No difference going from a 5770 to a 6870

[computertechy]

THIS IS FOR A FRIEND OF MINE
He Wrote.

As some graphics cards have gone down in price since the release of the 7000 series I decided to snap up a Sapphire 6870 for £115 thinking I would see an improvement from my Sapphire 5770. Guess what, no improvement what so ever! Weird.

I decided to run BF3 Gulf of Oman as this is the most graphic intensive map and I see no performance increase at all. I was running this map on Med/High on the 5770 and getting 28-50 fps. With the 6870 exactly the same. when I increase the settings the performance drops, just like with the 5770.

I was a little concerned using a Pci express 1.0 slot on my motherboard with the card but googleing it showed that it would not saturate the bandwidth, and if anything, would only give a performance decrease of around 5%. Is this correct? Is there a bottleneck in my system? If so it must be my motherboard. What you rekon guys.

His specs:
asrock ucc n68c-s Mother board
Athlon II x4 635 2.9Ghz
CiT 650w PSU
4GB DDR3 1333 RAM

[Random Murderer]

sounds like he's bottlenecked somewhere, probably cpu. the 6870 should absolutely trounce the 5770 in raw calculations: see here.
what resolution is he playing at?

[computertechy]

crap, i knew i forgot to ask him what res.

thank for the reply, i have sent him a message.

wish he didnt live so far away.

[trickson]

Well BF3 is a very memory intensive game with 4GB it is going to use 75-90% of the RAM this would also lower FPS. The CPU should handle things just fine and the video card should as well. Know the res. would help. I can only run 1600x900 and with that I get an average of 100FPS with my HD5870.

[AlienIsGOD]

i went from 4GB to 8GB ram and noticed a diff in BF3, gfx card wise i came from (at times) 4850s and a 5770 is just a bit better than single 4850. Was also using a C2Q 9450 before at stock 2.6ghz, whereas now im running an i5 2400. even a 9450 is better than a Athlon quad, but i noticed improvements across the board when i went to my current setup. I can play at all high settings @ 1080P with a smooth 60FPS.

So it could be the CPU and/or not enuff ram IMO.

[computertechy]

he runs at 1440 X 900

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by computertechy

he runs at 1440 X 900

I run only 1440x900 and can confirm that BF3 uses just over 4GBs of my physical ram on all online maps.

Originally Posted by Random Murderer

sounds like he's bottlenecked somewhere, probably cpu.

Isn't CPU bottleneck as I also have an Athlon II X4 and saw a HUGE performance between my 4850 CF and 5850 CF and never suffered from "Bottlenecking". Although my CPU sits at 3.5GHZ 24/7

Did your mate see an performance increase in other games?

[JrRacinFan]

IMO, it's going to be a combination of vram size, cpu clock speed Another variable, 32 or 64 bit windows.

EDIT: and of course dram capacity.

[computertechy]

thanks all for the reply's, he will be jumping on ts in a min and i will have a word

@ dent, will ask him in a bit. Hes mainly playing Bf3 atm.

[Kreij]

He could pop in the cards and benchmark them. If the 6870 rules in the benches it's some other issue when playing BF3.

I would try more RAM first as it's cheap these days.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Kreij

He could pop in the cards and benchmark them. If the 6870 rules in the benches it's some other issue when playing BF3.

I would try more RAM first as it's cheap these days.

This is definitely a RAM issue. When I had just 4GB it was BAD like 25-30FPS BAD! Upgraded to 8GB and it is now 100+FPS in all online maps! Just a complete night and day difference. BF3 is just a RAM hungry game and depends on it and as much of it as it can get the more you have the more it wants.

[jmcslob]

I've changed 2 things in my system and seen a dramatic change in visual performance..

I first went from a AIIx4 635 to an unlocked PII x2 560 to basically a PIIx4 960 and I jumped quite a bit performance wise but not that much..

Then I went from 4gb to 8gb This is really when I noticed a major increase all around...

[computertechy]

Originally Posted by Kreij

He could pop in the cards and benchmark them. If the 6870 rules in the benches it's some other issue when playing BF3.

I would try more RAM first as it's cheap these days.

very true, hes gonna pick up 2 x 2gb more to see if that cures.


Thanks all for the comments, really appreciate it

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by computertechy

THIS IS FOR A FRIEND OF MINE
He Wrote.

As some graphics cards have gone down in price since the release of the 7000 series I decided to snap up a Sapphire 6870 for £115 thinking I would see an improvement from my Sapphire 5770. Guess what, no improvement what so ever! Weird.

I decided to run BF3 Gulf of Oman as this is the most graphic intensive map and I see no performance increase at all. I was running this map on Med/High on the 5770 and getting 28-50 fps. With the 6870 exactly the same. when I increase the settings the performance drops, just like with the 5770.

I was a little concerned using a Pci express 1.0 slot on my motherboard with the card but googleing it showed that it would not saturate the bandwidth, and if anything, would only give a performance decrease of around 5%. Is this correct? Is there a bottleneck in my system? If so it must be my motherboard. What you rekon guys.

His specs:
asrock ucc n68c-s Mother board
Athlon II x4 635 2.9Ghz
CiT 650w PSU
4GB DDR3 1333 RAM

your cpu sucks no l3 = SLOWSVILL USA I know from personal experience
and you CAN NOT run battlefield 3 on ultra with 1GB of vram you need at least 1500MB of REAL vram to run it on ultra
and yes BF3 leaks memory like a pasta spoon but its not THAT horrible it needs about 3GB of ram on HIGH'ish settings to its self or it starts paging

[computertechy]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

your cpu sucks no l3 = SLOWSVILL USA I know from personal experience
and you CAN NOT run battlefield 3 on ultra with 1GB of vram you need at least 1500MB of REAL vram to run it on ultra

where does it say he wants to run on ultra?

why not try reading before posting?

not everyone has a money pit in their pockets.

