Lonovo Y580. Anyone Battlefield 3 on it?

Anyone run battlefield 3 on it?
What setting s and frame rate result playing online?

How do you guys like your 580s?

 

there is a video

Battlefield 3 Y580 1920X1080 - YouTube

 

I saw the video was wondering About the frame rates.

Can you change the harddrive, or gpu in this laptop? Can it support 16gb?

 

No you can't. Why would you? It's not a gaming laptop. If you want mega framerates for BF3 specifically you need a desktop.

 

No biggy, i was trying to see if it can runnbf3 as a plus but its mainly a work school/computer.
The harddrive and ram can be changed. I read it. The gpu no but thats not a bo deal.

 

Well in single player it runs just fine on 1920x1080 medium and 1600x900 high. Don't know about multiplayer though.

 

Good enough fore me, thank you for your time.

 

Y580 can run BF3 at all Ultra setting with 30-50 fps.

 

It is a gaming laptop; it's just not the most powerful one.

 

Online?
If so, that's better then i expected.

 

Yes on 16gb.

GPU is okay. There aren't any official drivers from nVidia out yet, and you cannot overclock on the Y580 yet. The ASUS guys have been overclocking the 660m and getting at or over 3000 on 3dMark 11, which for a laptop in the Y580's price range is actually pretty damn good.

Hard drive is a super-easy change as is putting a HDD/SSD in ODD bay.

 

Hey thanks allot! Mine is the model 20994CU and it comes the 17th. It's only got 6GB but I dont care and the HD is 5400rpm but I can change that out. Can't wait to get it.

Any tips on how to keep it reliable?

 

Not in multiplayer.

The 680m/7970m gets around 45 ultra @ 1080. No way the 660m is going to do that.

This isn't alot of 660m @ 1080 bf3 reviews unfortunately. A couple but not many. There is a few asus reviews and a couple alienware w/660m.

I just ordered a GE60 w/660M and plan to do a good bf3 review once it comes in.

 

I noticed that too. Mine comes on Tuesday, I hope it runs BF3 ok if not I got for other reasons.
Some people talk about overclocking the 660m. I've never done that before. It does sound like a + though.

 

No worries you will be able to run it without issue, just not ultra unless you can deal with fps in the teens.

I have a 5870m ( 660 is about 30% faster stock ) and can run combo med/high 30 fps @ 900p and 40+ fps medium. So we should be able to get 35 high @ 1080 without too much trouble. With a little OC maybe 40?

Looks like you will get yours before me so help a brother out and post the first decent 660m/1080p multiplayer video, with fps, and let us know what it can do.

 

Forget about 1080p all High. There are very frequent drops below 30fps. BF3 is a very demanding game after all and this is a multimedia laptop.

 

What about running it on low? I currently run it on low with my GTX 285 so I think it would still run better on the laptop.
I got it for school/day stuff but I am wondering if it should be kept stationary and I should get a U310 (U-Boat?) for school.

I figure a might lenovo U-310 base model is as strong as my computer now from 2009 core 2 quad q6600 gtx 285 desktop.

 

I will test this on B3, if you want it so badly. But I don't think I'll have time today and even if then it would me in the evening (afternoon in US).

 

I've told you already, it works just fine on all medium 1080p. I haven't checked fps because fraps isn't all that accurate but it is definitely above 30 at all times. You might try some mix between medium/high to find what suits you best. Read around on the internet for the best tweaks.

 

I played about half an hour on B3 but only in single. My bigger surprise was... ultra was more than playable! I felt that it wasn't completely fluent when there was some action but nevertheless I was playing Battlefield 3 on ultra on notebook in FullHD!
I'm sure of two things:
1. If I would turn off AA then FPS would be better.
2. I'm pretty sure in multi I'd have to tune it down to medium to get much more fps.

There was a little downside though - temperatures was quite high. But there was no throttling: CPU was on 2.3GHz and GPU was on 835MHz.

Oh and BTW - game looks amazing in FHD on ultra.
Next test - Skyrim. :>

 

GPU is supposed to be 950, not 835.

