This just occurred to me when I was looking through some gaming benchmarks where gpu from one brand were being outperfomed by the other even though theoretically they should be better. For ex: Crysis 2 runs better on gtx 560 non 'ti' than the 6870 even though the 6870 is usually better.
In fact in that review it states: "An Nvidia TWIMTBP title, Crysis 2 delivers higher performance with GeForce cards, although the Radeons are close behind. The new GeForce GTX 560 beats AMD's Radeon HD 6870."
Then again, in some games Radeon is more dominant.
I am wondering if this will be true for BF3, especially since it was tested/made with a Nvidia card, gtx 580 I believe.......
Highly appreciated if someone looks into this.
The issue, I believe, is that the THG benchies have no AA enabled. When you enable AA the HD6870 performs at a bit higher average frame rate, but a touch lower minimums.
I suspect BF3 would be quite similar, and the cards are generally on equal footing dependent upon settings and model of card.
It is difficult to answer, anyway, because of the range of the base 560 to the superclock versions. The HD6870 starts at $15 less at the low end. At the high-end price point for the superclock, you have reached HD69501GB territory.
Interesting.... thanks. But then why would they make bf3 with an Nvidia card???? I've also seen some nvidia ads featuring bf3( don't know if that has anything to do with it)
as i said before the game might not favoring either side. but so far it is well known that nvidia working very close with DICE. not sure on AMD side but i think the performance should be more or less the same. just my opinion though. we will have the answer when the game officially out