1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

advice for my rig

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by mrthanhnguyen, Mar 15, 2012.

  1. mrthanhnguyen

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    199 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    I play bf3 ultra setting on 1600x900, but I just bought a new monitor which has 1920x1080. I saw the min fps drop from 52 to 38. is it relate to higher res or my system has something because I read other player that they never have fps drop below 50 with gtx 580 at 1080p.
  2. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,555 (10.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,066
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Hmm I would check all your settings, It should be around 50FPS
    Crunching for Team TPU
  3. Huddo93

    Huddo93 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    299 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    GTX580 having problems with only 1.5GB memory? But I'm not 100% sure since I do not personally own a GTX580. But I do say this though since you have increased resolution which means your graphics card requires more memory, and I also know that BF3 is one of the biggest memory hoarders to date.

    just my $0.02 :)
  4. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Try reducing back to 1600x900 and adding an FXAA/MSAA bump. See if that gives you same detail/FPS.
  5. mrthanhnguyen

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    199 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    just check memory usage, with 1600x900, memory usage about 1300~1400mb. with 1080p, omg, over 1500mb when im in the middle of the caspian border map. fps drop to 36 is the lowest i have seen.
  6. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,203 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Miami
    time for a higher giga card...

    or just kill AA to 2x
  7. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    Sounds about right performance wise.

    1600x900 = 1,440,000
    1920x1080 = 2,073,600

    1600x900 is about 69.4% of the pixel count of 1920x1080.
    38fps / 52fps = 73% of the performance level you had at 1600x900 once you are in 1920x1080.

    This type of calculation would generally be fairly wrong because of cpu limitations, not so much an issue with your system, it's also not incredibly accurate but the numbers mesh up nicely so I wouldn't expect it to be much better, you're already ahead of the curve.
    cadaveca says thanks.
  8. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    13,866 (4.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,939
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    hmm, interesting way to look at it Niko!!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page