What graphics card do I need for BF3

[THIS_RANDOM_GUY]

I am wondering what graphics card I should get for my first gaming PC I am building. I picked the Sapphire Radeon 7950 but it was $500. Is there any other graphics card that is cheaper that can play BF3 on ultra with 50+ fps? I have a Samsung LCD 1920x1080 monitor 23". These are the parts I picked:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226095
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128498
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115071
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148697
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106289
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811139005

 

[jaguarskx]

As I have stated...

... my recommendation for the GeForce GTX 680 still stands if the OP want a minimum of 50+ FPS.

 

[catatafish]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-7.html

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/22/battlefield_3_multiplayer_performance_iq_review/3

To the OP, if you haven't glazed over yet from all the sidebar bickering, I suggest you go to one of the above links (if you don't want to shell out $500) and inform yourself a bit. As you can see, you have many options between $200 and $350 that will get you BF3 at a quality level that you may not be able to discern between what you will get at $500. Good luck to you and have fun with your build.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

This should make the choice easy..... BF3, DX11, Ultra mode, 4x MSAA enabled, 16x AF enabled, HBAO enabled, Level: Operation Swordbreaker

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/21

$500 GTX 680 - 59 fps = $8.47 per frame
$560 Radeon7970 - 46 fps = $12.17 per frame
$450 GTX 580 - 43 fps = $10.47 per frame
$460 Radeon 7950 - 40 fps = $11.50 per frame
$360 Radeon 7870 - 39 fps = $9.23 per frame
$350 Radeom 6970 - 33 fps = $10.61 per frame
$280 Radeon 6950 - 31 fps = 9.03 per frame
$210 GTX 560 Ti (900Mhz) - 30 fps = $7.00 per frame

 

[Onus]

According to the review at http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/02/battlefield_3_single_player_performance_iq_review/4 you can maintain an average FPS over 50 using a GTX560Ti.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Check my build in my sig. I'm running BF3 at 60 fps with vsynch on with a 1080 rez monitor on Ultra. The 560Ti is about $180 now after a rebate. I'd say the 560Ti is the minimum needed for Ultra on BF3 and I wouldn't even been getting that if I didn't bump up it up to 925-950 using MSI Afterburner. You can OC it in about 20 seconds. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

My son's running twin factory OC'd 560 Ti's .... boosted with Afterburner 2.2.0 Beta 15 to 980 Hz (was 1020, just turned down for summer.....stays 80C or below now w/ warmer weather)

http://www.guru3d.com/news/msi-afterburner-220-beta-15-download/

He runs BF3 fine on a 120Hz monitor 1920 x 1080 with ultra settings but in multiplayer and to run smoothly requires a drop to High Settings. 2600k is running at 4.8Ghz

 

[slicedtoad]

Ok, i read this post and needed to give my two cents.

First sp benchmarks and mp are not the same in bf3. Benchmarks (sp) are a nice way of seeing which card performs better than the other. The fps is way lower in mp.

BF3 on max settings @1920x1080 (without cranking up view distance past default for 'utlra') is not a small order.

My wc 2GB 6950 (1050/1625) that benches equivalent to a stock 580 gets 50fps avg on small, indoor maps and 40fps on larger maps. That's in 64 player games. I also get dips of about 10-15fps.

That's with my i5 running @ 4.7GHz. CPU plays a decent role in bf3 mp as well.

Conclusively, don't use benchmarks to figure out what card you will need for BF3. For 60fps with dips no lower than 5fps, I'd say you need either a 680 or 7970 or two cards. I could be wrong though because I don't have either card and sp benchmarks != mp benchmarks.


edit: one other thing is that it uses 1.5gbs of my vram. It might not need that much but it does use it.

