Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GTX 670, fps in BF3 minimum 37, avg about 50..normal? 1920x1200?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 7, 2012 6:18:02 PM

Confused, pretty much everyone told me the 670 was a stomper in BF3, and it could do ultra 1920x1200 no problem, but on Caspain Boarder and what not, I average about 10 below 60, and when looking at the open landscape and\or smoke, it'll dip down to an avg of about 40-47, is this at all normal? I have a 1090T Phenom II @ 4ghz, the Gigabyte GTX 670 is currently at about 1250 core, I have a 150mhz oc on the memory too, I have a Corsair 750W PSU (my old card was a GTX 480) and 8GB of Mushkin DDR3, running 64-bit Windows...thanks in advance, just was expecting less major lag drops.
August 7, 2012 6:38:09 PM

It is normal. I wouldn't call 37fps minimum a "problem", if it annoys you you could use MSI afterburner to set a fps limit to about 40-45, that way you won't perceive the fps slowdown nearly as much, or try turning down a few things like AA.
Score
0
August 7, 2012 6:48:36 PM

Ah ok, I just put the latest bios on my 670, and oced a bit more until it started to crash, (temps are always fine, the cooler on this makes it never go above 65c...gotta love Windstream) I was looking at this http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=40431 and noticed that yeah, my 670 is apparently doing very good as I'm hitting 55 fps in the same tests, and the 680 is only hitting 52, I'm also beating out the lightning GTX 670 with my current OC, it just worries me that BF4 is coming out, I guess I'll have to get another 670 for that beast.
Score
0
Related resources
August 7, 2012 6:51:06 PM

Oh yeah one more thing, what is this fps limiter? I use afterburner for OCING, but I don't quite get how the FPS limiter works?
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
August 7, 2012 7:31:02 PM

That does seem a bit odd to me my neighbor has the MSI 670 PE and runs everything he throws at it on ultra averages 60 his res is different though 1920x1080 so that prob why.
Score
0
August 7, 2012 7:36:58 PM


If your are in multi-player, you should probably be really happy where you are ...

Score
0
August 7, 2012 7:45:02 PM

my 560s in sli w/ AA off will take a beating on some maps if everything around me is blowing up and dip below 40 fps. Large outdoor maps w/ 64 pll spamming all they got is not bench marked.

Coming from a 480? Was there a big difference in game from the 480?
Score
0
August 7, 2012 7:45:48 PM

rpaulg87 said:
Oh yeah one more thing, what is this fps limiter? I use afterburner for OCING, but I don't quite get how the FPS limiter works?



You need to open the Rivatuner OSD server, which if you have any monitoring going on it'll be open by default. From there under setup you can choose to set a framerate limit either globally or for an specific app.
Score
0
August 7, 2012 9:51:47 PM

Im sorry you are getting such low fps. Just buy another one, i have to evga ref models no overclock and im getting on average 130 fps with everything maxxed out. Im having a little temp problem tho under heavy load they are about 69c-72c with fans maxed out but i guess this is normal, it just sucks tho because as soon as they hit 70 the cards throttle down but i dont really see a difference when they do, i am just worried that they will be effected heavily when i go to overclock them.
Score
0
August 7, 2012 11:11:06 PM

^ Just buy another one isn't exactly the most ideal response to someone who just spent 400$ on a GPU lol. The 670 is of course a huge improvement, it looks gorgeous and I run everything at ultra, and I guess Bf3's multiplayer is just super demanding? That's the game everyone keeps saying this card and the 680 handle no prob @ 1920x1200 and up, are they just talking about single player?
Score
0
August 7, 2012 11:19:55 PM

rpaulg87 said:
^ Just buy another one isn't exactly the most ideal response to someone who just spent 400$ on a GPU lol. The 670 is of course a huge improvement, it looks gorgeous and I run everything at ultra, and I guess Bf3's multiplayer is just super demanding? That's the game everyone keeps saying this card and the 680 handle no prob @ 1920x1200 and up, are they just talking about single player?


