AMD A8 3870K BF3 on High... Really?

[bbqroast]

People (and mind you people who I have many reasons not to trust) are telling me that the new AMD CPU will run Battle Field 3 on its integrated graphics on high settings easily hitting well over 40 FPS... Really?

How amazing is this CPU and more interestingly why isn't it dominating the market if it is this amazing?

 

[mouse24]

Who told you that?! even an i5 + 6870 would struggle on max

my Athlon 2 x3 + 6870 has trouble on high in 64 player maps multiplayer.

so to sum it up, they are dead wrong.

 

[xtreme5]

yes, amd can play BF3 on low setting not 40 but rarely 25+fps.

 

[ShadyHamster]

what resolution are these 'people' running bf3 on? 640x480? then i dont see a problem with high graphic settings ^_^

 

[bbqroast]

Thanks guys .
I'll tell my friend but I have a feeling he purchased it today or yesterday!
At least he won't be saying "This computer is going to be such a performer!" all lesson long.

 

[mouse24]

meh, I would let him figure that out himself if its already being shipped

(also as a note the iGPU is a 6550 if you care to look up benchmarks)

 

[need4speeds]

I have a a6-3650@3.5ghz with crossfire 4870's.

I did try the integrated gpu first before installing the cards when i first set it up.

It's hit and miss (so who knows maybe bf3 will run ok on it, or maybe not?), some games ran fine at 1080p, others were choppy.

I had a hd-3850, The Llano is about the same as the hd-3850, and if you played hd-3850 era games and older, the Llano would run them fast and smooth.
That means there are 1,000's of games to pick from and some pretty decent classics, it's not actually that bad when you think about it.

If you cherry picked the right games to play, the A8-3870k would actually be awesome for gaming..

 

[mouse24]

I have a a6-3650@3.5ghz with crossfire 4870's.

I did try the integrated gpu first before installing the cards when i first set it up.

It's hit and miss (so who knows maybe bf3 will run ok on it, or maybe not?), some games ran fine at 1080p, others were choppy.

I had a hd-3850, The Llano is about the same as the hd-3850, and if you played hd-3850 era games and older, the Llano would run them fast and smooth.
That means there are 1,000's of games to pick from and some pretty decent classics, it's not actually that bad when you think about it.

If you cherry picked the right games to play, the A8-3870k would actually be awesome for gaming..

Yeah like Doom3 and GTA SA

 

[ArcAudios]

Hi Folks, firstly my thanks to members who steered me in the right direction with overclocking the 3870K. I had wished to let you know my experience thus far, been having fun playing BF3 on medium settings at 1600x1200 resolution. My GPU clock has been set to 800Mhz and I settled on keeping the bus at 100 and multiplier at 35. I have reached 3.8Ghz per core but had worry over stability in tests and benchmarking. 3.5Ghz is adequate for me and my temps at load (6hr sessions of BF3) haven't gone above 46C yet.
I increased vcore to 1.428v and the nb ASUS 1.2v up to 1.25v. Great stability and performance increases over the stock settings.
I have worked in IT for years and still have friends at AMD and Intel, was informed of the 3870K very early on and held off buying anything else. My build was purely for electronic music production and Battlefield 3. Am very happy with my FM1 system, flies at anything thrown at it. I saved money buying FM1, that's what it comes down to. APU's are here to stay and only gonna get more powerful.
There's been a ton of shite slung over internet forums at the FM1 range to date, the 3870K was a good fit for me and I must admit the APU has really impressed friends who traditionally buy a graphics card every couple of years.
A decent overclock performance is equal to the sum of the parts in the rig and simple common sense. Some FM1 Motherboards are not handling GPU clock increases well, some just don't OC well. I went with the ASUS F1A75 V-EVO, combined with the 3870K can easily reach 3.7Ghz but I am on air only so stepped back down to keep temps lower and lifespan longer. Don't fear the APU's, they're here to stay.
Cheers all
Regards

 

[bystander]

What sort of FPS do you get when playing BF3 on medium at 1600x1200?

A lot of us have different meanings of playable FPS or maybe I should say different tolerance levels.

 

[mouse24]

What sort of FPS do you get when playing BF3 on medium at 1600x1200?

A lot of us have different meanings of playable FPS or maybe I should say different tolerance levels.

Hmmm. I know this wasn't aimed at me but about the 2nd part, I personally can play it on high no aa @ a stable 30 fps with occasional dips to 27 or so. now one of the members told me thats why I was getting owned alot (my score was really really bad, something like 12k to 30d) so just for S&G I put it on lowest settings.

I have a few points to make here, on low character models seem to just stand out more in distant buildings. Also the shading seems a bit different so they don't blend as well into the background. and it feels like my aiming has gotten a bit more precise.

now I dunno if this is just a placebo effect or not but I figured I should tell you guys my experience anyways, but every since I rarely get under a 0.8 K/D ratio

I personally don't see an improvement but I do feel like it helps, plus I for some reason can't really tell the difference in detail between high or low settings (besides shadows, on low they look god awful)

 

[simon12]

This is what Toms got on low @ only 1024x768

 

[bystander]

Hmmm. I know this wasn't aimed at me but about the 2nd part, I personally can play it on high no aa @ a stable 30 fps with occasional dips to 27 or so. now one of the members told me thats why I was getting owned alot (my score was really really bad, something like 12k to 30d) so just for S&G I put it on lowest settings.

I have a few points to make here, on low character models seem to just stand out more in distant buildings. Also the shading seems a bit different so they don't blend as well into the background. and it feels like my aiming has gotten a bit more precise.

now I dunno if this is just a placebo effect or not but I figured I should tell you guys my experience anyways, but every since I rarely get under a 0.8 K/D ratio

I personally don't see an improvement but I do feel like it helps, plus I for some reason can't really tell the difference in detail between high or low settings (besides shadows, on low they look god awful)

I don't believe it's a placebo at all. Lowering graphics settings has been used by many in past games. I've also heard of games were the opposite was true because of the high settings having reflections off the glass of a scope.

But ya, those FPS are bad. It most definitely will effect your ability to aim, everything would feel like you are in molasses. I also get motion sickness severely at those FPS. I used to get really sick trying to play Farcry because I'd try to play at those FPS for the look. I didn't know that those low FPS caused me to be sick until later.