Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

37fps in BF3 on Ultra w/ 6950

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 23, 2012 11:55:41 PM

Title says it all. I do remember when I got the card and put it in that I was getting around 60 and fairly stable, but now I went to play and the settings were set to auto, so I put them back to Ultra and it was around 37.

I have the HIS IceQ x Turbo 6950
4GB RAM & 2.9 (OC to 3.2) Quad Core

More about : 37fps bf3 ultra 6950

January 23, 2012 11:57:33 PM

Set it to custom, Turn off MSSA and HBAO and set everything else to Ultra and see what your FPS is like then.
January 24, 2012 12:02:34 AM

monsta said:
Set it to custom, Turn off MSSA and HBAO and set everything else to Ultra and see what your FPS is like then.


I can get 60fps with tweaking, but I expect more from a $270 card.
Related resources
January 24, 2012 12:14:57 AM

Unfortunately BF3 stomps on hardware and can make a good system appear to be peanuts. To play BF3 all maxed out with decent fps you could always add another 6950 but I guess thats not something that you wanna hear having to fork out another 270.
You could always add more ram, overclock your cpu more or upgrade the cpu to a faster one or even upgrade your gpu to somthing like a 7970 depending on your system specs.
January 24, 2012 12:16:24 AM

I completely disagree with all the above other then him getting 37fps now...

My system averages around 45-47fps in BF3, EVERYTHING MAXED..

37 to 40 average is what his card should get if he is lucky considering his cpu.. Which I doubt will bottleneck the card.

I think he originally was receiving 60fps because he had it on auto
January 24, 2012 12:18:02 AM

zloginet said:
I completely disagree with all the above other then him getting 37fps now...

My system averages around 45-47fps in BF3, EVERYTHING MAXED..

37 to 40 average is what his card should get if he is lucky considering his cpu.. Which I doubt will bottleneck the card.

I think he originally was receiving 60fps because he had it on auto


I don't know how I got 60fps when I put the card in when I first got it then. This makes me concerned.
January 24, 2012 12:19:46 AM

xxbobbyfinxx said:
I don't know how I got 60fps when I put the card in when I first got it then. This makes me concerned.



I bet it was set to Auto... that happened to me once in BF3, I am like no way am I getting 70fps average and realized it was on auto
January 24, 2012 12:21:03 AM

zloginet said:
I bet it was set to Auto... that happened to me once in BF3, I am like no way am I getting 70fps average and realized it was on auto


Yeah but I remember being so excited I set it to Ultra and I was driving around in the buggy with 60fps.
January 24, 2012 12:23:18 AM

Well yeah, I have spots that hit over 70 but I also dip to a min of 36ish once in awhile, but my true average on everything is around 45-47 using fraps... I am gaming on a 52" XBR9 1920x1080
January 24, 2012 12:24:47 AM

:wahoo: 
zloginet said:
Well yeah, I have spots that hit over 70 but I also dip to a min of 36ish once in awhile, but my true average on everything is around 45-47 using fraps... I am gaming on a 52" XBR9 1920x1080


WITH Fraps? I feel like my GPU sucks now.
January 24, 2012 12:27:11 AM

Your GPU doesn't suck but do remember its a $270 card, its a bite higher then midrange so don't expect everything... If you average 37fps in BF3 with your setup you should be happy. Just knock 1 or 2 settings down and you will be fine.
January 24, 2012 12:28:23 AM

Download a program called fraps, google it , its free to download and use, will display a fps counter and you can keep an eye on the fps etc.
There will be areas where you fps will be higher than others , different maps , different servers whether you play single player or multiplayer on a 64 person server etc. As long as you arent getting dips lower than 30 fps.
January 24, 2012 12:28:44 AM

zloginet said:
Your GPU doesn't suck but do remember its a $270 card, its a bite higher then midrange so don't expect everything... If you average 37fps in BF3 with your setup you should be happy. Just knock 1 or 2 settings down and you will be fine.


I considered my card high end since the only thing higher is the 6970, 6990, 7970, and a few 5000 cards.
January 24, 2012 12:32:30 AM

xxbobbyfinxx said:
I considered my card high end since the only thing higher is the 6970, 6990, 7970, and a few 5000 cards.



There is at least 10 cards that are faster then your 6950 (not trying to be rude) but one includes a 5970 which is a last gen card.

560ti 448, 480, 570, 580, 590, 5970, 6970, 7950, 7970, 6990.... not sure if the 560ti first gen is though...
January 24, 2012 12:34:32 AM

zloginet said:
There is at least 8 cards that are faster then your 6950 (not trying to be rude) but one includes a 5970 which is a last gen card.

560ti 448, 480, 570, 580, 590, 5970, 6970, 7950, 7970, 6990.... not sure if the 560ti first gen is though...


