Running BF3 beta on my sager 8660

Hi, I've been trying to play the bf3 beta on my sager but I've found that it is near unplayable because of terrible frame rates and poor mouse response time (vsync is off). The performance is equally poor on anything from low to ultra graphics (though ultra is a bit worse, obviously). I could play Bfbc2 on medium with no problems - I find it odd that my computer can't even play bf3 on low.
I get about 14-24 fps but it is very inconsistent; once I get into a firefight it skips too badly to do anything.

my specs: windows 7 64bit, nvidia 260m GTX, 2.53ghz core 2 duo, 4gb Ram
notes: looking straight up into the sky or down at the ground gives me good frames and no mouse lag.. but I can't get any kills doing that now can I
Thanks,

Alex

Edit: I'm on the latest nvidia driver built for bf3, 285.xx I believe

 

It's only running 35-40ish fps outdoors on my overclocked cpu and gpu in my G73. It will get a little better, just like BFBC2 after its release. There was an update that dramatically improved fps.

 

Make sure HBAO/SSAO, anti-aliasing and anti-aliasing post processing are disabled. All other settings to low or off and start from there. You also try lowering the resolution.

 

You have a Core2Duo when the game recommends a Quad Core, and you have a 260m, which is about the same as a desktop 9800GT which is old.

Why don't you build a desktop rig especially for gaming seeing as all these new games are coming out and are GPU hungry, instead of trying to run them on "gaming" laptops.

 

Simple answer as to why not:

Not everyone has $1200 to spend every year when a new game comes out.

 

Another laptop gaming hater... While your first paragraph was actually helpful, the second isn't entirely accurate. My "Gaming" laptop is slightly more powerful than your Gaming Desktop.

The problem is that his laptop hardware is at least 2 years old, trying to play a game that isn't even optimized yet.

 

^^^^^^^ agreed! Haters will do what they do best.

 

I find that after I free up some memory(read: massive page file) I get a lot better performance in the BF3 beta, I think 8gb of ram would make it playable...

 

Why on earth do you need to spend that amount of money each year when a new game comes out? ..... a good desktop will last 3 years+

I'm not gaming laptop hater, i just prefer desktops, more cooling and better components in general, heat is a killer.

I don't dislike gaming laptops, i just prefer desktops.

I have now upgraded to the GTX 580 (waiting for it to be delivered) and the fact i can overclock my 2500k to 5GHz and watercool it i'd say that's alot more performance

Don't get me wrong, i love high performance laptops, but i don't justify the price of them, compared to desktops, which will outlive a high performance laptop, and which are also more upgradable.

 

Im a desktop gamer to the core, and i love to max out my hardware without upgrading it. Thats the reason i love my desktop build, im getting comparable performance to a GTX580, as an example.

Moving on the subject, i know peoples with a GTX260m and Dual Cores who can run the beta fine.

But these peoples have all their cpus clocked at 3ghz, or above. Now the Frostbyte engine uses 4 cores:

1 - General processing
2 - Graphics processing
3 - Sound processing
4 - Physics processing (havok libraries, by cpu)

When a dual core is used, much like BC2, Core 0 (1) basically takes care of graphics/general and sound, while Core 1 (2) uses it for sound. These are dynamically swapped or used by caching on disk needed files or allocating resources in system ram, and gpu memory.

What i can advice, anyway, is to update to 285.38 BF3 beta drivers, if you did that already try to do it the "clean" way as i described in the guide linked in my signature.

Open NVCP and set display mode to single display mode and power management to prefer maximum performance (located under Manage 3d Settings).

Then run BF3 at 1280x720, No AA-No Post AA-No Ambient Occlusion. Set all the other options to LOW or MEDIUM. See what kind of perfomance you get with it.

I think also youll need a bit of overclock on the gpu, and maybe, start thinking about overclocking the cpu using SetFSB at least till 3ghz if it can reach it.

Hope it helps!

 

Yeah unfortunately battlefield games are notorious for consuming both lots of CPU and GPU resources. Quad core is almost a requirement. A slower quad core would probably benefit you more than anything. Not sure what CPU's are compatible, but perhaps consider a Q9000 if you can find one. Should be your cheapest option.

 

I'm getting 35-40 fps as well with an OCed GTX 570M on my notebook. I'm not too sure about quality desktops lasting 3+ years as far as gaming is concerned. You will HAVE to upgrade at least the GPU to keep up with games. I have a 3.5 year old desktop with an old Intel Q8400 and a 8800GTS. It still runs fine and plays most non graphics intensive games (last game I ran on it without any problems was Dragon Age 2). However, anything more intense than that gives me BSOD problems (for example, the Witcher 2).

 

The odd thing is I'm seeing lower mid grade GPU's performing not much less than higher end in BF3. I have an HD6750m, in crossfirex which benchmark wise puts it a little below a GTX 460m, but can run 35-40fps, and my GPU is much weaker than those with an Intel CPU. I think the beta is NOT a clear indication of final performance of BF3, unfortunately (or fortunately).

