since when having lower performance due to 4xAA considered bad optimization?
i have 50-60fps on ultra in multiplayer beta without 4xAA. i'd say that's good optimization, 99% gpu usage, it scales very well with gpus etc. ppl nowadays don't know what optimization means. doesn't run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? bad optimization! does run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? shitty console port!
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
since when having lower performance due to 4xAA considered bad optimization?
i have 50-60fps on ultra in multiplayer beta without 4xAA. i'd say that's good optimization, 99% gpu usage, it scales very well with gpus etc. ppl nowadays don't know what optimization means. doesn't run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? bad optimization! does run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? shitty console port!
Yeah GTX 690 with 4x MSAA is getting like 30fpss at 1440P, yes that is good optimization. The card costs nearly 1K €.
So? Cost does not dictate what is optimized or not. You could argue nvidia has to "optimize" their prices.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
since when having lower performance due to 4xAA considered bad optimization?
i have 50-60fps on ultra in multiplayer beta without 4xAA. i'd say that's good optimization, 99% gpu usage, it scales very well with gpus etc. ppl nowadays don't know what optimization means. doesn't run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? bad optimization! does run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? shitty console port!
Yeah GTX 690 with 4x MSAA is getting like 30fpss at 1440P, yes that is good optimization. The card costs nearly 1K €.
come on that's just absurd. BF3 is another game where AA kill performance, so it's badly optimized too? i don't think so. learn to use alternative antialiasing methods, that's why they were invented. MSAA is just too costly in very demanding games.
since when having lower performance due to 4xAA considered bad optimization?
i have 50-60fps on ultra in multiplayer beta without 4xAA. i'd say that's good optimization, 99% gpu usage, it scales very well with gpus etc. ppl nowadays don't know what optimization means. doesn't run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? bad optimization! does run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? shitty console port!
Yeah GTX 690 with 4x MSAA is getting like 30fpss at 1440P, yes that is good optimization. The card costs nearly 1K €.
come on that's just absurd. BF3 is another game where AA kill performance, so it's badly optimized too? i don't think so. learn to use alternative antialiasing methods, that's why they were invented. MSAA is just too costly in very demanding games.
Actually BF3 runs very good with 4xMSAA enabled now with the Never Settle drivers.
since when having lower performance due to 4xAA considered bad optimization?
i have 50-60fps on ultra in multiplayer beta without 4xAA. i'd say that's good optimization, 99% gpu usage, it scales very well with gpus etc. ppl nowadays don't know what optimization means. doesn't run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? bad optimization! does run on 16xAA 1440p ultra and 120fps? shitty console port!
Yeah GTX 690 with 4x MSAA is getting like 30fpss at 1440P, yes that is good optimization. The card costs nearly 1K €.
come on that's just absurd. BF3 is another game where AA kill performance, so it's badly optimized too? i don't think so. learn to use alternative antialiasing methods, that's why they were invented. MSAA is just too costly in very demanding games.
At least Battlefield 3 runs perfect with everything maxed out
Yeah GTX 690 with 4x MSAA is getting like 30fpss at 1440P, yes that is good optimization. The card costs nearly 1K €.
come on that's just absurd. BF3 is another game where AA kill performance, so it's badly optimized too? i don't think so. learn to use alternative antialiasing methods, that's why they were invented. MSAA is just too costly in very demanding games.
At least Battlefield 3 runs perfect with everything maxed out
Yeah getting anywhere between 40-80 fps at 64p Caspian Border, mostly 50s. And this is at 2560x1440, all Ultra + 4xMSAA with a single card. Crysis 3 runs 15fps at these settings
Yeah GTX 690 with 4x MSAA is getting like 30fpss at 1440P, yes that is good optimization. The card costs nearly 1K €.
come on that's just absurd. BF3 is another game where AA kill performance, so it's badly optimized too? i don't think so. learn to use alternative antialiasing methods, that's why they were invented. MSAA is just too costly in very demanding games.
At least Battlefield 3 runs perfect with everything maxed out
A 2 year old high end game runs better than a new 2013 high end game? Who would have thought!
BTW BF2 runs ever better.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
Framerates are not that bad compared to how equally bad BF3 ran at the time. The question is whether the graphics have been improved. I'll answer after I play the SP
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
Framerates are not that bad compared to how equally bad BF3 ran at the time. The question is whether the graphics have been improved. I'll answer after I play the SP
some parts of Crysis3 are way better looking than BF3, water for example. Water looks really shit in BF3, hardy has any dynanic feeling to it. In crysis3 water looks great, especially these new fully dynamic water ripple light reflections on walls and other effects. MP beta is too hectic to notice all eye candy so waiting for full game to see it properly in single player.
