http://www.overclock.net/...d-for-non-600-cards/90
 
Here. Maybe you can help some input about the v-sync thing. There is even instructions how to install the modified files of gtx 680 drivers for non 600 users. I heard they work great for BF3. I haven't tested them myself.

I noticed in the Nvidia CP you say it should be set to 2. Do you know what the game defaults to? 2?
 
RenderDevice.ForceRenderAheadLimit 0 - This setting controls the number of frames prepared by the CPU before being processed by the GPU. You can try values of 0, 1, 2 or 3 - higher values may improve FPS but can decrease responsiveness, while lower values do the reverse. In experimenting with this on my system using the performance overlay (see above), I found that as the value increased to 3, CPU spikes became more frequent. Smoothest performance was at 0 or 1, but this can vary from system to system.

gamernut78


You know there are modified ini files for gtx 680 but you can use them on the regular cards we have. I would love a review on them if you can possible?

There is nothing in the 680 driver, that will not be released soon for lower cards....
And certainly nothing worth modding the driver for (the FXAA has been a hidden setting in older drivers for months and Adaptive Vsync is for a sub-class of users not the mainstream), just wait for a official Nvidia release.

FattysGoneWild


I noticed in the Nvidia CP you say it should be set to 2. Do you know what the game defaults to? 2?

RenderDevice.ForceRenderAheadLimit 0 - This setting controls the number of frames prepared by the CPU before being processed by the GPU. You can try values of 0, 1, 2 or 3 - higher values may improve FPS but can decrease responsiveness, while lower values do the reverse. In experimenting with this on my system using the performance overlay (see above), I found that as the value increased to 3, CPU spikes became more frequent. Smoothest performance was at 0 or 1, but this can vary from system to system.

Unlike BFBC2 where a mis-match between the NVCP RAL setting and the game caused perfromance issues...
BF3 allows the NVCP setting to override the config file value, and does not cause any issues.
 
As stated in my Guide, this value can be adjusted for what a user feels work best on their config.
I suggest the value of 2, as this value seems to work best for the majority of users. As I noted, this setting can be adjusted to whatever a user feels works best on his config....
*I do not suggest using the value of zero (0) or values above 4-5 due to the gameplay effects when using such settings. 

Maniac, would you mind to help me out with another game?
Can I send you a private message?
 

joaodj7


Maniac, would you mind to help me out with another game?
Can I send you a private message?

I am always available by PM

Maniac, are you still going to update the original posts for tweaks and whatnot?

DuaneMizell


Maniac, are you still going to update the original posts for tweaks and whatnot?

The entire post will be revised and edited
This will occur as soon as possible after the upcoming patch.
 
*It will contain the "extra's" your looking for

maniacvvv

joaodj7


Maniac, would you mind to help me out with another game?
Can I send you a private message?

I am always available by PM

PM sent

Hey Maniac, what do you recommend for "network smoothing factor" ?

Dang sweet! 

saer.


Hey Maniac, what do you recommend for "network smoothing factor" ?

Thats a good question
 
For playing online multiplayer (given the highly variable pings and framerates of all the players in large servers) I suggest leaving it at default max value for best gameplay.
*Users with very high performance rigs (high framerates) playing on low ping servers, will see very little if any benefit.
 
Adjusting this value "down" can be very helpful to mid and lowend rigs (framerates of below 50) who ping servers decently... as timing delays will be reduced. Of course you will also be at a disadvantage against low ping/high Fps players.
 
I suggest users test this setting on their "favorite" server, and see if it works for them or not.
*it should also be noted that turning the setting down (in most cases) will result in higher "Suppression" effects since the last patch. 
 
I personally leave it at default max values for normal play...
Except when in the full company of equals to my hardware and pings (which is very rarely), lest I have to suffer from the skipping, lagging and flat out visual disgrace of people who disrespect the server by playing totally underpowered or connecting from the other side of the planet....
Turning the setting down, will quickly show you such players.. and ruin your gameplay enjoyment. 

Thanks once again for the great info, Maniac! 
 
