Why lie, BF3 does NOT require SLI to run on ultra.

[Beazy]

Your not running in ultra. You have a few options turned down.

I just purchased last night and you cannot run every setting on ULTRA with 60 fps @ 1920 with ONE 570. I had to turn down the AA, AF and bring shadow quality down to HIGH to hit 60 FPS at that rez. So yes, if you want to truly run at ULTRA on all settings with no Frame Rate drop, then SLI is going to be required for 570s and below.

[Lusitan]

So, i got myself Battlefield 3 today, and decided to give the Ultra quality a go, even though i thought i would have framerate issues, since its supposedly only "for computers from the future", and surprise surprise - that was bullshit.


(Click to enlarge)


Framerates are smooth as butter, only drops (not even below 40) are in particle intensive spots (middle of an explosion etc) - but that's normal.


So wtf is this, some cheap ass tactic to get people to shell out money pointlessly?


Hell, i could easily rise the AA and other settings that affect object smoothing, but at 1920x1200, anything more than what i've set, is seriously unnoticeable, so it's a pointless waste of processing power that could be utilized elsewhere.


The benchmark is in the upper right if someone didn't notice, i ran it through the ending of the jet mission (final bombing and landing) and a little above halfway through the follow up mission (you can see the location in the menu background).


Anyone else noticed that it runs just perfectly without SLI?

Single player, i assume

[KevyB]

You had to turn AA all the way down this isnt ultra
Heres the benchmarks

I didn't "have" to do anything, as i stated before - i see no difference between 16x MSAA and 2x MSAA, i dont stand in one spot staring at fences, plus it only applies to models and semi-transparent objects, other things like particle effects, shadows, etc. are not affected (shadowmap resolution + shadow filtering are for that, which doesn't seem to be in BF3), so there's no reason for me to go on 16x msaa, it's a pointless waste of GPU (and temperature, because it always puts it those ~10c higher, since the ram chips are going apeshit).

Also, regarding AF - it's pointless in singleplayer, most of the maps are quite corridorish, so the distance between surfaces is not even as big as in multiplayer (with the exception of a few missions, like the helicopter one, but seriously - there's too many rockets going your way to stare at a wall on some building 3km from you).

It's optimized Ultra, but still ultra - because those settings that are on Ultra use completely different shaders than High.


And seriously, if i were to up the voltage on my GLH (which is piss easy since its unlocked by default) - and increase the clocks like its christmas (which according to benchmark sites, easily turns it into a 580 series - with the exception of less pipelines, but BF3 is quite well optimized so in the case of this engine it's a minor fps difference).

Single player, i assume

Indeed

and you're only getting 50 FPS.

58 fps not 50 fps (quite a difference) is the avg during heavy gunfights, the 41 fps min is, as i said before, what the benchmark recorded between the 2 missions i ran it on - the loading screen has a small animation in the bottom right, so it also takes it into account - otherwise it'd be 0 fps if it would be a static loadscreen - i don't get 41fps ingame.


Also, BF3 doesn't have triple buffering integrated, and with a 120hz monitor i don't see any screen tearing - at all (nor am i dropping any frames because i don't have any bottlenecks in that system, everything works perfectly together)

And mouse input lag in fps games is shit, so i chose to leave it off.

---------- Post added 2011-10-27 at 07:11 PM ----------

you can overclock your watercooled components more, but that's all.

Did you miss the part where i said i did OC the rams, the FSB and the CPU - all of which have their watercooling blocks installed (FSB - northbridge cooler), only thing i didn't OC yet is the GPU, because i feel no need to speed up the wear&tear on the gfx cards components, it runs just fine as it is.

[flarecde]

My air cooled, underclocked (yes, underclocked) two year old bucket of bricks manages most of the settings on their highest except shadows and AA at ~40 FPS. Go me? :P

I gotta say, the game performs amazingly well graphically. I'm really impressed.

[Bitlovin]

It's seriously annoying to bullshit people like this, only to incline them to buy a SLI setup, especially when the new GPU's are just around the corner, seems like a lame attempt to get rid of piled up stock.

Why would a software company give a shit what hardware you buy? You do realize they aren't in that business, right?

[Huge Something]

Why would a software company give a shit what hardware you buy? You do realize they aren't in that business, right?

Do you know what a sponsor is?

[flarecde]

Why would a software company give a shit what hardware you buy? You do realize they aren't in that business, right?

I imagine for the same reason those games always have a "plays best on nvidia/ati/monkey balls" movie at the beginning of the game. What better way to get people to buy your video card than to pay off the people who make stuff that runs on video cards to hype your hardware up for you.

[cidic]

Runs fine on my 6970 in Ultra for everything.

[lawndarts]

Your opinions on what objects look better with filtering during gameplay are irrelevant. With an sli system you will never drop get anywhere near 40 fps, even during particle intensive explosions. As they stated, the visual different between high and ultra is minimal. They said that its just a bunch of filtering and a more tessellated ground. Their Sli comment also assumed you would want to run it at 60 Fps all the time(including during explosions, which happens all the time) There are filtering options on games these days that use insane video memory with subtle visual improvement. (ubersampling)

[3clipse]

Old thread. Please don't post in it.