Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 306
  1. #11
    ROG Guru: Grand Master Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Reputation
    339
    Posts
    15,255

    Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3

    Tomshardware did a nice detail review on SLI GTX680 a while ago. Hope this helps.

  2. #12
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array Profeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Reputation
    14
    Posts
    218

    Also I was thinking of buying a joystick for BF3, any people have experience with any that could recommend a good one?

    I was thinking about a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro or a Saitek Cyborg F.L.Y.5 or F.L.Y.9?

    Anyone have any thoughts on this?

    Thanks

  3. #13
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array Profeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Reputation
    14
    Posts
    218

    Quote Originally Posted by Chino View Post
    Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3

    Tomshardware did a nice detail review on SLI GTX680 a while ago. Hope this helps.
    Thanks I will check it out

  4. #14
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    221

    Quote Originally Posted by Profeus View Post
    Thanks I will check it out
    Tom's was getting nearly 60 FPS (56.63), with dual GTX 680s with 2GB on three screens, that is plenty anything more will not be perceptible. That was with ultra settings and 4x AA. This was with a Sandy Bridge-E motherboard. So no word what it would be like on an Ivy Bridge with the same graphics.
    Last edited by danjw; 10-12-2012 at 07:52 PM.

  5. #15
    ROG Enthusiast Array Razorbak86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    58

    If you're primarily focused on gaming, why are you leaning towards LGA 2011 (Sandy Bridge Extreme) rather than LGA 1155 (Ivy Bridge)? That platform choice alone will chew up a good portion of your budget just for the motherboard and CPU, which are still priced at a steep premium versus the 1155 platform.

    According to Tom's Hardware:

    Diminishing Returns Kick In:

    CPUs priced over $230 offer rapidly diminishing returns when it comes to game performance. As such, we have a hard time recommending anything more expensive than the Core i5-3570K, especially since this multiplier-unlocked processor can be overclocked to great effect if more performance is desired. Even at stock clocks, it meets or beats the $1000 Core i7-990X Extreme Edition when it comes to gaming.

    But now that LGA 2011 is here, there's certainly an argument to be made for it as the ultimate gaming platform. LGA 2011-based CPUs have more available cache and as many as two more execution cores than the flagship LGA 1155 models. Additionally, more bandwidth is delivered through a quad-channel memory controller. And with 40 lanes of third-gen PCIe connectivity available from Sandy Bridge-E-based processors, the platform natively supports two x16 and one x8 slot, or one x16 and three x8 slots, alleviating potential bottlenecks in three- and four-way CrossFire or SLI configurations.

    Although they sound impressive, those advantages don't necessarily translate into significant performance gains in modern titles. Our tests demonstrate fairly little difference between a $225 LGA 1155 Core i5-2500K and a $1000 LGA 2011 Core i7-3960X, even when three-way graphics card configurations are involved. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe throughput don't hold back the performance of existing Sandy Bridge-based machines.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ck,3106-4.html
    Also, modern 3D games rarely ever tap a full 8GB of RAM, so the additional memory capacity of the 2011 platform is really overkill from a purely gaming perspective.

    Reference: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...de,2778-8.html

    If you switch to the 1155 platform (MVF + 3770), you can re-deploy those substantial savings (i.e., $90 mobo savings + $240 CPU savings = $330 platform savings) towards more or better graphics cards. Besides, for a gaming system, the graphics cards should almost always be the most expensive component.

    Regarding the graphics cards, NewEgg has the EVGA GTX 680 Classified 4GB cards on sale right now for $559.99. That's the lowest price I've ever seen for them. You should really check em out.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130801

    Think about it this way: If you switch to LGA 1155, that $330 platform savings will pay for 60% of a second card, allowing you to run two 680 Classifieds in SLI! o.O

    Finally, since Seasonic actually manufactures their own PSUs (as well as those for others like Antec, Corsair, and XFX), and that's ALL that they do, I would recommend that you consider the Seasonic X-1250 Gold, the Seasonic X-1050 Gold (little brother), or the Seasonic Platinum 1000 for your PSU.

    Seasonic X-1250 Gold (Score: 9.7/10) -- http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php...Story&reid=309
    Seasonic Platinum 1000 (Score: 9.7/10) -- http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php...Story&reid=264
    Last edited by Razorbak86; 10-14-2012 at 03:32 AM. Reason: Added reference links.

  6. #16
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    221

    Quote Originally Posted by Razorbak86 View Post
    If you're primarily focused on gaming, why are you leaning towards LGA 2011 (Sandy Bridge Extreme) rather than LGA 1155 (Ivy Bridge)? That platform choice alone will chew up a good portion of your budget just for the motherboard and CPU, which are still priced at a steep premium versus the 1155 platform.
    The issue is Battlefield 3, which is very CPU bound. And he wants to run it on 3 monitors at max settings. So in this case, Sandy Bridge-E maybe the best solution. Honestly, I don't know. But in a similar thread MarshallR@Asus suggested that a Sandy Bridge-E would be best for that sort of build.

