Battlefield 3 recommended GPU specs out

[Capt Caveman]

Lot of FUD in it. The one about 'if you're lucky enough to own a GTX 580...' I'm seeing owners of a single 580 having to turn settings down at 1080P, not according to geforce.com though :sneaky:

I've had to turn down setting at 1920x1200 but not 1080p. And at 1920x1200 I was still getting a 40+ fps avg.

 

[edplayer]

Does an article posted on nvidia's website have any cred? Its pretty much an advertisement to sell their cards.

That depends on who is reading it. For some people they will assume that none of it is true because it is on Nvidia's site. For others, they will discern which parts are likely true and which not or exaggerated (if any). Takes some effort but that is what your brain is for

 

[m3t4lh34d]

So far I've been playing with High settings @ 1080P using 12x CFAA. My 2x 4870x2 setup is keeping me above 85fps with very few exceptions. I've also have not had any graphical glitches, flickering, or anything of that nature. Glad to see Quad-Crossfire working so well especially since it's a beta. Once again, these old cards have not let me down.

You surely can't be staying above 85fps on Caspian Border... or did you get the chance to get into that map and play it before they got shut down?

 

[tviceman]

Its pretty much an advertisement to sell their cards.

It's on GEFORCE.COM. What exactly do you expect from a website with that title?

 

[tviceman]

Does an article posted on nvidia's website have any cred? Its pretty much an advertisement to sell their cards.

I took a ten minute stroll with the BF3 beta before it crashed and I decidely uninstalled it (not a fan of beta's). At 1920x1200 resolution with maxed out settings (no AA) on my gtx560ti @ 1000mhz on the core and 2300mhz on the ram, it ran pretty well but there were a few spots where I could tell it wasn't running at 60 fps. I did not have fraps running so I can't give exact scores, but if the retail version of the game plays like it does now in MP, I would probably opt to lower a few graphical settings with my current setup. I'm guessing that single player will have better performance and would probably run great with the current highest settings that the game allows.

The game managed to keep GPU usage up at 99% and got my card as hot as it's ever been, so at least from the software side the engine is using as much power as it can get. So, in other words, a heavily overclocked gtx560ti won't consistently have silky smooth frame rates all the time in multiplayer @ high settings if performance does not improve anymore. I'm not disappointed with the performance, but hopefully future drivers and/or game patches can squeeze out another 10% performance improvement across the board.

 

[notty22]

I'm excited for the single player campaign. With mulitplayer, especially beta there can be network related issues effecting the experience. Without a lot of trial and error, I got smooth performance by turning off Ambient Occlusion and msaa and all else Ultra. Also tried all high, 2xmsa,Ambient Occlusion off. SLI gpu usage was always over 90%, with good fps. The sound effects seem a notch above anything I've experienced.

 

[NTAC]

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.

 

[WMD]

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.

I will try to not notice the sandbags the next time I take cover behind one. And you are right who has the time to look at sandbags or trees or anything at all? Why even use DX11?

 

[maybeshewill]

holy cow the sandbags in the 360 version are even worse. lol, that is uglier than anything I have seen on the Wii.


free image hosting

Sandbags, sandbags, sandbags, sandbags. DID I MENTION HOW BAD THE SANDBAGS LOOK GUYS?!, sandbags, sandbags, GUYS THESE SAND BAGS ARE TERRIBLE LOL OMG, sandbags, sandbags, sandbags HURPPPPPPPPPP, sandbags.

GUYS SAND BAGS! OMG LOL!

 

[Smartazz]

I will try to not notice the sandbags the next time I take cover behind one. And you are right who has the time to look at sandbags or trees or anything at all? Why even use DX11?

I mean, I take cover behind them but I'm too busy worrying about enemy fire to care about the sandbags. However, they better fix it by release and I'm sure they will.

 

[toyota]

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 freaking game was hyped out the butt about graphics and then sticks one giant flat texture for sandbags right in front of you. DX11 this and ambient occlusion that hardly means squat when have we something so ass ugly looking that does not belong in a 5 year old game much less a modern game that is supposed to bring decent systems to their knees.

if you think that garbage looks okay then great for you but this is the "video card and graphics forums" so I am talking graphics not the gameplay. some of you bitch about AA in games where you have to stop and look hard for imperfections yet you let something like that godawful looking sandbag go when its so obnoxious and obvious?

