Battlefield 3 Final Release GPU/CPU Benchmarks

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I like how when Intel gives better performance its: "OMG TEN PERCENT FASTER HOLY COW HAHAHAHAHAHAH!"

And then when AMD gives better performance its: "10% is clearly a GPU bottleneck" and "10% is clearly within the margin of error"

awesome

Gambler_3

When intel takes the lead it's generally much more then that.

Have you heard of significant figures?

4x is not max.

Max means most.

And there is more than 4x AA.

Which means it cannot be most if there are things that are greater than it.

Therefore not max.

GummiRaccoon

Technically no video card can max any demanding game as max would mean 32xSSAA which is impossible even for GTX 580 so we have to draw a line somewhere and as I said it is "generally agreed" that 4xAA provides a significant image quality boost over 2xAA to be considered something that falls down under the criteria of max.

Ofcourse you may still not accept that as everyone has their own definition of max but I would believe it is a bit illogical to consider no AA as max.

Have you heard of significant figures?

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

4x is not max.

Max means most.

And there is more than 4x AA.

Which means it cannot be most if there are things that are greater than it.

Therefore not max.

Gambler_3

Technically no video card can max any demanding game as max would mean 32xSSAA which is impossible even for GTX 580 so we have to draw a line somewhere and as I said it is "generally agreed" that 4xAA provides a significant image quality boost over 2xAA to be considered something that falls down under the criteria of max.

Ofcourse you can still not accept that as everyone has their own definition of max but I would believe it is a bit illogical to consider no AA as max.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Have you heard of significant figures?

Gambler_3

1) It was actually 6%

2) I rounded because I didn't feel like being precise however I still wanted to be accurate, so I said 10% which is not very precise but is accurate. Your use of 5% is precise but not accurate (wrong).

1) It was actually 6%

2) I rounded because I didn't feel like being precise however I still wanted to be accurate, so I said 10% which is not very precise but is accurate. Your use of 5% is precise but not accurate (wrong).

GummiRaccoon

Oh god, Physics lesson flashback.

Anyway, how is it so hard to accept that this game just favours PIIs?

I also like how a GTX580 is being called a bottleneck. Just sounds funny since its the one of the best Nvidia has to offer XD

[QUOTE="Chris_53"][QUOTE="superclocked"]Looks like I'm going to get a second 2gb 560 Ti afterall, because 4xAA makes all the difference in the world when you only sit about a foot away from a 24" screen...mitu123

Max means 4xAA dont know why people forget that, you dont need AA fine and all but you arent maxing it if you cant play at 4xAA.

From the 1080p chart it's pretty clear that even a GTX 580 cannot max out BF3. 38 average and 33 minimum is not really enough for such a fast paced FPS.

Gambler_3

I don't agree that "max" means running 4xAA. Where did you get that idea from? "Max" means max detail settings. Filtering should be specified separately unless it's built into the different detail levels.

Is it me? because I cant tell the difference between high vs ultra04dcarraher

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Max means 4xAA dont know why people forget that, you dont need AA fine and all but you arent maxing it if you cant play at 4xAA.

From the 1080p chart it's pretty clear that even a GTX 580 cannot max out BF3. 38 average and 33 minimum is not really enough for such a fast paced FPS.

hartsickdiscipl

I don't agree that "max" means running 4xAA. Where did you get that idea from? "Max" means max detail settings. Filtering should be specified separately unless it's built into the different detail levels.

Im running everything max smooth as butter. What a beauty this game is.

1) It was actually 6%

2) I rounded because I didn't feel like being precise however I still wanted to be accurate, so I said 10% which is not very precise but is accurate. Your use of 5% is precise but not accurate (wrong).

GummiRaccoon

I don't agree that "max" means running 4xAA. Where did you get that idea from? "Max" means max detail settings. Filtering should be specified separately unless it's built into the different detail levels.

hartsickdiscipl

Pretty much. Things like AA are personal preference IMO. Not everyone runs the same resolution or screen type, it can vary for people. one guy might need 8xAA to smooth out the edges, someone else may need only 2xAA. If max truely meant max everything including AA, we'd be using 32-64xAA, which is just rediculouswis3boi

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

1) It was actually 6%

2) I rounded because I didn't feel like being precise however I still wanted to be accurate, so I said 10% which is not very precise but is accurate. Your use of 5% is precise but not accurate (wrong).

Gambler_3

Where on earth did you learn that 6% rounds to 5%? It doesn't because 5 has one significant figure (digit) and when you say 5% it means 5%. 10% has one significant figure 1 so that means that is an approximation, where as with 5% you are being exact (precise).

Every time I talk to you I have significant doubts about your claims of your education level.

cpu benchmark compilation:

http://www.inpai.com.cn/doc/playhard/160126_3.htm

Where on earth did you learn that 6% rounds to 5%? It doesn't because 5 has one significant figure (digit) and when you say 5% it means 5%. 10% has one significant figure 1 so that means that is an approximation, where as with 5% you are being exact (precise).

Every time I talk to you I have significant doubts about your claims of your education level.

GummiRaccoon

You dont need any education to tell you that rounding off 6% to 10% is completely impractical, comparing CPU performance is not an examination where there are "laws and rules".

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where on earth did you learn that 6% rounds to 5%? It doesn't because 5 has one significant figure (digit) and when you say 5% it means 5%. 10% has one significant figure 1 so that means that is an approximation, where as with 5% you are being exact (precise).

Every time I talk to you I have significant doubts about your claims of your education level.

Gambler_3

You dont need any education to tell you that rounding off 6% to 10% is completely impractical, comparing CPU performance is not an examination where there are "laws and rules".

It doesn't change that you don't know what significant figures are.

It doesn't change that you don't know what significant figures are.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

It doesn't change that you don't know what significant figures are.

