Battlefield 3 Performance: 30+ Graphics Cards, Benchmarked

Benchmark Results: AMD Graphics Cards, High Quality

Overcoming Teething Pains

Despite my searching, I could find no evidence that Battlefield 3 is one of Nvidia’s “The Way It’s Meant To Be Played”-sponsored games (even though the studio had a strong presence at GeForce LAN 6). As a result, I was a little surprised to encounter so many problems getting AMD-based multi-GPU configurations working.

At first, the Radeon HD 6990 wouldn’t run at all with the Catalyst 11.10 Preview 3 driver installed, locking up before I could complete any benchmark run (and on the only two boards in my collection). The Radeon HD 5970 worked, but dropped a GPU after every resolution change, requiring a game restart. A subsequent install cratered the 5970 altogether, preventing us from generating anti-aliasing scores with it. None of our two-board setups functioned at all.

Then, I spent a full day trying to drum up answers. Replacing cards, power supplies, switching motherboard slots, swapping SSDs, reformatting SSDs, installing beta Application Profiles…none of it helped. On a whim, I pulled the 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) Crucial DDR3-1333 memory kit I used for my Bulldozer review and replaced it with 8 GB of G.Skill modules. Suddenly, I could run benchmarks. They’d still crash when I changed resolutions. But I could generate results, at least.

I asked AMD what interaction CrossFire had with system memory that wasn't part of a single-card config and would cause a system memory compatibility problem, but didn't get an answer. The company did, however, confirm that it's seeing the same CrossFire-based issues in its own lab.

In this particular sequence, AMD’s Radeon HD 6990 performs exceptionally, smoking right past what we saw the GeForce GTX 590 do. It’s only a shame, then, that the 6990 and 5970 behind it are currently so unusable.

At 1680x1050, the more than two-year-old Radeon HD 5850 is a solid bet, trumping the more modern Radeon HD 6850. That’s not to say you couldn’t get playable performance out of lesser cards like the Radeon HD 5770 or 4870. You’d simply need to dial down the visuals to get there.

Maintaining High quality at 1920x1080 is still possible with a Radeon HD 5850, though you’d probably be better-served by a 5870 or Radeon HD 6900-series board.

Meanwhile, even a Radeon HD 6970 is going to have a hard time keeping up at 2560x1600. Really, it takes a dual-GPU solution to push the big frame rates at that resolution. Frankly, the same thing applies to Nvidia's line-up, though. In fact, the Radeon HD 6970 achieves a better result at 2560x1600 (and the other two resolutions) than the GeForce GTX 580!

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
315 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • jrnyfan
    Great review, thank you very much!
    20
  • cangelini
    sentinelsparkOkay how is the HD5850 better than the HD6850. The HD6850 has better memory clock speeds. I was able to play the game in 1080p and AAx2 and all but two on ultra high, and i was getting 35fps average. I am calling Bulls**t on this one.


    Believe it, friend. Why do you think we were so tweaked when Barts came out and AMD's naming sounded so deceptive? 5850 is faster than 6850, just like 5870 is faster than 6870!
    16
  • cangelini
    aznshinobiGreat read, lovely to see a wide assortment tested, specially my 5850. Thanks for taking the time Chris, I'm sure it must've taken FOREVER to bench and swap all those cards.


    Very welcome, glad you enjoyed it. Didn't take forever, just four very long days ;-)
    14
  • Other Comments
  • kyosuke
    pffft. My HD 6870 handles Ultra maxed just fine!
    -24
  • jrnyfan
    Great review, thank you very much!
    20
  • Anonymous
    great review. but I am curious if a gtx 560ti can run ultra on a playable fps? because I am about to buy one :D
    -1
  • orellius
    nevermind my comment about 560 Ti, I see it in the benchmarks (high) but it is not on the main page list of cards (missed putting it there?) (yes, I used the search feature in my browser, no 560 to speak of)
    3
  • orellius
    blah, I guess my first comment didnt come through, nevermind then! ha
    -2
  • spentshells
    Wow does it look good, I played the demo on Xbox did it ever look dumb
    3
  • m0th2
    sirus3020great review. but I am curious if a gtx 560ti can run ultra on a playable fps? because I am about to buy one


    Without any form of AA you can run it on ultra and get over 30fps on every map @ 1920x1080 easily (over 60 when close quarters). Depends on your cpu and if you OC your gpu though. i have mine at 940/2100 and its always above 40fps.
    3
  • kcorp2003
    AWESOME! thank you very much for this. looks like i wont have to upgrade my CPU then. i have HD4870 and i play this on medium settings but still i want the ultra settings. :)
    1
  • aznshinobi
    Great read, lovely to see a wide assortment tested, specially my 5850. Thanks for taking the time Chris, I'm sure it must've taken FOREVER to bench and swap all those cards.
    4
  • canadian87
    Frikkin' finally, now I can upgrade safely. :)
    1
  • alhanelem
    looks like my e8500 and gtx 460 can pull through this game (hopefully)
    5
  • Anonymous
    I run BF3 in 1920x1080 ultra MSAA4x with my X4 955+HD5770 and it works fine. Playable 30fps :D
    -1
  • the torso
    running x fire 6950's and besting 78FPS avg fps on ultra, i5 2500k W/ Thank God no problems with multi GPU
    1
  • saratj1
    For anyone interested I get
    min - 21 Fps
    Max - 71 Fps
    Avg - 41.2 Fps
    Everything maxed at 1080P
    I7-2600k @ 4.3 + Sapphire 6950 2gb Flashed to 6970 with stock clocks 880 1250
    11
  • saratj1
    For anyone interested I get
    min - 21 Fps
    Max - 71 Fps
    Avg - 41.2 Fps
    Everything maxed at 1080P
    I7-2600k @ 4.3 + Sapphire 6950 2gb Flashed to 6970 with stock clocks 880 1250
    -14
  • amk-aka-Phantom
    Great article and I love that picture with a pile of graphics cards :D Just one obvious thing missing: WHERE ARE SLI 560 Tis??? I was kind of considering picking up a second card for this game... come on, I'm sick of Tom's ignoring that card so often.

    Though I think my 560 Ti still doesn't need a pair if I tone down the settings a tiny bit :) Good to see that. And yet I hear the game looks great... kudos to DICE for optimizing the game nicely!

    Also, 6950 kicked the 560 Ti nicely in this game :D

    P.S. So the FX 8150 now has a Phenom name tag on it? :)
    1
  • cangelini
    amk-aka-phantomGreat article and I love that picture with a pile of graphics cards Just one obvious thing missing: WHERE ARE SLI 560 Tis??? I was kind of considering picking up a second card for this game... come on, I'm sick of Tom's ignoring that card so often.Though I think my 560 Ti still doesn't need a pair if I tone down the settings a tiny bit Good to see that. And yet I hear the game looks great... kudos to DICE for optimizing the game nicely! Also, 6950 kicked the 560 Ti nicely in this game P.S. So the FX 8150 now has a Phenom name tag on it?


    I actually don't even have two 560 Tis to show you, unfortunately.

    Phenom? FX? Where? =)
    8
  • amirp
    Hey Chris, quick question, did you notice any micro-stuttering with the 6870 cards in crossfire? (kind of like that previous article that was up on toms a while ago). The performance of 6870x2 seems amazing for the price, and am really tempted to pick another one up for my system.
    0
  • cangelini
    aznshinobiGreat read, lovely to see a wide assortment tested, specially my 5850. Thanks for taking the time Chris, I'm sure it must've taken FOREVER to bench and swap all those cards.


    Very welcome, glad you enjoyed it. Didn't take forever, just four very long days ;-)
    14
  • sentinelspark
    Okay how is the HD5850 better than the HD6850. The HD6850 has better memory clock speeds. I was able to play the game in 1080p and AAx2 and all but two on ultra high, and i was getting 35fps average. I am calling Bulls**t on this one.
    -10