Battlefield 3 recommended GPU specs out

[Madcatatlas]

I may be more of a gameplay guy, but im having a pretty good experiance at 1080p and everything at high or ultra (didnt notice big differences in framerates) with occlusion and msaa and stuff off

 

[RussianSensation]

I am not ready to pass that judgement yet:
"The beta won’t include all the graphics features which will make it in the final version."
http://bf3blog.com/2011/09/more-battlefield-3-beta-details/

:thumbsup: Looking forward to Ultra settings

 

[liddabit]

Wow, can we talk about the dumb ass sand bags some more... sand bags?! Who the hell has time to look at some sand bags when crap's blowing up all around you and you're running for your life.

The game is super fun, so if some sand bag doesn't look as good as some other game, well that in no way shape or form is going to deter me from getting it.

Game play #1
Graphics #2

That's the order of the day.

I'm pretty sure that if you get a rig that can run Ultra with the best possible settings you aren't going to have anything to complain about, visually speaking.

This made me laugh.. being the wife of a former SF Infantry soldier, I think I may have heard about sandbags more than anything.. except for boots

 

[CupCak3]

If it helps anyone, I have a 6959 2GB OCed to 860 MHZ core and 132 Mhz RAM clock. Running 1920x1200 fullscreen and all settings on high, I avg ~45 FPS. According to GPU-Z, 1400MB of GPU RAM is in use while in game. I'm not sure if the extra onboard RAM makes a difference, but I'm glad to see its being used.

 

[Madcatatlas]

ive goten several hard locks (game only, not windows), is it supposed to be this buggy?

 

[WMD]

Since PS3 run this game fine. I did a test to see if a gpu equivalent of a 8600GTS/ 7900GTX will run this game.

HD5850 underclock @ 170mhz 1024x768 all settings low 2x AF:

At this setting things are just playable @ avg 28fps. It seems the PC version of this game either isn't as well optimized as on consoles or low setttings are still higher than console settings. The consoles run at 1280x720.

 

[toyota]

the consoles probably run sub 720 plus they have none of the overhead that a pc has. one nice thing on consoles is that most games do not drop below 30 much at all. a steady 30fps can actually feel quite smooth as its the much more inconsistent framerates on pcs that make a 30fps average seem unplayable.


BTW I just checked vram usage and even at just 1280x960 I was hitting 1147 mb on max settings.

 

[WMD]

the consoles probably run sub 720 plus they have none of the overhead that a pc has. one nice thing on consoles is that most games do not drop below 30 much at all. a steady 30fps can actually feel quite smooth as its the much more inconsistent framerates on pcs that make a 30fps average seem unplayable.


BTW I just checked vram usage and even at just 1280x960 I was hitting 1147 mb on max settings.

4xMSAA is very memory hungry in defered render engines. Plus this game being AMD evloved is probably optimized to fully utilize 2GB in their 6900 series.

 

[toyota]

4xMSAA is very memory hungry in defered render engines. Plus this game being AMD evloved is probably optimized to fully utilize 2GB in their 6900 series.

yeah I just played the same part without any MSAA and never went over 960mb of vram. the game still dips from 80 down into the 50s at times though even when nothing seem to be happening. heck one time at was at around 100 fps turn around and wham I hit 55-60fps with no action or real change in scenery.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Since PS3 run this game fine. I did a test to see if a gpu equivalent of a 8600GTS/ 7900GTX will run this game.

HD5850 underclock @ 170mhz 1024x768 all settings low 2x AF:

At this setting things are just playable @ avg 28fps. It seems the PC version of this game either isn't as well optimized as on consoles or low setttings are still higher than console settings. The consoles run at 1280x720.

Not quite true.

They UPSCALE to 720p...BIG difference.

Add to that that ansiotropic filtering sucks on consoles, their shadowmaps sucks, their textures sucks, their draw distances sucks, their I.Q is much lower...and their FPS sucks.

No...just no...consoles don't run at 720p in a way that is comaparable to PC 1280x720...

 

[RussianSensation]

Not quite true.

They UPSCALE to 720p...BIG difference.

No...just no...consoles don't run at 720p in a way that is comaparable to PC 1280x720...

So what are you saying that consoles run at 640x480 or 800x600 and upscale to 720P? We are not talking about N64 or PS1 here. :hmm:

Here is a list: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

BF3 runs at 1280x704 on both the PS3 and Xbox360.

 

[notty22]

I d/l and took a look at it on my x360, it mentions 720P , in the description. Thats about what it looked like to me.

 

[RussianSensation]

I looked at Ultra vs. High vs. Medium quality settings. Unlike Crysis 1, 2, Witcher 2 and many other games, BF3's settings after Medium don't actually improve the graphics much, and yet the higher settings incur a massive performance penalty. In Crysis 2, going to DX11 and enabling a bunch of pretty features makes the game look MUCH better than on Medium.

In BF3, you get an 83% increase in performance on the GTX460 and a 90% increase (!!!) on the GTX570 by switching from Ultra --> Medium at 1080P

I don't see any reason to play this game at Ultra and lose 80-90% of the performance when the image quality is so close.

 

[Grooveriding]

I looked at Ultra vs. High vs. Medium quality settings. Unlike Crysis 1, 2, Witcher 2 and many other games, BF3's settings after Medium don't actually improve the graphics much, and yet the higher settings incur a massive performance penalty. In Crysis 2, going to DX11 and enabling a bunch of pretty features makes the game look MUCH better than on Medium.

In BF3, you get an 83% increase in performance on the GTX460 and a 90% increase (!!!) on the GTX570 by switching from Ultra --> Medium at 1080P

I don't see any reason to play this game at Ultra and lose 80-90% of the performance when the image quality is so close.

I pulled these from nvidia's site. The biggest difference you get with ultra is true anti-aliasing, which is really rough on performance.

As for the actual settings I find it hard to discern a difference between high and ultra. Below high I can definitely see the difference.

 

[WMD]

I looked at Ultra vs. High vs. Medium quality settings. Unlike Crysis 1, 2, Witcher 2 and many other games, BF3's settings after Medium don't actually improve the graphics much, and yet the higher settings incur a massive performance penalty. In Crysis 2, going to DX11 and enabling a bunch of pretty features makes the game look MUCH better than on Medium.

In BF3, you get an 83% increase in performance on the GTX460 and a 90% increase (!!!) on the GTX570 by switching from Ultra --> Medium at 1080P

I don't see any reason to play this game at Ultra and lose 80-90% of the performance when the image quality is so close.

They are using quality presets and ultra includes 4x MSAA that hits performance very bad. Just changing the settings between medium and ultra without touching the AA settings doesn't impact fps as much. On my rig its going from 80s to 60s. Oh and one more thing radeons with 1GB vram runs worse than 1GB geforces with 4xmsaa. My average dropped form 72 to 37 with 4xmsaa. So to all those with 5870/ 6870/ 6850 turn off MSAA.

 

[notty22]

Look at the hit on minimums going from high to Ultra on stock gtx 460sli.
I hope there is more fine tuning to the final product or at least a launch patch.
Of course there will be driver tweaks from both companies.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-...Quality-Preset-and-SLI-Scaling#comment-184003

 

[Silverforce11]

Running out of vram on ultra due to the 4xMSAA. Huge hit in frame rate and especially min for cards with less than 1.5gb.

The beta currently does not contain "ultra" data: models, textures and tessellation to support "ultra" settings, thats why they look the same as high. The only difference in ultra is 4xMSAA.