Battlefield 3 Final Release GPU/CPU Benchmarks

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,851282/Battlefield-3-11-Radeon-and-GeForce-graphics-cards-tested/Reviews/

Can I say "I told you so" to everybody in this forum? Battlefield only seemed so demanding because you guys can't seem to live without your stupid AA. Even a 6850 averages 35fps MAX @1050p 16AF. That would translate to 30-32 fps MAX @1080P. Who needs AA?

edit: fixed

CPU BENCHMARKS

http://benchmark3d.com/battlefield-3-benchmark

Catalyst 11.10 drivers performance increase:

No deeplinking please.

I think 35 ain't enough for such fast paced game..i'd rather play it on high on 1080pNOMAD_78

I never said it was enough, but it is miles better than what people were predicting.

It's nice to know that I'll be able to turn on most if not all of the graphical goodies and still play it smoothly at my native resolution.

[QUOTE="NOMAD_78"]I think 35 ain't enough for such fast paced game..i'd rather play it on high on 1080pkaitanuvax

I never said it was enough, but it is miles better than what people were predicting.

4x AA seems to be a lil high..i never exceed 2x AA even if have 60+ fpsNOMAD_78

You don't even need AA if you have a dense resolution/screen size like me. (21.5" 1080p)

[QUOTE="NOMAD_78"]4x AA seems to be a lil high..i never exceed 2x AA even if have 60+ fpskaitanuvax

You don't even need AA if you have a dense resolution/screen size like me. (21.5" 1080p)

I only game at 720p, so this is good news! Should be close to maxing out yet another game.

EDIT: Beta benchmarking results. Pretty big jump in the final game

I only game at 720p, so this is good news! Should be close to maxing out yet another game.

EDIT: Beta benchmarking results. Pretty big jump in the final game

Iantheone

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]...... kaitanuvax a 5770 wont be able do high settings at 30+ fps at 1680 or 1920 so who's the being stubborn? if he's getting low 40's with bc 2 there isnt no way he will get 30 fps on high with BF3 do you understand now?kaitanuvax

note: GTS 450 gets 25 fps, GTX 460 1gb gets 32 fps. 5770 would probably get 27-28 fps. And this is MAXED settings at 1050p with FXAA and 16AF.

Who plays an FPS at 30 fps? That is pretty unacceptable in a competitive environment.

I knew that was gonna happen....for some reason everyone thought you would need 3 gtx580s to max it out lol. They wouldnt release a game that ppl wouldnt buy.

I knew that was gonna happen....for some reason everyone thought you would need 3 gtx580s to max it out lol. They wouldnt release a game that ppl wouldnt buy.

beefdog

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]

I WOULD LIKE TO DEDICATE THIS THREAD IN HONOR OF 04DCARRAHER:

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]...... kaitanuvax a 5770 wont be able do high settings at 30+ fps at 1680 or 1920 so who's the being stubborn? if he's getting low 40's with bc 2 there isnt no way he will get 30 fps on high with BF3 do you understand now?kaitanuvax

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28832226/q6600-bottleneck-what-would-be-the-better-upgrade?page=0

note: GTS 450 gets 25 fps, GTX 460 1gb gets 32 fps. 5770 would probably get 27-28 fps. And this is MAXED settings at 1050p with FXAA and 16AF.

And you not admitting you were wrong makes you even more the sore loser. I claimed that a 5770 could run it 30 fps avg on high. Guess what? It can run it at 27 fps on MAXED. How was I wrong again?

Yeah noone really knew but I was the only one who was able to spot that they were using 100xAA, which really blew the benchmarks out of proportion.

That whole thread was about a game we didnt know how demanding it would be or how optminized. And with DICE saying you needed a GTX 580 etc threw everyone, you were claiming that 5770 was still a great GPU when the fact is that its aging and cant max games with normal frame rates which even shows in this game. FXAA is not maxed.. with 4x AA is that is maxed. And 27 FPS even with only FXAA is not acceptable, But high settings at 1680x1050 or under it should be able to 30 + FPS and yes I was wrong about the requirements but attacking & shoving it in my face is very immature and not cool.

