nbraybrook
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2011
- 35
- 0
- 18,530
-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
Interesting reviews showing how the graphics are with gtx 200 series cards. Unfortunately this is just another FPS and hence doesn't interest me enough to jump into the 500 series. Waiting for the 600 series cards is fine by me and at that time I'll try this game out.
GTX 560 is a great card but look at the numbers of the higher cards in the 500 line. Pretty impressive. I've been hearing complaints though that the 500 series cards use too much power. 600 series is suppose to be low power and better performance.
Save for giving me red, I just have too many FPS and am thinking about going to a different platform to play something different such as a side scroller or such.
GTX 560 is a great card but look at the numbers of the higher cards in the 500 line. Pretty impressive. I've been hearing complaints though that the 500 series cards use too much power. 600 series is suppose to be low power and better performance.
Save for giving me red, I just have too many FPS and am thinking about going to a different platform to play something different such as a side scroller or such.
Djentleman
Distinguished
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,045
- 0
- 19,410
This is good - this is saying my 6850 will be able to play it high settings at 1080p with a playable fps!
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
Benderoffender
Distinguished
- Jul 12, 2010
- 12
- 0
- 18,510
Dude nice review, but remember, the true problem isn't with AMD or Nvidia, it's with lazy DICE and EA who keep selling us half finished games.
bigdragon
Distinguished
- Oct 19, 2011
- 1,142
- 609
- 20,160
Nice breakdown of video cards. So all I have to do is buy better hardware to have better game performance? Whew! I was worried better game performance had to be unlocked like EVERYTHING else in the game. Unlockfield Bad Company 3 is what they should have named this game.
I don't get the comments on the "what do I need for ultra pages". You mean to say that 1920x1080 isn't an enthousaist resolution? I for one am an enthousiast gamer playing on a 24 inch screen and wouldn't want it any bigger. As far as a 6970 or 570 not being playable on ultra at that res I completely disagree. Since when is 40-45 fps not playable... Sure more is better but my 6970 runs the game fine maxed out at 1920x1080, it is very playable.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]I didn't get this game for MP, I got it for the Campaign ... so far it just about follow the script and just shoot -- not impressed at all.Hopefully MW3 turns out better than BF3.[/citation]
Wow... are you kidding me? You bought BF3 for the campaign? Well you're right, you're probably better off just sticking to COD or Crysis, but you're honestly missing out on one of the best multiplayer fps experiences ever.
Wow... are you kidding me? You bought BF3 for the campaign? Well you're right, you're probably better off just sticking to COD or Crysis, but you're honestly missing out on one of the best multiplayer fps experiences ever.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]Lurf[/nom]Since when is 40-45 fps not playable... Sure more is better but my 6970 runs the game fine maxed out at 1920x1080, it is very playable.[/citation]
...with AA disabled.
...with AA disabled.
nbraybrook
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2011
- 35
- 0
- 18,530
Nice gmcizzle, Thanks for the info, I have the identical setup processor / ram / overclock wise. I am running 285gtx overclock editions in SLI, I run 90fps max never under 55 prob avg about 65-70fps @ 1080p ultra textures, and models, everything else high, no MSAA, Medium Post, no HBAO. It looks great and runs great I think I will hold off on a upgrade till I see how the new 600 series preforms.
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]...with AA disabled.[/citation]
Not sure I understand your post, are you saying the 6970 won't hit those fps unless msaa is disabled?
With MSAA disabled my 5870 is very playable at 1920x1200 and is in the 40fps range. A 6970 can easily do 40-45 maxed out with msaa.
Not sure I understand your post, are you saying the 6970 won't hit those fps unless msaa is disabled?
With MSAA disabled my 5870 is very playable at 1920x1200 and is in the 40fps range. A 6970 can easily do 40-45 maxed out with msaa.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]Not sure I understand your post, are you saying the 6970 won't hit those fps unless msaa is disabled?[/citation]
Ya, pretty much. How else could you have interpreted that?
