More than this.If you have a dual core you're good to go. But anyway those Russians never heard of Sandy Bridge.
That bench is bull as it only reflects singleplayer performance. Multiplayer is totally the opposite and completely CPU bound. Singleplayer = GPU dependent Multiplyer = CPU dependent (assuming you have a powerful gfx card) My Singleplayer GPU usage - 100% and massive gains overclocking GPU My Singleplayer CPU usage - 70% My Multiplayer GPU usage - 80% no gains overclocking GPU whatsoever. My Multiplayer CPU usage - 100%
Ah, got you. Yeah, the highest I've seen was just under 1.5gb. But my card would also manage around 1.6-1.7gb vram usage. I guess being 500mb of vram usage over vram available is pushing it. I only get drops to low 40 occasionally, in heavy battle with a lot going on. I'm sure the game looks stunning with high textures. I'll try SSAO instead of HBAO tonight and a couple of settings on high instead of ultra and see if I can get near enough constant 60fps. Still very happy with games performance...
That's weird. My gpu usage was pretty much sat at 99% on caspian birder last night... Maybe nvidia drivers are more optimized atm.
" 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 HardReset, 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-coreswere 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.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html
I just played it for the first time with my specs and I was averaging about 15-27 FPS with a 32Vs32 Server.... That was with the auto setting being used at 1280-1024 With everything set to low and a resolution of 1024-768 I was having an average of 35-50FPS, which made it playable but crappy looking. MY CPU was being used at 65% and video card was loaded at 100% Guess I'll be upgrading soon!!
Runs like butter on my 5870 with 1GB Vram, everything pumped except AA, which is completly turned off.
My God, this game looks out of this world. And runs smooth as butter, Ultra, 1080p, msaa4x. And this without the nvidia Battlefield 3 official driver. Man i love my gpu.
nice. but most of the reviews I've seen favoured hd6970 over gtx580. which is weird. looks like gtx580 really is a better card for this game. Kinda shame the gtx480 isn't included, but that's understandable (480 becoming a rare card, they were far to expensive when new and then the 570 pretty much replaced it).
stock actually... it did dropped one time to 34fps, but for a moment. Also for me smooth is 40-50 fps .
aha... yeah... I turned off motion blur, and set shadows to high. other than than all ultra with 2xaa. 50-75fps online on caspian border. immense!!!
That is a little misleading for gamers who will be primarily playing multiplayer as 32+ player servers are a huge CPU hog. The singleplayer does not shows this.
even if i turn aa to 2x i still won't go over 60 fps, cause of my cpu, anyway it doesn't matter, like i said for me smooth means 40+ fps.
Hmm, must have been the metro map then? In the open areas for eg 64 player Caspian the CPU usage is sky high for me and my 5970 is waiting for the CPU. 40 fps, CPU usage 100% and GPU usage around 70% at stock clocks. I would need a fast clocked I5 or I7 to max out the 5970 and stop those dips 64 player servers.
yeah, I get 70+ quite often, with these settings I just settled on for now (see above) I'm getting around 45min, 60 average I'd say... that on caspian border conquest.