That whole thread was about a game we didnt know how demanding it would be or how optminized. And with DICE saying you needed a GTX 580 etc threw everyone, you you were claiming that 5770 was still a great GPU when the fact is that its aging and cant max games with normal frame rates which even shows in this game. FXAA is not maxed.. with 4x AA is that is maxed. And 27 FPS is not acceptable, But high settings at 1050 it should be able to 30 +FPS and yes I was wrong about the requirements but shoving it in my face is very immature and not cool.

04dcarraher

Sorry I got carried away. I just found it amazing how everybody jumped on the "ZOMG BF3 IS SO DEMANDING" bandwagon and failed to catch the specifications of the benchmark.

But as I mentioned earlier, 4XAA is really unnecessary for high, condensed resolutions. Its just like asking your framerate to be killed just for the sake of bragging rights. You don't get any visual improvements.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

That whole thread was about a game we didnt know how demanding it would be or how optminized. And with DICE saying you needed a GTX 580 etc threw everyone, you you were claiming that 5770 was still a great GPU when the fact is that its aging and cant max games with normal frame rates which even shows in this game. FXAA is not maxed.. with 4x AA is that is maxed. And 27 FPS is not acceptable, But high settings at 1050 it should be able to 30 +FPS and yes I was wrong about the requirements but shoving it in my face is very immature and not cool.

kaitanuvax

Sorry I got carried away. I just found it amazing how everybody jumped on the "ZOMG BF3 IS SO DEMANDING" bandwagon and failed to catch the specifications of the benchmark.

[QUOTE="NOMAD_78"]4x AA seems to be a lil high..i never exceed 2x AA even if have 60+ fpskaitanuvax

You don't even need AA if you have a dense resolution/screen size like me. (21.5" 1080p)

Sorry but there is always a big difference between 4xAA and 2xAA doesnt matter the pixel density I have played on a 16" CRT screen at a resolution of 1600x1200 which is as good as it gets with pixel density.

Ofcourse I am not saying that you actually need to play with 4xAA or any AA at all but to deny that it makes a difference seems like lying to yourself so you can imagine that you are maxing out a game when you really arent.

Sorry but there is always a big difference between 4xAA and 2xAA doesnt matter the pixel density I have played on a 16" CRT screen at a resolution of 1600x1200 which is as good as it gets with pixel density.

Ofcourse I am not saying that you actually need to play with 4xAA or any AA at all but to deny that it makes a difference seems like lying to yourself so you can imagine that you are maxing out a game when you really arent.

Gambler_3

Sorry but there is always a big difference between 4xAA and 2xAA doesnt matter the pixel density I have played on a 16" CRT screen at a resolution of 1600x1200 which is as good as it gets with pixel density.

Ofcourse I am not saying that you actually need to play with 4xAA or any AA at all but to deny that it makes a difference seems like lying to yourself so you can imagine that you are maxing out a game when you really arent.

Gambler_3

You make some pretty outlandish statements sometimes that leave me shaking my head. I can barely see the difference between 2x and 4x AA in most games on my 23-inch 1080p monitor.

Sorry but there is always a big difference between 4xAA and 2xAA doesnt matter the pixel density I have played on a 16" CRT screen at a resolution of 1600x1200 which is as good as it gets with pixel density.

Ofcourse I am not saying that you actually need to play with 4xAA or any AA at all but to deny that it makes a difference seems like lying to yourself so you can imagine that you are maxing out a game when you really arent.

Gambler_3

It goes both ways. Sure I might agree that there IS a difference, but its MINIMAL at best. I don't believe the difference is "big" as you claim, I've never really noticed the need for AA.

Like I said, if you're turning on AA just to impress others and really can't notice any difference, you're being quite insecure as well.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Sorry but there is always a big difference between 4xAA and 2xAA doesnt matter the pixel density I have played on a 16" CRT screen at a resolution of 1600x1200 which is as good as it gets with pixel density.

Ofcourse I am not saying that you actually need to play with 4xAA or any AA at all but to deny that it makes a difference seems like lying to yourself so you can imagine that you are maxing out a game when you really arent.

hartsickdiscipl

You make some pretty outlandish statements sometimes that leave me shaking my head. I can barely see the difference between 2x and 4x AA in most games on my 23-inch 1080p monitor.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]

I only game at 720p, so this is good news! Should be close to maxing out yet another game.