 

have the same laptop as OP, guess I won't be playing BF3. However have you considered the eGPU solutions? If it is more GPU-intensive than CPU, my guess is you can get by with your core2 and just use an external vid card. If that doesn't work, you can probably find a quad-core for cheap and upgrade that.

 

Them eGPUs are extremely messy, and the bandwidth is restricted isn't it? you don't get full x16 speed.

I don't see the point? it's a nice idea, but completely flawed, you might as well get a desktop.

 

An eGpu wouldnt help, the bottleneck is still the CPU.

 

Hey guys, I appreciate the input, even if it turned into a laptop vs desktop war . I've found that if I drop the resolution to about 13xx*7xx it is very playable.
Cheers!

Alex

 

Like the others have said, the bottleneck is our CPU. Guess duo doesnt have the bite that it used to . In any case, you CAN play bf3 quite playably (is that a word?) as long as you keep the resolution well below native.

 

Gaming laptops are good, but they are expensive.

Here is where the price difference comes in. CPUS rarely get outdated (especially desktop CPUS overclocked to 4ghz +). You can just get a new GPU every two years and a desktop will max games. A 2 year old desktop CPU right now would be an i7 pre Sandy Bridge (I think). Couple that with a GTX 570 ($300) and your 2 year old desktop is maxing pretty much everything at 1080p. No 2 year old laptop is going to do that. If you throw in a new CPU/Mobo every 4 years and new ram every 4 years it works out over time to be lot less.

 

Everybody knows that. There are other reasons to buy a gaming laptop over a desktop...


4 years ago would be P4/Pdual era.... your argument is invalid....

 

According to Intel, my Q9550 came out Q1 2008, so it is going on 4 years old in a few months, and it's more than capable. P4 is going on 10-year old tech iirc.

 

Have you tried installing the beta drivers? It looked terrible on my laptop which has a GT 540m until I installed the beta drivers. Go to Nvidia.com and click on beta drivers and choose the latest one for your specific video card. The latest one increases performance by up to 38%. Here's a link for the 260m: NVIDIA DRIVERS 285.38 BETA

 

P4/PD cpus were still being used in 2006...

 

The last pentium 4 was released early 2006, nearly 6 years ago and that was pretty much at the end of it's lifespan. 4 years ago would be intel's core architecture, which was far better than P4.

 

Your forgetting about pentium Ds...

 

Pentium D were nothing more than dual die Netburst based POS. Pentium Dual Cores were underperforming Core Duo and Core 2 Duo that were given a second chance at life.

 

First I said you would upgrade the CPU every 4 years or so. I'm pretty sure that would be a Core 2 Quad (as a 4 year old CPU). A two year old i7 + GTX 570 is maxing everything at 1080p. It will probably continue to do so for another 2 years or so. Also even though they were being used, doesn't mean that is what I meant by my comment. They have Core 2 Quads for sale on Amazon right now, but if you bought a good CPU for the time (Core 2 Quad 4 years ago/i7 2 years ago) then your fine.

Once you have everything in a desktop you only need to upgrade CPU + GPU + Motherboard. The cost of that is about $700 to get i5 2500k + mobo + 6950/6970. Which is great for 1080p gaming. No $700 laptop can do the same.

The advantage with the laptop is portability and because of that it makes a lot of sense to people. But if you upgrade a Desktop you can get more power for less cost. That is just basic.

 

And you seem to misunderstand that everyone has there own reasons to buy a laptop over a desktop. yes $ to $ the desktop is more powerful, but if you need to move it regularly, or don't want to have 2 separate computers a laptop is an acceptable compromise...

 

Yes that's why it's better to get a reasonable priced performance laptop for your portability and a good desktop for gaming, i know i prefer sitting in my lounge with my desktop in my AV unit playing games on my projector, whilst i use my laptop in bed etc.

 

Most people are aware of the pro/con of owning a desktop to a laptop, also let's stick to discussing Notebooks on NBR. If you want to talk desktops there is DesktopReview. (This thread has derailed)

 

You can get yourself a Q9000 for less than $150, and that would be a very good investment towards your machine's longevity.

We'd just need to make sure you have a Core 2 Quad compatible model.

 

or a Q9200 with unlocked multi + throttle stop for $200 or so.

 

I don't mean to further derail this thread, but instead of upgrading my Sager's CPU I figured it was time to switch to a desktop since I no longer require the portability aspect. Of course this means I have to drop about 1k on a new PC, so I'm wondering how much of a performance boost I'd get from upgrading to a q9000 (assuming my laptop is capable of the upgrade). Since I'd be switching to a desktop soon anyway I figure it would be a better idea to not upgrade the Sager.
I'd love to hear your opinions on this.

 

What CPU model do you currently have?

