Battlefield 3 on thinkpad?

Has anyone tried this new release from EA? I tried it on my T500 (specs below) and it was quite a choppy experience. I'm just wondering if those with T520 or W520 have tried it on theirs. Thanks.

 

I tried it on my Lenovo X220 + eGPU (GTX 560Ti) and I run it on ultra settings in 1080p at 30-40 fps.

So, you can do the same with other Thinkpad.

You can see what I did in my SIg.

 

Does the X220 have an expresscard 2.0?
I believe my T500 only has an expresscard 54. So all I need is a PE4H-EC2C ver2.4 kit with a good PSU and a good video card ie. HD 6950/6970?
PE4H-EC2C ver2.4 (91$)
PSU: Corsair CX430 (40$)
nVIDIA 560GTX (180$)
Am I missing anything else?

 

You'll probably get CPU choked on 64-player maps.

I'm running it all medium, textures ultra on my W520 at 30FPS on 1920x1080. I get 45FPS at 1600x900, but the higher resolution is helpful sometimes.

 

After speaking with egpu guru nando, I will wait a few months for the next gen. nVIDIA gpu as well as wait for the expresscard 2.0 vs expresscard 54 comparison.

 

Good choice!

I am also waiting for this expresscard 2.0 version for my X220. It will boost the eGPU power to about 85-90% of the performance of the GPU.

 

Is it confirmed that x220 have expresscard 2.0?
How well does expresscard 54 perform against a desktops x16pcie?
80%?

 

At this time with expresscard 1.0 (2.5gt/s), the perf are about 70-75% of the card.

With 2.0 version (5GT/s), the bandwight is double, so the performance should be better, like 85-90% with optimus engaged.

 

70-75% eh. Well I sure hope the next gen nvidia cards are better.

 

Hello everyone, i'm a X220 owner and i'm also interested in using eGPU system.

atticus182 I didn't get if you meant that the X220 had a 1.0 expresscard version or a 2.0 one.

I was also wondering whether PE4H ver2.4 with PM3N is a better solution or not.

And final question, if you use an AMD HD 6850 the decrease in perf will be lower than a GTX 560 TI? (because the last one requires more bandwith so is more penalise).

Thanks for your anwser !

 

Expresscard in the X220 is 2.0 like almost all Sandy bridge laptop.

PM3N solution is only good for a laptop without expresscard, so in the x220 it is useless. Use the expresscard, it is the same performance.

AMD cards are very good in a desktop, but the weakest in eGPU solution. This is due that Nvidia cards like the GTX 560Ti can add a compression with Optimus that double the bandwith. By example, a GTX 560Ti has 17500pts in 3dmark 06 and an HD6850 13000 pts. Fermi based card are recommanded here.

I am not an expert, so if you want more information, go see the eGPU dedicated thread in the gaming section.

 

Is BF3 playable on a TP with NVS 4200m? Can someone share their experience please?

 

I doubt it will run smooth enough to play. BF3 is very high demanding game that requires strong hardware. Guys with alienware m14x are having trouble with the game at high quality\resolution.

Atticus: perhaps I will buy your egpu set up (minus GPU) once the PE4L 2.0 is released. My goal really is to run the game at 1680x1050 at high resoluton.

 

Playable, probably. Enjoyable, depends on your expectations.

A friend of mine is playing it on a NVS 3100M.

 

Good choice!

By now, with generation 1, I play it in 1920x1080 in high and it gives me about 35-45 fps. So, with generation 2 in 1680x1050 ultra setting, we could reach the 50-60 fps.

That's with a GTX 560Ti, so better performance with the futur Nvidia cards.

 

I've just ordered a PE4H v2.4 with EC2C.

Is it what you are using atticus182?

What will be new with the PE4L 2.0? If I get it well the current version 1.5 is only for PCIe 1x card so for PCI-E 16x you already have the PE4H v2.4 no?

 

PE4L 2.0 is just like a PE4Hv2.4EC2C except it will support expresscard 2.0. In other words, it is suppose to be backwards compatible.

It is due to be out very shortly.

 

I have played at least two hours of BF3 multiplayer on my T420 with the NVS 4200M. I play it on the lowest settings, at 1280x720. I get an average framerate of 25, which is playable enough (I find that I am still quite competitive at such a framerate).

It's not a bad gaming machine on the go, let me tell you. But, be sure to get discrete graphics - the Intel integrated graphics aren't quite as good.

 

But I thought PE4H v2.4 with EC2C already supported expresscard v2 ! So it's only v1?

 

I am sorry to tell you that this version doesn't support expresscard 2.0 , the next version will be out mid/end december and it will support the 2.0.

 

Tried Battlefield 3 Beta on my T410i just for fun and as expected it was pretty much unplayable. Sound chopped up and graphics full of artefacts and fan worked like crazy.

 

Here is a crappy video I just made of my X220+eGPU on battlefield 3 :

Lenovo X220 + eGPU + Battlefield 3 - YouTube

 

BF3 is playable at 800x600 with everything low. I get 25-60FPS. lowest is outside. But Love my 550Ti eGPU and my T420 runs at x1 2.0 spec.

 

Well thanks for your answer.

We'll see if the difference between the two versions worth to buy the new model !

 

I hope so!!

Damn, 85-90% of the power of a GTX 680 inside a 12'' ultraportable.... a dream!

 

On my T520 with NVS4200, I get around 15fps at 1600x900 with all the quality settings on min (AA might be up a notch from min but that's it).