 

[antonisrsx]

This should make the choice easy..... BF3, DX11, Ultra mode, 4x MSAA enabled, 16x AF enabled, HBAO enabled, Level: Operation Swordbreaker

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/21

$500 GTX 680 - 59 fps = $8.47 per frame
$560 Radeon7970 - 46 fps = $12.17 per frame
$450 GTX 580 - 43 fps = $10.47 per frame
$460 Radeon 7950 - 40 fps = $11.50 per frame
$360 Radeon 7870 - 39 fps = $9.23 per frame
$350 Radeom 6970 - 33 fps = $10.61 per frame
$280 Radeon 6950 - 31 fps = 9.03 per frame
$210 GTX 560 Ti (900Mhz) - 30 fps = $7.00 per frame

where can i find gtx 680 for $500? i am from europe. in ebay is more much🙁

 

[loops]

I have a pair of gtx 560s (non ti) that "should" be close to a single gtx 580 FPS wise. I got them both for just over $300.00. I only play BF3 and Skyrim right now.

At stock I can run ulta but AA can not be maxed out w/o getting choppy and FPS dips. In maps like Meto I can get kinda max out AA but it still gets choppy. BF3 on high is still really nice. Ultra is cool but that Max AA is a problem for my set up. (2500k;z86;8 gigs ddr3;ssd;560 sli)

I am still new to this, but I thought that AA and memory were correlated in some way? Can some one explain or link something that can show how more gpu memory impacts AA?

 

[slicedtoad]

^don't have a link but your 560s only have 1gb of memory (even when in sli) which is why aa is a problem for you. In short, AA is kind of like increasing resolution, only quite different. I'm sure someone else can give you an accurate description.

 

[THIS_RANDOM_GUY]

where can i find gtx 680 for $500? i am from europe. in ebay is more much🙁

Go to Newegg.com, ncix.com, tigerdirect. I don't know if they ship international though.

 

[graemevermeulen]

Go to Newegg.com, ncix.com, tigerdirect. I don't know if they ship international though.

Newegg doesn't.

 

[Onus]

But you'll notice that's without AA. If you want AA, you need a lot more GPU muscle to achieve those framerates than a single 560ti.

True, and it wasn't Multiplayer (something I should have noted). Still, the request was for "Ultra," so I did not add in the AA. I suppose in a roundabout way my point is to suggest that if just one or two slightly lowered settings are acceptable, it doesn't take a $500 (or even a $300) card to enjoy this game.

 

[87ninefiveone]

the first thing I would do is find some 2133XMP certified memory and dump the 1333. BIOS on that board should help here.

This is just wrong. Low CAS latency 1333 or 1600 MHz memory is just as good as all but the most expensive 2133 MHz stuff and will cost you half as much. See here...

http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=160

 

[chase3567]

I have a pair of gtx 560s (non ti) that "should" be close to a single gtx 580 FPS wise. I got them both for just over $300.00. I only play BF3 and Skyrim right now.

At stock I can run ulta but AA can not be maxed out w/o getting choppy and FPS dips. In maps like Meto I can get kinda max out AA but it still gets choppy. BF3 on high is still really nice. Ultra is cool but that Max AA is a problem for my set up. (2500k;z86;8 gigs ddr3;ssd;560 sli)

I am still new to this, but I thought that AA and memory were correlated in some way? Can some one explain or link something that can show how more gpu memory impacts AA?

I have two 2GB OC EVGA 560's in SLI and I can ran BF3 with all settings maxed at about 55fps in most maps but I do take a hit in some the expansion maps to 45 fps. Some maps are 60fps and higher and I do use about 1.5 gb of vram to run the settings. I have the clocks set at 900mhz and the fans at manual 70%. I'm using a FX6100 OC to 4.1ghz and 8gb of Gskill Ram 1600.

 

[slicedtoad]

This is just wrong. Low CAS latency 1333 or 1600 MHz memory is just as good as all but the most expensive 2133 MHz stuff and will cost you half as much. See here...

http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=160

while you are right about 2133 being useless, your info about timings is off. Timings with ddr3 are less important than speed. And nothing above 1600mhz makes a difference in games (even with a heavy cpu oc).

