Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

I7 2600k low FPS on BF3?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 16, 2012 2:36:05 AM

okay, so heres ethe specs:

Asus p8z68 - v pro
I72600k
8gb Ram ddr (1600mhz)
Corsair h80 water cooling
SLi gtx 560 ti
LG 1080p 22 inch monitor

Here's the problem:

I get lows of around 30 FPS on ultra settings, is this normal? (Lows occur like whenever something is happening)

More about : 2600k low fps bf3

a c 126 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 3:18:52 AM

Its actually your GPU. From the benchmark done on THG, the game itself doesn't seem to scale much beyond two cores. And with a 560TI at your res and settings, it gets average of about 50FPS, meaning lows of 30FPS is probably not far off.

If you can, overclocking the CPU might help but at that res the game is going to be mostly GPU bound more than CPU.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 7:52:23 AM

I had a similar issue with my SLI 570s'. I was sure I should be getting higher FPS than I was getting.

Open Nvidia control panel, change number of pre rendered frames to 1 (its set to 3 by default) I got around 20 fps more by changing that setting.

Hope that helps
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 79 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:14:27 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Its actually your GPU. From the benchmark done on THG, the game itself doesn't seem to scale much beyond two cores. And with a 560TI at your res and settings, it gets average of about 50FPS, meaning lows of 30FPS is probably not far off.

If you can, overclocking the CPU might help but at that res the game is going to be mostly GPU bound more than CPU.


The game virtually requires four cores on multiplayer.

The 560ti CANNOT run on ultra. medium to high. why did you expect a mid range card to run the most demanding game out there on ultra?
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 8:20:01 AM

13thmonkey said:
The game virtually requires four cores on multiplayer.

The 560ti CANNOT run on ultra. medium to high. why did you expect a mid range card to run the most demanding game out there on ultra?


SLI. Read more carefully.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:25:18 AM

A combination of SLI scaling being bottlenecked and the fact the single player is a bit of a GPU killer. Your 2600K is so far from being the problem, seen enough i3 run the SP with high end cards on Ultra high res settings.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:25:23 AM

1gb of vram on each card will be a problem, and try turning hyperthreading off.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:32:22 AM

Have you contemplated selling your 560's maybe raising around $400 and running a single GTX 580 or HD6970? multi card setups don't give you the gains for money spent while ramping up your power draw in the process.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:41:38 AM

I'd say that was quite normal. My set up is quite similar to yours - GTX560 Ti SLI but different CPU (920 o/c to 4). And unsurprisingly I get a similar experience.

BF3 is the most graphically intensive game and ultra with a 560Ti SLI is really on the limit of what it is capable of. To get a better experience, I run mine at Ultra but with AA turned down to 2. This is visually not much worse than 4 but it gives a dramatically smoother experience.

As another poster said, with high AA settings, 1GB VRAM can start to become a limiting factor, hence better results with 2*

Given the title of this thread, it sounds as though you expected your CPU to be the limiting factor, but this is almost certainly not the case.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:44:24 AM

sarinaide said:
Have you contemplated selling your 560's maybe raising around $400 and running a single GTX 580 or HD6970? multi card setups don't give you the gains for money spent while ramping up your power draw in the process.


SLI 560Ti is dramatically more powerful than a single GTX 580 or HD 6970. This would be a step in the wrong direction.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 8:53:28 AM

I don't know about the "dramatically" part, in a perfect environment and when sync'd properly yes I would assume so much, but then again the GTX 580 has a 3GB VRAM model, and generally a far more potent card. I am still convinced a superclocked 580 (3GB) will run more often than not better than a dual 560ti setup without the fuss of sync issues and game incompatibilities.

There is a reason why a 560 is mid-high enthusiast card while the 580 is a high end card. I think I also mentioned power drain, that will be saved too.