Well I have 2 gtx 680 direct cu ii top cards and in multiplayer at 2560x1600 res I get around 90fps and at 1920x1080 around 120fps, so I'm happy :D  I have a video showing this if ya wanna see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4KFzZR8-0&feature=plc...
Score
0
August 7, 2012 11:27:00 PM

rpaulg87 said:
Confused, pretty much everyone told me the 670 was a stomper in BF3, and it could do ultra 1920x1200 no problem, but on Caspain Boarder and what not, I average about 10 below 60, and when looking at the open landscape and\or smoke, it'll dip down to an avg of about 40-47, is this at all normal? I have a 1090T Phenom II @ 4ghz, the Gigabyte GTX 670 is currently at about 1250 core, I have a 150mhz oc on the memory too, I have a Corsair 750W PSU (my old card was a GTX 480) and 8GB of Mushkin DDR3, running 64-bit Windows...thanks in advance, just was expecting less major lag drops.


bigcyco1 said:
That does seem a bit odd to me my neighbor has the MSI 670 PE and runs everything he throws at it on ultra averages 60 his res is different though 1920x1080 so that prob why.


rpaulg87 said:
^ Just buy another one isn't exactly the most ideal response to someone who just spent 400$ on a GPU lol. The 670 is of course a huge improvement, it looks gorgeous and I run everything at ultra, and I guess Bf3's multiplayer is just super demanding? That's the game everyone keeps saying this card and the 680 handle no prob @ 1920x1200 and up, are they just talking about single player?


bf3 can be cpu bound with high end gpu's. you cpu is slowing you down.

iamcacao said:
Well I have 2 gtx 680 direct cu ii top cards and in multiplayer at 2560x1600 res I get around 90fps and at 1920x1080 around 120fps, so I'm happy :D  I have a video showing this if ya wanna see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky4KFzZR8-0&feature=plc...


brag more and contribute less while you're at it.
Score
0
August 7, 2012 11:49:49 PM

cbrunnem said:


brag more and contribute less while you're at it.



Sorry if that came off as bragging, I really don't like doing that (and I hate it when others do it too), I was just trying to let him know that cards like the gtx680 and 670 do really great in bf3 multiplayer, not just singleplayer.
Score
0
August 8, 2012 1:01:11 AM

cbrunnem said:
bf3 can be cpu bound with high end gpu's. you cpu is slowing you down.



brag more and contribute less while you're at it.


Yup, He has a CPU Bottleneck. My Phenom x4 980 @ 4.2 Ghz isn't good enough in 32-64 player maps. However in single player mode I get a solid 60 fps!
Score
0
August 8, 2012 1:20:57 AM

Umm....I have a 1090T @ 4ghz..and I'm surpassing the benchmarks as I stated above, I never play single player as it's Battlefield...who in the hell plays BF single player? Lol
Score
0
August 8, 2012 1:44:24 AM

rpaulg87 said:
Umm....I have a 1090T @ 4ghz..and I'm surpassing the benchmarks as I stated above, I never play single player as it's Battlefield...who in the hell plays BF single player? Lol


dude bf3 MP is heavy on the cpu compared to other games especially when you have 64 players noobing around spamming nades harder then they've ever spammed.
Score
0
August 8, 2012 12:38:49 PM

So what processor does AMD have out currently that actually out-performs the 1090T @ 4ghz in BF3?
Score
0
August 8, 2012 8:36:45 PM

rpaulg87 said:
So what processor does AMD have out currently that actually out-performs the 1090T @ 4ghz in BF3?


maybe a FX at 4.2-4.5 or any x4 or x6 at 4.0 or higher.
Score
0
August 8, 2012 9:23:14 PM

cbrunnem said:
maybe a FX at 4.2-4.5 or any x4 or x6 at 4.0 or higher.


Even then it's still much slower than the intel counterpart...
Score
0
August 8, 2012 10:18:37 PM


rpaulg87 said:
So what processor does AMD have out currently that actually out-performs the 1090T @ 4ghz in BF3?


