Finally tweakable Convergence, this makes all the difference, but...
Getting realy bad performance with 480 SLI and i7-965,
Even with low settings, any sugjestions?
[quote name='Manippy' date='06 December 2011 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1323198935' post='1338498']
Finally tweakable Convergence, this makes all the difference, but...
Getting realy bad performance with 480 SLI and i7-965,
Even with low settings, any sugjestions?
[/quote]
Lots of people are myself included, no fix yet. Just add your voice to the fire, maybe we can find some common item to narrow it down.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='06 December 2011 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1323194783' post='1338479']
Nice work Chiz. Do the new settings save after you exit the game? Also, what is 'ADS'?
[/quote]
I just checked and the console settings don't save automatically, but you can create a user.cfg file and place those commands in it and put it in your bf3.exe directory. I'll update my earlier post with how to do it. Also ADS is just commonly used acronym for Aim-Down-Sights or zoom/aim mode in FPS.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='06 December 2011 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1323194783' post='1338479']
Nice work Chiz. Do the new settings save after you exit the game? Also, what is 'ADS'?
I just checked and the console settings don't save automatically, but you can create a user.cfg file and place those commands in it and put it in your bf3.exe directory. I'll update my earlier post with how to do it. Also ADS is just commonly used acronym for Aim-Down-Sights or zoom/aim mode in FPS.
[quote name='chiz' date='06 December 2011 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1323192792' post='1338465']
Great find GordyMeow! Just checked it out myself briefly and can confirm DICE did expose Convergence controls in the console with the 12/6 update /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
There's actually 2 commands for Convergence now, DICE actually has a different convergence setting for ADS which is really the best way to handle 1st person 3D.
The commands are:
[list]
[*][b]renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale <float32>[/b] : this controls normal convergence settings (default is 1), the higher your depth setting, the lower you'll be able to set this before things start splitting in the near field, like your gun. Small value increments go a long way here, I could set this to about 2 at max depth before my gun started splitting too far.
[*][b]renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale <float32>[/b] : this controls how much convergence for your gun and crosshairs while in ADS only. I set this value to 0 (default is 1) and RDS/Holo was accurate even for distant objects with Convergence set from 2-3 and set to MAX depth.
[*] just hit the tilde key ` next to 1 on your keyboard and start typing "render" and the console has a predictive input system that narrows down the cvars for you. Correct syntax is: renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 2.4345
[/list]
Once you find settings you like and want to keep, you'll want to create a cfg file so your settings are loaded automatically.
[list]
[*]Go to your BF3.exe directory, probably something like %\\Origin Games\Battlefield 3
[*]Right-click, New > Text Document. Name it [b]User.cfg[/b]
[*]Open it up with notepad, add the two command line settings below and save:
[/list]
renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 1.6 <----- change that value to whatever you like and remove this comment in your file.
renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0
I attached some screenshots below to show the difference with stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0 and 1. Very clear difference there, I think this setting should always be 0 regardless of what depth and convergence you play with. The only downside is that you will get slight double-image when aiming at near field objects as discussed earlier, but this is a very small price to pay since it is much easier to aim/hit close objects anyways.
So there you have it, I will finally play through the Campaign now that 3D Vision is fully functional...if I can manage to pull myself away from Skyrim. :)
Thanks again to DICE and Nvidia (and Andrew) for sticking with it and getting 3D right in BF3...finally.
[/quote]
Thanks Chiz (and GordyMeow), works like a charm and makes a HUGE difference. I found my ideal setting at 70-75% depth and convergence of 4.
Also, for those having performance issues - I just tried forcing triple buffering using D3DOverrider at the recommendation of a friend and although the FPS didn't improve at all, the overall experience seemed much smoother. I hadn't really tried before this patch or setting the convergence so factor those in as well, but throwing it out there. I'll try it out some more tomorrow.
[quote name='chiz' date='06 December 2011 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1323192792' post='1338465']
Great find GordyMeow! Just checked it out myself briefly and can confirm DICE did expose Convergence controls in the console with the 12/6 update /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
There's actually 2 commands for Convergence now, DICE actually has a different convergence setting for ADS which is really the best way to handle 1st person 3D.
The commands are:
renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale <float32> : this controls normal convergence settings (default is 1), the higher your depth setting, the lower you'll be able to set this before things start splitting in the near field, like your gun. Small value increments go a long way here, I could set this to about 2 at max depth before my gun started splitting too far.
renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale <float32> : this controls how much convergence for your gun and crosshairs while in ADS only. I set this value to 0 (default is 1) and RDS/Holo was accurate even for distant objects with Convergence set from 2-3 and set to MAX depth.
just hit the tilde key ` next to 1 on your keyboard and start typing "render" and the console has a predictive input system that narrows down the cvars for you. Correct syntax is: renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 2.4345
Once you find settings you like and want to keep, you'll want to create a cfg file so your settings are loaded automatically.
Go to your BF3.exe directory, probably something like %\\Origin Games\Battlefield 3
Right-click, New > Text Document. Name it User.cfg
Open it up with notepad, add the two command line settings below and save:
renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 1.6 <----- change that value to whatever you like and remove this comment in your file.
renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0
I attached some screenshots below to show the difference with stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0 and 1. Very clear difference there, I think this setting should always be 0 regardless of what depth and convergence you play with. The only downside is that you will get slight double-image when aiming at near field objects as discussed earlier, but this is a very small price to pay since it is much easier to aim/hit close objects anyways.
So there you have it, I will finally play through the Campaign now that 3D Vision is fully functional...if I can manage to pull myself away from Skyrim. :)
Thanks again to DICE and Nvidia (and Andrew) for sticking with it and getting 3D right in BF3...finally.
Thanks Chiz (and GordyMeow), works like a charm and makes a HUGE difference. I found my ideal setting at 70-75% depth and convergence of 4.
Also, for those having performance issues - I just tried forcing triple buffering using D3DOverrider at the recommendation of a friend and although the FPS didn't improve at all, the overall experience seemed much smoother. I hadn't really tried before this patch or setting the convergence so factor those in as well, but throwing it out there. I'll try it out some more tomorrow.
If you just set your resolution between 3500 & 4000 x 720/800 (closer to the 3500 better for more solid performance)
Then set everything to off or low (when off not available) except AF x16 & shadows to medium then that's my settings
The resolution could do with being higher but think we have to wait for better drivers etc first
I have to be in 3d tripple screen and can't stand dips in fps it has to stay pretty solid at 60fps (3d mode) so this for now is my only option
My eyes notice everything
When I play multiplayer, at the start of a round or map, framerate is good in 3D, but once things start getting blown up that's when the framerate starts to drop from there on out. There is now more of a burden on your gpu's to render pieces of debris. I can start a map @ 60 frames/sec and end a map at about a quarter of that after everything is blown apart. This is on GTX 590s QUAD SLI and i7 4GHz. Just I thought I'd let you know my thoughts. If you want to play this game in 3D and have decent framerate, I'd stick to single player.
When I play multiplayer, at the start of a round or map, framerate is good in 3D, but once things start getting blown up that's when the framerate starts to drop from there on out. There is now more of a burden on your gpu's to render pieces of debris. I can start a map @ 60 frames/sec and end a map at about a quarter of that after everything is blown apart. This is on GTX 590s QUAD SLI and i7 4GHz. Just I thought I'd let you know my thoughts. If you want to play this game in 3D and have decent framerate, I'd stick to single player.
[quote name='photios' date='07 December 2011 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1323276359' post='1338903']
When I play multiplayer, at the start of a round or map, framerate is good in 3D, but once things start getting blown up that's when the framerate starts to drop from there on out. There is now more of a burden on your gpu's to render pieces of debris. I can start a map @ 60 frames/sec and end a map at about a quarter of that after everything is blown apart. This is on GTX 590s QUAD SLI and i7 4GHz. Just I thought I'd let you know my thoughts. If you want to play this game in 3D and have decent framerate, I'd stick to single player.
[/quote]
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
[quote name='photios' date='07 December 2011 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1323276359' post='1338903']
When I play multiplayer, at the start of a round or map, framerate is good in 3D, but once things start getting blown up that's when the framerate starts to drop from there on out. There is now more of a burden on your gpu's to render pieces of debris. I can start a map @ 60 frames/sec and end a map at about a quarter of that after everything is blown apart. This is on GTX 590s QUAD SLI and i7 4GHz. Just I thought I'd let you know my thoughts. If you want to play this game in 3D and have decent framerate, I'd stick to single player.