I've always heard the 6950 is better than the 560ti.
January 24, 2012 12:36:36 AM

xxbobbyfinxx said:
I've always heard the 6950 is better than the 560ti.


That is why I said not sure about the 560ti, but I am almost positive the 560ti 448core takes care of the 6950 in most situations..

Have you bothered looking into the bios flash for the 6950? Research and see if your card has high yields on successful attempts on flashing its bios to open your card up to a 6970 status.
January 24, 2012 12:38:04 AM

zloginet said:
That is why I said not sure about the 560ti, but I am almost positive the 560ti 448core takes care of the 6950 in most situations..

Have you bothered looking into the bios flash for the 6950? Research and see if your card has high yields on successful attempts on flashing its bios to open your card up to a 6970 status.


I looked into it, but the specific brand that I have has removed the option to do so. There's no switch on my card.
January 24, 2012 12:38:34 AM

Then I would be happy with what you got...
January 24, 2012 12:39:51 AM

^+1
January 24, 2012 2:50:14 AM

BF3 can bring a high end system to its knees , you gotta buy the best you can afford to play this game at full settings with high fps.
January 24, 2012 3:04:04 AM

Taking donations =)
January 24, 2012 3:05:17 AM



thats on high. just play on high.
January 24, 2012 3:13:21 AM

performance of graphics cards don't scale well towards the top.
January 24, 2012 3:16:21 AM

Yea it's also dependent on the map and where you are inside the map. I could look at a wall and get 200 FPS lol But if im on a 64 player TDM map with everyone in approximately the same spot, its another story.

As many have said you've received what you paid for. Dial down to high settings etc. Difference between high and ultra really isn't that noticeable. Even i didn't know, until i took some screen shots, put it side by side and went "oh look there's a little extra crispiness and little detail here", "oh look i think that tree's bark might have a little more grain than high".

What makes BF3 look so awesome and "real" in my opinion is
1. Motion blur
2. HBAO
3. Post Antialiasing (blurs the picture - face it, no one can see objects clearly defined and crispy in real life in the same way you see bf3 with x4 MSAA).

Just work like 2 shifts or whatever and buy yourself another card to crossfire. Then you can seriously enjoy 60FPS+ with MSAA/HABO on.
January 24, 2012 3:16:47 AM

esrever said:
performance of graphics cards don't scale well towards the top.


Well for WoW at least I was told I could double my performance with a 2500K.
January 24, 2012 3:18:42 AM

expensivecomputer said:
Just work like 2 shifts or whatever and buy yourself another card to crossfire. Then you can seriously enjoy 60FPS+ with MSAA/HABO on.


xxbobbyfinxx said:
Taking donations =)


January 24, 2012 3:24:09 AM

xxbobbyfinxx said:
I've always heard the 6950 is better than the 560ti.

560ti hawk....BOOOM!!!!!
January 24, 2012 3:44:33 AM

xxbobbyfinxx said:
Yeah but I remember being so excited I set it to Ultra and I was driving around in the buggy with 60fps.




Dude i have the 6950 and BF3 and you wont get 60fps on average but 30-45 is actually quite good bf3 is one heavy game and we should be happy with that much fps since consoles run it on like MED-LOW fake 1080P(720P rendered up) with only 30fps and below.
January 24, 2012 4:57:16 PM

as far as i can tell and what i know BF3 can run well with a crappy CPU but in GPU u need a very good one, with that in mind, i was thinking on upgrading to the HD6950 from HD6850 but i think in gonna buy a mobo with crossfire and put a second HD6850 witch will beat 1 HD6970 easily. there is something wrong in your pc, cuz most of the benchmarks that i see, the HD6950 can run 50-60fps BF3 on High dd
January 24, 2012 5:17:55 PM

xxbobbyfinxx said:
Well for WoW at least I was told I could double my performance with a 2500K.



wow is a different game. it needs more cpu, this game just needs a decent quad core to run.

re-play- said:
as far as i can tell and what i know BF3 can run well with a crappy CPU but in GPU u need a very good one, with that in mind, i was thinking on upgrading to the HD6950 from HD6850 but i think in gonna buy a mobo with crossfire and put a second HD6850 witch will beat 1 HD6970 easily. there is something wrong in your pc, cuz most of the benchmarks that i see, the HD6950 can run 50-60fps BF3 on High dd


bf3 needs a decent quad core to run well in multiplayer. there are no multiplayer benches so that fact isnt as well know but they recommend a quad core for a reason.

also nothing is wrong with his pc, if you read the whole thread he said hes getting 35ish frames on ultra not high. big difference.

OP i to agree with everyone that says your getting the right fps and you shouldnt be disappointed because it shouldnt have been a huge surprise.
January 24, 2012 7:05:19 PM

cbrunnem said:
wow is a different game. it needs more cpu, this game just needs a decent quad core to run.



bf3 needs a decent quad core to run well in multiplayer. there are no multiplayer benches so that fact isnt as well know but they recommend a quad core for a reason.

also nothing is wrong with his pc, if you read the whole thread he said hes getting 35ish frames on ultra not high. big difference.

OP i to agree with everyone that says your getting the right fps and you shouldnt be disappointed because it shouldnt have been a huge surprise.







Plus i have his GPU and i get the same performance. Its not bad i think. But everyone else is different.
January 24, 2012 8:05:09 PM

cbrunnem said:
wow is a different game. it needs more cpu, this game just needs a decent quad core to run.



bf3 needs a decent quad core to run well in multiplayer. there are no multiplayer benches so that fact isnt as well know but they recommend a quad core for a reason.

also nothing is wrong with his pc, if you read the whole thread he said hes getting 35ish frames on ultra not high. big difference.

OP i to agree with everyone that says your getting the right fps and you shouldnt be disappointed because it shouldnt have been a huge surprise.


that not true, BF3 dont care about how many cores do u have if u have 2that is enough... it seems that u dont read tomshardware cuz they did a test running BF3 with different CPU to see how escalate, and with 4 core, 3 core, or 2 Core same FPS, dont talk with not investigating in the first place. :sol: 



This is from a Conclusion in a Test: On the CPU side of things, we found that Battlefield 3 is not nearly as CPU demanding as many have made it out to be. Previously tested games, such as Hard Reset, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2, saw a massive difference in performance between dual and quad-core processors. For example, in Deus Ex dual-cores were 43% slower than their quad-core counterparts. Battlefield 3 on the other hand delivered similar frame rates with a decent dual-core as it did with a quad.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Z/313595/original/intel%...
January 24, 2012 9:00:46 PM

cbrunnem said:
wow is a different game. it needs more cpu, this game just needs a decent quad core to run.



bf3 needs a decent quad core to run well in multiplayer. there are no multiplayer benches so that fact isnt as well know but they recommend a quad core for a reason.

also nothing is wrong with his pc, if you read the whole thread he said hes getting 35ish frames on ultra not high. big difference.

OP i to agree with everyone that says your getting the right fps and you shouldnt be disappointed because it shouldnt have been a huge surprise.


re-play- said:
that not true, BF3 dont care about how many cores do u have if u have 2that is enough... it seems that u dont read tomshardware cuz they did a test running BF3 with different CPU to see how escalate, and with 4 core, 3 core, or 2 Core same FPS, dont talk with not investigating in the first place. :sol: 

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/X/313593/original/cpu%20scaling.png

This is from a Conclusion in a Test: On the CPU side of things, we found that Battlefield 3 is not nearly as CPU demanding as many have made it out to be. Previously tested games, such as Hard Reset, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2, saw a massive difference in performance between dual and quad-core processors. For example, in Deus Ex dual-cores were 43% slower than their quad-core counterparts. Battlefield 3 on the other hand delivered similar frame rates with a decent dual-core as it did with a quad.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Z/313595/original/intel%...


you yourself are the one that cant read actually. as you can see from the quote of what i said, i said that in multiplayer you need more then 2 cores not in single player mode.

that bench is on a prerendered scene anyway and on top of that again its single player..

January 24, 2012 9:13:04 PM

Yeah, multiplayer is very CPU demanding.

Anyway, $270 for high settings is really good. I spent $600 for ultra... Though, it does run nice at just over 60 fps average. Though the Karkand maps tend to be a little slower than the originals. Not sure why.
January 25, 2012 2:37:18 AM

cbrunnem said:
you yourself are the one that cant read actually. as you can see from the quote of what i said, i said that in multiplayer you need more then 2 cores not in single player mode.

that bench is on a prerendered scene anyway and on top of that again its single player..


man i have a old x2 265 3.3ghz and i run this very decent with my 6870 ah high settings what are u talking about? BF3 is not CPU dependant is GPU :sol: 
January 25, 2012 3:07:33 AM

re-play- said:
man i have a old x2 265 3.3ghz and i run this very decent with my 6870 ah high settings what are u talking about? BF3 is not CPU dependant is GPU :sol: 

if only you knew what you could really achieve.
January 25, 2012 4:55:28 AM

To put your hopes up, the card is high end. I have the same one, and it plays crysis 2 on Ultra, with DX11 + the 2GB high resolution expansion texture pack. I run it at 60FPS average on 1920x1080 screen. Thats good if you ask me, I use to run dual 8800s, it couldnt play without locking up every minute. Sometimes games come out with a goal to make it so no single card can play it smooth without 2-4...I dont want to blame bad setup of the game's code =P
!