Also, there is no real reason to run at 1920x1080 on a 15 inch screen. If you want to run it at ultra settings, just drop the resolution down to 1600x900 and make sure AA is turned off. You will get a much more stable and enjoyable framerate.

 

Oh? I red something else. But there was one time when I could swear I saw 950. But latter on I didn't even once so I assumed I was wrong...

Of course there is. Native resolution. If you change it you won't get crisp picture! I really can't understand why people do this...Like playing console on FHD TV...this looks awful to me.
And I know how much impact on performance AA has. I even wrote about it in my post...

 

Yes, running at native resolution is nice, but scaling is good enough that you really aren't missing much.

For example, I'm not even playing on my 580 screen, mine has been hooked up to a 54 inch plasma since the day I got it. I don't run any games at 1080, and even though it's much more easy to tell on a big screen, the scaling is more than good enough.

It's also the reason why it's so hard to tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on screen less than 32 inches. You are sitting very close to the laptop screen, but at 15 inches, it's almost pointless.

When I bump it up to 1080, yes everything looks a bit crisper, but it's better to play at a slightly lower resolution with the other setting maxed out as much as possible. Effects should always take take importance over small increases in resolution.

As far as console games go, I'm assuming you have seen games like uncharted or pretty much any console game with amazing graphics. None of those games run at 1080. They are all scaled and they still look amazing.

 

I don't want argue here too much because it's just matter of taste.
I saw many console games on big screen and I know that there are only few with 1080p. There were games that looked amazing for console games. But I can see scaling and I don't like it. Especially 720p game on 1080p screen.

 

I see. You're one of those.

 

Yap. I'm one of those who like crystal clear and crisp picture, bright and vivid colors, grey instead of blue etc. And I know that I'm in minority.

 

Yes, because clearly scaling completely changes all those things.

I always love it when people claim that there is a huge difference between such close resolutions on such a small screen. Yes, it's noticeable, but barely and it's not worth the performance sacrifice.

The YouTube video of battlefield 3 running on the 580 at 1080p ultra settings clearly shows that the framerate is suffering.

Unless you have eyes eyes unlike any other human being on the planet, it's in your head

 

Hey, don't be rude here. I didn't wrote that scaling have impact on all of things I wrote. I'm not stupid. I only stated that I like everything to be as perfect as possible because I can see the difference. But to be fair here - when I talk about differences I mostly talk about big screen such as 46" TV or at least 22" LCD. I've seen 720p games on 1080p screens and there were noticeable lack of crispness although it was 24" from what I remember...

I've also wrote that fps in B3 wasn't fluent...

And remember one thing that many people forgot too often - only because you see something that someone else not doesn't mean you're right and that person is wrong. Sometimes you're just both right (or both wrong ).

 

I also hate scaling to full screen, on laptop, desktop or whatever. I would rather play the game in a smaller window than scale to full screen. It makes the image blurry as hell and it is a complete turn down.

 

I can easily tell the difference when I'm gaming at non-native resolution.

Many people can so it's not really that unique or unusual.

If you prefer slightly blurry picture with faster fps great for you. Of course the fps will be lower with 660 @ 1080. That's not really a surprise to anyone.

 

It's not a question of being able to tell. Yes, of course you can and in a ideal situation, the hardware would allow games to run smoothly at native resolution.

The point is that on a 15 inch screen, whatever perceived visual difference your getting is not worth it compared to the real world difference you get in performance.

It's better to run games at a slightly lower resolution with as many effects on as possible compared to keeping the resolution and dropping the effects.

Yes, 1920x1080 is slightly shaper and better than 1600x900. Is it some night and day difference like some of you are making it out to be? Not at all.

 

You know...that is not true. You can't make such a general statements because that's depends entirely on games itself. Some games like B3, where there are many small details available with higher settings, could have overall better perception with ultra and lower resolution. But most games doesn't have those details and blurring makes them awful.

And no one is trying to convince you that changing from FHD to something not native will make game look not playable - that really matter of taste. I can see the difference and I don't like blurred picture. And that's it. If you can play like that, then it's good for you. But stop creating world when your opinion is the only one that is right.