  7. #17
    ROG Enthusiast Array Razorbak86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    58

    Quote Originally Posted by danjw View Post
    The issue is Battlefield 3, which is very CPU bound. And he wants to run it on 3 monitors at max settings. So in this case, Sandy Bridge-E maybe the best solution. Honestly, I don't know. But in a similar thread MarshallR@Asus suggested that a Sandy Bridge-E would be best for that sort of build.
    In a tri-monitor configuration, the GPUs are almost always going to be the bottleneck in Battlefield 3 at Ultra settings.

    Check out TechSpot's review of "Battlefield 3 GPU & CPU Performance", where the Core i7-2600K proved more than adequate in their gaming benchmarks. While they recorded massive differences in frame rates for different graphics cards at High settings and 2560 x 1600 resolution, they specifically noted the following about CPUs:

    "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.com/review/458-b...3-performance/

    Also check out the [H]ard|OCP tri-monitor benchmark tests recently performed by Kyle Bennett on various Battlefield 3 configurations. The test bench used a Core i7-2600K @ 4.8GHz, and every single benchmark test was ultimately limited by the clock speed or the VRAM of the multi-card GPUs.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._card_review/5

    Also note that one of the primary graphical settings that they had to tweak to get playable frame rates was Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO), which is only executed on the GPU and does not affect the CPU at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_...ient_occlusion

    Finally, check out the recent System Builder review in Tom's Hardware of a $2,000 GPU-laden, "Alternative Gaming" set-up using tri-monitors @ 5760x1080 resolution. In that test, they used a lowly Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge CPU overclocked to 4.5GHz in the test bench. Regarding the Battlefield 3 portion of the gaming benchmarks, they specifically noted the following:

    "Battlefield 3 is so GPU-constrained that we only see CPU bottlenecks surface on the SLI-equipped build, and even then only at 1920x1080 and below."

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...uide,3282.html

    In summary, for a tri-monitor set-up, even on Battlefield 3, the graphics cards used will have much more of an impact on frame rates and gaming performance than the actual CPU used.
    Last edited by Razorbak86; 10-14-2012 at 06:47 PM.

  8. #18
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    221

    Quote Originally Posted by Razorbak86 View Post
    In a tri-monitor configuration, the GPUs are almost always going to be the bottleneck in Battlefield 3 at Ultra settings.

    Check out TechSpot's review of "Battlefield 3 GPU & CPU Performance", where the Core i7-2600K proved more than adequate in their gaming benchmarks. While they recorded massive differences in frame rates for different graphics cards at High settings and 2560 x 1600 resolution, they specifically noted the following about CPUs:

    "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.com/review/458-b...3-performance/

    Also check out the [H]ard|OCP tri-monitor benchmark tests recently performed by Kyle Bennett on various Battlefield 3 configurations. The test bench used a Core i7-2600K @ 4.8GHz, and every single benchmark test was ultimately limited by the clock speed or the VRAM of the multi-card GPUs.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._card_review/5

    Also note that one of the primary graphical settings that they had to tweak to get playable frame rates was Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO), which is only executed on the GPU and does not affect the CPU at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_...ient_occlusion

    Finally, check out the recent System Builder review in Tom's Hardware of a $2,000 GPU-laden, "Alternative Gaming" set-up using tri-monitors @ 5760x1080 resolution. In that test, they used a lowly Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge CPU overclocked to 4.5GHz in the test bench. Regarding the Battlefield 3 portion of the gaming benchmarks, they specifically noted the following:

    "Battlefield 3 is so GPU-constrained that we only see CPU bottlenecks surface on the SLI-equipped build, and even then only at 1920x1080 and below."

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...uide,3282.html

    In summary, for a tri-monitor set-up, even on Battlefield 3, the graphics cards used will have much more of an impact on frame rates and gaming performance than the actual CPU used.
    Ok, looks like there is a common misconception out there. :-) This is great information, thank you for posting it!!
    Last edited by danjw; 10-14-2012 at 07:38 PM.

  9. #19
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array Profeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Reputation
    14
    Posts
    218

    Hey all,

    Thank you for all the helpful posts, I just wanted to clarify a few things regarding my choices.

    I chose to go with the Sandy-E platform on the RIVF due to the dual x16 slots for my GPU setup as to not reduce the lanes for my 2nd card and I chose this board over the RIVE due to the on board sound which is aimed more for my gaming needs.