I had noticed that when I tried to dial it down that it made animations very choppy, especially when knifing someone, it just became a slideshow.
 
Can't wait to see whats in store for the rest of your guide 

Trying to play Battlefield 3 in surround using 2x 480's in SLI.
I am only lucky with lowest settings, if I go even little bit higher than low, my PC shuts down within 30 seconds or less. 
It seems like GPUs get overheated, because when it comes back to desktop temps are through the roof.
Hope that somebody has a solution. I am considering getting them both replaced with one 590 or 680. I am not sure thou if this will fix my problem. Since I started playing in surround I don't see a reason to play on single screen anymore, but also I don't like to see low graphics with use of GPUs that literally spawned a riot in my wallet.  Does anyone have some input on it, any luck playing surround with ultra settings? What is your config.
Thanks.

If you want to play latest games on highest graphical settings on 3 monitores you should prepare your wallet and get 3x GTX680's. 
 

Really?, Man I was sure I don't have to go that high.
Will one 590 or 680 improve over two 480's then?

GTX590 would probably be the same or worse, a GTX680 would be a bit better due to more vram, but you'd probably still have to play on Low settings to get decent frame rate. 

sebozz


Really?, Man I was sure I don't have to go that high.
Will one 590 or 680 improve over two 480's then?

For Surround, I highly suggest 3gig Vram cards or better...
 
Do NOT buy a 590 as it only has 1.5gigs of Vram and is completely unsuited to Surround.
It may say it has 3gigs, but thats only 1.5 per GPU... dont do it.
 
While the 680 is a good performer, its 2gig Vram is a -big- drawback
 
I would suggest dual 580's (3gig Vram versions) -or- waiting for the 4gig Vram 680's if you are running Surround
 
* I personaly am waiting for the GK110 coming around Sept... twice the performance of the 680's, double the shader count and likely to have both 4gig and 6gig versions perfectly suited for FPS Surround gaming
 

Ok looks like I need to upgrade.
I got two 480 for sale... Anyone???

maniacvvv

sebozz


Really?, Man I was sure I don't have to go that high.
Will one 590 or 680 improve over two 480's then?

For Surround, I highly suggest 3gig Vram cards or better...

Do NOT buy a 590 as it only has 1.5gigs of Vram and is completely unsuited to Surround.
It may say it has 3gigs, but thats only 1.5 per GPU... dont do it.

While the 680 is a good performer, its 2gig Vram is a -big- drawback

I would suggest dual 580's (3gig Vram versions) -or- waiting for the 4gig Vram 680's if you are running Surround

* I personaly am waiting for the GK110 coming around Sept... twice the performance of the 680's, double the shader count and likely to have both 4gig and 6gig versions perfectly suited for FPS Surround gaming

 
A single GK110 card will never beat a pair of GTX680's even in our best wet dreams. 
 
Also, don't hope for it to come on September, I doubt it comes any time before November.
 
Rumors say it will most likely be about ~25% more than a GTX680, just like a GTX560Ti from a GTX580. 
 
Either ways 2GB is indeed not enough to max games at 3 monitores, I play at 2560x1440 though so that is more than enough. 

kcuestag

maniacvvv

sebozz


Really?, Man I was sure I don't have to go that high.
Will one 590 or 680 improve over two 480's then?

For Surround, I highly suggest 3gig Vram cards or better...

Do NOT buy a 590 as it only has 1.5gigs of Vram and is completely unsuited to Surround.
It may say it has 3gigs, but thats only 1.5 per GPU... dont do it.

While the 680 is a good performer, its 2gig Vram is a -big- drawback

I would suggest dual 580's (3gig Vram versions) -or- waiting for the 4gig Vram 680's if you are running Surround

* I personaly am waiting for the GK110 coming around Sept... twice the performance of the 680's, double the shader count and likely to have both 4gig and 6gig versions perfectly suited for FPS Surround gaming

A single GK110 card will never beat a pair of GTX680's even in our best wet dreams. 

Also, don't hope for it to come on September, I doubt it comes any time before November.