 

[Smartazz]

this freaking game was hyped out the butt about graphics and then sticks one giant flat texture for sandbags right in front of you. DX11 this and ambient occlusion that hardly means squat when have we something so ass ugly looking that does not belong in a 5 year old game much less a modern game that is supposed to bring decent systems to their knees.

if you think that garbage looks okay then great for you but this is the "video card and graphics forums" so I am talking graphics not the gameplay. some of you bitch about AA in games where you have to stop and look hard for imperfections yet you let something like that godawful looking sandbag go when its so obnoxious and obvious?

We're letting it go because it's a beta. If it's like this in the final game then I'm certain people here will be pissed off. The Crysis 2 demo did not look and did not run as well as the actual game.

 

[toyota]

We're letting it go because it's a beta. If it's like this in the final game then I'm certain people here will be pissed off. The Crysis 2 demo did not look and did not run as well as the actual game.

yeah you guys better complain here in the graphics forum if that does make it to the retail game. and everything that was ugly in Crysis 2 demo remained in the actual game as for as I remember. in fact people kept saying wait for the actual game when people pointed out stuff.

 

[RussianSensation]

Sandbags aside,

360 vs. PS3 vs. PC
http://kotaku.com/5845181/lets-compare-battlefield-3-on-playstation-3-xbox-360-and-pc

The PS3 version is an absolute blur fest, horrible textures, colors, water etc. This game looks way better on the PC. Finally, a cross-platform game done right on the PC

 

[yours truly]

Interesting analysis for geforce cards:

http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-beta-performance-guide?sf2265021=1

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm excited for the single player campaign. With mulitplayer, especially beta there can be network related issues effecting the experience. Without a lot of trial and error, I got smooth performance by turning off Ambient Occlusion and msaa and all else Ultra. Also tried all high, 2xmsa,Ambient Occlusion off. SLI gpu usage was always over 90%, with good fps. The sound effects seem a notch above anything I've experienced.

I can run everything on ULTRA 1080p if i dont use MSAA, and it runs butter smooth even on caspian.

MSAA cuts fps nearly half, its clearly not to be used in frost bite 2 due to their choice of deferred rendering, which allows them to build massive environments and huge viewing distance.. but at a cost of not being able to use MSAA efficiently. I have post AA on medium or high and it feels like MSAA 4x in terms of jaggies so i can't complaint.

I think they made the right choice, caspian is awe inspiring in scale when you are on a jet. The ground is very detailed even at a huge distance.

With retail, ultra textures and tessellation it should be OK with CF 5850s on big maps. By OK, im expecting around 45 fps with Post AA on medium.

 

[s44]

Sandbags aside,

360 vs. PS3 vs. PC
http://kotaku.com/5845181/lets-compare-battlefield-3-on-playstation-3-xbox-360-and-pc

The PS3 version is an absolute blur fest, horrible textures, colors, water etc. This game looks way better on the PC. Finally, a cross-platform game done right on the PC

As post 361 here notes, even the sandbags are worse on Xbox.

 

[m3t4lh34d]

I can run everything on ULTRA 1080p if i dont use MSAA, and it runs butter smooth even on caspian.

MSAA cuts fps nearly half, its clearly not to be used in frost bite 2 due to their choice of deferred rendering, which allows them to build massive environments and huge viewing distance.. but at a cost of not being able to use MSAA efficiently. I have post AA on medium or high and it feels like MSAA 4x in terms of jaggies so i can't complaint.

I think they made the right choice, caspian is awe inspiring in scale when you are on a jet. The ground is very detailed even at a huge distance.

With retail, ultra textures and tessellation it should be OK with CF 5850s on big maps. By OK, im expecting around 45 fps with Post AA on medium.

Except 45fps is NOT adequate for a multiplayer FPS setting, period.

If you don't believe 45fps will give you a disadvantage against someone like me with 90fps, you're sorely mistaken. However, thats of course when you decide to lower settings and match my fps and continue on.

People are entirely too obsessed these days with maxing a game out regardless of the framerate hit and then trying to slug through a multiplayer match and wondering why they're in last place, lol.

I will admit I have to have a game maxed out or I feel my investment in hardware isn't paying for itself. I feel that owning a high end rig, I should be able to play any game released in its intended fashion and glory, but instead of running at 30 fps, I just add hardware

I will say 3 6970s is absolutely PERFECT for Caspian Border with everything maxed at 1920x1200 High Post 4x AA, Ultra everything, and on a 120hz monitor it's amazing playing a 90-120fps... gotta love it.

