Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So Battlefield 3 raped me :(

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 20, 2011 1:23:21 AM

low settings: 30fps sometimes less, medium, 25, high 20, ultra like 10 lol.

4890 (will upgrade soon to 6950 gigabyte 870 oc version) = think itl help?
had a 3.0 triple core anthlon unlocked and ocd by my motherboard to quad core 3.6.

what should i do to get 40 fps on medium? do i really need a sandy bridge or will the 6950 suffice? skyrim plays on high at like 45-60 :) 

1900x1200

More about : battlefield raped

November 20, 2011 1:43:19 AM

is it more proc intensive?
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 1:53:43 AM

Mid-highgfx said:
low settings: 30fps sometimes less, medium, 25, high 20, ultra like 10 lol.

4890 (will upgrade soon to 6950 gigabyte 870 oc version) = think itl help?
had a 3.0 triple core anthlon unlocked and ocd by my motherboard to quad core 3.6.

what should i do to get 40 fps on medium? do i really need a sandy bridge or will the 6950 suffice? skyrim plays on high at like 45-60 :) 

1900x1200



err is that a typo? sandy bridge is the name for a line of processors while 6950 is a graphics card. a 6950 should be more than enough. I have a gtx570 which is comparable to the ati 6970 and i can run the game highest settings with 2x anti-aliasing at 50+ fps. So a 6950 should be able to run high/ultra no problem. also, your cpu shouldn't be too much of a problem.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 20, 2011 1:58:36 AM

BTW I run the game at 1920x1080 so at your resolution performance may be a little lower, so a 6950 would probably be able to run high with some ultra settings. Can you post your entire system specs? RAM is important too and if you are upgrading make sure your power supply is good enough.
m
0
l
a c 254 U Graphics card
November 20, 2011 2:08:55 AM

The BF3 game is strictly gpu intensive and you can run the game on a dual core cpu so the better the video card the better the fps , if you have 4 to 8gb of ram you should be good there and if you get a new video card under the details tab it will tell you the minimum psu that is required for your computer to have to support that particular card. The 6950 card requires a minimum 500w psu so I would go with a 600w or 650w to give your self some spare power. I you plan on crossfire later on you want to up the psu to a 750w or 850w.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 2:38:04 PM

inzone said:
The BF3 game is strictly gpu intensive and you can run the game on a dual core cpu so the better the video card the better the fps , if you have 4 to 8gb of ram you should be good there and if you get a new video card under the details tab it will tell you the minimum psu that is required for your computer to have to support that particular card. The 6950 card requires a minimum 500w psu so I would go with a 600w or 650w to give your self some spare power. I you plan on crossfire later on you want to up the psu to a 750w or 850w.


so bf2bc was cpu intensive but this is not GPU intensive? cool :p !


i have a corsair GS800 so no issue there.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 2:38:47 PM

xdmds said:
err is that a typo? sandy bridge is the name for a line of processors while 6950 is a graphics card. a 6950 should be more than enough. I have a gtx570 which is comparable to the ati 6970 and i can run the game highest settings with 2x anti-aliasing at 50+ fps. So a 6950 should be able to run high/ultra no problem. also, your cpu shouldn't be too much of a problem.


no typo lol? was just wasking wether it would need either a 200 gfx card or 200 proc for most fps increase.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 2:46:58 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
no typo lol? was just wasking wether it would need either a 200 gfx card or 200 proc for most fps increase.


Definitely gpu. As i said before, a 6950 would let you run bf3 at high/ultra settings. You could also try to unlock the extra shaders and overclock for 6970 stock performance.just make sure you get a reference card if you plan on doing that.
m
0
l
a c 104 U Graphics card
November 20, 2011 2:55:29 PM

Still wondering how you can be raped by a game. Got a lot of weird pictures in my head now . . . :heink: 
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 4:14:05 PM

xdmds said:
Definitely gpu. As i said before, a 6950 would let you run bf3 at high/ultra settings. You could also try to unlock the extra shaders and overclock for 6970 stock performance.just make sure you get a reference card if you plan on doing that.