-------

I tested Skyrim yesterday. FHD with ultra settings and FXAA enabled and HD texture pack installed. Worked surprisingly good. There were drops when there was action on the screen but it was still playable. I think that disabling AA and maybe something else would make it completely fluent.

 

Winning the game is better than all the visual effects and clarity you can see on the screen.=D

 

Of course you're right - good point. That's why I play on medium in B3 multi on my desktop. Still I would rather choose less particles or lower shadows then blurred picture - but that's me.

 

Very true.

Here is one exception though. BF3 is my main game ( why I am commenting in the first place ) and I like to play recon.

Clarity is much more important than higher fps ( assuming of course your fps is in the playable range to begin with ). If you cant make things out clearly at distance then your at a disadvantage. Actually this applies to any class using greater than 4x scope imo.

 

We have very different definitions of what playable means. Frame rates dropping below 20 every time there is significant action on screen is terrible. That's not playable to me.

Sounds more like the 1080 screen was not a practical purchase when it comes to gaming since this hardware can't run most games without dropping detail settings. 1080p is not what makes a game look the way it does. Texture settings, lighting, shadows, those things matter. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Battlefield 3 running at 1600x900 with ultra settings looks much better than it running at 1080 with medium settings.

You guys are making it seen like I'm advising running games at 640x480 and telling people it makes no difference.

For reference, my plasma obviously scales better than these average LCDs. It's 54 inches and I sit about 5 feet away when I'm gaming. Since this hardware can't handle 1080p gaming (without quality comprises), I've done lots of tests to see what works and what doesn't.

If anything, I should be the one complaining about seeing the difference when scaling and the difference between 1080p and 900p. Not the guys trying to see it on 15 inch screens.

I also don't understand the other guy who is playing battlefield 3 on a 15 inch screen and talking about clarity. At least upgrade to an external monitor if you're serious about gaming. Especially for shooters.

 

@syed

Here is the issue the op is looking for feedback on bf3 fps. I would assume they would like feedback from as many people on as many different configurations as possible. Then the OP will make a decision.

You stated your opinion that YOU cant play ultra @ 1080 due to low fps and it is better to play at reduced resolution for higher fps. Reducing resolution for higher fps is obvious for anyone reading this forum. So really not necessary to keep stating it over and over.

Others have different opinions on what is acceptable fps at what res and what level of detail/configuration. Not to mention what bf3 game type ( multi or single - makes a pretty significant diff ) they will play.

Telling people your right because you only game on 54 plasma and you cant tell the difference from 5ft away, who cares? I NEVER intend to game on anything other than the screen and I am 10 inches away. So resolution and CLARITY ( read non-blurry ) DOES matter to ME and I can TELL the difference.

So different strokes for different folks.

The great thing about bf3 is you have the ability to customize the game graphics to your liking. The 660M cant do everything so people will need to choose what works for them.

What may be more helpful is why don't you post some fps stats or videos to help people understand the reasoning behind your preference.

 

Funny things is that I didn't have drops like that. When I stated about feeling that fps is not completely fluent, I only meant that it's not above 30fps. From what I remember there was no single drop when you clearly can see and feel low fps.

I won't comment other part of your post because I AlwaysSearching wrote almost exactly what I would.

 

I agree with you completely. I will be on my laptop and I will almost ALWAYS be playing online. I rarely play campaign and the closest to campaign I play is CO-OP which is still online. So the frame rate on online is the most important. My Y580 only has 6GB of ram instead of 8GB. Not sure if I'll need 8GB but I plan on getting to 8GB sticks later.

I have a very keen sense on how games will play but I always want second opinions. I bought this computer to replacement my desktop which has a GTX 285 and Intel Core Q6600 with 4GB DDR2 Ram. I play BF3 on low settings but it automatically selects medium settings. It's very playable.

The Point of my OP(at the time I was very vague about it) was to use BF3 as a judging point to see how much better the Y580 is to my current desktop with the specs: GTX 285 and Intel Core Q6600 with 4GB DDR2 Ram. I should have been clearer on that. That way I know I got truly updated laptop for a good price.