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='07 December 2011 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1323283377' post='1338945']
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
[/quote]
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='07 December 2011 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1323283377' post='1338945']
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
[quote name='photios' date='07 December 2011 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1323283950' post='1338951']
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
[/quote]
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
[quote name='photios' date='07 December 2011 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1323283950' post='1338951']
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='07 December 2011 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1323285617' post='1338964']
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
[/quote]
Because all that extra geometry needs extra calculations and draw calls to be issued, which places additional burden on the CPU before the GPU. If the CPU can't keep up, the GPU goes unutilized. As I mentioned earlier, and Grestorn touched on it too, the Frostbite 2 engine handles all stereo rendering with true dual-rendering that requires 2x draw calls. This puts ~2x the burden on the CPU while the overall CPU performance budget remains the same. We even see some of this going on in Skyrim if you face a certain direction outdoors. The problem is most games still do not maximize multiple CPU cores and have lightly threaded rendering engines, so the CPU quickly becomes a bottleneck.
I stumbled across the entire GDC presentation from DICE, its worth a read and you can get an idea of how CPU reliant BF3/Frostbite 2 is for maximizing GPU performance. Imo, BFBC2 was even worst when it came to CPU requirements and relative performance, but the good news is I think DICE has room for improvement. Slide 27 starts with the discussion of BF3's changes to rendering performance:
What we really need from DICE is to fully unlock DX11 performance with the kind of multi-threaded rendering performance gains we saw with Civ 5. There's an awesome read about DX11 and multi-threaded rendering and its impact on CPU/GPU performance on AnandTech: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28
Basically, with stereo 3D, DICE has doubled the CPU requirements for rendering without doubling CPU budget/performance. If they could at the very least, double the number of rendering threads (one for each camera view), that would go a long way in taking care of the low performance problem for some users with really powerful graphics cards. It wouldn't help me too much though as I'm pretty much fully utilized on both GPUs.
Also, I wouldn't rule out VRAM being an issue in some cases, BF3 uses 1400MB for me with mostly Ultra settings, Shadows High, Ambient Occlusion Off and MSAA Off (Deferred AA). Really high VRAM use for a game with no AA enabled.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='07 December 2011 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1323285617' post='1338964']
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
Because all that extra geometry needs extra calculations and draw calls to be issued, which places additional burden on the CPU before the GPU. If the CPU can't keep up, the GPU goes unutilized. As I mentioned earlier, and Grestorn touched on it too, the Frostbite 2 engine handles all stereo rendering with true dual-rendering that requires 2x draw calls. This puts ~2x the burden on the CPU while the overall CPU performance budget remains the same. We even see some of this going on in Skyrim if you face a certain direction outdoors. The problem is most games still do not maximize multiple CPU cores and have lightly threaded rendering engines, so the CPU quickly becomes a bottleneck.
I stumbled across the entire GDC presentation from DICE, its worth a read and you can get an idea of how CPU reliant BF3/Frostbite 2 is for maximizing GPU performance. Imo, BFBC2 was even worst when it came to CPU requirements and relative performance, but the good news is I think DICE has room for improvement. Slide 27 starts with the discussion of BF3's changes to rendering performance:
What we really need from DICE is to fully unlock DX11 performance with the kind of multi-threaded rendering performance gains we saw with Civ 5. There's an awesome read about DX11 and multi-threaded rendering and its impact on CPU/GPU performance on AnandTech: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28
Basically, with stereo 3D, DICE has doubled the CPU requirements for rendering without doubling CPU budget/performance. If they could at the very least, double the number of rendering threads (one for each camera view), that would go a long way in taking care of the low performance problem for some users with really powerful graphics cards. It wouldn't help me too much though as I'm pretty much fully utilized on both GPUs.
Also, I wouldn't rule out VRAM being an issue in some cases, BF3 uses 1400MB for me with mostly Ultra settings, Shadows High, Ambient Occlusion Off and MSAA Off (Deferred AA). Really high VRAM use for a game with no AA enabled.
Getting realy bad performance with 480 SLI and i7-965,
Even with low settings, any sugjestions?