Nah, http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIGABYTE-Radeon-HD-6950-1GB-Fac... = 6970 for....150 dollars less? Sounds good to me.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 4:14:37 PM

GreenDutchAlien said:
Still wondering how you can be raped by a game. Got a lot of weird pictures in my head now . . . :heink: 


Just leave it to the Dutch to have new....and disturbing....fetishes :p 
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 4:35:21 PM

I was thinking it might be something else altogether that was causing the frame rate issues until I came back and reread that you were running it at 1900 x 1200. I personally also have the HD4890 running along with the other parts you see noted in my sig, and @ 1920 x 1080 (the highest my monitor will support), I leave it on Auto and the engine sets everything at High, except Terrain Quality which is set at Low, 16xAF, AA off, HBAO enabled, FOV at 90; and it pulls in a steady 45 fps; sometimes more if there's less geometry on screen at once. It occasionally dips down to about 35 fps during really congested scenes , like if I'm flying a jet at low altitude right above a heavily detailed map like Operation Firestorm on Conquest Large in a 64-player server (the absolute lowest being an unplayable 25 fps if I'm simultaneously recording with FRAPS and the action gets heavy).

The point I'm trying to make is that while 1900 x 1200 is a notably higher resolution than what I'm running it at with my setup, 1920 x 1080 isn't that far down the chain below it, so I would expect that you should theoretically be squeezing at least a little bit better performance out of that 4890, even without the L3 cache on your unlocked quad-core Athlon II. Especially to only be achieving in the mid-to-low 20's in fps for low and medium settings, when with a similar card @ 1920 x 1080 on mostly High detail settings it's known that the game *can* be run stabilized in the mid-40's and higher, fps wise. I know everyone's hardware config is different, but I thought it might be something worth looking into and perhaps helpful to have feedback from someone with the same card. I'm taking it you've already tried out the very latest drivers? Those are supposed to help with some Battlefield 3 specific optimizations. Also, try turning V-sync off simply to test if you can "choke-out" a few more frames per second, so long as not a lot of screen tearing occurs.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 6:13:05 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
Nah, http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIGABYTE-Radeon-HD-6950-1GB-Fac... = 6970 for....150 dollars less? Sounds good to me.


That's a 1GB vram 6950 and just because it's OC'd clock doesn't mean it's been unlocked shader cores so it still won't perform like a 6970. I don't think 1GB vram will be enough for your resolution pretty soon if you plan on playing games on highest settings. It'll probably be more than enough for medium settings though as you asked in the original post.

Also the page you linked me to says $198 so did you link me to the wrong page?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 20, 2011 6:32:19 PM

My mate on his 955BE quad core and a 4890 gets 40ish at lower resolutions but on my 1080p monitor he gets that too. It's your GPU... Should upgrade to 6950.
m
0
l
a c 104 U Graphics card
November 20, 2011 8:14:01 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
Just leave it to the Dutch to have new....and disturbing....fetishes :p 



Sad but true. :sol:  Never heard of this one though.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 9:37:32 PM

RevOne said:
I was thinking it might be something else altogether that was causing the frame rate issues until I came back and reread that you were running it at 1900 x 1200. I personally also have the HD4890 running along with the other parts you see noted in my sig, and @ 1920 x 1080 (the highest my monitor will support), I leave it on Auto and the engine sets everything at High, except Terrain Quality which is set at Low, 16xAF, AA off, HBAO enabled, FOV at 90; and it pulls in a steady 45 fps; sometimes more if there's less geometry on screen at once. It occasionally dips down to about 35 fps during really congested scenes , like if I'm flying a jet at low altitude right above a heavily detailed map like Operation Firestorm on Conquest Large in a 64-player server (the absolute lowest being an unplayable 25 fps if I'm simultaneously recording with FRAPS and the action gets heavy).