I just hope it lasts 3+ years with no problems. I will take care of it, keep dust away, keep water away, and try to keep it well ventilated while keeping the area clear of dust.

 

pop quiz time

Same settings, Everything high except shadows. No AA. The only difference is that one is in glorious 1080p, while the other is absolutely horrible scaled 900p. It's burning my eyes.

Average framerate for a 3 minute run of the same section recorded by fraps was 59 for 1080p and 75 for 900p. 295.93 drivers.

Will do some more tests later. How about the rest of you post some screens of the same thing in different games? Full size original captures of both 1080 and 900. Same settings, just different resolutions.





This way people can see the difference between scaled 900p and native 1080p for themselves. MASSIVE insane difference right? You're right, it's so bad I can't even look at it

Edit : I zoomed in as close as possible to show detail better.

 

Of course you do realize that you choose game that is blurred from the start? Low res textures and low poly models...great example.

But I will try that trick with B3. But not now. Maybe in the morining - we'll see if I have enough time for such a fun...

 

Finally. I waiting for a statement like that. Thank you. You need to think about what you just wrote in terms of game assets and what happens to overall image quality as resolution increases.

Why do you think I chose Diablo 3 to start with?

Oh don't worry. I'll have screens from Just Cause 2, Civ 5 and Arkham City in a bit. Hopefully those will be sufficient for you

 

See although still sarcastic you are able to post something that may be actually beneficial to someone trying to decide on running 660/1080.

It is still pretty easy for me to see that the top is 1080. I see two embedded images and one looks a little hazy ( blurry actually - I'll get to that ).

So really there lies the choice someone must make. Greater graphics quality or greater fps.

In this case it would be much better to use bf3 examples as graphically the engine is far superior but the d3 works.

So can we agree one looks better than the other and that one is the default resolution? Click on the images and view them them closer to fullscreen and you can see why one looks hazy. Look at the curved sword, the detail in the fog or whatever that is on the floor, the detail in the non-ninja looking guy's armor, no depth to the cracks in the floor, shadows are more defined, the crystal balls on the action bar .... Everything looks ok just a little smudged-like at 900.

Additionally you mention 1080 gets 59 fps and the 900 gets 75 fps. In my mind this is a poor argument anyway as why would you accept poorer quality graphics when fps is not even at a performance level to be detrimental to gameplay?

Something else to consider and I mean this in no disrespect in the slightest. How is your vision? I ask because I wear glasses sometimes and without them I can still play games fine but have a hard time making out greater details in general.

 

lol. I know exactly what I wrote. I didn't tell that there's no difference. Only that you've choose game where difference won't be as big as with game like B3 only to force you point. And for this test to be accurate you should provide uncompressed (not jpg) images from both resolutions and do scaling without any complex algorithm but only with one that is used on LCD.

But this conversation is really starting to getting boring. You have your point of view - that's ok. I have mine. You don't see any difference or it doesn't bothers you? That's great. But stop forcing your 'the only truth that can be'.

 

All shots taken with setting as high as they could go. No AA. 1080p and 900p resolutions.










Just Cause 2 Demo Benchmark Results

Obviously the 660m is producing these results. The game is just identifying the intel card incorrectly.




There you go people. Like I said before, you can tell the difference between 900p and 1080p, but barely and only if you're really looking for it. Those screenshots do more than anything these guys or I can say. View them in full screen and see how little of a difference there really is.

With this hardware, it is simply not worth it. The just cause 2 benchmark shows that as well. 17 frames on average is substantial. Especially after comparing those two screenshots.

It's one thing to prefer playing native 1080p because you like it or because it makes you feel better about yourself and your experience. It's another to tell people that there is some kind of substantial difference in quality when there simply isn't. The screenshots are more than enough to prove that and if you try the same thing with any other game, you will find the same results.

Would I like to play in 1080p with this laptop? Sure, but it can't. Am I willing to sacrifice significant performance just so that I can say I'm playing in 1080 or even just native resolution? No.

One last thing, Arkham City with settings maxed even at 900p is unplayable. Looks great, but you would have to decrease just about everything to make that game run smoothly.

