Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

Is this system ENOUGH for 1920 x 1080 Battlefield 3 everything ULTRA

Tags:
  • New Build
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
February 20, 2012 4:30:01 PM

Very simple question , I expect simple answer! ^^ I trust the people on this forum so much that if you say the system below is not enough i'll buy their upper rank versions even tho its going to be a terrible damage to my budget. I am praying god that you'll say this is enough ^^


--Sapphire HD Radeon 6950

--AMD Phenom II x4 970 Black Edition 3.5ghz

--ASUS M5A87 AMD 870/SB850 AM3+ DDR3 2000MHz (O.C.) USB 3.0 SATA 3.0

-- KINGSTON 8 GB 1600MHz DDR3 CL9 (2x4GB) HYPERX

Other components are not that necessary at all.

Will this satisfy me ? I want to play 1920 x 1080 resolution everything ultra battlefield , skyrim etc etc etc.


I dont know what role cpu plays in this , i know its important but as far as I am concerned , buying a good GPU in a system with bad CPU is something like buying ferrari engine in a shitty car. Thats why i dont want to buy 8 core loltroll processor.

More about : system 1920 1080 battlefield ultra

February 20, 2012 4:35:46 PM

BF3 is Very demanding. You need like a 7970 to play ultra(don't quote me on that but you do need alot of gpu processing power) so i don't htink so. Skyrim i believe you should be fine.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 4:44:26 PM

samdsox said:
BF3 is Very demanding. You need like a 7970 to play ultra(don't quote me on that but you do need alot of gpu processing power) so i don't htink so. Skyrim i believe you should be fine.


I'd think a single 6950 would be able to handle it fine. You won't be able to turn on all the details but it will run it with very high frame rates.
Score
0
Related resources
February 20, 2012 4:47:55 PM

also please state if you have any doubts about the motherboard and cpu aswell ^^ honestly , my biggest fear is to buy a good

graphic card but to be unable to get the performance it deserves just because i've been cheapass on cpu and motherboard
Score
0
February 20, 2012 5:02:06 PM

It all comes down to what fps your comfortable with. Any decent card will play bf3 on ultra it just depend on the fps you getting. I would look up benchmarks for the 6950 and see what other people are averaging. anything above 40 i would say would be good for battlefield. Higher being better since the last thing you want is your framerate to drop when your in a shootout. BF3 is a really GPU intensive game and takes some tweaking of settings depending on your card to get the best experience.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 5:14:22 PM

neal0790 said:
It all comes down to what fps your comfortable with. Any decent card will play bf3 on ultra it just depend on the fps you getting. I would look up benchmarks for the 6950 and see what other people are averaging. anything above 40 i would say would be good for battlefield. Higher being better since the last thing you want is your framerate to drop when your in a shootout. BF3 is a really GPU intensive game and takes some tweaking of settings depending on your card to get the best experience.



Hmm I understand very well. But will checking the benchmarks of the GPU alone be enough ? As I've stated i am afraid of lack of

performance caused by the weakness of cpu and motherboard. I perfectly understand its very GPU dependant but CPU and

motherboard's role in this should not be ignored as far as i am concerned. Should i also check benchmarks of cpu and

motherboard seperately or is there an easier way to do this ?
Score
0
February 20, 2012 5:31:42 PM

Hey man get the chipset above it, the 990FX, i tried my 955 with my Sabertooth before FX and compared to my old board i got a 15fps boost from the new chipset. either the ROG or Sabertooth!
Score
0
February 20, 2012 6:07:52 PM

hmm that means approximately a 140$ difference which hurts but If it improves 15 fps - Mother of God!