The point I'm trying to make is that while 1900 x 1200 is a notably higher resolution than what I'm running it at with my setup, 1920 x 1080 isn't that far down the chain below it, so I would expect that you should theoretically be squeezing at least a little bit better performance out of that 4890, even without the L3 cache on your unlocked quad-core Athlon II. Especially to only be achieving in the mid-to-low 20's in fps for low and medium settings, when with a similar card @ 1920 x 1080 on mostly High detail settings it's known that the game *can* be run stabilized in the mid-40's and higher, fps wise. I know everyone's hardware config is different, but I thought it might be something worth looking into and perhaps helpful to have feedback from someone with the same card. I'm taking it you've already tried out the very latest drivers? Those are supposed to help with some Battlefield 3 specific optimizations. Also, try turning V-sync off simply to test if you can "choke-out" a few more frames per second, so long as not a lot of screen tearing occurs.


With V-sync off, its certainly noticeable the rips, anyways it puts it on as high too but it really is 20fps which i wont play it at, same thing is the witcher 2, skyrim though is hugely playable at 45+ with 55+ at night. Now my parents said they can't even lend me the 60 bucks i would need to buy it since i would sell my 4890 for 100 and already game dad 40 :/  sigh...cant get a job either till march when im 18 >_< life sucks.
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 9:41:31 PM

FtsArTek said:
My mate on his 955BE quad core and a 4890 gets 40ish at lower resolutions but on my 1080p monitor he gets that too. It's your GPU... Should upgrade to 6950.


it actually IS my gpu, just look at the benchamrks!

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/458/bench/1680...

24 max, 16 min fps with high quality @ 1680x1050
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 9:43:43 PM

xdmds said:
That's a 1GB vram 6950 and just because it's OC'd clock doesn't mean it's been unlocked shader cores so it still won't perform like a 6970. I don't think 1GB vram will be enough for your resolution pretty soon if you plan on playing games on highest settings. It'll probably be more than enough for medium settings though as you asked in the original post.

Also the page you linked me to says $198 so did you link me to the wrong page?


how is it wrong? its more than 100 dollars less, and its not unlocked, thats the huge OC it comes from factory, it won the award here in TH's for fastest 6950

and its not NOTICEABLE at all for 1900x1200. and itl soon be 1900x1080 with a new 27"
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 11:01:54 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
it actually IS my gpu, just look at the benchamrks!

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/458/bench/1680...

24 max, 16 min fps with high quality @ 1680x1050



Wow... my card must be some sort of rare "freak" of the bunch then, because that chart doesn't reflect my experience with using the HD4890 with this game at all. Especially not at 1680 x 1050 resolution on High with no AA and 16x AF. I'm also pretty sure that the rest of their test set up must've been better than what I've got here; so it's surprising to see they're reporting such results. I do have the XFX Extreme Edition of the GPU, which is factory overclocked, but I wouldn't think it would yield THAT much of a performance difference over the reference design (which I'm assuming they used for this benchmark). Here. I'm getting at least double those amounts they have there. Very interesting, to say the least... :) 

Which specific model of the HD4890 do you have?
m
0
l
November 20, 2011 11:33:18 PM

RevOne said:
Wow... my card must be some sort of rare "freak" of the bunch then, because that chart doesn't reflect my experience with using the HD4890 with this game at all. Especially not at 1680 x 1050 resolution on High with no AA and 16x AF. I'm also pretty sure that the rest of their test set up must've been better than what I've got here; so it's surprising to see they're reporting such results. I do have the XFX Extreme Edition of the GPU, which is factory overclocked, but I wouldn't think it would yield THAT much of a performance difference over the reference design (which I'm assuming they used for this benchmark). Here. I'm getting at least double those amounts they have there. Very interesting, to say the least... :) 

Which specific model of the HD4890 do you have?


this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/XFX-Radeon-HD-4890-1GB-DDR5-PCI...
m
0
l
November 21, 2011 12:45:29 AM



I see. Looks like the standard one with non-reference cooler. But really, the only performance-related difference I can see between our two cards is that mine has an 875Mhz Core clock where yours has 850MHz. You could probably OC your card easily to where mine sits at (although I don't know this for sure, just speculating). Is 1680 x 1050 just really not working for your taste? I was just so (pleasantly) surprised to learn that game was so well optimized when it launched. I thought I would be stuck with like 1280 x 720p on Medium at best, before I finally got it home and saw it could handle better. But. I do agree that more is certainly better.