Alternatively as mentioned you can drop your resolution, your AA and AF turn off some LOD and presto play on ULTRA, life is tough.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 9:27:41 AM

wth i can play bf on ultra with no aa or af 1600 900 resolution with an asus gtx460 directcu oced
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 9:48:06 AM

1080p is 1.44 times more pixels to push around than 16x9.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 10:03:25 AM

I'm getting @36-37 while playing on a 24" monitor with a 6970 video card and an i5-2500k@4532. Ultra settings place a strain on the card. BTW this card has 2 g vram. Most likely you won't get more than that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 10:11:08 AM

BF3 chases high end and 560Ti's are not high end. Personally I don't play the game as it has no appeal and is to graphics junkies, what crack is to a addict.

m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 10:11:14 AM

sewalk said:
SLI. Read more carefully.


Is that your only comment, really, you came onto a thread just to pick up on that.

Advice. Offer it or shut up.
m
0
l

Best solution

February 16, 2012 10:21:19 AM

I would think these cards SLi'd would offer more performance, the likely cause it the high resolution + AA is too much for 1GB of onboard RAM ( SLi does not double the RAM, you still have 1 GB)
Share
February 16, 2012 10:22:10 AM

Also you can actually check in GPU-Z how much video ram is being used.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 10:31:37 AM

+1 ^ And evga precision or msi afterburner will let you see more accurately how it has changed.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 10:33:04 AM

How about just playing the game on High....*creeper music*.

I don't see why this game is so hyped up, worse yet game of the year contender. Never knew graphics and audio was the only catagory for deciding.

Go play minecraft, you can max that out, probably have a heap of fun in the process.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 10:35:27 AM

I have 560ti's in SLI as well, it's the 1gb memory holding you back. I run everything maxed out, but you can't have msaa, only fxaa or you get stupid fps dips.

With msaa disabled and fxaa on high i get really stable fps. I have a 120hz monitor so it's hard to say it caps at 60fps all the time but it's probably 60+ most of the time. Not uncommon to see 70-90fps.

Another trick to free up some video memory is to setup bf3 to disable desktop composition when it starts up. Disabling that can free up upwards of 70mb on its own.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 11:17:39 AM

sounds like another game that doesn't scale brillantly across multiplpe GPU's

I tried a 6870X2 for skyrim/MW3 etc etc and hated it, returned it for a supposedly less powerful GTX580 and am delighted.
Even with an old 860 i7 and slow ram it works a treat at 1080 ultra.

never having played a battlefiled game but I was really underwhelmed by the campaign, but multi player is quite good fun and shows off modern hardware nicely, albeit I'm not sure how long getting raped by gunships/tanks/jets will be tolerable for (but the near complete absence of noob tubes is wonderful). Showing a friend the caspian level had them pretty blown away.

must be a nightmare for the developers to balance these games, how many versions have we seen of COD/MOH/Battlefield and we've yet to get the perfect experience.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 11:25:19 AM

CyaNSnow, Perhaps the limiting factor is the Vram. When I have time I'll run the Fraps on my other machine that has the same CPU OC's the same with 2 5850s in Crossfire. They each have 1g of vram so I'll see how they stack up to the single 6970 with 2g of vram. Another problem I notice is that it's very hard to compare 2 machines unless they have identical hardware AND software. Be fair to yourself, you have pretty darned good hardware! Also, do you have that 2600k overclocked? If not OC that monster!
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 12:57:20 PM

Best answer selected by cyansnow.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 1:41:49 PM

I don't see why he should be getting bad FPS. On ultra with full AA turned on with ambient occlusion turned on with a override i get about 70-80 fps on my 470's with an i7 2600k 16gb of ram and a 120gb ssd.
m
0
l
a c 199 à CPUs
February 16, 2012 9:26:37 PM

Have a 580 box (Son No. 2) and pair of 560 Ti's (Son No. 3) in another box.....the 560's toasts the 580 in every single game.....nowhere even near being close. BF3 has had issues with many cards and cards from both camps.....when it came out, SLI didn't work at all, then it actually reduced frame rates. Now it's working much better but still has issues in multi player mode.

At this point in time, Son No. 3 plays BF3 on max settings in single player mode. In multi-player mode, he turns it down to high. Now I have always thot that multi player added more CPU load then GFX load as the amount of pixels jumping around doesn't change that much.
m
0
l
!