 

You know I have been contributing to this thread and don't think anyone has made any comments to suggest there is "MASSIVE insane" differences, or even those that "Unless you have eyes eyes unlike any other human being on the planet, it's in your head", didn't read anything that said "It's another to tell people that there is some kind of substantial difference in quality when there simply isn't". No I am pretty sure all that has been mentioned on my end is a difference in non-native resolution that I can tell.

Was it me that said "I also don't understand the other guy who is playing battlefield 3 on a 15 inch screen and talking about clarity"? Followed by "Like I said before, you can tell the difference between 900p and 1080p". Seems you agree there is a clarity difference now, no? Or are we now disagreeing over semantics?

I could be wrong on all of this though as I can hardly be considered a serious gamer at least by the definition "At least upgrade to an external monitor if you're serious about gaming"

 

I've made few test this morning (B3, GW1, Trine and Dear Esther) with fraps enabled to make screenshots. I just wanted to check if I'm wrong here and maybe there is no significant difference. I won't post results because I don't have time right now and not sure how to show them (how to scale lower res to FHD like display is doing it) but I observed two funny things:
1. There's a obvious difference between resolutions, especially in B3 and Dear Esther.
2. I didn't play too long in B3 but average FPS was 27-35fps on ultra without AA. Lowering something else like shadows or some particles would make this game playable in all scenarios.

 

Wait, he's the one repeating himself?

Well, he did as you asked. I'm sorry to say that I don't have the x-ray vision that you guys claim to have, as the pictures look the same to me. Certainly not anything I'm going to notice while a game is in motion. As he said, he even zoomed in on the characters to give you something to compare, and, under the microscope, you managed to find some serious blurring issues that I'll be damned if I can see.

Specifically, when I looked at the pics, I did not see: blurry as hell picture, one that was not a crystal clear and crisp picture, one that did not have bright and vivid colors, one where it was grey instead of blue, or blurring that made one awful.

Those are your guy's words above, so rather than using the cop out, why not post pics detailing the massive drop in quality. I would appreciate that, so that he and others such as myself could better educate ourselves about the serious image quality we are so clearly missing out on.

Thanks in advance,

...Dono

 

No, he just force his opinion saying that others are wrong just because he says so. What I repeat each time is that I can see difference and it does matter to me.
BTW Test methodology is wrong. I said this in some previous post. Screens needs to be in non-compressed format. Lower res should scale up with algorithm used by display (nearest-neighbor I think or whatever it is called in English). Only then those screens could be compared.
And no one said anything about HUGE difference!
It still matter of your own personal taste what will you choose - blurred vision but with more detail or clear vision but with less detail.

And again - only because you don't see anything doesn't mean someone else won't see it too. You should realize that everyone has different sight, ear...each sense...

I've made some quick comparison (don't have time for more). Scaling was made in Photoshop with different algorithms. You should watch this on display with native 1080p:
Dear Esther - uncompressed 1080p
Dear Esther - nearest-neighbor
Dear Esther - bilinear
Dear Esther - best what PS could offer
And believe me - it looks worse when camera is moving because blurred edges are more visible not to mention hud, especially when there are lots of text.

 

I agree with you completely. I will be on my laptop and I will almost ALWAYS be playing online. I rarely play campaign and the closest to campaign I play is CO-OP which is still online. So the frame rate on online is the most important. My Y580 only has 6GB of ram instead of 8GB. Not sure if I'll need 8GB but I plan on getting to 8GB sticks later.

I have a very keen sense on how games will play but I always want second opinions. I bought this computer to replacement my desktop which has a GTX 285 and Intel Core Q6600 with 4GB DDR2 Ram. I play BF3 on low settings but it automatically selects medium settings. It's very playable.

The Point of my OP(at the time I was very vague about it) was to use BF3 as a judging point to see how much better the Y580 is to my current desktop with the specs: GTX 285 and Intel Core Q6600 with 4GB DDR2 Ram. I should have been clearer on that. That way I know I got truly updated laptop for a good price.

I just hope it lasts 3+ years with no problems. I will take care of it, keep dust away, keep water away, and try to keep it well ventilated while keeping the area clear of dust.