Need more juice for BF3 Max 60fps

[EarthDog]

I agree as well with Janus and txus, but some people just love the eye candy (I am one of those people). Even on 2560x1440 with no AA I can still see the jaggies when I'm not running around and that irks me. Textures from Ultra to High are nearly indistinguishable in any situation.

Here is a great comparison of settings so one can judge for themselves: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...esting-and-Image-Quality-Evaluation-Day-1/Gam

Whats the Nvidia equivalent to the 7850?

There isnt one out yet.

 

[boosteeddc]

so wasnt 7870 suppose to be faster/better performance than gtx580, or similar to 670? now would 7870 max bf3? or it needs to be xfire'd or xfire wont even be enough due to crossfire still only uses the 2gb vram on one card?

 

[Support]

I agree as well with Janus and txus, but some people just love the eye candy (I am one of those people). Even on 2560x1440 with no AA I can still see the jaggies when I'm not running around and that irks me. Textures from Ultra to High are nearly indistinguishable in any situation.

Here is a great comparison of settings so one can judge for themselves: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...esting-and-Image-Quality-Evaluation-Day-1/Gam

There isnt one out yet.

I though that was 560s

 

[EarthDog]

7870=580 in performance. Check out my reviews on a couple 7870's on the front page.

It could max BF3 on 1920x1080.

Crossfire/SLI has always only mirrored the ram (same info on each card) so yes 2GB total.

I though that was 560s

There is not a 6 series card out to match the 7870/7850. The 570 is about 7850 level however, maybe a 560ti 448core.

 

[boosteeddc]

7870=580 in performance. Check out my reviews on a couple 7870's on the front page.

It could max BF3 on 1920x1080.

Crossfire/SLI has always only mirrored the ram (same info on each card) so yes 2GB total.



There is not a 6 series card out to match the 7870/7850. The 570 is about 7850 level however.

what would these cards perform like when i jump on one of those catleap monitors then? the 7870

 

[Rotary]

that does not show a gtx 680 4gb model, and i am seeing over 3gb of vram in bf3

 

[EarthDog]

Be careful not to hijack Support's thread...(boosted)

You can look up 580 reviews, or 7870 reviews at 2560x1440/1600 and see what Im saying. My personal experience was the 580 (and therefore 7870) wasnt enough for ultra settings. The dips were too low for my taste. Simply setting it to High, using SSAO instead of HBAO and FXAA instead MSAA made it perfectly playable. That said, for a monitor like that and BF3, I wouldnt go less than a 7950/670 for that monitor.

 

[Rotary]

what would these cards perform like when i jump on one of those catleap monitors then? the 7870

You have to remember, high end cards are made for really high res, so if you run a high end card on a low res monitor then you will lose fps

 

[EarthDog]

that does not show a gtx 680 4gb model, and i am seeing over 3gb of vram in bf3

We've been through this before . And I think someone started on thread on the ram thing I am about to discuss...

The ram seems to scale. 1GB isnt enough. With 2GB, I sit at 1.8GB used at 2560x1440. With a 7950 I sat a hair above that I believe? Benchmarks have shown that unless you run multimonitor setup 2GB is plenty (and even then its fine as the 680 still holds a lead so its not debilitating anyway).

You have to remember, high end cards are made for really high res, so if you run a high end card on a low res monitor then you will lose fps

Ehhh.. sort of. However those catleaps he is talking about, as mentioned in my posts above, the resolution is 2560x1440. Thats a high res.

That said, you dont LOSE anything. Meaning if I was at 1680x1050 I wouldnt get MORE FPS from say a 670 than a 680 or 7950 from 7970... No. Thats not true... though you would be limited by the CPU essentially but LESS frames is false.

 

[boosteeddc]

Be careful not to hijack Support's thread...

You can look up 580 reviews, or 7870 reviews at 2560x1440/1600 and see what Im saying. My personal experience was the 580 (and therefore 7870) wasnt enough for ultra settings. The dips were too low for my taste. Simply setting it to High, using SSAO instead of HBAO and FXAA instead MSAA made it perfectly playable. That said, for a monitor like that and BF3, I wouldnt go less than a 7950/670 for that monitor.

sorry about that, jus came up with the eager to ask these questions.

 

[wagex]

A HD 7850 would do well enough; but you won't get those frames you want at Ultra...

I REALLY REALLY do NOT understand the NEED to run BF3 at Ultra settings at 60fps+. Why not just run everything on High; keep AA/AF low/off; but keep post processing (FXAA)on medium or higher? It looks just as good; and if you're playing multiplayer; you want more frames vs prettier details which you'll NEVER EVER notice the difference during intensive multiplayer anyway... Single player doesn't require those types of frame rates either..

My Local 'Best aus e-tailer' PCCG has a facebook page I frequently visit and post in. Many many many people keep posting overkill builds in an attempt 'max BF3 at ultra 60fps+'. It's sooooo silly.. >< Just a HUGE waste of money. But this is purely my opinion. I just wanted to chime in and make a 'lower the settings; get same result' suggestion. The rest I just wanted to share/rant. Everyone has already answered your actual question. =).