    As I am not using water cooling apart from the H100 for the CPU I didnt really want to push the boundaries too much as I want to min/max my sound levels/performance.

    My bed is right next to the computer and my gf always has trouble with the noise of the computer when she is trying to get to sleep, so I need to try and build a fairly quiet system while still getting the performance I am after if possible.

    I am looking to clock the CPU up to 4.5GHz at absolute most, will the H100 be enough to cool the CPU clocked at this frequency?

    Budget really isnt an issue this time round as I have about 3.5k to spend now on the M/B, RAM, PSU, 2x GPU's and the CPU alone and after seeing the outputs of the 3930K I figured this was the best processor for me to also last until Maxwell arch is released and I look at building a whole new system then.

    So that being said am I making the right choice going for the dual GTX680 (either EVGA 4GB FTW+ or Classified), 3930K, RIVF and Corsair Platinum 32GB 2133MHz C9 setup configuration?

    What differences would I notice/get from using a Classified card over the FTW+ card from EVGA?

    I wanted to show you a pic of the monitor setup I just finished constructing for this build using 3x ASUS VE248H monitors. (please excuse the bad quality of the pic and my crappy mouse as my G9x broke a few weeks ago and I am looking at a Razer to replace it currently...)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Monitors.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	569.1 KB 
ID:	12536

    I really want to make sure I do this right the first time and not have regrets about what I should of done...

    I will post full pics of the build when it is complete too!

    Thank you again for all your input to help me with this, its greatly appreciated.

    Mike AKA Profeus
    Last edited by Profeus; 10-15-2012 at 07:56 AM.

  10. #20
    ROG Enthusiast Array Razorbak86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    58

    Quote Originally Posted by Profeus View Post
    Hey all,

    Thank you for all the helpful posts, I just wanted to clarify a few things regarding my choices.

    I chose to go with the Sandy-E platform on the RIVF due to the dual x16 slots for my GPU setup as to not reduce the lanes for my 2nd card and I chose this board over the RIVE due to the on board sound which is aimed more for my gaming needs.
    Fair enough. I was just trying to help you save a little money. Although with only two graphics cards on a Z77 mobo, I doubt you would have saturated the PCIe 3.0 x8 lanes anyway. As you mentioned earlier, NVIDIA does not officially support PCIe 3.0 on X79 motherboards, but you can manually enable it.

    http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1700629

    Personally, I would still rather go with NVIDIA than AMD, because NVIDIA is much healthier financially, offers better driver support (JMHO), and the graphics cards support PhysX, which is a gaming feature that I really like.

    Nevertheless, if you eventually upgrade to three or four 680s in SLI, you should see a noticeable improvement in BF3 on the X79 board with PCIe 3.0 enabled.

    Reference callsignvega's recent benchmarks: http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=1537816

    As I am not using water cooling apart from the H100 for the CPU I didnt really want to push the boundaries too much as I want to min/max my sound levels/performance.

    My bed is right next to the computer and my gf always has trouble with the noise of the computer when she is trying to get to sleep, so I need to try and build a fairly quiet system while still getting the performance I am after if possible.

    I am looking to clock the CPU up to 4.5GHz at absolute most, will the H100 be enough to cool the CPU clocked at this frequency?
    You won't have any problem cooling your system with the H100. According to FrostyTech's benchmarks, it is one of the top-5 heatsinks on the market. However, that performance comes with a noticeable compromise on acoustics. It is LOUD: 43.6 dB on LOW, and 59.2 dB on HIGH!

    Corsair H100: http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...articleid=2665

    For your level of OC, you might be better off with a quieter fan-based cooler like one of the bigger Noctuas (NH-C14 or NH-D14).

    Noctua NH-C14: http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...articleID=2562
    Noctua NH-D14: http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...articleID=2525

    Anyone have any reccomendations on which graphics card is the best for this setup given I only really have about $1400 budget for the graphics part of this build?
    Budget really isnt an issue this time round as I have about 3.5k to spend now on the M/B, RAM, PSU, 2x GPU's and the CPU alone
    What differences would I notice/get from using a Classified card over the FTW+ card from EVGA?
    You're sending some confusing signals regarding budget. LOL.

    See below for the specs on each card in EVGA's 680 line-up.

    http://www.evga.com/Products/Product...hipset=GTX+680

    I wanted to show you a pic of the monitor setup I just finished constructing for this build using 3x ASUS VE248H monitors. (please excuse the bad quality of the pic and my crappy mouse as my G9x broke a few weeks ago and I am looking at a Razer to replace it currently...)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Monitors.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	569.1 KB 
ID:	12536
    That is a sweet looking setup! I am envious. Although, with that beast running next to the bed, I doubt your girlfriend is going to be getting a lot of sleep when you are gaming.

Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •