Jump to content



Photo

BF3 on a budget!

bf3 amd phenom ii x4 bottle neck gtx560ti gtx570 nvida intel ati amd gpu

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Anton2k

Anton2k

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-October 12

Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:37

Hi guy's first post, just wondering if any of you gaming nuts out there could offer me some advice.

Basically i am wanting to build a rig that will play BF3 at high (not ultra) and @ 1080p, i would also never like the fps to drop below say 45 - 50.

The main part's that i first had picked out were the gtx 570 and the amd phenom x4 965, and these are the parts i am looking for some advice on, basically what i am wanting to know is if the phenom ii x4 will bottle neck the gtx 570 running bf3 at high (not ultra) and @ 1080p.

I have heard some stories and read until my eyes have bled about performance stats regarding different cpu's and bf3, and tbh i don't generally post in forums asking questions as i have a fairly good idea of what works and what does not but i have been out of the hardware loop for a couple of years now due to university and stuff so yea...


So if the x4 aint gona cut it what else would you guys suggest that will run but @ the fps and settings i mentioned above for the cheapest possible price.


If some one says just get an i5 2500k i will phisicaly explode because 60% of replys to forum posts i have read had this in it some where. i5 for me right now is to expensive... also i am not a fan boy i have used both amd and intel in the past both great companies and great cpu's, though i have not used ant ati/amd gpu's have always went nvidia that way,i just think there driver support is better, thats all, and from what i have seen pound for pound they are the best price wise.

- Anton.


#2 Shadier

Shadier

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-June 12
  • Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy Nexus

Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:45

What kind of motherboard do you have? That combo will work just fine, and won't cause any bottlenecking. But there may be better options for just a bit more money. With the gtx 570 you will have no problem playing on ultra, I can max out the settings on my 560ti with a bit of overclocking. So you might be better off going one step down with the graphics card, and going one step up with the processor.

Edit: Also, could you link to the specific gtx 570 that you have picked out? The prices vary a good amount, and I can be of a better help if I knew which one specifically you were looking at.

#3 OP Anton2k

Anton2k

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-October 12

Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:47

Hey thank's for the reply Shadier, i might just do that, was reading last night that some 560ti's were reaching 1ghz on the core. Whats cpu are you running?

#4 Shadier

Shadier

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-June 12
  • Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy Nexus

Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:52

I am running an AMD fx-4100 quad core, overclocked to 4.3ghz on stock cooling. If your motherboard supports it, its only $10 dollars more than the one you had picked out, and will bring you up to date with AMDs processor line. I made my build similar to the one you had picked out, and for the same reasons, as I was on a budget. The 560 ti is a good option for the money, and with a bit of overclocking will get you around 570 levels.

#5 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:52

What's your budget and where do you live? Information like that will help us to help you. Battlefield 3 is not a CPU-intensive game so you're better off investing more in the video card than the CPU. With a GeForce GTX 570, you should expect 50 to 60 FPS on high settings (and 40 to 50 FPS on ultra with AA enabled).

Here are some videos of Battlefield 3 running with the same specs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pfdXd3TGs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOAOLSCh6hM

Also, you somehow managed to create 9 additional threads. I deleted them fairly quickly but I must say, I'm surprised you were able to do that.

Posted Image

#6 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 15 October 2012 - 19:53

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.

#7 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

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.


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.

#8 Tony.

Tony.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 10-February 05
  • Location: Liverpool, UK
  • OS: Windows 7

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.


Unless someone is running 1920x1080 on a HDTV or something I don't see the point in enabling AA either way.

#9 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

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.

Posted Image
http://www.techspot....ance/page7.html

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.

http://www.techspot....ance/page8.html

#10 OP Anton2k

Anton2k

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-October 12

Posted 15 October 2012 - 20:52

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.

#11 Alladaskill17

Alladaskill17

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 21-July 05

Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:09

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.

In my experience 550w is normally plenty for single GPU setups, could save yourself money there.

#12 vetDirtyLarry

DirtyLarry

    ®®\vers.12.vis.13.u.03.al\DL

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: dirty jersey
  • OS: Win 8 | OS X 10.8.5 | Android 4.2.3
  • Phone: LG G3

Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:24

Just out of curiosity why not get a 660Ti? I just recently got one and BF3 on High at 1920*1080 gets anywhere between 50-80 FPS depending on how crazy things get. Plus from my understanding the 600 series have improvements all around from the 500 series, power consumption being one of the larger selling points.

#13 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:26

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.

#14 Reacon

Reacon

    [VGW] Woohoo!

  • Joined: 12-May 08
  • Location: Katabatic
  • OS: Win 7 & Slackware

Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:35

http://teksyndicate....st-pc-under-700

I'll just leave this here.

#15 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 15 October 2012 - 21:39

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.

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:

Posted Image
http://www.techspot....ance/page7.html

And this:

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.

Posted Image

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.

http://www.bit-tech....ical-analysis/7