Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Windows 10 + Visual Studio||
|LG 29UM65 Review||
|Microsoft to block Classic Shell in Windows 10: here is why||
|Man lit joint, undressed, and defecated inside police station||
Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:37
Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:45
Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:47
Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:52
Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:52
Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:53
Posted 15 October 2012 - 20:05
Battlefield 3 is not a CPU-intensive game so you're better off investing more in the video card than the CPU.
Posted 15 October 2012 - 20:06
I would recommend sticking with the 570 since it has 1.2GB of vRAM as opposed to 1GB for the 560 Ti. It will definitely help at the 1080 resolution.
As long as you don't have AA on, you should be perfectly fine with that CPU and GPU.
Posted 15 October 2012 - 20:10
That's actually not true. Compared to almost every other game out there, BF3 is very very CPU intensive. If you don't have a modern quad core, BF3 will run really poorly. But in this case, the Phenom 965 is good enough and will perform well.
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.
Posted 15 October 2012 - 20:52
Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:09
In my experience 550w is normally plenty for single GPU setups, could save yourself money there.
Hey guy's thanks for all the reply's must say never been on a forum before were i have had that many replays that quickly.
@ Anaron I live in Scotland and my budget for rig excluding the ips monitor i mentioned is about 350 400max i already have a case, might need to get a psu right now i am running a 550w i believe.
Cheers for all the reply's.
Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:24
Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:26
Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:39
You don't need an expensive CPU for Battlefield 3. The higher the resolution, the less important the CPU becomes. And Battlefield 3 isn't CPU-intensive to begin with. Take a look at this:
Even a low end i5 will blow away that AMD phenom. If you want to play BF3 at 1080p you will need a decent CPU. The variances are not as large as with other games, but a decent CPU is still an important part of a gaming build.
Battlefield 3 CPU Performance
As well as testing a variety of cards on BF3's Frostbite 2 engine, we also wanted to investigate the effect of CPU clock speeds, the number of CPU cores and the effect of Hyper-Threading. Would an overclocked CPU help? Or could an ageing dual-core chip limp along? We under-clocked our Intel i7 965 CPU, as well as disabling two of its cores and Hyper-Threading, in order to find out. The results were surprising.
It didn't matter whether the CPU was running at 3.2GHz, 3GHz or even 2GHz; our benchmarks returned the same results. Even when we dropped the CPU down from four cores to only two, the in-game frame rates proved annoyingly stubborn. While BF3 will load itself across all four CPU cores when presented with a quad-core CPU, it seems to have little benefit when it comes to performance, running just as well with much lower clock speeds, or on a dual-core CPU.
We also repeated the test by running our benchmark with 6GB, 4GB and even 2GB of DDR3 memory fitted into the system. Again, we found that performance remained stoically unchanged; only a single-core setup saw any difference, when the game flat-out refused to run at all. Needless to say, then, that BF3 appears to not be the most CPU-taxing game, instead relying almost entirely on the performance of the graphics card.