Gambler_3

I would call 4% negligible.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

It doesn't change that you don't know what significant figures are.

GummiRaccoon

I would call 4% negligible.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]So if it was 4% what would you do? Round it off to 0% lol.

Gambler_3

I would call 4% negligible.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I would call 4% negligible.

wis3boi

This^

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Where on earth did you learn that 6% rounds to 5%? It doesn't because 5 has one significant figure (digit) and when you say 5% it means 5%. 10% has one significant figure 1 so that means that is an approximation, where as with 5% you are being exact (precise).

Every time I talk to you I have significant doubts about your claims of your education level.

You dont need any education to tell you that rounding off 6% to 10% is completely impractical, comparing CPU performance is not an examination where there are "laws and rules".

It doesn't change that you don't know what significant figures are.

[QUOTE="wolverine_97"]Are there any CPU benchmarks? I want to know how a X4 955 and a 6850 will perform.wis3boi

Good to see AMD is doing well again without thier new Bulldozer...

PS; Heavy multi-threads doesn't run well with hyper-threads i.e. designed for a mix of light and heavy threads.

EA's next "Need for Speed The Run" game also uses Forstbite 2.0 engine...

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Probably worth it for the performance as well.

mitu123

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I would call 4% negligible.

wis3boi

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Get out of your acedemics and be practical. There is no practical difference between 4 and 5% in the case we were talking about, doesnt matter if the rules tell you that 1-4 is rounded off backwards and 5-9 is rounded off upwards. As I said real life is hardly as it seems in theory.

superclocked

You have a really fast dual core so you wont since games arent bottlenecking your CPU but were doing mine.

I DID get almost double the performance in a couple of games going from a 2.6Ghz core 2 duo to 2.6Ghz core 2 quad.

You have a really fast dual core so you wont since games arent bottlenecking your CPU but were doing mine.

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]Yeah, from what i've seen, 2x of these should keep me at 60fps most of the time...superclocked

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="mitu123"] I wouldn't be surprised if it were all the time.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]So far, the game hasn't dropped below 40fps on all Ultra settings (4xAA, 16xAF, and HBAO) with my single 2GB 560 Ti, so I may not need another one. Buuuut, I haven't played online yet, since I just installed the game, so I'll have to post back later with those results...superclocked

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Try Caspian Border.=p

C_Rule

Bu bu teh phenom II was enough for all games. :cry:

Gambler_3

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]Will do, lol.. In fact, my clan is waiting for me as we type...Gambler_3

No problems here :? Not to mention that there are benchmarks posted in this very thread that show a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 beating out every other CPU in average FPS in BF3.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]Will do, lol.. In fact, my clan is waiting for me as we type...Gambler_3

My phenom II runs it fine.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]Will do, lol.. In fact, my clan is waiting for me as we type...Gambler_3

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]Will do, lol.. In fact, my clan is waiting for me as we type...Gambler_3

AMD Phenom II architecture has a superior multi-CPU communication design over Intel Core 2 Quad i.e. the two Core 2 Duo chips comminucates via FSB.

Multi-CPU communications, AMD Phenom II has shared L3 cache designi.e. same feature set as Intel Core i7.

Multiple heavy threads plays into AMD's advantage. BF3 is not the only EA game that will use Frostbite 2.0 engine.

AMD Phenom II architecture has a superior multi-CPU communication design over Intel Core 2 Quad i.e. the two Core 2 Duo chips comminucates via FSB.

Multiple heavy threads plays into AMD's advantage. BF3 is not the only EA game that will use Frostbite 2.0 engine.

ronvalencia

I am not saying that you are wrong but I have never seen gaming becnhmarks where core 2 quad is behind phenom II so would like to see some.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

AMD Phenom II architecture has a superior multi-CPU communication design over Intel Core 2 Quad i.e. the two Core 2 Duo chips comminucates via FSB.

Multiple heavy threads plays into AMD's advantage. BF3 is not the only EA game that will use Frostbite 2.0 engine.

Gambler_3

Well I think the evidence might be found in the fact that a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 tops the BF3 CPU performance chart that can be found in this very thread.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

AMD Phenom II architecture has a superior multi-CPU communication design over Intel Core 2 Quad i.e. the two Core 2 Duo chips comminucates via FSB.

Multiple heavy threads plays into AMD's advantage. BF3 is not the only EA game that will use Frostbite 2.0 engine.

Gambler_3

VMWARE. The fake CPU is ****.

I haven't run application runtime profiling on BF3, but Intel Hyper-Thread's dual threads are not symmetrical in performance i.e. it can degrade performance if the heavy threads has time/sync critical inter-communications.

As for Intel Core 2 Quad's

1. FSB is not even multiplexing

2.FSB is shared between two Core 2 Duo dies.

Intel Core 2 Quad is not native Quad-Core CPU design, hence Intel released Core i7 i.e. native Quad-Core design.

Well I think the evidence might be found in the fact that a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4 tops the BF3 CPU performance chart that can be found in this very thread.

hartsickdiscipl

I am dissapointed you cant see the obvious inconsistency in that chart as i7-920 beats 2500k and sandy bridge dual core is performing on par with quad core which shows the game is quite GPU limited.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

AMD Phenom II architecture has a superior multi-CPU communication design over Intel Core 2 Quad i.e. the two Core 2 Duo chips comminucates via FSB.

Multiple heavy threads plays into AMD's advantage. BF3 is not the only EA game that will use Frostbite 2.0 engine.

ronvalencia

And even if we ignore the GPU bottleneck thing it is no evidence for what I asked since core 2 quad isnt there.

From that chart it seems phenom II >> Nehalem >> Sandy bridge so you cant quite know where core 2 quad would have fallen.