It's "playable" but incredibly difficult to aim quickly enough and I've died many a time against bots in the campaign.

When I have more time to play, I'll probably try fiddling with the resolution.

 

15fps is no fun. I think you need around 50+ to get the full experience.

 

LOL no. AA should not be on at all if you're on that sort of hardware. You can also disable some of the other visual effects by editing the config file manually. I turned off Bloom because it's annoying, didn't seem to claw me back any FPS.

Nor should you be aiming for 1600x900.

For me, 30 is bearable at 1920x1080, but 45 at 1600x900 is nice.

What's weird about BF3 is that it uses marginally more power to go from medium to high for some of it's settings.

 

Tried BF3 on my T420 w/ NVS 4200M (i7-2620M, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM), and got somewhat lackluster results. It's playable, barely, to be honest. This was on battery, however, but I had the power plan manually set to Max Performance. The discrete GPU was indeed running BF3 at the time.

On the other hand, I get a nice steady 60 FPS on my desktop with my Core 2 Quad and GTX460 1GB at most settings on High .

 

I have Modern Warfare 3 running on my T510 All on default settings and on 1366 x768 that is the highest resolution on my screen and it runs smooth. I am hoping Battlefield 3 does the samething.

 

Lol no. Friend with a T510 is barely chugging along lowest at the lowest available resolution.

Frostbite 2.0 is really, really demanding. (Consider the fact it was built for multi-GPU.)

 

Probably 2000m could play with medium settings.

 

Yeah I'm pushing medium (on average). Going from low to medium is a fair jump in performance requirements, but going from medium to high or high to ultra is a pretty small jump.

 

I should make a recording of it and post it. I do have two advantages by the way, 8 GB and a Momemtus XT SSD Hybrid harddrive.

 

Not sure how that renders you more frames per second.

 

MOV048.mp4 - YouTube

Here is my video of running MWF3 I hope to get Battlefield 3 soon so I can post up a review of it.

 

Not bad makaveli.
But I think the hardware demand of BF3 is quite a bit more.

 

I tried BF3 not the same experience as MWF 3 I am somewhat disappointed.

 

Go figure.

My friend has to give his T510's NVS3100M a significant overclock to make it more playable.

 

Hi how much overclock are you talking about? Did it make a big difference?

 

Not sure how far he was able to overclock his chip. In my little experience with the NVS 3100M, it's very sensitive to memory clock changes. You'll have to experiment with it yourself.

With something like BF3, that NVS 3100M is going to need all the speed it can get.

 

I just got a chance to play some more BF3 with the Graphics set to Low everything, AA off, and resolution set to 1366x724(Or whatever the resolution near those values is)

I get about 20-25 FPS consistently. It's definitely playable, even in the heat of battle it holds out ok.
Sidenote: With the 9-cell battery, if you put it on Max performance, I think you would get about 2-2.5 hours of solid playtime out of it without having to charge.

 

BF3 is really no fun when you have to compromise that much. At low quality, you might as well go play CS.

 

what is with new version? its better w8 for new year or buy now PE4H v2.4

 

ati has a harder time than nvidia to run the game with equal settings. i read that the setting "msaa" hurt AMD alot in bf3. however i tried the game with 6630m and 2410m at 900p and i was getting between 25-30fps with detail on ultra. shadow low and the rest of the settings on high. i think i may of put aa up a notch. rest of the settings i never understood as i was having a quick blast and this was on multiplayer.
i have no idea what dx mode it was using at the time so that might make a huge differnce to the settings. you guys can try it in dx10 if you can even choose.
the quadro 2000m is better than the 555m gt if not by much so it should be beable to run high settings att 40ish fps @ 900p i thinks whith the settings i tried.
reason why im here is because i dont have the sony sa now. i have ordered the e320 with 6630m so i was curious to what model we was onna bout for battlefield.

oh yes can the e320 support egpu?

 

I have nearly the same laptop as you except my hard drive is an OCZ SSD and the game is not playable for me with everything on low and a resolution of 1024x768. She's been a great laptop for me but I'm now looking into a Sager to keep me gaming.

 

I would recommend getting an external GPU instead of buying a brand new laptop just for gaming. Cheaper, and more convenient.

 

Hi I too was able to make my Thinkpad T510 play BF3 20 to 30 fps, I just followed some steps and it played

 

Depends. I find it far more convenient to have an all in one system with no sacrifice of performance, sound quality, visuals, ports and features. Having one system that suits all my business and gaming needs is preferable over a bunch of peripherals and an ultrabook. Personally, I don't care about size and weight of the system as long as it's a single device that fits nicely into my orthopedic backpack and doesn't affect my lower back or shoulders. I bring it to most business meetings and am yet to feel discomfort there, hehe.

If size and weight is a major factor, one may consider a mobile workstation instead (M6600 or 8760w) with sufficient power to run most current games at high settings and a decent mobility at the same time.

To me, the main problem with an XGPU is that you also need an external monitor, keyboard, etc. These will be placed in one spot and all the gaming will be limited to that spot. And I don't like to have limited options. When the kids are playing around the house it's crucial to be able to move from room to room if you really want to find a place to game uninterrupted Or, at night when the kids are asleep and you don't wanna turn the tv on, but still wish to watch an HD movie with your wife, having a 18"4 laptop with a gorgeous screen and 2 headphone jacks is a great alternative, especially since it can move to any room at any time and still serve the purpose or various purposes if you will