Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3 And DiRT 3

System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $2,000 Performance PC
By

Is the new system CPU-limited in Battlefield 3? Actually, 200 FPS is this game's ceiling. Unfortunately, the frame rate cap is going to affect this quarter's overall average performance score (higher benchmark numbers would have extended the lead of our dual-Radeon HD 7970 system in gaming).

As we increase the detail levels and resolution in Battlefield 3, frame rates come down away from the cap. Most amazing, perhaps, is the drop that happens between 1920x1080 and 2560x1600. Performance remains playable, but a slide from 170 average frames per second down to 52 on our overclocked configuration is certainly extreme.

We aren't aware of an artificial frame rate limit in DiRT 3, so we're more likely to attribute similar performance to a platform-oriented bottleneck. This time, we're thinking it's memory speed, though. After first recording 170 FPS at several resolutions, we enabled the memory kit's XMP profile and watched the frame rate jump to 190 FPS.

Although we're fairly confident that our bottleneck was memory performance at the lower detail settings, we know from lots of experience testing this game that the grouping tightens at more graphically-demanding settings on AMD GPUs. The spread is typically tighter still when using two AMD-based cards in CrossFire. Historically, we've chalked this up to processing overhead associated with the multi-GPU rendering technology, but in light of our earlier discovery, we think we have an interesting benchmark to run in an upcoming memory story, too.

Display all 100 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    Darkerson , December 6, 2012 4:36 AM
    kj3639After building that awful piledriver rig you go ahead and do something like this... and totally REDEEM YOURSELVES!!!-Good Job

    They really had nothing to redeem themselves about. They went with something a little different, just to try it out. Id rather they go off the beaten path so we can get a better idea of how these builds would turn out without having to buy and build them ourselves.
    Also, if they didnt try something different, they would almost always be cookie-cutter builds until the next big thing came out. No thanks!
    At any rate, this is a really nice build. Have to say, though, I would be happy to win any of these.
  • 17 Hide
    blazorthon , December 6, 2012 5:35 AM
    Quote:
    Suggested changes:

    Core i5 3570k - savings of $120
    2x - MSI N670 PE 2GD5/OC - $800 (gtx 670 OC'd to 1019 core clock)

    Rosewill FORTRESS-750 - $140 (80 plus platinum + 7 year limited warranty)
    LIAN LI PC-7B plus II - $100 (gamer cases look tacky, less is more)


    This was a balanced performance build, not a purely gaming build. The i5 would have hurt that significantly.
  • 12 Hide
    Crashman , December 6, 2012 3:34 AM
    NovuakeYeah, should have gone for an ASRock board at the same price point...
    Maybe, maybe not, motherboard market has changed a little since the parts were bought and I've since seen some D5-series Gigabyte boards (with their better PWM) drop to $150...at least temporarily.
Other Comments
  • -7 Hide
    Novuake , December 6, 2012 3:31 AM
    Yeah, should have gone for an ASRock board at the same price point...
  • 12 Hide
    Crashman , December 6, 2012 3:34 AM
    NovuakeYeah, should have gone for an ASRock board at the same price point...
    Maybe, maybe not, motherboard market has changed a little since the parts were bought and I've since seen some D5-series Gigabyte boards (with their better PWM) drop to $150...at least temporarily.
  • -1 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , December 6, 2012 3:35 AM
    Too much of cheap CPU coolers
  • 4 Hide
    jupiter optimus maximus , December 6, 2012 3:42 AM
    For the next SBM build, use the "SAMSUNG 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) MV-3V4G3D/US". People are posting low timings with very high frequencies. Plus it is low profile (half the size of every other non-heatsink memory modules on the market) and operates at 1.35v (overvolt it to 1.65v without worry).
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147096
  • -8 Hide
    kj3639 , December 6, 2012 4:04 AM
    After building that awful piledriver rig you go ahead and do something like this... and totally REDEEM YOURSELVES!!!

    -Good Job
  • -1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , December 6, 2012 4:23 AM
    I think Toms needs a new article: "The Dream Build" with gaming in mind.
  • 26 Hide
    Darkerson , December 6, 2012 4:36 AM
    kj3639After building that awful piledriver rig you go ahead and do something like this... and totally REDEEM YOURSELVES!!!-Good Job

    They really had nothing to redeem themselves about. They went with something a little different, just to try it out. Id rather they go off the beaten path so we can get a better idea of how these builds would turn out without having to buy and build them ourselves.
    Also, if they didnt try something different, they would almost always be cookie-cutter builds until the next big thing came out. No thanks!
    At any rate, this is a really nice build. Have to say, though, I would be happy to win any of these.
  • 4 Hide
    C12Friedman , December 6, 2012 5:01 AM
    My first thought, I kept going back to it also, was the motherboard, why? I kept going 2nd page, 1st page, 2nd page, back to first page, confusion reigned in my head. Took me a while to get past the second page. But since it was addressed at the end of the article, I guess it's known.
  • -4 Hide
    Anonymous , December 6, 2012 5:08 AM
    One think to consider are both Q3 and Q4 systems future proof. It's important for games and serious task to be able to extend life of your PC and Q4 in this category is certainly penny wise but pound foolish.
  • 3 Hide
    blazorthon , December 6, 2012 5:32 AM
    kj3639After building that awful piledriver rig you go ahead and do something like this... and totally REDEEM YOURSELVES!!!-Good Job


    The CPU was hardly a bottle-neck at all according to Tom's gaming benchmarks. Sure, power consumption was high, but that cold easily be alleviated by disabling one core per module (which shouldn't hurt performance in any of Tom's gaming benchmarks anyway). Why was the rig awful?
  • 17 Hide
    blazorthon , December 6, 2012 5:35 AM
    Quote:
    Suggested changes:

    Core i5 3570k - savings of $120
    2x - MSI N670 PE 2GD5/OC - $800 (gtx 670 OC'd to 1019 core clock)

    Rosewill FORTRESS-750 - $140 (80 plus platinum + 7 year limited warranty)
    LIAN LI PC-7B plus II - $100 (gamer cases look tacky, less is more)


    This was a balanced performance build, not a purely gaming build. The i5 would have hurt that significantly.
  • 4 Hide
    ojas , December 6, 2012 6:02 AM
    Haha. Just goes to show how much more "gamey" my BestConfigs build could have been had i not been extravagant on things like liquid cooling and a Sabertooth board (and another SSD) :D 
  • 9 Hide
    EzioAs , December 6, 2012 6:03 AM
    2 7970s in crossfire, nice! Best thing I've identified straight away. Even 2 7950s would suffice I guess, but that's just me

    I agree with blazorthon and Thomas, that with $2000 to spend and it's primary usage isn't gaming, a 3770K is the better choice (depends on usage). 3930K is just too expensive while an i5 is the best if you're not doing anything too CPU intensive.

    Nice choice for power supply as well. I like that you didn't go overboard on the psu. I only question the cooler and case. While the Hyper 212 is a great cooler for the money, overclocking is limited because it couldn't withstand the heat that IB output especially after 1.3V, some even lower (but I guess most of us here know this already). I guess it's probably best if you spend just a little bit more for a better cpu cooler (I know it's closer to $2000 already but spend a little more, maybe $2030 isn't so bad).

    As for the case, well that's actually a matter of taste. If I were to spend $2k on a new build, I probably would go for at least a $120 case (but again, it's a matter of taste). But I can't argue that the CM storm enforcer is one of the best case at it's price point. If it were me, I'd go for Corsair 400R

    So overall, good build. Good job! I really like it. Not much compromise at all :) 
  • 6 Hide
    blazorthon , December 6, 2012 6:15 AM
    RealJamesI would have used an x79 board with 128gB of ram using a 120gB ramdisk and have it load all games/software from the ramdisk, I am using a 28gB ramdisk now leaving 4gB for OS, most programs and a few games installed to it, it is FAST


    128GB of RAM would cost an incredible amount of money, undoubtedly more than this build's $2000 budget, if it had to fit in eight modules, the most that are supported by X79 *consumer* motherboards. You'd need 16GB modules and those are incredibly expensive with very high price per GB. Even an 8x8GB kit for 64GB would already be very expensive at several hundred dollars...
  • 10 Hide
    ojas , December 6, 2012 6:17 AM
    BTW, Thomas.

    Seriously, add Planetside 2 next time. Play the same map, with the three systems together, the same firefight. That game stresses EVERYTHING. Maybe not the GPU though, at least not that much (being DX9). But it's great to test RAM and CPU overclocks/general performance.

    Add to the fact that PS2 players with AMD CPUs have been complaining a lot. I have a Core 2 Quad and it's killing my rig.
  • 8 Hide
    blazorthon , December 6, 2012 6:21 AM
    ojasBTW, Thomas. Seriously, add Planetside 2 next time. Play the same map, with the three systems together, the same firefight. That game stresses EVERYTHING. Maybe not the GPU though, at least not that much (being DX9). But it's great to test RAM and CPU overclocks/general performance.Add to the fact that PS2 players with AMD CPUs have been complaining a lot. I have a Core 2 Quad and it's killing my rig.


    Being DX9 doesn't necessarily mean that a game can't stress the GPU ;) 
  • 9 Hide
    EzioAs , December 6, 2012 6:25 AM
    Quote:
    Being DX9 doesn't necessarily mean that a game can't stress the GPU ;) 


    True. The Witcher 2 is DX9, yet that is one of the most demanding game so far
  • 7 Hide
    ojas , December 6, 2012 6:49 AM
    blazorthonBeing DX9 doesn't necessarily mean that a game can't stress the GPU

    True. Convenient generalization lol. :p 
Display more comments