So! any final words from anyone please ? ^^ The system I mentioned above ! phenom x4 970 , M5A87 mobo and the hd 6950..
Will they allow me to play Battlefield 3 or other graphic-heavy games on ultra settings with a few small limitations like shadows on low @ 1920x1080 resolution
Score
0
February 20, 2012 6:11:23 PM

Simple answer: No.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:24:08 PM

Theres really no simple answer. If your really worried about your cpu holding you back just get the i5 2500k. Its the best cpu for gaming there is and you wont have any issues.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:34:29 PM

You really need to define what you call good framerates. If you want it maxed at 60fps, you are obviously out of luck. I'd say you could get atleast 40fps.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:41:56 PM

A 6950 should be around 36ish average which still should be fine... When I had my 6970 I was getting around 45fps but mine was a 940 core vs the standard 880core and my 1100t was at 4.2.... See if you can unlock your 6950 to a 6970, if not, you can do ultra but without msaa etc....
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:43:59 PM

Your cpu and motherboard won't hurt you at all in BF3, just worry about your GPU...
Score
0

Best solution

February 20, 2012 8:48:26 PM

g-unit1111 said:
I'd think a single 6950 would be able to handle it fine. You won't be able to turn on all the details but it will run it with very high frame rates.


he said everything maxed out.

sinthoras said:
hmm that means approximately a 140$ difference which hurts but If it improves 15 fps - Mother of God!


So! any final words from anyone please ? ^^ The system I mentioned above ! phenom x4 970 , M5A87 mobo and the hd 6950..
Will they allow me to play Battlefield 3 or other graphic-heavy games on ultra settings with a few small limitations like shadows on low @ 1920x1080 resolution


your cpu will hold you back in MP a little and in other games too.(skyrim)

zloginet said:
A 6950 should be around 36ish average which still should be fine... When I had my 6970 I was getting around 45fps but mine was a 940 core vs the standard 880core and my 1100t was at 4.2.... See if you can unlock your 6950 to a 6970, if not, you can do ultra but without msaa etc....


i get 40-50 with all ultra textures and half all the filters and thats with a 6950 at 1080p. ^cpu bottleneck however small it is.

OP the problem with bottlenecks is that with high end gpus people will get say 60fps with an AMD build and think that are not being bottlenecked by their cpu but with the same system except with an intel cpu you could get 80 fps. most people with the AMD would say that they are not being bottleneck because they are already getting good rates but in reality they are being bottleneck. its all perception.

Get an intel build if you are worried. there is an improvement in BF3 multiplayer.
Share
February 20, 2012 8:48:27 PM

I have a 960t (5-core unlocked) at 3.5 with a 6870. I play online with everything on ultra except textures. I never drop below 30 fps. average is in the 45-50 range. Your ri is plenty fine. I think people over estimate how tough bf3 is to run. Oh, but I do have msaa turned off. I can't really tell a difference, and it drops my fps by apx 10.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:49:55 PM

That_Guy88 said:
I have a 960t (5-core unlocked) at 3.5 with a 6870. I play online with everything on ultra except textures. I never drop below 30 fps. average is in the 45-50 range. Your ri is plenty fine. I think people over estimate how tough bf3 is to run. Oh, but I do have msaa turned off. I can't really tell a difference, and it drops my fps by apx 10.



this isnt relative he want everything maxed out and you arent even close to that...
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:55:55 PM

The only thing I don't have are textures and msaa... And I am running a 6870... so a 6950 should be fine...
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:03:10 PM

My system is a i5-2500k @4.3GHz and a slightly overclocked HD6970.
Ultra (1920x1080, 16xAF, 0xMSAA) runs fine with fps never dropping below 50 but mostly at or above 60fps.

If I turn on 2xMSAA, fps drop below 40 in critical moments. I personally can't stand that, so I leave AA off, even though AA would turn what is already a pretty game into a jizz-in-pants pretty game.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:05:58 PM

I guess the answer answer to the OP question is no. You will not be able to max out bf3 with that current setup. You will be able to get a decent frame rate by turning down settings and trading some eye candy for some frame rates.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:06:31 PM

That_Guy88 said:
The only thing I don't have are textures and msaa... And I am running a 6870... so a 6950 should be fine...


nope msaa and textures are a big hit. i cant do it and i have that setup. you have to lower your filters to 2msaa and 4 and 8 on the other filters.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:07:06 PM

He didn't mention anything about maxed framerates...
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:11:14 PM

Forgive my lack of knowledge - what makes this i5-2500k so special for gaming i dont understand. could you explain ?

As I've seen so far you gain extras when you combine nvidia gpu with intel cpu and radeon gpu with amd cpu. I actually saw this

in a few tech tip videos + at the back of my amd processor box it says " to unlock vision technology use radeon gpu together

with this thingie. I love radeon cards thats the only reason I am feeling forced to buy an amd cpu. So what goes through my

mind : should I buy amd phenom ii 980 black ed or one of 6core fx processors ( I dont know how important cores are for gaming

, would appreciate if you explain this aswell)
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:13:16 PM

BF3 is not CPU-dependent. However, the i5-2500k is the best bang for buck gaming CPU. It has great core performance and a big range of how well it can be overclocked.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:17:52 PM

You don't need to buy the same CPU and GPU maker. You can mix and match it doesn't make a difference. The only thing you need to match is your CPU and mobo.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:24:10 PM

azeem40 said:
BF3 is not CPU-dependent.


BF3 singleplayer is not CPU-dependent, but BF3 multiplayer is heavily CPU dependent. One of the few games, that is.
It's also one of the few games that can take advantage of 4, 6 or even 8 cores.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:39:35 PM

inanition02 said:
You don't need to match your CPU and GPU (and Intel and nVidia are separate companies anyhow!).

That's just advertising by AMD. Get a 2500k and a 79XX series Radeon. And read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...


no one plays single player
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:43:12 PM

cbrunnem said:
he said everything maxed out.



your cpu will hold you back in MP a little and in other games too.(skyrim)



i get 40-50 with all ultra textures and half all the filters and thats with a 6950 at 1080p. ^cpu bottleneck however small it is.

OP the problem with bottlenecks is that with high end gpus people will get say 60fps with an AMD build and think that are not being bottlenecked by their cpu but with the same system except with an intel cpu you could get 80 fps. most people with the AMD would say that they are not being bottleneck because they are already getting good rates but in reality they are being bottleneck. its all perception.

Get an intel build if you are worried. there is an improvement in BF3 multiplayer.



Benchmarks the above is true, but is not always the case with games...... http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7...

This goes for a ton of games...... 2600k, 2500k, 970be, 1100tbe all within 2fps of each other at 1920x1080
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:50:14 PM

zloginet said:
Benchmarks the above is true, but is not always the case with games...... http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7...

This goes for a ton of games...... 2600k, 2500k, 970be, 1100tbe all within 2fps of each other at 1920x1080


i honestly dont care about any benchmarks related to BF that doesnt state its a MP bench. i can tell you this. minimum fps drops a lot from 4.5 to 3.0 with ultra textures, and medium filters on a 64 player map. i know this cause i have tried it more then once.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:50:59 PM

Soda-88 said:
for 1080p ultra you'll need atleast an i5 2500k and gtx580/r7970 and that won't warrant smooth performance at all times (you'll still have ocassional stuttering)

read http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph... for more info



Bullcrap I never dropped below 39fps with a 1100t @ 4.2 with a MSI R6970 Lightning TwinFrozrIII @ 1920x1080 with all settings maxed... Never stuttered once....

Proof

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ultra_battleb... (yes they use a 2500k but he would get the same with a X4 970 or 980)


With a 7970 I get between 68ish and 120ish fps maxed in BF3
Score
0
February 20, 2012 9:57:05 PM

cbrunnem said:
i honestly dont care about any benchmarks related to BF that doesnt state its a MP bench. i can tell you this. minimum fps drops a lot from 4.5 to 3.0 with ultra textures, and medium filters on a 64 player map. i know this cause i have tried it more then once.



Ahh... this would be true with MP... I was on the rant with SP...
Score
0
February 20, 2012 10:10:18 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

8150 @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
Lost Planet2- avg-33
Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
Cinebench- 5.84

i5 2500K @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
LostPlanet2- avg-34
Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
Cinebench- 5.12

Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 10:26:36 PM

Boopoo said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

8150 @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-60 avg-43
BFBC2- min-45 max-94 avg-65
Crysis2- min-42 max-91 avg-58
Lost Planet2- avg-33
Dirt3- min-75 avg-99
Cinebench- 5.84

i5 2500K @ stock
Metro- min-27 max-59 avg-43
BFBC2- min-44 max-97 avg-65
Crysis2-min-36 max-88 avg-62
LostPlanet2- avg-34
Dirt3- min-79 avg-105
Cinebench- 5.12

Looks like BD fx - 8150 and i5 2500k are pretty similar in terms of gaming performance add in the additional average cost of an Intel platform and slightly higher cost of the 8150 chip and looks like AMD and Intel offer up pretty even results on average as far as gaming as I have outlined and double certified above with link provided.


no offense but those are the worst cpu benchmarks i have ever seen. every single one of those games are heavily gpu dependent and im guessing the bfbc2 bench was in single player as well. its easy to get results like those when you choose gpu dependent games. i would like to see results from that guy in skyrim and bf3 MP then we will see the difference.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 10:19:29 AM

Alright ! The summary for the ultimate answer :

hd 6950 (which is mine) will not let me play in ultra, maybe i can turn 3-4 stuff to ultra - it has to be tested but generally , it is

not ideal for max ultra settings.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/ultra_battleb...


Both websites clearly state that , on ULTRA SETTINGS 6950 will be on the limits of "standart framrates for gaming which is 40+ and 6970 is the best choice for it.



Now... as for CPUs

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graph...

Both sites confirm that IN HIGH RESOLUTIONS intel and amd cpus are very close to each other. the difference appears on

lower resolutions which I dont understand why but I dont care anyway. I care about 1920x1080 only.

It is also interesting to see that amd's 4 and 6 core processors are better than the 8 core one. lololol.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 12:44:38 PM

I found something... I wish I was blind so I wouldnt have to see these benchmarks.. AMD gets totally destroyed in

every...single...game benchmark...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/186?vs=288

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=363

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=289

I didnt care about program benchmarks , I looked at game ones immedeatly and my brain exploded.


please tell me these benchmarks are wrong or I looked at something wrong , I made a mistake etc etc.. Because otherwise I am an utter fool to buy an amd processor.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 1:13:41 PM

Get an Intel cpu if you have the money. In no situation is the amd cpu going to come out on top in any game.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 1:59:59 PM

cbrunnem said:
no offense but those are the worst cpu benchmarks i have ever seen. every single one of those games are heavily gpu dependent and im guessing the bfbc2 bench was in single player as well. its easy to get results like those when you choose gpu dependent games. i would like to see results from that guy in skyrim and bf3 MP then we will see the difference.

Ya lets try Skyrim cause its a broken game and everyone knows BD does very well on BF3 multi online LOL.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 2:16:31 PM

Boopoo said:
Ya lets try Skyrim cause its a broken game and everyone knows BD does very well on BF3 multi online LOL.

either your "benchmarks" are bs or they're on a heavily gpu bottlenecked system
Score
0
February 21, 2012 2:47:26 PM

Boopoo said:
Ya lets try Skyrim cause its a broken game and everyone knows BD does very well on BF3 multi online LOL.


is the world broken because it takes a lot of horsepower to get a car over 200 mph? is the world broken because very few people are able to throw a baseball 100mph? is a game broken because it takes a good cpu to run? is a games code bad because the developers decided to get a game out on the market that is really in depth and has great graphics for being dx9 but deciding not to rewrite the whole engine yet still bring in support for 4 threads?
Score
0
February 21, 2012 3:50:31 PM

cbrunnem said:
is the world broken because it takes a lot of horsepower to get a car over 200 mph? is the world broken because very few people are able to throw a baseball 100mph? is a game broken because it takes a good cpu to run? is a games code bad because the developers decided to get a game out on the market that is really in depth and has great graphics for being dx9 but deciding not to rewrite the whole engine yet still bring in support for 4 threads?

Skyrim sans Mods does not look very great at all and it is a buggy as hell game getting better tho but Oblivion is a greater game and Morrowind was even better yet but Bethesda keeps going down hill and catering and dumbing down for the console noobs thanx console noobs for lobotomizing one of the best all time gaming best Franchises ever.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 5:38:43 PM

Best answer selected by sinthoras.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 10:23:29 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0