Mind you; if you HAVE the money to burn; go for it. If you're scrapping by on a part time wage whilst you're studying; deal with a little bit lower settings and save yourself some money.. IMO.

they like the feel of being hung like a server node
they are internet stallions if ya catch my drift

 

[Knufire]

what would these cards perform like when i jump on one of those catleap monitors then? the 7870

 

[Ivy]

Nah, a OC (over 15%) 7870 could handle close to 60 FPS/1080P even on ultra and it does cost lesser (in my country, i dont have Newegg) than the 670 GTX.

 

[xander89]

the 7870 is always going to cost less as it isnt near the 670. The 670 beats the top of the line amd 7970. In order to play at a solid 60 fps totally maxed out you WILL need either a 7950/70 ( both with a decent OC) or a 670

 

[Ivy]

There isnt even a real reason to get a 680 GTX because 670 GTX is way to close and much better price (screw that minor difference in performance, only the most hardcore performance freaks would care about). However, i run the 7870 OC, it would be foolish not to do so, and it does clearly beat the 580 GTX. The 580 GTX is unable to handle at least 15% OC out of the box without voltmod. So its not fully comparable. Not talking about power consume yet, a 580 GTX will totaly lose on that.

But its true that a 670 GTX, as far as BF3 is concerned, is the best choice. Still, it doesnt mean that AMD cards are unable to satifsy. The reason the 670 GTX runs better (at 1080P not at eyefinity) than the 7970 is because the engine works better with Nvidia. Im sure Nvidia even provided the Dev Kit for free so they can win the race much easyer, because thats all Nvidia/AMD care about and they would do everything in order to reach that goal. Anyway, AMD is still plagued by theyr driver issues, if they fix that problem they could get closer to Nvidia.

 

[EarthDog]

A 580 can most certainly hit a 15% overclock without a volt mod (volt mod to me is physically modifying the board by the way). And should be able to do it without raising the voltage cia software either (772 = reference speed so 889Mhz = 15%). Most of mine ran 950+ core when I added voltage via software (again not a volt MOD).

 

[Ivy]

Without the add of any volt, no matter how its done. I generally disapprove because it doesnt only cause more heat but it does reduce lifetime. The question is "why to stress that shiny hardware so much when it can handle it without so much stress". Same opinion such as Guru3D. But even when a 580 GTX would perform the same (that means 60 FPS at 15% OC in BF3 = sufficient), i would not get it because i do care heat and power consume. It will get worse significantly for every bit of volt or when to much OC added. I try to be as effective as possible so i even watch the performance scaling at a OC which is great for 7870 (for the first 15%). However, im different than most of the other enthusiasts, but bringing it up is target to flaming so i try to avoid. Kinda, for me most important is to find the sweet spot for everything i do, thats most critical. It means, performance yes but not at the incredible cost of another factor.

 

[EarthDog]

Tell me something I dont know...

If you havent noticed over the past year, this is an enthusiast site who generally believes in getting the most you can out of your hardware. This mean overclocking and frequently raising voltage. Your stance, though perfectly acceptable, is just outside of the general thinking for most people here (as you already know). For most here, we will want/need new GPU's/CPU's before the meager voltage increases (and temps) will kill our cards. Hell cards come from the factory overclocked and overvolted. So I beg to differ in regards to "It means, performance yes but not at the incredible cost of another factor". If it killed cards so frequently the majority here wouldnt do it or recommend it in the first place.

That said, I own a 680, 7950, 7870. Only the 680 is on my gaming rig pushing 2560x1440 pixels. It is not overclocked. I only overclock when benching as I get acceptable frame rates as is so I understand your point in that regard. What I dont like to hear is what I would call extreme paranoia over overclocking killing things before its useable life is over.

 

[Frakk]

I'm getting 50+ FPS on Ultra preset (minus Motion Blur simply because it gives me a headache) at 1920 x 1080P on an overclocked 6950.
its not 60 FPS (though it does go over that on occasion) its enough to get that silky smooth game play and it has the magic 2GB of vRAM.

An overclocked 7850 will also do that if not more...

You don't need to spend $400 + for BF3, you can do it for half that

Edit- I have also turned down AA from 4x to 2x to get that but i can't tell the difference, no matter how hard i look.....

Either way it looks stunning and plays perfectly smooth.

 

[xander89]

Tell me something I dont know...

If you havent noticed over the past year, this is an enthusiast site who generally believes in getting the most you can out of your hardware. This mean overclocking and frequently raising voltage. Your stance, though perfectly acceptable, is just outside of the general thinking for most people here (as you already know). For most here, we will want/need new GPU's/CPU's before the meager voltage increases (and temps) will kill our cards. Hell cards come from the factory overclocked and overvolted. So I beg to differ in regards to "It means, performance yes but not at the incredible cost of another factor". If it killed cards so frequently the majority here wouldnt do it or recommend it in the first place.

+1 I have never managed to kill a card/ cpu through overclocking it. It might degrade the cpu/ gpu ( there are load of technical things that i dont fully understand) But then again in terms of decreasing the life of a CPU / GPU it will never usually be enough for you to see it die before it becomes totally obsolete as a piece of technology . For example i ran my 920 @ 4ghz for about 3 yearss with no adverse affects ( i sold it to a mate and i doubt it will die before he upgrades). And ive always have heavily OC'd graphics cars. Never any issues there. As long as you cooling adequate the damage will be minimal