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.

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. 

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

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

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

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. 

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.

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

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
 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.
 

P55FTW i7875K 8GB RAM 3x27" LED SAMSUNG

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)