Battlefield 3 recommended GPU specs out

[The Boston Dangler]

5 different chips and 3 motherboards? yeah, that's pretty useless

that's a hell of a lot better than what my gtx 275 got

 

[maybeshewill]

You have a GTX 480 Tri SLI setup and you were concerned about performance?

Man if you can't run this game on all high settings with that kind of setup then that would be really really sad

Sorry no, I have similar ram, same CPU and similar mobo. I only have a 4890 graphics card ATM which I know won't do the job, so I'm currently tossing up between buying a 2bg 6950 or waiting for the new 7 series..

 

[toyota]

I do not understand why people think this game looks great. I was watching this new video and the graphics look anywhere from okay to garbage to me. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/rush-mode-battlefield-3/721493

just look at how low res most of the objects are and the sandbags at around 2:15 mark look like something from 2003. even if the game was on low, some of it looks hideous for a game that is supposed to push graphics.

 

[NTAC]

I do not understand why people think this game looks great. I was watching this new video and the graphics look anywhere from okay to garbage to me. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/rush-mode-battlefield-3/721493

just look at how low res most of the objects are and the sandbags at around 2:15 mark look like something from 2003. even if the game was on low, some of it looks hideous for a game that is supposed to push graphics.

Most of the videos I've seen look fantastic, but they're just videos. You don't know how the game is going to look until you fire it up at home on a system that can do it justice.

I wouldn't expect any game to look good on "LOW" settings.

And when a game is supposed to push graphics, I think it's a pretty safe bet that they're talking about HIGH to ULTRA HIGH settings, I mean that is where the groundbreaking graphics would be visible.

You can't play a game on LOW or Medium and say, whoa?! Where are my groundbreaking graphics!? Well, get a better video card and you might see them.

 

[yours truly]

That's going to fun, team mates deliberating shining their flashlights in your face.

I was watching my friend play the beta on xbox and it looked pretty bad. That in my book is low settings. It was like 640x480.

 

[RussianSensation]

I do not understand why people think this game looks great. I was watching this new video and the graphics look anywhere from okay to garbage to me. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/rush-mode-battlefield-3/721493

just look at how low res most of the objects are and the sandbags at around 2:15 mark look like something from 2003. even if the game was on low, some of it looks hideous for a game that is supposed to push graphics.

I've said this for a while now too. I've probably seen 10-15 videos. The foliage looks 2-dimensional, the textures are sub-par, the # of polygons on objects is average at best (you can see the joints of character models moving), the buildings, barriers, bridges, water, sandbags look like a console game graphics. I am not seeing this detail that's suppose to wow. My guess is either the videos are showing the lowest possible graphical settings, or there is a lot of hype. For a game that's supposed to have the best graphics on the PC/revolutionize PC gaming graphics, this isn't even close!! I am hoping the final version looks way better and those videos are not representative of the final game. I am pretty sure those videos aren't using Ultra settings/or the game's graphics are toned down in multiplayer vs. single-player.

 

[zerocool84]

It runs great with the rig in my sig @ 1080 Ultra settings 2xAA. Haven't noticed any slowdowns at all.

 

[dualsmp]

Here's a good 1080p video that compares image quality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Agej_m5xw

 

[RussianSensation]

This game is obscenely hungry for VRAM. I show about 1400-1450MB usage. I had to reduce AA to 2x samples because I started to get hitching.

Users playing at 1080P are having the same problems with 1GB cards and needing to reduce settings to get the VRAM usage down.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/battlef...reenshots-and-hd-video-walkthrough/13625.html

Tested at these in-game settings:

1. Quad-core CPU of any brand >= 3.2ghz is sufficient.
2. GTX580/HD6970 ~ 50 fps avg.
3. HD6990 ~ 80 fps, HD6990 CF ~ 140 fps
4. 1.3GB of GPU framebuffer for the Ultra preset textures
5. A side-by-side monitor test showed indistinguishable image quality from both AMD and Nvidia solutions
6. Expect Nvidia and AMD to come out with more optimized drivers for BF3, especially when the final retail game is out a month from now on 28th October.

 

[toyota]

does it actually need 1.3GB of GPU framebuffer or is it using that much vram because it can? some games will simply take advantage of the extra vram if you have it but will not stutter unless that much is actually required.

 

[Stuka87]

does it actually need 1.3GB of GPU framebuffer or is it using that much vram because it can? some games will simply take advantage of the extra vram if you have it but will not stutter unless that much is actually required.

