Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Find my Bottleneck (another BF3 question)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 3, 2011 12:15:45 PM

I already know the answer to my question, or at least I think I do.

I have a 4 year old computer with a Core Duo 2 2.8 mHZ processor. My mother board is just as old and the ram is upgraded (lets call it a year and a half ago)

Battlefield 3 came out and I being a BF fan-boy went out and bought a 560 TI OC stuck it in place of my 8600 GTS. An INSTANT improvement (obviously).

I go on Youtube and I see all the 560 TI ULTRA BF3 movies 70+ fps. I however am pushing medium graphics level @ 1680 x 1050 and getting anywhere between 40-70 fps.

I just want to know if I am missing something other than the obvious YOUR MOBO AND PROCESS ARE OLD.

Yes I have the latest drivers for my graphics card. I really should check to see if there is a new BIOS for the mobo.

I am running FIREFOX for the BF3 launching tool. Anyone have better results with Chrome or Explorer?

Other than that, I am stumped. Thanks for reading!
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 12:36:57 PM

A dual core will hold you back in most MP games, and will really hold you back in big 64-player scenarios. All of the modern quad cores perform very similarly though.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 12:40:30 PM

I just re-read my original post. I really should proof read all my threads. It looks like English isn't my first language... Sad.

Anyway, GM are you saying that a new quad core will preform the same as my 4 year old dual core? I find that very hard to believe.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 12:43:36 PM

BF3 is very video heavy but not so much CPU heavy. According to the toms review i would expect your PC to get the same FPS on high?

What speed is your ram? How much do you have?
What speed is your PCI-e slot running at?

Are all your temps good? Is anything being throtteld?

I worked on a foxconn board with a wolfdale 2.53 and a GTS250 that was running like crap. When I used cpuz i saw the ram was at like 533 and single channel and my pcie port was at 4x. I updated the bios and magically the pci-e port went to 16x. Then I manually set the ddr2 ram to 800 and 555 2t (it was generic ram with no lable so i was guessing) These 10 minutes of tweaks made the computer go from like 20-30 fps to like 50-60 fps on low-medium.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 12:46:03 PM

Gwart said:
I just re-read my original post. I really should proof read all my threads. I looks like English isn't my first language... Sad.

Anyway, GM are you saying that a new quad core will preform the same as my 4 year old dual core? I find that very hard to believe.


No, I mean a AMD quad core and an Intel quad core will perform very similarly. I hate seeing that Tom's article referenced all the time because that was only done in single player, and a scripted scene at that where the CPU isn't doing much.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 214 U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 12:49:10 PM

The video you saw of people using the GTX560ti on Ultra settings getting 70fps was most likely from the Beta or Alpha.I highly doubt a single GTX560ti could even pull above 50fps with everything on Ultra and full A/A,A/F.

As you guessed it your limiting factor is your CPU.BF3 seems to really like a quad core CPU although the speed isn't as relevant.It seems that a quad core at 4ghz and a quad core at 2.5ghz render the same fps with only a minimum fps increase.As said above it's more GPU than CPU demanding and although a quad core will benifit you,you can still only get so far with a single GTX560ti.But you should at least be able to play on high settings.

EA included some nifty console tools with BF3.When your in a game press the console button and type in "render.perfoverlayvisible 1"(to disable it type 0 instead of 1).That will show you which is rendering faster the CPU or GPU.You want them to be about even.The lower the number the better.Do this and post what numbers your getting.
Share
November 3, 2011 1:28:53 PM

I will check my BIOS/ram speed/ PCIE Slot speed when I get home later. I appreciate the feed back.

If anyone can think of anything else I'm open ears.

I also have a 8600 GTS sitting around that I might stick into the extra PCIe slot as a physic driver. This way I can take some load off the CPU.
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 3:08:50 PM

Could the problem lie in the fact that my mother board is running standard PCIe and not 2.0 or 2.1?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 3:12:42 PM

If you have a PCIe 1.0 16x there might be 10% loss in performance but nothing huge. If you are running PCIe 1.0 8x then that's another story. What is your mobo?
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 3:17:09 PM

They are x16 I think. The board itself has been deactivated. .



It was impressive when I bought it. 5 years later its just alright =)
m
0
l
November 3, 2011 3:20:06 PM

I should be able to stick the 8600 into one of the other slots and run it as a physx driver correct?

I'm getting excited that I don't have to spend extra money on this rig!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 3:30:29 PM

Yes you can but many games do not support physx (battlefield included) so there will be no benefit in those.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 4:05:01 PM

The 8600 as a PhysX card would just be a waste of power and time.You won't see any increase in performance at all(1-3fps).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2011 4:52:26 PM

You don't have a bottleneck. You are getting the performance you should be expecting with your setup. You'd probably need a quad core cpu upgrade and have to SLI those your card to run ultra in BF3, even at your lower resolution. The game is very demanding. I have an i5-2500k @ 4.4Ghz and crossfire 5850s and I'm only running high settings at 1920x1200. I'm getting ~90fps average, but once you account for dips in huge firefights to stay +50fps, that's a good range for me. People who say they're running at Ultra on any decent resolution with ANY single card are full of it. Or they're terrible at the game and don't mind 20fps.
m
0
l
November 4, 2011 1:19:33 PM

@purple stank

Last night when I was home I only got the play a round or two but I wanted to post my findings. It seems that my GPU number is always between 10-25. Average is about 18 in combat.

My CPU is on average about 5 higher. In crazy fire fights my CPU spikes and I've seen it go as high 80 but normally sits around 25-35 in combat but is much less stable. Bounces into the 40's with big explosions and anything that my CPU wasnt expecting.

So I guess there is my answer. Until I go i5 I'll have to deal with some choppy graphics here and there.

Thanks for your help
m
0
l
November 4, 2011 1:30:20 PM

Goto this link:
http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/OPS

Select BF3 From the list and the model of your GPU, user their recommended settings, but take note and keep in mind, all other hardware goes hand in hand, so if you dont meet the RAM settings or board then you will def see disimprovment on your system.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2011 1:31:20 PM

Drop all your settings related to your gpu. Then test it with fraps. Put all the settings back up and test it again with fraps. If around the same its the cpu.

If not try and edit your profile for the game with a application like Nhancer
m
0
l
November 4, 2011 1:32:27 PM

Best answer selected by Gwart.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
November 4, 2011 6:52:32 PM

Yah I average around 18 for both my CPU and GPU.But your CPU is definitly redcuding the amount of frames your GPU can produce.
m
0
l
!