Battlefied 3 benchmarks.

[BicycleMafioso]

I thought, this close to the release (ie, tomorrow), that it would be a good idea to put together different benchmarks for the game, so people can know what to expect from their rigs in the release-version.
I'm glad to see it being quite taxing, so we can truly see the relation between cards and whatnot..
Post links to your 'benchmarks'/other sites' benchmarks, and I'll add them every few days.

SweClockers.com, (i7-975 @ 3.33GHz, 6GiB 9-9-9-24 @ 1600MHz, ASUS Rampage III Extreme, 1920x1080)
Caspian Border >60 players at all times. Gameplay scenario. Green = average; Red = minimum FPS
GPU-benchmarks


source: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/4#pagehead

CPU-benchmarks:




Now, show me yours! (and then I can update it once a few has come in)

[ArchType]

Looks like i should be able to squeeze an OC'D 560ti to very high 35+fps then ;D

[Deleted]

Looks like i should be able to squeeze an OC'D 560ti to very high 35+fps then ;D

Also looks like the i3 2100 still will keep up as a gaming CPU too (i3 2100 is just above 980 in majority of gaming benchmaks)

[BicycleMafioso]

Also looks like the i3 2100 still will keep up as a gaming CPU too (i3 2100 is just above 980 in majority of gaming benchmaks)

A dual core likely won't be enough here.

[Deleted]

A dual core likely won't be enough here.

The i3 2100 has proved that wrong many times. It's a shockingly good dual core, course it's got hyper threading and I've heard BF3 is actually using hyper threads reasonably well.

[BicycleMafioso]

The i3 2100 has proved that wrong many times. It's a shockingly good dual core, course it's got hyper threading and I've heard BF3 is actually using hyper threads reasonably well.

Check the 2600K and 2500K differences. I still don't think it's enough.

[Deleted]

Check the 2600K and 2500K differences. I still don't think it's enough.

Check some of the i3 2100 benches against the 980, it'll give you a better idea of it. I know it recommends a quad core, but the i3 is a blur of dual and quad. Not nearly as good as the i5 range, but still capable.

[BicycleMafioso]

Check some of the i3 2100 benches against the 980, it'll give you a better idea of it. I know it recommends a quad core, but the i3 is a blur of dual and quad. Not nearly as good as the i5 range, but still capable.

I always recommend people an i3-2100. Please. I very well know how good it is.

I still don't think it's good enough.

[Pappahealar]

i7 950 @ 4GHz and GTX 460 overclocked to 840/1680/2050 @1.050mV should probably give me 40-50 FPS in High at least. When the 600 series come out I will probably get a new GPU to get over 60FPS on ultra.

I had quite good FPS in the beta, before I got my new cpu fan and my CPu was 3,1GHZ. Was hard to test since it was only metro(most of the time). But I think I topped at 70 sometimes and never under 30 FPS. on High settings without any MSAA that is.

[Deleted]

| How will that run?
|
|
V

[BicycleMafioso]

| How will that run?
|
|
V

Mixed medium/high, mostly medium. The game appears to be VRAM-capped at high and above, where 1GiB probably isn't enough.

[Deleted]

What about http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2066189? Any idea?
CPU will be replaced to a 955 @ 3.4ghz.

[BicycleMafioso]

What about http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2066189? Any idea?
CPU will be replaced to a 955 @ 3.4ghz.

With the 955, I'd expect medium to be well playable!

(Probably less if you're not super-fuzzed about needing 60fps, but I see people saying they recommend 60FPS since it will flow smoother than other)

[refire]

All of these benchmarks never show 460's in sli. How does it compare to these other setups? It's what I'm using currently and it seems to be playing it just fine on ultra without AA. I used the fps overlay in the campaign and I didn't recognize it drop below 60 but I had vsnyc on so I don't know how high I was actually going. Haven't really ventured into much multiplayer at all so I don't know what to expect with all the extra destruction and such. Has anyone seen multiplayer benchmarking with 460's?

[Deleted]

With the 955, I'd expect medium to be well playable!

(Probably less if you're not super-fuzzed about needing 60fps, but I see people saying they recommend 60FPS since it will flow smoother than other)

Alright.. Aiming for 40 fps by the way Anything over that

[Davisdoesdallas]

So just my experience. I have an i7 at 3.2GHz (stock) and a stock Nvidia 275 GTX and while I was able to play with the settings auto'd to high, I wasn't a fan. 1900x1080 native res.

After I turned everything except AA down the game ran smoother than a babies bottom(minus server lag).

I understand people love the sexy graphics but honestly, I could do without motion blur in all games, so that is automatically turned down for me since I like being able to catch a shape out of the corner of my eye when running. All of the flashlights and sniper scopes and all of that nice stuff works just fine on low/low and it still looks better than a lot of games.

Also with graphics turned down you are able to spot those snipers just sitting in their push so much easier.

[Deleted]

The benchmarks are for 1920x1080 and I'm using a 1680x1050 screen. I'll only be using a GTX560ti, how big of a difference will I see in VRAM usage & FPS when playing at my resolution?


While this feels kind of sad considering that my card only has 1GB VRAM I won't be able to play on all high anyway so atleast it's not VRAM alone that is holding me back.

I'm glad I didn't get a GTX580 since it seems one is far from able to get a stable 60 FPS on Ultra. I'm sure I'd enjoy High more than medium but I would have felt bad for not reaching Ultra when I spend that much money on a graphics card.

[BicycleMafioso]

Less pixels will mean less VRAM usage and less stress on the GPU. In other words, you might be able to run high.

[Deleted]

Less pixels will mean less VRAM usage and less stress on the GPU. In other words, you might be able to run high.

Great! Although I'm most likely going to upgrade my computer screen soon but who knows, maybe I'll end up using VGA for another 5 years.

[Deleted]

seems to me, that 6950 CFX is the way to go. Bang for buck wise that is.
Even tho it isnt on the chart, im expecting it to be just below the 6970 CFX set up. Weird that they didnt run a benchmark with those tho