Rumors say it will most likely be about ~25% more than a GTX680, just like a GTX560Ti from a GTX580. 

Either ways 2GB is indeed not enough to max games at 3 monitores, I play at 2560x1440 though so that is more than enough. 

"A single GK110 card will never beat a pair of GTX680's even in our best wet dreams. "
 
You need to keep up on the correct information bro...
2000+ shaders, 1400-1500 core and 4gigs+  will make a 680 look like what it "was"...  a 660 
 
Side by side with a 680 SLI setup, a GK110 SLI will outperform it by over 200%

maniacvvv

kcuestag

maniacvvv

sebozz


Really?, Man I was sure I don't have to go that high.
Will one 590 or 680 improve over two 480's then?

For Surround, I highly suggest 3gig Vram cards or better...

Do NOT buy a 590 as it only has 1.5gigs of Vram and is completely unsuited to Surround.
It may say it has 3gigs, but thats only 1.5 per GPU... dont do it.

While the 680 is a good performer, its 2gig Vram is a -big- drawback

I would suggest dual 580's (3gig Vram versions) -or- waiting for the 4gig Vram 680's if you are running Surround

* I personaly am waiting for the GK110 coming around Sept... twice the performance of the 680's, double the shader count and likely to have both 4gig and 6gig versions perfectly suited for FPS Surround gaming

A single GK110 card will never beat a pair of GTX680's even in our best wet dreams. 

Also, don't hope for it to come on September, I doubt it comes any time before November.

Rumors say it will most likely be about ~25% more than a GTX680, just like a GTX560Ti from a GTX580. 

Either ways 2GB is indeed not enough to max games at 3 monitores, I play at 2560x1440 though so that is more than enough. 

"A single GK110 card will never beat a pair of GTX680's even in our best wet dreams. "

You need to keep up on the correct information bro...
2000+ shaders, 1400-1500 core and 4gigs+  will make a 680 look like what it "was"...  a 660 

Side by side with a 680 SLI setup, a GK110 SLI will outperform it by over 200%

I'm willing to bet my whole computer that will not happen. 
 
Although I wish it did, because I'm also going for GK-110. 

Well I do whatever needs to be done, another fear I got now is that two cards will not be enough? and if that is true, it looks like I will need to change my MOBO as well as it can only handle two cards.
Any input on that guys???
 

I would not buy 2x 3GB GTX580 cards right now, way too expensive for what they offer.
 
My opinion is keep playing on Low settings until either EVGA releases their 4GB versions of GTX680, or until GK110 is out. 
 
I would not pay full price of older generation cards right now.

We will find out.
I will be going 4gig 680 SLI with a stepup to gk110 SLI
 
Nvidia is timing the release so that only purchasers (possibly as far as in late August) will be able to "step up" (intentionally, early buyers wont get that chance) thats why I am waiting....
The Nvidia release will firm up as soon as the AMD 8000 is properly tested and the results are known 
 
The cards will not be a problem, but I am looking to selling a kidney for the 3 monitors I am wanting
 

sebozz


Well I do whatever needs to be done, another fear I got now is that two cards will not be enough? and if that is true, it looks like I will need to change my MOBO as well as it can only handle two cards.
Any input on that guys???

You need to post your complete current system specs and perferred monitor res...
 
Given whats in your sig, buying new cards might not be what you want to do... a full system upgrade (new CPU/MB/RAM/CASE) might be a better idea, and then get videocards later.
 

YEP... looks like I will have to bear low settings for few more months... I definitely want that GK 110.
Do you think two of them will put me close to ultra settings?

P55FTW i7875K 8GB RAM 3x27" LED SAMSUNG

sebozz


YEP... looks like I will have to bear low settings for few more months... I definitely want that GK 110.
Do you think two of them will put me close to ultra settings?

That depends on your raw CPU horsepower (threads and core speeds) and what screen res you plan on using.
 

I would love to go as hi as I can with resolutions, this is whole point, that If I am about to throw some pretty money, I will throw as much as it needed.(sorry but I don't remember what is the res I am running now, all I know is like quite a few steps down from highest)