From what I have read, in order to run ultra settings at 1080P, it wants that much. Now obviously I have not tested it, but I have seen this written on several sites now. Although for all we know they may just be copying each other.

But you may be right, and the game may just use that much because it can. Kind of how Windows 7 like to gobble ram because nothing else is.

 

[RussianSensation]

Screenshots - everything maxed out:

 

[RussianSensation]

Not sure I am ready to crown this the best looking game on the PC, not when there is Witcher 2.

 

[toyota]

not impressed at all for game that will kick my cards butt. tress look horrible and plenty of objects look very low res. and I still cant get over that sandbag setup that looks like one low res texture taken from Far Cry 1 or something.

 

[WMD]

I do not understand why people think this game looks great. I was watching this new video and the graphics look anywhere from okay to garbage to me. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/rush-mode-battlefield-3/721493

just look at how low res most of the objects are and the sandbags at around 2:15 mark look like something from 2003. even if the game was on low, some of it looks hideous for a game that is supposed to push graphics.

This is what I thought as well. It is nice to see someone calling it what it is with all the hype surrounding the title. You can count the polygons on some rocks and trees and looks like many leaves printed on one texture. Yes it does look like console graphics pimped up with special DX11 effects. Looks like it doesn't perform very well for the visuals as well. But I must admit one thing Dice did fantastically is marketing. They got everyone convinced this will be a pc focused game with its dx11 and no xp support.

 

[Stuka87]

I think the main thing that kicks the GPU's butt is the fact that the environments are HUGE. Sure there are other games (Like Witcher 2) that look better, but they don't have maps that are anywhere close to as big as the ones BF3 has. So to me, considering how big the environments are, it looks awesome. But if you pick and choose, yes some things have lower poly counts.

 

[Silverforce11]

You guys don't seriously think that a 2-3GB beta is really ULTRA quality..

Was the same with the BC2 beta, one map, rush, medium textures for ULTRA settings.

 

[toyota]

You guys don't seriously think that a 2-3GB beta is really ULTRA quality..

Was the same with the BC2 beta, one map, rush, medium textures for ULTRA settings.

so are you saying the menu is a lie? there are options there and you can see comparisons of the settings cant you? do you really think they are going to slip in the real settings later?

 

[crisium]

Yeah, that's the nature of large, open games. Battlefield 2 came out in 2005 and while it looked great for the time, HL2 and FEAR beat it in up close visuals.

 

[WMD]

I think the main thing that kicks the GPU's butt is the fact that the environments are HUGE. Sure there are other games (Like Witcher 2) that look better, but they don't have maps that are anywhere close to as big as the ones BF3 has. So to me, considering how big the environments are, it looks awesome. But if you pick and choose, yes some things have lower poly counts.

Witcher 2 levels are not small either. Have you played chapter 2? Its easily bigger than BF3 metro map. The foliage looks better and environments are higher polygons as well.

 

[Grooveriding]

You guys really need to take the game for a spin on its highest settings. The underground subway station has incredible lighting and smoke effects. If you look at some of Russian's screenshots, the area you see where you are in the city outdoors is truly spectacular.

I understand this can be subjective, but I love IQ and measuring up games against one another. As a whole this game looks better than anything else I've played, short of some outdoor areas in Crysis 1 & Warhead. But as an enitre package this game is better imo, and Crysis 2 has nothing on it.

I'm actualy thinking performance is going to sink on the big outdoor maps. Once we get into Caspian Border with large open areas and big view distances, it's going to put more of a hit on our setups.

 

[houe]

Don't know too much about this but ran across this chart...

 

[Capt Caveman]

Those numbers match pretty close to what I was getting with my GTX 580 on Ultra Settings. When I flipped it to Auto then disabled HBAO, I was getting fps in the 60s.

 

[Capt Caveman]

so are you saying the menu is a lie? there are options there and you can see comparisons of the settings cant you? do you really think they are going to slip in the real settings later?

More like the beta that we have access to is a few builds behind the current one which is being played on the Caspian Border beta servers.

Funny how you aren't playing the beta and hate it already.

 

[toyota]

More like the beta that we have access to is a few builds behind the current one which is being played on the Caspian Border beta servers.

Funny how you aren't playing the beta and hate it already.

I am just looking at the graphics that's all. I have zero interest in multi player games but will probably pick it for the single player when gets cheap just like I did with BC 2.