EDIT: Beta benchmarking results. Pretty big jump in the final game

wis3boi

Heh, it looks like my 4850's are going to get smoked, and my Athlon II tricore isn't going to be much better off. Looks like I need to drop a few hundred for an overhaul.

Heh, it looks like my 4850's are going to get smoked, and my Athlon II tricore isn't going to be much better off. Looks like I need to drop a few hundred for an overhaul.

GS550L

Why are you looking at that 100xAA benchmark? If you look at my first posted benchmark, you'll see that a 5750 gets 24 fps with maxed settings, FXAA, 16AF @1050p. If you get rid of the FXAA, tone it down to high settings, you may quite well see 30 fps. And 4850s? Is that crossfire? Even better.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Sorry but there is always a big difference between 4xAA and 2xAA doesnt matter the pixel density I have played on a 16" CRT screen at a resolution of 1600x1200 which is as good as it gets with pixel density.

Ofcourse I am not saying that you actually need to play with 4xAA or any AA at all but to deny that it makes a difference seems like lying to yourself so you can imagine that you are maxing out a game when you really arent.

NOMAD_78

You make some pretty outlandish statements sometimes that leave me shaking my head. I can barely see the difference between 2x and 4x AA in most games on my 23-inch 1080p monitor.

I game on 22" 1680x1050 LCD.

[QUOTE="GS550L"]

Heh, it looks like my 4850's are going to get smoked, and my Athlon II tricore isn't going to be much better off. Looks like I need to drop a few hundred for an overhaul.

kaitanuvax

Why are you looking at that 100xAA benchmark? If you look at my first posted benchmark, you'll see that a 5750 gets 24 fps with maxed settings, FXAA, 16AF @1050p. If you get rid of the FXAA, tone it down to high settings, you may quite well see 30 fps. And 4850s? Is that crossfire? Even better.

Yeah, they're in crossfire. You're probably right, though I'm a bit worried that the 512MB-per-card I'm running with give me trouble at the higher detail settings, especially on the larger maps. And with 6870's being $170 a piece on Newegg, I feel that this would be a good excuse...er, I mean reason to upgrade.

How much difference AA makes depends on the game, play dirt 2 and tell me you cant tell a noticeable difference going from 2xAA to 4xAA.

There are certainly games where it seems to matter alot less like BC2 but I think we can all agree that no AA to 2xAA makes a pretty big difference pretty much all the time.

Any benchmarks on the GTX 260 core 216 in the final release?

I wish they included a pair of SLI'd 480's.

I wish they included a pair of SLI'd 480's.

Fizzman

Now I want to see how this does in SLI/Crossfire.

Nvidia's garbage drivers is forcing me to use older ones. I should be fine though if those benchies are any indication. Down with the shadows and AA up with the FPS.

Nvidia's garbage drivers is forcing me to use older ones. I should be fine though if those benchies are any indication. Down with the shadows and AA up with the FPS.

GD1551

I got a 460 Hawk, so hopefully I can max settings and still play with a decent fps. If I can't well then it's about time for an upgrade LOL.

[QUOTE="beefdog"]

I knew that was gonna happen....for some reason everyone thought you would need 3 gtx580s to max it out lol. They wouldnt release a game that ppl wouldnt buy.

Iantheone

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Nvidia's garbage drivers is forcing me to use older ones. I should be fine though if those benchies are any indication. Down with the shadows and AA up with the FPS.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Nvidia's garbage drivers is forcing me to use older ones. I should be fine though if those benchies are any indication. Down with the shadows and AA up with the FPS.

Chris_53

Are these the same drivers that were released for the beta version ?

A friend of mine is playing osingle player on high at 1080p with a 560ti and claims to be getting 60fps.

He says it runs way better than the beta.

A friend of mine is playing osingle player on high at 1080p with a 560ti and claims to be getting 60fps.

He says it runs way better than the beta.

kraken2109

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

A friend of mine is playing osingle player on high at 1080p with a 560ti and claims to be getting 60fps.

He says it runs way better than the beta.

NOMAD_78

I wish they included a pair of SLI'd 480's.

Fizzman

I agree :P

Can't play until Friday :cry: