Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Bf3 performance

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 30, 2011 2:26:10 AM

Hi,

What is considered a good FPS to get for bf3?

Do you guys consider this engine to be better than crysis?

More about : bf3 performance

October 30, 2011 7:40:12 AM

60+ fps same as any game on computer.

Better than crysis 1 engine? absolutely. Better than than crysis 2's engine? They're both great, it's hard to differentiate.
Score
0
October 30, 2011 8:31:10 AM

60+ is obviously good, but really hard to achieve, a stable 45+ works well and is far more achievable.
Score
0
Related resources
October 30, 2011 5:44:20 PM

FPS games 60fps constant is optimal. I would suggest turning on Vsync and setting the video settings to AUTO. It seems to do a reall good job at obtaining 60fps with the correct settings. I have a GTX580 and was having a hard time. I set to auto out of frustration and worked like a charm. I know several others that did the same thing.
Score
0
October 30, 2011 10:20:34 PM

At least 30FPS is playable. Anything below if meh if not unplayable. In terms of how well optimized and easy to run the game is compared to Crysis, yes. In terms of looks, no. I still find Crysis to be one of the most photo realistic games out there. With the graphic enhancing mods, nothing beats it.
Score
0
October 30, 2011 11:58:36 PM

30 fps can't be considered playable for multiplayer. You will get eaten alive.
Score
0
October 31, 2011 12:01:55 AM

AbdullahG said:
At least 30FPS is playable. Anything below if meh if not unplayable. In terms of how well optimized and easy to run the game is compared to Crysis, yes. In terms of looks, no. I still find Crysis to be one of the most photo realistic games out there. With the graphic enhancing mods, nothing beats it.

One of the key factors in a game running smooth is consistent FPS. With Vsync it tries it's best to stabalize the FPS. 30 FPS is perfectly fine if it is a constant. That is why the console versions look just fine at this framerate. The issue is in PC world sometime it just doesn't happen. With an LCD running at 60FPS any change in frames is noticeable. However once you achieve 60FPS and above you can't usually notice because that is all the monitor can put out. BF3 is just one of those games that Vsync is needed. I have not see it run at a lower than 60 FPS rate stable so I can not say.

As far as photo realistic games? have you seen BF3 on Ultra? WOW! I do admit Crysis is still one of the best looking games out there and is several years old. It was FAR ahead of its time and will still be model for many games. I enjoyed the single player Crysis game very much. Multiplayer has alot to be desired.
Score
0
October 31, 2011 12:14:17 AM

According to fraps and from my observation (no benchmarking), I get 40-60 frames per second on ultra 1680x1050 with my setup listed in my sig. I do not turn MSAA on though as I've seen Radeon's take a real FPS hit when it is active. Ill run a benchmark with fraps and repost with ulta settings to get a more accurate picture of what my comp can run.
Score
0
October 31, 2011 12:33:08 AM

Solid with no dips to the slideshow is just fine. My frames are in the 25-50 FPS range.
Score
0
November 3, 2011 12:36:12 AM

jay2tall said:
One of the key factors in a game running smooth is consistent FPS. With Vsync it tries it's best to stabalize the FPS. 30 FPS is perfectly fine if it is a constant. That is why the console versions look just fine at this framerate. The issue is in PC world sometime it just doesn't happen. With an LCD running at 60FPS any change in frames is noticeable. However once you achieve 60FPS and above you can't usually notice because that is all the monitor can put out. BF3 is just one of those games that Vsync is needed. I have not see it run at a lower than 60 FPS rate stable so I can not say.

As far as photo realistic games? have you seen BF3 on Ultra? WOW! I do admit Crysis is still one of the best looking games out there and is several years old. It was FAR ahead of its time and will still be model for many games. I enjoyed the single player Crysis game very much. Multiplayer has alot to be desired.

That's what I was implying though.
As for BF3, yeah it looks amazing. I still prefer the looks of Crysis. Sucks the best-looking games aren't the easiest to run...
Score
0
November 3, 2011 1:05:44 AM

DO NOT waste your money on BF3. It is crap - constant crashes. It was clearly not ready for release - but i guess these guys wanted the cash. I recommend waiting for a month or two to see if they can fix it - right now it;s unplayable. You should see the forums - people are really unhappy.
Score
0
November 3, 2011 1:43:11 AM

lol
Score
0
November 3, 2011 9:58:43 AM

brad6040 said:
DO NOT waste your money on BF3. It is crap - constant crashes. It was clearly not ready for release - but i guess these guys wanted the cash. I recommend waiting for a month or two to see if they can fix it - right now it;s unplayable. You should see the forums - people are really unhappy.


Waste of money is a bit strong.

I guess I'm lucky in that I haven't had a single crash and only seen 2 minor glitches. I'm running an ATI setup which seems to have been a lot less badly hit than the nVidia setups. 2 of my work colleagues run nVidia and both get crashes every few minutes. Very few of the members of our community are having problems though and generally the servers seem stable and not laggy.

Once everything is ironed out for everyone it really has the potential to be an awesome game.

For me it's £40 very well spent so far.
Score
0
November 3, 2011 10:51:09 AM

agree, a bit more bugs than there should be, but totally worth it. Would b much more disappointed to have waited for this game until xmas and it still probably not perfect. Lets cal it an uber beta and enjoy. I just can't wait for the map pack to come out...it will be so much better.

My goal will be 45 fps because I despise multi-card rigs, many hardcore fps fans will not settle for less than 60 fps. I hear anything above that is a bit unnecessary.
Score
0
November 4, 2011 4:49:59 AM

kyle382 said:
agree, a bit more bugs than there should be, but totally worth it. Would b much more disappointed to have waited for this game until xmas and it still probably not perfect. Lets cal it an uber beta and enjoy. I just can't wait for the map pack to come out...it will be so much better.

My goal will be 45 fps because I despise multi-card rigs, many hardcore fps fans will not settle for less than 60 fps. I hear anything above that is a bit unnecessary.

Not necessarily. If you have a monitor with 60Hz and your getting 120FPS, you are not necessarily seeing 120FPS. The image is technically refreshing only 60 times a second because that is what the refresh rate allows for. Now, lets say you have a 120Hz monitor. If you are getting 120FPS, the image is refreshing 120 frames a second. The game tends to feel and look much more fluid than a 60Hz monitor. It's hard to see this in video comparisons (if there are any), but from what people have told me, a 120Hz monitor is much more fluid.
Score
0
November 4, 2011 10:47:17 AM

I have also no actual experience with any 120hz monitors. Some say they cant notice the difference at all, others are convinced its crucial for hardcore fps gamers. Is 60 hz and 60 fps all you need? Absolutely. Is 80-100 fps better? Yeah, sure....but totally unnecessary for most gamers. I think the average gamer will agree.
Score
0
November 4, 2011 3:34:21 PM

brad6040 said:
DO NOT waste your money on BF3. It is crap - constant crashes. It was clearly not ready for release - but i guess these guys wanted the cash. I recommend waiting for a month or two to see if they can fix it - right now it;s unplayable. You should see the forums - people are really unhappy.

The game is nowhere near crap. Maybe it is just your system that's crap. :pfff: 

I'm happy, my friends are happy, it runs fine on all of our systems and they range in configuration and graphical power. For Nvidia cards, you have to update to the lasted released version of their driver. I had an issue when I first installed it and was stuttering badly. I said something on the in-game chat, someone said update your drivers. I did that and 10 minutes later all was great.

The issues I am seeing are:
1) Didn't update their drivers
2) Trying to run it on a system with minimal specs
3) Not turning off AA Defered. (AA Post is fine)
4) Trying to run a setting that is higher than their hardware can support. STOP trying to run Ultra settings if you do not have a dual gpu setup.
Score
0
November 4, 2011 5:17:32 PM

My game never crashed, never got a blue screen and never had any stuttering on my system. I even used 11.6 ATI video drivers, and game worked nicely. But that's only the single player part of BF3, I have no idea how it would perform in multiplayer since I do not enjoy that.

Guess I was one of the lucky ones,
Score
0
November 4, 2011 9:05:15 PM

Game is absolutely amazing. Guy who said it's trash is a moron.

I have an i7-930, 6gigs of ddr3, gtx 460, none of it overclocked and i get 40-60 fps on high with AA turned off at 1920x1280.

Hardly any crashes, hardly any bugs. Amazing mind melting action. Awesome teamwork and squad play. Epic cinematic like finishes. Yea, i would have paid $100 for it.

I get a quarter chub every time i think of the next game they will come out with. I mean bf2 = amazing, bfbc2 = amazing, combine them and you get godly. WHAT IS NEXT
Score
0
November 4, 2011 9:26:02 PM

kinar100 said:
Game is absolutely amazing. Guy who said it's trash is a moron.

I have an i7-930, 6gigs of ddr3, gtx 460, none of it overclocked and i get 40-60 fps on high with AA turned off at 1920x1280.

Hardly any crashes, hardly any bugs. Amazing mind melting action. Awesome teamwork and squad play. Epic cinematic like finishes. Yea, i would have paid $100 for it.

I get a quarter chub every time i think of the next game they will come out with. I mean bf2 = amazing, bfbc2 = amazing, combine them and you get godly. WHAT IS NEXT

Everyone has their own personal opinion about the game. The guy finds it trash isn't a moron. The way he's telling everyone not to buy it, that's unreasonable. I personally didn't enjoy BF3 after trying it out. I was getting around 30FPS, so I tried it on my friends system, which is pretty high-end. The game itself looks great, but I did not enjoy the gameplay as much as I enjoyed BC2's and BF2's. I guess it isn't the game itself, but the massive attention on mainstream FPS probably got to me. Not really a fan of warfare shooters now...
Score
0
November 5, 2011 12:01:49 AM

kinar100 said:
Game is absolutely amazing. Guy who said it's trash is a moron.

I have an i7-930, 6gigs of ddr3, gtx 460, none of it overclocked and i get 40-60 fps on high with AA turned off at 1920x1280.

Hardly any crashes, hardly any bugs. Amazing mind melting action. Awesome teamwork and squad play. Epic cinematic like finishes. Yea, i would have paid $100 for it.

I get a quarter chub every time i think of the next game they will come out with. I mean bf2 = amazing, bfbc2 = amazing, combine them and you get godly. WHAT IS NEXT


bf 2142 updated
Score
0
November 5, 2011 6:27:03 AM

AbdullahG said:
Everyone has their own personal opinion about the game. The guy finds it trash isn't a moron. The way he's telling everyone not to buy it, that's unreasonable. I personally didn't enjoy BF3 after trying it out. I was getting around 30FPS, so I tried it on my friends system, which is pretty high-end. The game itself looks great, but I did not enjoy the gameplay as much as I enjoyed BC2's and BF2's. I guess it isn't the game itself, but the massive attention on mainstream FPS probably got to me. Not really a fan of warfare shooters now...


Indeed, the game looks absolutely nice, give or take some weirdly-looking textures here and there, but still, the game looks as good as it gets. And still, the campaign (at least) of this game was not really something to write home about, had its moments, true, but... I don't know, it was too short, with a very abrupt ending, from my point of view.

I've enjoyed the BF2 and BC2 more than BF3, but that doesn't mean that BF3 is not a good game. And definitely it's not trash.
Score
0
November 5, 2011 1:47:26 PM

lol ok I think we can all agree that this game is not totally trash and move on. Cant wait for COD MW3 to come out so that the immaturity and flame fests flock in that direction.

Cheers op, I think there is enough here to answer your question. 30fps minimum (failbox runs at 30fps) 40-50 for mainstream gamers, 60+ for "enthusiasts". I personally run it at 40-45 avg fps and havin a great time.
Score
0
November 6, 2011 8:46:37 PM

Currently BF3 while not trash is very bug ridden and poorly designed in many different aspects of multiplayer.

Current Problems (PC):

*Classes are unbalanced (70% Engineers Noobtubing in congested maps)
*poor Netcoding (Hit Registration is really bad atm and fluctuates)
*Hard crashes and freezes (A LARGE chunk of the PC population can't play the game with no acknowledgement from DICE that the problem exists DX_hung_poor coding error)
*Destruction 3.0 is nonexistent (The advertised destruction is not in the retail version because they couldn't get it to work right=Less destruction than BC2)
*MOST Maps are terrible (5 of the maps are very poorly designed with heavy chokes points for RPGers and Vehicles to annihilate)
*Battlelog is terrible (It causes A LOT of disconnects mid game that causes you to lose earned points)
*Now charging for DLC
*Terrible Customer Support
*Key bindings don't work the way they should (Simple issues like key bindings don't work right)
*Refusal to ban Hackers (DICE said they'd start banning but the most notorious of groups that's been around since beta is still alive and kicking.)
*Just overall poor coding and not paying attention to their product (BUGS falling off rocks and dying, just dumb stuff)


Overall the game looks AMAZING and has excellent sound but that's essentially the extent of what's good about the game atm. A lot more work needs to go into it. I personally would not recommend Battlefield 3 to anyone until DICE fixes it as it's pretty broken but it has potential if they can deliver the destruction and balance they were promising. Also if you read the forums I think you'll see that there's a large number of complaints just having to do with inability to play the game and other viable causes for distress.

@ jay2tall
The stuttering problem is related to hyperthreading being on, some coding problem and has nothing to do with VC Drivers and further more gamers or anyone else should not be required to change Bios settings around because the designers stopped caring.
Score
0
November 6, 2011 9:11:45 PM

the op didnt ask why bf3 doesnt appeal to certain folks due to a rushed retail release....he asked "what is a decent fps to shoot for" lol GT

hes question about the engine is obviously graphics related. Interesting destruction 2.0 is not in the release. It does look no better than bc2 in the way of destruction really.
Score
0
November 6, 2011 9:19:54 PM

Unfortunately I think the only other real contender is MW3. It looks like essentially the same as it's predecessors if that's your cup-o-tea. Lower graphics quality than BF3 but will likely have a smoother release as the engine is tried and true. It won't hold a torch to Crysis or BF3 in awe inspiring beauty though. I like the Crysis engine better but it's very poorly optimized.
Score
0
November 6, 2011 11:13:31 PM

brad6040 said:
DO NOT waste your money on BF3. It is crap - constant crashes. It was clearly not ready for release - but i guess these guys wanted the cash. I recommend waiting for a month or two to see if they can fix it - right now it;s unplayable. You should see the forums - people are really unhappy.



i disagree, u must have something wrong with ur comp spec cuz i play it almost completely fine, ive gotten one crash to desktop and sometimes it doesnt load levels but all the times ive retried it it works fine, there are some bugs too but what game doesnt have a few. i find sometimes u shoot someone in the head and it takes a second to register their dead but at least they still die. all in all people i think its a pretty good game, its not a broken game like most people are saying it just has some knicks nad scratches
Score
0
November 7, 2011 12:26:42 AM

@Johndud
^
You're either trolling or just don't know what you're talking about because the game crashes on MANY peoples comps including mine which I have fully optimized and is as high-end as it gets. I'm sorry but you just have no idea what's going on with the game and no amount of attribution errors will fix that. When 1600+ people report hard crashes on the forums then it's not the owners fault. Sorry hombre that's just not how it works.

i7 2600k OC 5ghz
Asrock Extreme 7 Gen 3 MB
16g Ram Low Voltage 1.35 1600
Win 7 64b
SLI GTX 580s
Antec High Voltage 1200w
Score
0
November 7, 2011 2:15:11 AM

cepheid said:
@Johndud
^
You're either trolling or just don't know what you're talking about because the game crashes on MANY peoples comps including mine which I have fully optimized and is as high-end as it gets. I'm sorry but you just have no idea what's going on with the game and no amount of attribution errors will fix that. When 1600+ people report hard crashes on the forums then it's not the owners fault. Sorry hombre that's just not how it works.

i7 2600k OC 5ghz
Asrock Extreme 7 Gen 3 MB
16g Ram Low Voltage 1.35 1600
Win 7 64b
SLI GTX 580s
Antec High Voltage 1200w



i was mainly just disagreeing with him saying not to waste ur money on it, its a great game and if the percentage of it working is higher than 99% (as in my case) id say go ahead and buy it. maybe u wont be able to play it right away or u have to restart ur computer but at least when it does work u have a good game to play. and i havent had near as many errors as these guys are talking about so ya thats what i got to say
Score
0
November 7, 2011 2:49:21 AM

I'm trying to get bf3 to be playable on my desktop but so far it has been running abysmally. i've been getting about 15-20 fps even with all the graphics options turned down as far as physically possible. It is a few years old now, but it doesn't seem like it should be this bad.


vista 64 bit
intel core 2 quad q8300@2.5ghz
8gb ddr2 ram
nvidia gt220 1028 mb (i did update the drivers immediately after installing the game because it told me they were out of date)

any thoughts/suggestions?
Score
0
November 7, 2011 6:19:10 AM

Cruzieman, your video card is abysmally slow for a game like BF3... You'd do very well upgrading to a GTX560ti, Radeon HD6870 or similar...

I have that exact video card, and I can't play BFBC2 at anything above 10-15fps :cry: 
Score
0
November 7, 2011 10:33:49 PM

johndud said:
i was mainly just disagreeing with him saying not to waste ur money on it, its a great game and if the percentage of it working is higher than 99% (as in my case) id say go ahead and buy it. maybe u wont be able to play it right away or u have to restart ur computer but at least when it does work u have a good game to play. and i havent had near as many errors as these guys are talking about so ya thats what i got to say

There are still problems relevant that cause some users distress. Sure the game is great, but not for all. Doesn't matter if majority of players are fine. People spend money on the game, and they expect it to work for them. If the game constantly crashes or other problems occur for some users, it's a bad game in their eyes.
Score
0
!