Getting realy bad performance with 480 SLI and i7-965,
Even with low settings, any sugjestions?
Finally tweakable Convergence, this makes all the difference, but...
Getting realy bad performance with 480 SLI and i7-965,
Even with low settings, any sugjestions?
[/quote]
Lots of people are myself included, no fix yet. Just add your voice to the fire, maybe we can find some common item to narrow it down.
Finally tweakable Convergence, this makes all the difference, but...
Getting realy bad performance with 480 SLI and i7-965,
Even with low settings, any sugjestions?
Lots of people are myself included, no fix yet. Just add your voice to the fire, maybe we can find some common item to narrow it down.
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
Nice work Chiz. Do the new settings save after you exit the game? Also, what is 'ADS'?
[/quote]
I just checked and the console settings don't save automatically, but you can create a user.cfg file and place those commands in it and put it in your bf3.exe directory. I'll update my earlier post with how to do it. Also ADS is just commonly used acronym for Aim-Down-Sights or zoom/aim mode in FPS.
Nice work Chiz. Do the new settings save after you exit the game? Also, what is 'ADS'?
I just checked and the console settings don't save automatically, but you can create a user.cfg file and place those commands in it and put it in your bf3.exe directory. I'll update my earlier post with how to do it. Also ADS is just commonly used acronym for Aim-Down-Sights or zoom/aim mode in FPS.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
Hi all
I can finally play now, in 3d surround (tripple screen ),
Although resolution is 3849x721 ( a tad low ) and all details in game set to off where possible or minimum except shadows set to medium
I'm getting with these settings a near solid 3d vision fps of 60fps (3d set to 120 etc )
[/quote]
Please take a screenshot of your video settings. Thanks :)
Hi all
I can finally play now, in 3d surround (tripple screen ),
Although resolution is 3849x721 ( a tad low ) and all details in game set to off where possible or minimum except shadows set to medium
I'm getting with these settings a near solid 3d vision fps of 60fps (3d set to 120 etc )
Please take a screenshot of your video settings. Thanks :)
Great find GordyMeow! Just checked it out myself briefly and can confirm DICE did expose Convergence controls in the console with the 12/6 update
There's actually 2 commands for Convergence now, DICE actually has a different convergence setting for ADS which is really the best way to handle 1st person 3D.
The commands are:
[list]
[*][b]renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale <float32>[/b] : this controls normal convergence settings (default is 1), the higher your depth setting, the lower you'll be able to set this before things start splitting in the near field, like your gun. Small value increments go a long way here, I could set this to about 2 at max depth before my gun started splitting too far.
[*][b]renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale <float32>[/b] : this controls how much convergence for your gun and crosshairs while in ADS only. I set this value to 0 (default is 1) and RDS/Holo was accurate even for distant objects with Convergence set from 2-3 and set to MAX depth.
[*] just hit the tilde key ` next to 1 on your keyboard and start typing "render" and the console has a predictive input system that narrows down the cvars for you. Correct syntax is: renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 2.4345
[/list]
Once you find settings you like and want to keep, you'll want to create a cfg file so your settings are loaded automatically.
[list]
[*]Go to your BF3.exe directory, probably something like %\\Origin Games\Battlefield 3
[*]Right-click, New > Text Document. Name it [b]User.cfg[/b]
[*]Open it up with notepad, add the two command line settings below and save:
[/list]
renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 1.6 <----- change that value to whatever you like and remove this comment in your file.
renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0
I attached some screenshots below to show the difference with stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0 and 1. Very clear difference there, I think this setting should always be 0 regardless of what depth and convergence you play with. The only downside is that you will get slight double-image when aiming at near field objects as discussed earlier, but this is a very small price to pay since it is much easier to aim/hit close objects anyways.
So there you have it, I will finally play through the Campaign now that 3D Vision is fully functional...if I can manage to pull myself away from Skyrim. :)
Thanks again to DICE and Nvidia (and Andrew) for sticking with it and getting 3D right in BF3...finally.
[/quote]
Thanks Chiz (and GordyMeow), works like a charm and makes a HUGE difference. I found my ideal setting at 70-75% depth and convergence of 4.
Also, for those having performance issues - I just tried forcing triple buffering using D3DOverrider at the recommendation of a friend and although the FPS didn't improve at all, the overall experience seemed much smoother. I hadn't really tried before this patch or setting the convergence so factor those in as well, but throwing it out there. I'll try it out some more tomorrow.