Does the game even look that much better then crysis 2 for the terrible fps?
It's a multiplayer beta so there are a whole lot of effects that just aren't implemented yet. There's no tessellation, dynamic water caustics, pixel accurate displacement mapping, or parallax occlusion mapping that I can notice. There's probably not even real time global illumination since it's a static map. Crysis 2's multiplayer was just as toned down. But even without these effects, yes, it looks better than Crysis 2. Most of the textures are very high resolution. I remember getting real close to some moss on a tree and it still looked crisp. The vegetation is an obvious upgrade. The particle effects for sparks and whatnot look great. There seems to be more polygonal detail all over the place. It looks like they really paid attention to the little details. And the water is no joke. Like I said earlier, this is hands down the best looking water we'll see in a game for a while. The dynamic ripples look great. The refraction and sss look amazing. And the real time local reflections are insane. BF3's biggest disappointment for me was the complete lack of reflections. I remember playing Operation Metro in the beta and being like "Man, this lake looks horrible. I hope they have actual reflections in the released version." And, of course, they didn't. Anyways, I'm excited and a little bit scared about the single player. All the extra graphical effects are going to look spectacular, but I'm averaging 45-50fps in multiplayer so I expect that my frame rate will drop quite a bit. We shall see.
Edit: Whoops. There are totally dynamic water caustics in the beta. They look sick. You can notice them next to the half-submerged helicopter.
Edit Edit: Here's a quick video I just made showing them off.
Interestingly it seems Crytek is working with both Nvidia and Amd for Crysis 3.
(Both "The way it's meant to be played" and "gaming evolved" although they joined AMD later in development.)
EDIT: Did a quick test, MP has various limitations and some stuff is disabled so this is no indication on how the SP campaign will work but it was fun to try.
-- [Game-Configuration]
-- Attention: This file is re-generated by the system! Editing is not recommended!
con_restricted = 0 (Doesn't exist, saving it in case the full version needs it.)
r_displayinfo = 0
cl_fov = 64
g_skipintro = 1 (Ahem, fuck those annoying logo videos.)
pl_movement.power_sprint_targetfov = 64
sys_maxfps = 120
hud_psychopsycho = 1 (These are for subtitles in the SP campaign. )
r_drawnearfov = 64
r_fullscreenwindow = 1 (Borderless fullscreen.)
r_fullscreenpreemption = 0 (Trying to avoid browser being minimized, did not work.)
r_mgpu = 0 (Could have left it alone but I don't have a SLI/Crossfire setup so off it goes.)
Framerate was around 54 up to 69 which is good but no indication on the SP performance.
Last edited by JBeckman on Thu, 31st Jan 2013 11:23; edited 1 time in total
Framerates are not that bad compared to how equally bad BF3 ran at the time. The question is whether the graphics have been improved. I'll answer after I play the SP
I can tell you that those BF3 figures are absolute horseshit. I ran the beta just fine on my 6950, 1080p/4xMSAA (no PPAA because it's no secret I hate PPAA). Always upper 40s/lower 50s at the time, which was actually better than even a 580 at that point. And that was before optimisations from both AMD and DICE. I'm sure that if I dig through the BF3 thread I'll have some screenshots to prove it. Especially Metro ran fine because it's such a small fucking map.
I dunno... The game looks great - but I must admit I haven't been blown away by visuals in a game for a very long time. Well, not in technical terms, anyway.
In fact, I think the original Crysis was the last game to blow my mind in that way. BF3 was very pretty, but it didn't provoke the same response.
Crysis 2 was underwhelming, but with the DX11 stuff - it's probably one of the prettiest games available. But Crysis 3 doesn't really look that much better to me.
I'm still waiting for a game to impress me like they used to do. Maybe the SP campaign will do that.
Framerates are not that bad compared to how equally bad BF3 ran at the time. The question is whether the graphics have been improved. I'll answer after I play the SP
I can tell you that those BF3 figures are absolute horseshit. I ran the beta just fine on my 6950, 1080p/4xMSAA (no PPAA because it's no secret I hate PPAA). Always upper 40s/lower 50s at the time, which was actually better than even a 580 at that point. And that was before optimisations from both AMD and DICE. I'm sure that if I dig through the BF3 thread I'll have some screenshots to prove it. Especially Metro ran fine because it's such a small fucking map.
Another source:
Another source:
Two examples:
The 580 has a min framerate of mid-30s-something.
The 6950 has a min framerate of 30- something.
Pretty consistent.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