Running 4 cores instead of 6 cores may better utilize the L3 cache.

And running your IMC/NB at 2400-2600MHz should give you a nice boost ...



Run your RAMs at spec speed. What would that happen to be?



Score
0
August 9, 2012 7:02:21 AM

rpaulg87 said:
^ Just buy another one isn't exactly the most ideal response to someone who just spent 400$ on a GPU lol. The 670 is of course a huge improvement, it looks gorgeous and I run everything at ultra, and I guess Bf3's multiplayer is just super demanding? That's the game everyone keeps saying this card and the 680 handle no prob @ 1920x1200 and up, are they just talking about single player?


I didnt but buy a new one to replace the old one i ment but another to add to the first :) 
Score
0
August 9, 2012 9:45:09 PM

Ok...so new thing, tried Skyrim today, at 1920x1200, everything maxed, I'm getting avg of 40 in towns...what the heck? I KNOW the 670 is supposed to destroy Skyrim and even the high-end texture packs...O.o, I don't see the 670 getting less than 80fps @ 2560 and up res... http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5818/46441.png
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
August 9, 2012 10:15:17 PM

rpaulg87 said:
Ok...so new thing, tried Skyrim today, at 1920x1200, everything maxed, I'm getting avg of 40 in towns...what the heck? I KNOW the 670 is supposed to destroy Skyrim and even the high-end texture packs...O.o, I don't see the 670 getting less than 80fps @ 2560 and up res... http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5818/46441.png

Skyrim gets cpu intensive when the shadows are maxed, try setting them at high (the 2nd highest setting)
Score
0
August 9, 2012 10:43:17 PM

rpaulg87 said:
Ok...so new thing, tried Skyrim today, at 1920x1200, everything maxed, I'm getting avg of 40 in towns...what the heck? I KNOW the 670 is supposed to destroy Skyrim and even the high-end texture packs...O.o, I don't see the 670 getting less than 80fps @ 2560 and up res... http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5818/46441.png


Kari said:
Skyrim gets cpu intensive when the shadows are maxed, try setting them at high (the 2nd highest setting)


skyrim is cpu intensive regardless. it is much better since they patched it though. definitely favors intel though.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 12:47:39 AM

Thanks guys, I'll try this out and report back, I guess after every test showing an avg of 80 fps with a 670 in Skyrim ultra, I was taken a-back by the 40-50 fps everywhere, even in the open areas (not cities). I have a AMD3 Socket MB...I'm assuming these newer CPUS, if I wanted to upgrade, would require a MB swap? The 980BE was my prior quad-core, I know I don't want that one again lol, the 1090T was a surpising step up, so what's the next best AMD I can go to, or should I just fold my cards, and go to INTEL? (Personally always been a bigger AMD cpu fan)
Score
0
August 10, 2012 12:52:06 AM

rpaulg87 said:
Thanks guys, I'll try this out and report back, I guess after every test showing an avg of 80 fps with a 670 in Skyrim ultra, I was taken a-back by the 40-50 fps everywhere, even in the open areas (not cities). I have a AMD3 Socket MB...I'm assuming these newer CPUS, if I wanted to upgrade, would require a MB swap? The 980BE was my prior quad-core, I know I don't want that one again lol, the 1090T was a surpising step up, so what's the next best AMD I can go to, or should I just fold my cards, and go to INTEL? (Personally always been a bigger AMD cpu fan)


amd has nothing better then that sorry. you have to go intel to get better.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 1:56:49 AM

cbrunnem said:
amd has nothing better then that sorry. you have to go intel to get better.


So wait..am I to understand that right now, AMD has nothing that will not bottleneck a GTX 670 and up? O.o
Score
0
August 10, 2012 2:11:59 AM

rpaulg87 said:
So wait..am I to understand that right now, AMD has nothing that will not bottleneck a GTX 670 and up? O.o

in certain games yes. in certain games even intel chips are the bottleneck i.e. skyrim
Score
0
August 10, 2012 2:33:24 AM

cbrunnem said:
in certain games yes. in certain games even intel chips are the bottleneck i.e. skyrim

Ok...wait...how are people getting typical benchmarks of 80+ Fps in Skyrim then with the 670 GTX if even intel chips are doing it...?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev...
*EDIT* and now I see they are using a 1000$ processor, okay, well what processor would bump me out of 35-40 fps city fps, and 45-50 fps in the general outside world of Skyrim? I'm looking to actually somewhat harness my GTX 670, if I can't really use the power, there isn't much point in moving on from my 480 lol
Score
0

Best solution

August 10, 2012 3:25:22 AM

rpaulg87 said:
Ok...wait...how are people getting typical benchmarks of 80+ Fps in Skyrim then with the 670 GTX if even intel chips are doing it...?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev...
*EDIT* and now I see they are using a 1000$ processor, okay, well what processor would bump me out of 35-40 fps city fps, and 45-50 fps in the general outside world of Skyrim? I'm looking to actually somewhat harness my GTX 670, if I can't really use the power, there isn't much point in moving on from my 480 lol


just get a 2500k/3570k with a z77 board. that will get you much better fps and you can not get a faster gaming cpu.
Share
August 10, 2012 3:42:48 AM

The 3570k is available locally for only 190$...good deal?
Score
0
August 10, 2012 4:56:10 AM

rpaulg87 said:
The 3570k is available locally for only 190$...good deal?



I have a 3570k barely overclocked and it rapes everygame no problem. Although i have 2 gtx 670's that might help a little o.0
Score
0
August 10, 2012 6:02:00 PM

Well I picked up a 3570k and Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H for about 290$ today, i'll install it in a bit, I just wish I could fit my H50 cooler on :( 
Score
0
August 10, 2012 6:41:31 PM

There's a bracket you can buy for that from corsair.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 7:22:22 PM

My friend runs a 1090t at stock settings, with an asus 670 gtx non TOP, so cpu and gpu at stock speeds, and plays bf3 at 130 fps on the auto preset at 1080p, and 60-80 fps on ultra same resolution.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 7:24:29 PM

on my comment above, didnt notice the 1920x1200 resolution ur at lol
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
August 10, 2012 7:28:05 PM

lazyboy947 said:
My friend runs a 1090t at stock settings, with an asus 670 gtx non TOP, so cpu and gpu at stock speeds, and plays bf3 at 130 fps on the auto preset at 1080p, and 60-80 fps on ultra same resolution.


Single player and small maps in multiplayer.

Benchmarking sites also like to use single player to compare, since it is more consistent.

I might also add to the CPU bottleneck topic that all CPU's bottleneck at times, and the same can be true for GPU's. It is not possible to have a system which is always perfectly balanced, because different games have different demands.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 9:11:02 PM

lazyboy947 said:
My friend runs a 1090t at stock settings, with an asus 670 gtx non TOP, so cpu and gpu at stock speeds, and plays bf3 at 130 fps on the auto preset at 1080p, and 60-80 fps on ultra same resolution.


do that on a 64 player map though and they will drop A LOT.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 10:53:40 PM

rpaulg87 said:
Well I picked up a 3570k and Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H for about 290$ today, i'll install it in a bit, I just wish I could fit my H50 cooler on :( 





I'd much appreciate if you could make a comparison on a few games once you have it up and running, I'm in a similar situation , looking to upgrade to either a 7970 or GTX670 from a 5850, and have a Phenom II 955 @ 3.8ghz , wondering if it's worth it or if it'd be a smarter desition to upgrade my cpu first to avoid bottlenecking it too much, seen alot of mixed opinions on that and would like to hear from someone with first-hand experience.
Score
0
August 11, 2012 2:16:01 AM

Well, don't get me wrong, the 680 absolutely destroys the 480 in texture quality and performance, I mean it's night and day when you push the settings, but with that CPU yeah I dunno...games like Aliens Vs Predator will be fine (which is just...beautifu looking in dx11 with tess maxed out) , but apparently on-line games or games where a lot is going on is super cpu intensive, I'll letcha know just got her up and running an hour ago. Here's a pic of her http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb15/SavageX25/photo... added a H100 too for good ocing

And everyone is pretty right about BF3, in small online maps (even with 32 players) I'll generally net 60-70, big maps..no way, lots of players, no way, single player, of course.
Score
0
August 11, 2012 6:54:58 AM

Wow...these guys were right...booted up Skyrim, where I normally get 40-50 I am now getting a constant 80-90 on ULTRA, bf3 is taking forever to download but I'll post back with the results with that...so far incredibly impressed, that PHENOM really does suck at gaming, wow. So far no lag in the city I have been too, gonna run through a few others like WHITERUN which I hear can be hell on cpus.
Score
0
August 11, 2012 7:00:40 AM

rpaulg87 said:
Ah ok, I just put the latest bios on my 670, and oced a bit more until it started to crash, (temps are always fine, the cooler on this makes it never go above 65c...gotta love Windstream) I was looking at this http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=40431 and noticed that yeah, my 670 is apparently doing very good as I'm hitting 55 fps in the same tests, and the 680 is only hitting 52, I'm also beating out the lightning GTX 670 with my current OC, it just worries me that BF4 is coming out, I guess I'll have to get another 670 for that beast.


no need to worry about bf4, it's not coming until late 2013/ 2014
Score
0
August 11, 2012 7:10:18 AM

I also had that problem in battlefield 3, sometimes it would even drop to like 35 fps... and then back to like 40's -> 50's -> 40's stable -> I got killed? -> drop to ~35 fps...
I heard that there were problems with the drivers but my card was just stupid. It couldn't handle a small OC. I just brought it back to the shop and I might get another card. I guess it is also about buyers luck since some people are having great FPS with the GTX 670.

- Fastreaction
Score
0
August 11, 2012 1:39:55 PM

rpaulg87 said:
Wow...these guys were right...booted up Skyrim, where I normally get 40-50 I am now getting a constant 80-90 on ULTRA, bf3 is taking forever to download but I'll post back with the results with that...so far incredibly impressed, that PHENOM really does suck at gaming, wow. So far no lag in the city I have been too, gonna run through a few others like WHITERUN which I hear can be hell on cpus.


Suck it AMD fans lol
Score
0
August 11, 2012 4:38:03 PM

So in BF3 in Ultra I'm getting an avg of 20-40 frames more than I did on my Phenom...never really dips below 58 even in the most intense situations online, with the Phenom I'd bottom out at 32, I typically average 65-75 now in big maps. This is with a 4ghz oc
Score
0
a c 81 Î Nvidia
August 11, 2012 4:41:58 PM

rpaulg87 said:
So in BF3 in Ultra I'm getting an avg of 20-40 frames more than I did on my Phenom...never really dips below 58 even in the most intense situations online, with the Phenom I'd bottom out at 32, I typically average 65-75 now in big maps. This is with a 4ghz oc


My last AMD CPU was the first AMD Athlon 64, which was a great time for AMD, but unfortunately, AMD has lost it's edge in the enthusiast realm and it looks to only be getting worse as they have publicly surrendered that sector. Their GPU's are still great, but I have to wonder about their future with the way they are running things now.
Score
0
August 11, 2012 9:16:26 PM

Well... I used to really REALLY support AMD, but the last good GPU they had was the 4870 in my eyes(when it was ATI) and they never once made good laptops cpus...so I guess I should have expected this.
Verdict: Do NOT buy a GTX 670 or above, if you have a Phenom II, you will be limited to literally what the GTX 480\560 can do. I am SO glad I actually listened and wasn't an egg-head about this, it really is damn impressive. And now I have a board that can do both Crossfire AND Sli when the heck did that start happening!? (not that I'd ever buy an AMD thing again, haha)
Score
0
August 12, 2012 3:49:51 AM

rpaulg87 said:
Painful...glad I went with Nvidia this time before AMD...ugh.


why amd has the fastest single gpu card out there?
Score
0
!