In fact, I'm looking to replace my 4890 with a 6950 2GB, GTX 560ti, or better when I can scrounge the cash together. Heck, I'd settle for a 5870 or GTX 470 if I found a nice deal on one. The lowest I would personally go for an upgrade for myself would be a 6870 or a GTX560; and that's only if I find myself really too strapped for cash to find a good deal on a 6950. In that event though, I don't think it'd really be worth it, and better to just save up a bit more cash if I'm that close and just get something better. The thing is, these 4890's sit in an awkward spot right now where they're sufficient enough for maxing out most mainstream games available (COD, Dead Island, etc.), but lack DX11, and aren't enough for getting absolutely all the eye candy out of the more demanding titles out there (Metro 2033, Witcher 2, BF3). Unless you have the money to get a DX11 card in the GTX 560 or higher range; or HD5870 or higher range, it really won't be that much of a performance increase over the 4890.

They have this XFX 1GB 6870 going for $149.00 USD after mail-in rebate w/ free shipping at the 'Egg right now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... . Also comes with a coupon for a free copy of DIRT 3, which could be a plus if you're into those kinds of games and don't have it already. The cheapest I could find a *used* HD6870 on ebay for the Buy It Now price was exactly what you would pay for that new one from Newegg, minus the warranty. A word of caution, though: those negative reviews on Newegg I checked out for this card seem to be aimed at how hard it is to get that rebate, so I'd definitely look into that first. If you look on that chart you posted, it seems the 1GB 6870 handles BF3 pretty well, but I don't know how it will hold up to the resolution you want to play it at. Check here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1128191/6870-battlefield-3 . That one's on Ultra Quality settings, though. I'm sure just High would yield better (i.e. playable) results. I've also heard around that if you're going to go with a 6870 from XFX, get the one with the dual-cooler design if you can find one or one with a reference design (for instance, your non-reference 4890 has the SKU beginning with "HD-489X....", and a reference HD4890 from XFX would have something like "HD-489A..."). And of course, you'd also have to upgrade a bit sooner (yet again) than you would have to with the 6950 or higher. I'd recommend that if you're going to go, however, it'd be best to go all the way and just get something you know is worth the trouble and will hold you over for a good time to come. But that's just my own personal opinion. :) 

Also, a bit of bad news - unless you have someone (like a friend) that will buy the 4890 for 100 dollars, you more than likely won't be able to fetch that much for it on a place like ebay. Most of those are selling for anywhere between 60 to 80 dollars max these days. For instance, some guy has a listing active right now that features TWO 4890's going for $165 Buy It Now price, with $145 for both as the starting bid. I bought mine for $75 shipped about six months ago. I'm not saying it can't happen (you may be lucky), but it may be a tough sell if you take it to the auctions for that amount with so many others on there listed for (significantly) cheaper.
m
0
l
November 21, 2011 1:40:04 AM

RevOne said:
I see. Looks like the standard one with non-reference cooler. But really, the only performance-related difference I can see between our two cards is that mine has an 875Mhz Core clock where yours has 850MHz. You could probably OC your card easily to where mine sits at (although I don't know this for sure, just speculating). Is 1680 x 1050 just really not working for your taste? I was just so (pleasantly) surprised to learn that game was so well optimized when it launched. I thought I would be stuck with like 1280 x 720p on Medium at best, before I finally got it home and saw it could handle better. But. I do agree that more is certainly better.

