• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Apparently BF3 is more dual core friendly

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
Was on a map of Atacama Desert a few nights ago and i ran across two guys who claimed have been testing the alpha.

One guy claimed its way more forgiving on dual cores then BC2 was.

Then i mentioned my video card that being a gtx 560 and he said it will most likely do medium when it used to do high in BC2.

Also at bare min a 9800gtx will be able to play this game.


So what do you guys think? I don't believe everything i read but since few of us have tested the alpha it might be true?

Whats everyones thought on these claims?
 
Hmm, wonder how well my Phenom II X3 + Radeon 4870 would do... I don't have high hopes and probably won't buy the game until it's cheaper, but who knows.
 
I got ~50 fps in alpha on low @ 1280x1024 with a Q6600 and GTX 260 core 216

low in bf3 is still pretty damn good looking though...
 
what resolution were you running BC2 at full on your non ti 560?

Currently 1600x1200 as my flatscreen 1920x1080 got damaged in a move.

But i had a gtx460 a while back that did 1920x1080 so this card can do that as well.

Might hook up my computer to either my 37 inch flatscreen or a new 22-23 led monitor not sure which.
 
Currently 1600x1200 as my flatscreen 1920x1080 got damaged in a move.

But i had a gtx460 a while back that did 1920x1080 so this card can do that as well.

Might hook up my computer to either my 37 inch flatscreen or a new 22-23 led monitor not sure which.

Ah nice, if your nonTi is only getting pushed down to medium at 1600 my Ti should be able to stay at high at 1600X1050, which is the best my monitor can do.
 
Dual-core friendly? Might as well say it "scales worse with 3+ cores".

Hope this is false.

I'm guessing maybe the performance hit wont be as bad as with BC2 but still benefits from a quad.

Unless frostbite 2.0 is just that more efficient on the processor and more demanding on graphics?
 
I was getting 30+fps in DX10 with a 9800gtx+ and a E8500@3.6ghz

Overall I that's great I think. Especially with how unoptimized DX10 can be.

Will be getting a new card soon though, for DX11.

And the game is still MONTHS aways. So a lot of optimizing will be coming.
 
Confirmed!

I called my grandma at the retirement home and asked her if she thought BF3 would be more dual core friendly than BC2 and she said: "yeah son".
 
Confirmed!

I called my grandma at the retirement home and asked her if she thought BF3 would be more dual core friendly than BC2 and she said: "yeah son".

Well that settles it.

Could you ask your grandma when diablo 3 will hit retail?
 
I'm betting those alpha testers used task manager to determine it was more dual core friendly, which is the wrong way to do it. Very few games are coded to make use of multiple cores, what people are seeing is windows doing preemptive scheduling and switching off to free cores, they are not a single program running multiple threads.

The best way to determine the processor usage is using set affinity with frame rate and game play measurements. So far I haven't found but maybe 2 games that are using multiple cores for the game itself.
 
Someone lied to the OP. It seems even 6 cores does better than 4.
2 cores suck.

img.php
 
Someone lied to the OP. It seems even 6 cores does better than 4.
2 cores suck.

img.php

Not everyone is able to run the BF3 alpha so unless a tester goes and tests out a dual core and certain cards and does a reliable report,its all speculation anyways.

But if i had a alpha code i would do plenty of tests on both a old e8200 and a 9800gtx and this 2500k and gtx 560 and make some reports.
 
Back
Top