Read this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/1

 

[Laziirz]

Try the GTX 680 out.. it just came out as far as im aware of and get a 120 Hz... it makes the framerates smoother

 

[Laziirz]

while you are right about 2133 being useless, your info about timings is off. Timings with ddr3 are less important than speed. And nothing above 1600mhz makes a difference in games (even with a heavy cpu oc).

Read this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/1

even if you OC Ram to 2133 it doesnt make a difference?

 

[davemaster84]

Hi there. I have a gtx 460 1gb sli, it costs around 400 dollars in my country which is cheaper than the gtx 580. I run bf3 at 1920 x 1080 in campain (I don´t take multiplayer into account ´cause my internet sucks) and at max settings runs around 80 even to 100 fps, it has quick fps drops but they go usually down to 60, so I you have low budget go for a gtx 460 sli

 

[slicedtoad]

even if you OC Ram to 2133 it doesnt make a difference?

it makes a difference, but not a useful difference. If you spent the extra money on your gpu, it would yield better results. From 1600 to 2133 will give +1to2 fps in the best case scenario. That only applies to games. I'm not familiar with how it affects other programs.

 

[loops]

I have two 2GB OC EVGA 560's in SLI and I can ran BF3 with all settings maxed at about 55fps in most maps but I do take a hit in some the expansion maps to 45 fps. Some maps are 60fps and higher and I do use about 1.5 gb of vram to run the settings. I have the clocks set at 900mhz and the fans at manual 70%. I'm using a FX6100 OC to 4.1ghz and 8gb of Gskill Ram 1600.

Even w/ and OC like yours I sill have issues w/ max AA. Your 1.5 may be what I am missing?

 

[slicedtoad]

^yeah, bf3 seems to be able to make use of 1.5gb of vram @ 1080p with aa. Use msi ab or something to monitor vram usage.

 

[THIS_RANDOM_GUY]

Best answer selected by THIS_RANDOM_GUY.

 

[noskillninja]

the first thing I would do is find some 2133XMP certified memory and dump the 1333. BIOS on that board should help here.

the card/ any card above a 6950 2gig will run that game flawlessly with the rest of your hardware. You don't have to buy the newest thing out there........... which made me look at this thread. I knew right away the 680 would be the first thing inexperienced builders would have suggested.

better say it.... DON'T buy a card with less that 2gigs of ram.

i agree with this guy. im a budget gamer and cant afford a 680 with my impatience. i have slowly been building my rig and so far i love my asus 560 ti, but. . . planned to lsi so i went with the 560 ti instead of saving up cash. runs great but i love bf3. unfortunatly it can use more than my 1 gig of vram (on ultra 1080 with aa) leaving me a little upset with my 1 gig choice. the 2 gig version came out a short time later for about 30 40 bucks more. so on that note, if u like adding to your rig and enjoy tweeking id say go with a 2 gig 560ti, add one if ya need it, and theres still room to dream about something bigger.

 

[noskillninja]

"I don't care what the charts say"

I rest my case. Dude, the charts are what we go by.

"If you are one of these people who thinks performance ONLY has to do with FPS stick your head back in the sand" :lol:

What do you measure performance with? A tape measure?

Frames per second is what we measure performance with in games. He's specifically referring to BF3.

And no, you didn't hit a nerve at all. You're just making yourself look a bit silly, mate.

sorry but what about a steady 60 fps untill vram is full and has to cross over and oh would u look at that breif screen pauses. hmmmm
but i guess fps is everything huh. im not even a pc wiz but thats common sense mate. not many things consume all of the 1 gig but most build rigs for the future. and also who do you think makes the charts. yes we all have to use them as a guide but if it where as simple as reading a chart then there wouldn't be ten billion posts worth of opinion. all im sayin is a chart is only good if the benchmark tool is up to the standards of the program u are trying to run.