Great find GordyMeow! Just checked it out myself briefly and can confirm DICE did expose Convergence controls in the console with the 12/6 update
There's actually 2 commands for Convergence now, DICE actually has a different convergence setting for ADS which is really the best way to handle 1st person 3D.
The commands are:
Once you find settings you like and want to keep, you'll want to create a cfg file so your settings are loaded automatically.
renderdevice.stereoconvergencescale 1.6 <----- change that value to whatever you like and remove this comment in your file.
renderdevice.stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0
I attached some screenshots below to show the difference with stereosoldierzoomconvergencescale 0 and 1. Very clear difference there, I think this setting should always be 0 regardless of what depth and convergence you play with. The only downside is that you will get slight double-image when aiming at near field objects as discussed earlier, but this is a very small price to pay since it is much easier to aim/hit close objects anyways.
So there you have it, I will finally play through the Campaign now that 3D Vision is fully functional...if I can manage to pull myself away from Skyrim. :)
Thanks again to DICE and Nvidia (and Andrew) for sticking with it and getting 3D right in BF3...finally.
Thanks Chiz (and GordyMeow), works like a charm and makes a HUGE difference. I found my ideal setting at 70-75% depth and convergence of 4.
Also, for those having performance issues - I just tried forcing triple buffering using D3DOverrider at the recommendation of a friend and although the FPS didn't improve at all, the overall experience seemed much smoother. I hadn't really tried before this patch or setting the convergence so factor those in as well, but throwing it out there. I'll try it out some more tomorrow.
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
If you just set your resolution between 3500 & 4000 x 720/800 (closer to the 3500 better for more solid performance)
Then set everything to off or low (when off not available) except AF x16 & shadows to medium then that's my settings
The resolution could do with being higher but think we have to wait for better drivers etc first
I have to be in 3d tripple screen and can't stand dips in fps it has to stay pretty solid at 60fps (3d mode) so this for now is my only option
My eyes notice everything
I7 2600. @ 4.6ghz. Watercooled
2x gtx 580's 3gb versions watercooled (each running at 940mhz core )
16gb ram
3x acer 27" 3d monitors
If you just set your resolution between 3500 & 4000 x 720/800 (closer to the 3500 better for more solid performance)
Then set everything to off or low (when off not available) except AF x16 & shadows to medium then that's my settings
The resolution could do with being higher but think we have to wait for better drivers etc first
I have to be in 3d tripple screen and can't stand dips in fps it has to stay pretty solid at 60fps (3d mode) so this for now is my only option
My eyes notice everything
I7 2600. @ 4.6ghz. Watercooled
2x gtx 580's 3gb versions watercooled (each running at 940mhz core )
16gb ram
3x acer 27" 3d monitors
When I play multiplayer, at the start of a round or map, framerate is good in 3D, but once things start getting blown up that's when the framerate starts to drop from there on out. There is now more of a burden on your gpu's to render pieces of debris. I can start a map @ 60 frames/sec and end a map at about a quarter of that after everything is blown apart. This is on GTX 590s QUAD SLI and i7 4GHz. Just I thought I'd let you know my thoughts. If you want to play this game in 3D and have decent framerate, I'd stick to single player.
[/quote]
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
When I play multiplayer, at the start of a round or map, framerate is good in 3D, but once things start getting blown up that's when the framerate starts to drop from there on out. There is now more of a burden on your gpu's to render pieces of debris. I can start a map @ 60 frames/sec and end a map at about a quarter of that after everything is blown apart. This is on GTX 590s QUAD SLI and i7 4GHz. Just I thought I'd let you know my thoughts. If you want to play this game in 3D and have decent framerate, I'd stick to single player.
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
[/quote]
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
If it were more of a burden on the GPU / CPU then their utilization would go up. We're getting terrible FPS without either even being close to fully utilized. Further, changing settings from Ultra to lower settings has no effect. Something is fundamentally wrong with either the drivers or the native 3D engine.
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
[/quote]
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
At the start of the map I don't have a framerate problem (on Ultra). Once stuff gets blown to pieces, frame rate drops. Why?