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by computertechy

where does it say he wants to run on ultra?

why not try reading before posting?

not everyone has a money pit in their pockets.

well not everyone will playing battle field 3 then

[trickson]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

your cpu sucks no l3 = SLOWSVILL USA I know from personal experience
and you CAN NOT run battlefield 3 on ultra with 1GB of vram you need at least 1500MB of REAL vram to run it on ultra
and yes BF3 leaks memory like a pasta spoon but its not THAT horrible it needs about 3GB of ram on HIGH'ish settings to its self or it starts paging

WTF? You are nuts! My HD5870 1GB card is just fine for BF3! Ultra settings too! Lowest FPS I seen was 60! it is not the CPU or the video card, This is just a RAM issue! You do not know what you are talking about.

[computertechy]

their are other people playing just fine with the same.

i guess hes just trying to get his post numbers up.

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by trickson

WTF? You are nuts! My HD5870 1GB card is just fine for BF3! Ultra settings too! Lowest FPS I seen was 60! it is not the CPU or the video card, This is just a RAM issue! You do not know what you are talking about.

@what res
something isnt right on your end then because the game should not physically beable to run with ultra textures with 1GB of vram not at 1080p with 2XAA anyway
I have run battle field 3 on 3 different machines all of them with 1GB of vram and 4-6GB of DDR3 they all exhibit the same issue on ultra settings -.- GPU-Z reports near 900MB of texture data usage ... and it starts chugging when the vram usage drops to below 800 it smooths out -.-

[computertechy]

please dont come on this thread looking for an argument.

if you dont have something nice to say about other people's hardware then dont post. simple as.

im sure their is other threads you can troll.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

@what res
something isnt right on your end then because the game should not physically beable to run with ultra textures with 1GB of vram

Runs great! 1gb Hd5870. When I ran 2 HD5770's in crossfire with 4gb of RAM it was slow. 30-50FPS and could not even play on ultra settings (Medium at best) added 4GB's more of ram and was able to run at ultra settings just fine and with the HD5870 as well no issues at all! Res. Is at 1600x900 all the monitor I have can do.

[Crap Daddy]

1. He is not running on ultra
2. You can run on ULTRA with 1GB of VRAM. Just needs some more RAM (over 4GB)
3. The problem with the 6870 vs. the 5770 might be somewhere else since the first is considerably faster than the second.

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by trickson

Runs great! 1gb Hd5870. When I ran 2 HD5770's in crossfire with 4gb of RAM it was slow. 30-50FPS and could not even play on ultra settings (Medium at best) added 4GB's more of ram and was able to run at ultra settings just fine and with the HD5870 as well no issues at all!

please don't compare single cards to crossfire crossfire is broken as fuck >_>
I tested on the following 3 machines
A Phenom II 940BE 3.8GZ 4GB DDR3 1600 and a 5770 40-60FPS on High/Medium X2 AA
A i5 2300@Stock with 8GB of DDR3 1333 and a GTX 560 448 50-70FPS High/Medium X2 AA
a FX6100 @ 4GHz with 8GB of 1866 and a 6870 60-80FPS High/Medium X2AA
all runs where done on a FULL 64 player server
none of them where able to run on ultra setting at 1080p because of the amount of Vram bf3 eats up
paging stuttering/ bad things
the game thrashes a CPU when playing on active servers
Remember that Vram MUST BE (partially) paged with system ram when cross-firing also Crossfire only gives you access to ONE CARDS vram < THIS
and that B3 maps are decently sized and have poor optimization

[trickson]

Originally Posted by OneMoar

please don't compare single cards to crossfire crossfire is broken as fuck >_>
I tested on the following 3 machines
A Phenom II 940BE 3.8GZ 4GB DDR3 1600 and a 5770 40-60FPS on High/Medium X2 AA
A i5 2300@Stock with 8GB of DDR3 1333 and a GTX 560 448 50-70FPS High/Medium X2 AA
a FX6100 @ 4GHz with 8GB of 1866 and a 6870 60-80FPS High/Medium X2AA
all runs where done on a FULL 64 player server
none of them where able to run on ultra setting at 1080p because of the amount of Vram bf3 eats up
paging stuttering/ bad things
the game thrashes a CPU when playing on active servers

I am not talking about 1080p! Who the fuck has money for a fucking high-def monitor like that? I know I do not! GOD dude this is not about ultra settings any way. This is a RAM issue. I truly believe this. Get more RAM and you will see, BTW 6GB is not enough! 8GB is more of the sweet spot for BF3. I know this because I tried that too .

[OneMoar]

Originally Posted by trickson

I am not talking about 1080p! Who the fuck has money for a fucking high-def monitor like that? I know I do not! GOD dude this is not about ultra settings any way. This is a RAM issue. I truly believe this. Get more RAM and you will see, BTW 6GB is not enough! 8GB is more of the sweet spot for BF3. I know this because I tried that too .

wait 1080p IS highdef ... da fuck 1080p monitors can be had for under 200 bucks ._.
Computer Hardware, Monitors, LCD Monitors, 21.5",...
Acer S211HLbd 21.5&#39;&#39; 5ms LED-Backlight LC... 129.00
so you buy a 300 dollor gpu and then complain about not being able to afford a 130 dollar monitor OKKKKKKKKey