GTX580 and at 1920X1200, the results are very similar.
  16. i think ultra settings turns on or increase tessellation. as on high settings hd 5870 performs better than gtx 480, 560 ti and hd 6950 but when ultra settings are turned on hd 5870 falls behind all of them.
  17. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    [H] also say
    In my own testing of 2 x 5850 I find that my results are just above that of a single 580 which is what I've seen in most other games, but I'm not going to stop reading any website just because their results are different from mines on a beta which has "inconsistent" performance making it "impractical to objectively compare performance between video cards".

    Also you have to take into consideration that there is no set path benchmark with this beta. Outdoor areas are more hard hitting on performance than indoor on the Metro map. Maybe more of the test results taken by one site were from gameplay indoors compared to another. Until there is a set benchmark you are going to struggle to see consistency across results from different sites. These should really just be used as a rough guide to what we might expect from the full game.
  18. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,869   +2,039

    I honestly did not find the game that inconsistent at all. Although I took the average of three runs (as we always do) each run was very similar in terms of performance. For testing we stuck to the outdoors as this is by far the most demanding aspect of the game and we tend to favor the most demanding scenes when putting these articles together. In any case I would say that guy was just trolling so mission accomplished.
  19. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    That would explain the higher average reported by other benchmark reviews. I found that often in games a large amount of the play would occur in the underground higher FPS sections. HardOCP say that they played for 7 minutes, for me that would suggest that games would spend the majority of the time in the underground/indoor sections. Although I'm guessing that the guest probably just looked at the pretty bar graphs and didn't read the details.
  20. The article says that there is little difference between a dual core and a similarly clocked quad, but that is untrue. I have a Phenom II x2 clocked at 4.1 Ghz and on OP Metro CPU usage is pretty much at 100%, while my GTX 580 is used at about 75-50% which a shows CPU bottleneck. Even so, the frame rates are very playable - low 30's at the worst, most of the time mid 40's.

    On Caspian Border, however, my dual core is completely murdered. Even with the GTX 580 my frame rates drop into low 20's while the graphics card is utilised at about 50% !!! Do NOT try to run this game with anything less than a quad core! Phenom II x4 965 costs peanuts nowadays, and seems to be more than capable of running this game.
  21. We are not playing the latest build. This beta is running one a build that is a few months old and is primarily for server load testing.
  22. Yeah, there's no bench so it's inconsistent but [h] never see the 6950 drop below 30 fps in an 8 minute run which they claim to have iterated a couple times to confirm and I too never see the 6950 drop below 30 fps, and yeah, I've played the opening section of Metro quite a few times, so this ain't trolling, it's a total WTF ??? @ techspot, and between this and the Metro 2033 review which benched stuff about 50% higher fps than anyone else without explaining how or why I just lost my trust in you guys :/

    sorry, but I ain't a troll, I'm a radge malaka who's bored of these balls
  23. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    Care to point out exactly where that was?
  24. bc2 was a console port and bf3 is not.

    its like the good old days folks when you just needed a normal cpu and a very good gpu.
  25. you never needed the i5/i7 cpu's for the past 2-3 years, console ports were to blame.

    my Q9650 at 4ghz is more than enough for BF3.

    intel cought a break with i5/i7's.

    good to see that BF3 is not a console port.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...