[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]A 6970 can easily do 40-45 maxed out with msaa.[/citation]
I have no doubt it can, in single player non-combat situations, such as the gameplay Tom's used as a benchmark for this review. But I can assure you, this represents a near best case scenario for BF3 performance. Other reviews that used combat gameplay, while not as consistent or reproducible, showed much lower performance on average.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6
I've used fraps to benchmark my 64 player conquest gameplay, and my averages are much closer to the Guru3D performance results than they are to the results here on Tom's. The reviewer makes no attempt to cover up or deny this fact, so you should just be aware that the Tom's review is in no way representative of multiplier performance (which I assume is the reason you and most others bought this game... other then V8VENOM).
In short, if you're on a 64 player map with a stock HD6970 at the ultra preset, 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 will be a borderline experience at best.
Ya, pretty much. How else could you have interpreted that?
[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]A 6970 can easily do 40-45 maxed out with msaa.[/citation]
I have no doubt it can, in single player non-combat situations, such as the gameplay Tom's used as a benchmark for this review. But I can assure you, this represents a near best case scenario for BF3 performance. Other reviews that used combat gameplay, while not as consistent or reproducible, showed much lower performance on average.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/battlefield-3-vga-and-cpu-performance-benchmark-test/6
I've used fraps to benchmark my 64 player conquest gameplay, and my averages are much closer to the Guru3D performance results than they are to the results here on Tom's. The reviewer makes no attempt to cover up or deny this fact, so you should just be aware that the Tom's review is in no way representative of multiplier performance (which I assume is the reason you and most others bought this game... other then V8VENOM).
In short, if you're on a 64 player map with a stock HD6970 at the ultra preset, 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 will be a borderline experience at best.
geekapproved
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2010
- 8,766
- 0
- 31,460
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
because a 22" for me at least BETTER be 1080p...
1680 x 1050 doesn't do it for me once I got a 1920 x 1080..
If you look at the benchmarks, with exception of the GF200 and super high resolutions, the performance decrease from running without AA to running with 4xMSAA is really small, like 10% - 20%, depending on resolution. (Which is a surprisingly small performance hit for 4xAA!) It seems you think that everything below 60FPS is bad and in your review you sound like people should only run 4xAA on a €700 card like the GTX 590 - i think this is a little silly since i run everything on 4xAA and take a 15% performance hit happily if i get no jagged edges in exchange. A 15% increase in FPS (compared from running w/ MSAA to turning MSAA off) will also not make a "unplayable" game all of a sudden playable. I am pretty sure that it is perfectly doable and enjoyable to have a low/mid-range card like the 570 and run the game at 4xAA - heck you know, i just played a little of the game on a 275 with 4xAA and it was still playable! So, the statement you need a 590 for 4xAA is a little absurd, IMO.
I don't understand why people are saying GTX570 SLI is a good option for 1080p and ultra settings with AA. I have that setup and run the game at 1920x1200 and video RAM limitations are very clear at these settings, and to mislead people into buying $700 of cards only to find that their gameplay experience is a stuttering one, despite good framerate in between, is bad advice to give. DICE said themselves, ULTRA quality with AA enabled is meant for cards with 1.5gigs of video ram or more, period. Otherwise, you can live with the texture swapping and resultant skipps, glitches and hitching.
I run the game with all setting maxed except textures, they are set to high and the game runs perfect all the time. Once I set textures to ULTRA, then ram limits become appearant as the skipping starts and the ram usage starts to peg the needls all the way.
I run the game with all setting maxed except textures, they are set to high and the game runs perfect all the time. Once I set textures to ULTRA, then ram limits become appearant as the skipping starts and the ram usage starts to peg the needls all the way.
Djentleman
Distinguished
- Jul 25, 2011
- 1,045
- 0
- 19,410
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 201
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram