Battlefield 3

Its popularity aside, Battlefield 3 may be the most interesting game in our benchmark suite for a single reason: it’s the first AAA DX10+ game. It’s been 5 years since the launch of the first DX10 GPUs, and 3 whole process node shrinks later we’re finally to the point where games are using DX10’s functionality as a baseline rather than an addition. Not surprisingly BF3 is one of the best looking games in our suite, but as with past Battlefield games that beauty comes with a high performance cost

For anyone keeping score, we reran all of our numbers after the recent Battlefield 3 Radeon HD 7000 series performance patch. The results are virtually identical. While we don’t have official confirmation, we believe that DICE switched to a different FXAA codepath; however doing this doesn’t seem to have impacted the performance of the 7000 series, which is either a testament to AMD’s shader compiler, or proof that the overhead from FXAA is very low in the first place.

In any case while AMD’s BF3 performance has improved since the 7970 launch, it’s still one of their weaker games. The 7870 can hang with the GTX 570 at 1920 but the 7850 once more falls behind the GTX 560 Ti. The 7850 in particular just isn’t doing very well here, and it would be necessary to drop down in settings or in resolution to get fluid gameplay out of BF3. However at the same time we do see some further evidence of the impact of having 2GB of VRAM, as both 7800 cards improve relative to NVIDIA’s cards at 2560.

Meanwhile compared to the 6900 series, the 7800 series takes another small lead. At 19x12 without MSAA the 7870 has 5% on the 6970, while the 7850 is effectively tied with the 6950. It’s interesting to note however that relative to the 7950, the 7870 is doing very well here, trailing AMD’s faster card by less than 4%. The fact of the matter is that with the same basic frontend and the same number of ROPs, the 7870’s 1GHz core clock can significantly eat into the performance lead of the 7950 if the 7950 is primarily performance bound by either of those two rendering stages.

Portal 2 Starcraft II
POST A COMMENT

173 Comments

View All Comments

  • mak360 - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Enjoy, now go and buy Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if a 7850 could go in an Alienware X51. It looks like it uses a 6 pin power connector and puts out 150W of heat.

    While we would lose Optimus, would it work?
    Reply
  • taltamir - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    optimus is laptops only. You do not have optimus with your desktop. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    The X51 has desktop Optimus.

    "The icing on the graphics cake is that the X51 is the first instance of desktop Optimus we've seen. That's right: you can actually plug your monitor into the IGP's HDMI port and the tower will power down the GPU when it's not in use. This implementation functions just like the notebook version does, and it's a welcome addition."

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5543/alienware-x51-t...

    In reality, if I owned an X51, I would wait so I could shove the biggest 150W Kepler GPU in there for some real gaming.

    But I'm sure the X51 will be updated for Kepler and Ivy Bridge, so now wouldn't be the best time to get an X51.

    Waiting games are lame...
    Reply
  • scook9 - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Wrong. Read a review.....The bigger issue will be the orientation of the PCIe Power Connector I expect. I have a tightly spaced HTPC that currently uses a GTX 570 HD from EVGA because it was the best card I could fit in the Antec Fusion enclosure. If the PCIe power plugs were facing out the side of the card and not the back I would have not been able to use it. I expect the same consideration will apply to the even smaller X51 Reply
  • kungfujedis - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    he does. x51 is a desktop with optimus.

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/3/2768359/alienware...
    Reply
  • Samus - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    EA really screwed AMD over with Battlefield 3. There's basically no reason to consider a Radeon card if you plan on heavily playing BF3, especially since most other games like Skyrim, Star Wars, Rage, etc, all run excellent on any $200+ card, with anything $300+ being simply overkill.

    The obvious best card for Battlefield 3 is a Geforce GTX 560 TI 448 Cores for $250-$280, basically identical in performance to the GTX570 in BF3. Even those on a budget would be better served with a low-end GTX560 series card unless you run resolutions above 1920x1200.

    If I were AMD, I'd concentrate on increasing Battlefield 3 performance with driver tweaks, because it's obvious their architecture is superior to nVidia's, but these 'exclusive' titles are tainted.
    Reply
  • kn00tcn - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    screwed how? only the 7850 is slightly lagging behind, & historically BC2 was consistently a little faster on nv

    also BF3 has a large consistent boost since feb14 drivers (there was another boost sometime in december, benchmark3d should have the info for both)
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    @ Samus

    BF3 isn't an Nvidia "exclusive", they made sure to remain vendor agnostic and participate in both IHV's vendor programs. No pointing the finger and crying foul on this game, it just runs better on Nvidia hardware but I do agree it should be running better than it does on this new gen of AMD hardware.

    http://www.amd4u.com/freebattlefield3/
    http://sites.amd.com/us/game/games/Pages/battlefie...
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, March 26, 2012 - link

    In the reviews here SHOGUN 2 total war is said to be the very hardest on hardware, and Nvidia wins that - all the way to the top.
    --
    So on the most difficult game, Nvidia wins.
    Certainly other factors are at play on these amd favored games like C1 and M2033 and other amd optimized games.
    --
    Once again, on the MOST DIFFICULT to render Nvidia has won.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now