 

Since your graphics card is reaching the end of its days anyway it probably would be wiser to build a desktop. If you go with an Amd build you would spend less than $1000 and would get much better performance over the 260m. Since you don't really need the portability you could even sell the laptop to help cover desktop parts

 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, upgrading to a quad and setting up an eGPU would probably allow you to play decently. You can probably do both for under $200. As to whether it's worth it over a desktop... well only you can gauge how much your mobility is worth to you.

 

One thing to consider.... If you sell it, it will be for $300-$400, IDK if you can build a desktop (with monitor) that will be faster for $550-$750...


IMO putting $250 into it would be a better option. A Q9200/etc and 8gb of memory would bring some life back to it.

 

You can't build a super fast desktop for $750, but a $1K desktop will end up lasting you 2+ years on max. Look for some sales and $750 to $950 is feasible for a good build. $250 more into the laptop isn't going to put him on max graphics by any means, and it isn't going to last 2 years. I would recommend either getting a new laptop or getting a new desktop. Putting $250 into the laptop only makes sense if your keeping it for a while.

8gb of Ram isn't really going to help with gaming though, especially because he is in no way bottlenecked by ram. 4gb of ram is fine for gaming, you won't even really see an FPS increase going from 4 to 8 I would think.

 

*failed to resist being a troll...



No way Sherlock, spending $250 to upgrade a laptop is not going to get him maxing out games, then again even a new $1500 laptop wont max out games...

If he still needs portability, spending $250 to get his laptop to be able to play EVERY game out there is better option than spending $1k on a desktop that wont do everything he needs it to do.

 

Well, OP said that he didn't need portability so I was just giving him my $0.02.

OP, if you need help building a desktop, I guess I would check out the desktopreview forums. I personally would recommend a good monitor (as it will last a while) a good case, and good PSU as those parts last for years. PSU and Case could last 10 years. i5 2500k, Asus Mobo, ATi 6950/6970, 8gb of Corsair Ram, and Samsung DVD drive and you should be set. But I think that is off topic on this forum.

 

I just priced it out on Newegg out of sheer curiosity, and you can build a decent desktop with a 2500k, 8 gigs of RAM, 2tb HDD, and a 6950 for $750, not including monitor. That will last 2-3 year at minimum.

 

Definitely a bit of a segway - I'll just close it off by saying I am buying a pc I built at memory express tomorrow: i7 2600k, 8gb patriot extreme ram, GTX560ti superclocked 900mhz, corsair PSU 800W, 1tb WD caviar 7600rpm/ 64mb cache, all in a cooler master HAF 922 tower (I already have the DVD drives).
I'd love to hear your input but for the sake of sticking to the topic, please PM me if to share your opinion .

Edit: here's the parts with their prices (ain't tax a b****?)
http://puu.sh/6Mnp
and the gpu
http://puu.sh/6Mol

 

That's a great build.
However I'd drop the CPU to i5-2500k, or even an i5-2500 (mine is running at 4.3 with a small bclk increase).
With the spare money you should be able to get a gtx570 which is still better than a 560ti for a good margin (I have both in two separate builds).
That should be more future proof: you can upgrade in 2 years your CPU to an i7 since ivy bridge will show itself next year with a substantial price drop of current SB.
It's hard to say that i5 vs i7 bottlenecks the system, results are quite similar. The 2500 has enough power and bandwidth to feed even a tri Sli based on my tests, I would push on a better gpu then upgrade the CPU later if you even need to.
As an example f1 2011 maxed out on my rig with a gtx570 factory oc reports 75fps at ultra with 8xqxaa, while 69 on the gtx560ti.
If I oc my 570 to 850mhz difference becomes more and more large with an 84fps of average.
Althought the 560ti is a great card, you need to oc it alot to get comparable performance to a stock 570.
And trust me there's zero difference between both setups by the CPU side (one runs the 2500 and one the 2600k).
I would go for the 2600k only if your target is breaking 5ghz or benchmarks. The smart way would be to get a good CPU as I stated while investing on a good gpu.
Above 4ghz the sandy 2500 basically feeds everything without hiccups.

 

If you read the anandtech article, they point out that the i7 2600k and the i5 2500k have pretty much the exact same gaming performance. Since the cores are unlocked the default clock speed doesn't matter. The difference between an i5 and an i7 on a desktop is "virtual cores". No game uses 8 cores. So basically you get the same performance level.

But a lot of people get the i7 because, well they want an i7.

 

Spending $140 on the Q9000 would probably bring you a 10fps increase.

 

A q9000 is only $100, a q9100 is $40, a q9200(unlocked multi) is $160...

 

Oh? Can you link me to each of those at your stated prices?

 

Intel Core 2 Quad 2GHz 1066MHz 6M?B Laptop Q9000 CPU SLGEJ | eBay
New Intel Core2 Quad Mobile Q9100 2.23GHz 1066FSB 12M | eBay
Intel Core2 Quad Mobile Q9200 2.40GHz ES QAJF | eBay

qx9300 $350...
AlienWare M17x Processor/cpu QX9300 2.53 GHz | eBay



Most of the time auctions go for much less than the BIN price... I've seen q9000 go for less than $50...