Now their might be some utilization problems, but the destructible environments is the principle variable I noticed for crushing the framerate, because the gpu has to render more geometry on the screen, and that is a natural consequence that follows.
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
I would like a higher resolution though but hope to rise it when next drivers out ( assuming they optimise things )
I'm not interested in single player so don't know how that performs ( only play multiplayer games )
I would like a higher resolution though but hope to rise it when next drivers out ( assuming they optimise things )
I'm not interested in single player so don't know how that performs ( only play multiplayer games )
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
[/quote]
Because all that extra geometry needs extra calculations and draw calls to be issued, which places additional burden on the CPU before the GPU. If the CPU can't keep up, the GPU goes unutilized. As I mentioned earlier, and Grestorn touched on it too, the Frostbite 2 engine handles all stereo rendering with true dual-rendering that requires 2x draw calls. This puts ~2x the burden on the CPU while the overall CPU performance budget remains the same. We even see some of this going on in Skyrim if you face a certain direction outdoors. The problem is most games still do not maximize multiple CPU cores and have lightly threaded rendering engines, so the CPU quickly becomes a bottleneck.
I stumbled across the entire GDC presentation from DICE, its worth a read and you can get an idea of how CPU reliant BF3/Frostbite 2 is for maximizing GPU performance. Imo, BFBC2 was even worst when it came to CPU requirements and relative performance, but the good news is I think DICE has room for improvement. Slide 27 starts with the discussion of BF3's changes to rendering performance:
http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/directx-11-rendering-in-battlefield-3
What we really need from DICE is to fully unlock DX11 performance with the kind of multi-threaded rendering performance gains we saw with Civ 5. There's an awesome read about DX11 and multi-threaded rendering and its impact on CPU/GPU performance on AnandTech: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28
Basically, with stereo 3D, DICE has doubled the CPU requirements for rendering without doubling CPU budget/performance. If they could at the very least, double the number of rendering threads (one for each camera view), that would go a long way in taking care of the low performance problem for some users with really powerful graphics cards. It wouldn't help me too much though as I'm pretty much fully utilized on both GPUs.
Also, I wouldn't rule out VRAM being an issue in some cases, BF3 uses 1400MB for me with mostly Ultra settings, Shadows High, Ambient Occlusion Off and MSAA Off (Deferred AA). Really high VRAM use for a game with no AA enabled.
Again, if there is 'more' to render, why is the utilization going DOWN? Your argument does not make any sense.
Because all that extra geometry needs extra calculations and draw calls to be issued, which places additional burden on the CPU before the GPU. If the CPU can't keep up, the GPU goes unutilized. As I mentioned earlier, and Grestorn touched on it too, the Frostbite 2 engine handles all stereo rendering with true dual-rendering that requires 2x draw calls. This puts ~2x the burden on the CPU while the overall CPU performance budget remains the same. We even see some of this going on in Skyrim if you face a certain direction outdoors. The problem is most games still do not maximize multiple CPU cores and have lightly threaded rendering engines, so the CPU quickly becomes a bottleneck.
I stumbled across the entire GDC presentation from DICE, its worth a read and you can get an idea of how CPU reliant BF3/Frostbite 2 is for maximizing GPU performance. Imo, BFBC2 was even worst when it came to CPU requirements and relative performance, but the good news is I think DICE has room for improvement. Slide 27 starts with the discussion of BF3's changes to rendering performance:
http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/directx-11-rendering-in-battlefield-3
What we really need from DICE is to fully unlock DX11 performance with the kind of multi-threaded rendering performance gains we saw with Civ 5. There's an awesome read about DX11 and multi-threaded rendering and its impact on CPU/GPU performance on AnandTech: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31520674&postcount=28
Basically, with stereo 3D, DICE has doubled the CPU requirements for rendering without doubling CPU budget/performance. If they could at the very least, double the number of rendering threads (one for each camera view), that would go a long way in taking care of the low performance problem for some users with really powerful graphics cards. It wouldn't help me too much though as I'm pretty much fully utilized on both GPUs.
Also, I wouldn't rule out VRAM being an issue in some cases, BF3 uses 1400MB for me with mostly Ultra settings, Shadows High, Ambient Occlusion Off and MSAA Off (Deferred AA). Really high VRAM use for a game with no AA enabled.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W