In fact, I'm looking to replace my 4890 with a 6950 2GB, GTX 560ti, or better when I can scrounge the cash together. Heck, I'd settle for a 5870 or GTX 470 if I found a nice deal on one. The lowest I would personally go for an upgrade for myself would be a 6870 or a GTX560; and that's only if I find myself really too strapped for cash to find a good deal on a 6950. In that event though, I don't think it'd really be worth it, and better to just save up a bit more cash if I'm that close and just get something better. The thing is, these 4890's sit in an awkward spot right now where they're sufficient enough for maxing out most mainstream games available (COD, Dead Island, etc.), but lack DX11, and aren't enough for getting absolutely all the eye candy out of the more demanding titles out there (Metro 2033, Witcher 2, BF3). Unless you have the money to get a DX11 card in the GTX 560 or higher range; or HD5870 or higher range, it really won't be that much of a performance increase over the 4890.

They have this XFX 1GB 6870 going for $149.00 USD after mail-in rebate w/ free shipping at the 'Egg right now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... . Also comes with a coupon for a free copy of DIRT 3, which could be a plus if you're into those kinds of games and don't have it already. The cheapest I could find a *used* HD6870 on ebay for the Buy It Now price was exactly what you would pay for that new one from Newegg, minus the warranty. A word of caution, though: those negative reviews on Newegg I checked out for this card seem to be aimed at how hard it is to get that rebate, so I'd definitely look into that first. If you look on that chart you posted, it seems the 1GB 6870 handles BF3 pretty well, but I don't know how it will hold up to the resolution you want to play it at. Check here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1128191/6870-battlefield-3 . That one's on Ultra Quality settings, though. I'm sure just High would yield better (i.e. playable) results. I've also heard around that if you're going to go with a 6870 from XFX, get the one with the dual-cooler design if you can find one or one with a reference design (for instance, your non-reference 4890 has the SKU beginning with "HD-489X....", and a reference HD4890 from XFX would have something like "HD-489A..."). And of course, you'd also have to upgrade a bit sooner (yet again) than you would have to with the 6950 or higher. I'd recommend that if you're going to go, however, it'd be best to go all the way and just get something you know is worth the trouble and will hold you over for a good time to come. But that's just my own personal opinion. :) 

Also, a bit of bad news - unless you have someone (like a friend) that will buy the 4890 for 100 dollars, you more than likely won't be able to fetch that much for it on a place like ebay. Most of those are selling for anywhere between 60 to 80 dollars max these days. For instance, some guy has a listing active right now that features TWO 4890's going for $165 Buy It Now price, with $145 for both as the starting bid. I bought mine for $75 shipped about six months ago. I'm not saying it can't happen (you may be lucky), but it may be a tough sell if you take it to the auctions for that amount with so many others on there listed for (significantly) cheaper.


That's a long ass post haha, so yeah i have mine ocd to 900, anyways.

Get the one i linked you, its guranteed no DoA, huge OC, triple fans, make sure it fits, and u will not get better bang for buck.

and 2 weeks ago i saw one that sold for 102 bucks, same model, used. so :p  (ebay people r dumb)

The guy i linked u has great comunication, perfect feedback, 200 bucks, 6970.

GOGOGOGOOGOG :)  he has 8 more left too , gives me time to get it! :D 
m
0
l
November 21, 2011 6:34:14 PM

Good news! I can play MW3 will ALL settings max on a steady 38-45 fps^^
m
0
l
November 21, 2011 8:34:50 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
Good news! I can play MW3 will ALL settings max on a steady 38-45 fps^^


Haha :lol:  There you go... That ought to tie you over until you can get the new GPU and play Battlefield 3 in its full glory. (I play both myself, as well) Enjoy! :) 
m
0
l
November 21, 2011 11:32:20 PM

The game I mostly want to max out is guild wars 2 :)  hopefully I will be able to with 6950
m
0
l
!