 

[WMD]

Sandbags aside,

360 vs. PS3 vs. PC
http://kotaku.com/5845181/lets-compare-battlefield-3-on-playstation-3-xbox-360-and-pc

The PS3 version is an absolute blur fest, horrible textures, colors, water etc. This game looks way better on the PC. Finally, a cross-platform game done right on the PC

Thanks. PC obviously looks better. But aside from the difference in resolution and draw distance, console and PC are very similar in terms of lighting and overall look. Its hard to believe they developed an exclusive PC engine that ONLY supports DX11 and a different one for the consoles that supports DX9/OGL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-qjtJXkVAw

0:47 the xbox even have the same ugly sandbags.

 

[crisium]

45fps puts you at a disadvantage, really? Really? 25, sure. But 45? Are you quite certain you are speaking as a rational human being and not just trying to over justify your $1400 spent on video cards in your main rig?

45, for real? "Not adequate"? 45 fps equates to "slug through a multiplayer match and wondering why they're in last place, lol." Really, 45 is slugging it? I am just in shock and awe at that statement.

90 is better I agree. But there's so much more than fps. Especially in online games were latency is very important, as is monitor response times. Myself trucking along at 45fps against you at 90 is gonna come down to who is the better player, period.

Unless you were in Cal-I back in the day, then by all means I will take back my repudiation.

 

[RussianSensation]

What I meant by "sandbags aside", is that if we leave that issue out for a second, the PC version is still vastly superior. I didn't mean to say that the sandbags look better on the console


However, I have to agree with toyota based on the beta at least. BF3 may be an amazing game in terms of gameplay and its ability to deliver on the fun factor, but its graphics are honestly nothing special to me. It's not better than Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Crysis 1/2, Witcher 2. The character animations are great, the interactive physics are good, but the textures are meh. I mean did you see some areas of the walls? They created 1 piece of a wall and then duplicated it to make it a 50 metre wall. The graphics on the subway/metro are especially average.

The trees are sub-par, the foliage is 2D (not as interactive like Crysis 1), the grass is flat, the water is not on Just Cause 2 level. Of course, it was probably too difficult to make a game with amazing graphics and maintain 64 player maps using current GPUs. If they did that, we wouldn't be able to play it for another 5 years. At least BF3 is a huge improvement over BF:BC2. Crysis 2 isn't necessarily better than the first.

 

[yours truly]

You've got to hand it to the Dice guys. They've developed a new engine for an open and dynamic game.

A game which is bringing PC gaming back to the forefront again. I think it's a stunning achievement. They have to create an engrossing single player, and a stable and balanced multiplayer on THREE platforms.

Obviously this isn't The Witcher or Metro 2033, it's far, far more with huge scope.

Imagine if they had developed a singleplayer game just for PC. I'd wager it'll blow away anything else we've ever seen.

Hopefully by Christmas most of the bugs have been worked out and hopefully BF3 can mature and become better as more patches are released and maybe as technology progresses.

 

[WMD]

Hyperthread helps in the Beta. As can be seen in AB monitoring, Sandy bridge dual core does not really bottleneck a 6870. I guess they worked out some performance issues on that end.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037818003&postcount=143

 

[badb0y]

What I meant by "sandbags aside", is that if we leave that issue out for a second, the PC version is still vastly superior. I didn't mean to say that the sandbags look better on the console


However, I have to agree with toyota based on the beta at least. BF3 may be an amazing game in terms of gameplay and its ability to deliver on the fun factor, but its graphics are honestly nothing special to me. It's not better than Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Crysis 1/2, Witcher 2. The character animations are great, the interactive physics are good, but the textures are meh. I mean did you see some areas of the walls? They created 1 piece of a wall and then duplicated it to make it a 50 metre wall. The graphics on the subway/metro are especially average.

The trees are sub-par, the foliage is 2D (not as interactive like Crysis 1), the grass is flat, the water is not on Just Cause 2 level. Of course, it was probably too difficult to make a game with amazing graphics and maintain 64 player maps using current GPUs. If they did that, we wouldn't be able to play it for another 5 years. At least BF3 is a huge improvement over BF:BC2. Crysis 2 isn't necessarily better than the first.

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/

 

[pandemonium]

I wasn't really planning on trying this out, but this thread is peaking my interest given all the controversy. I needed a demanding game to see what my setup can do now; this appears to be it.

Lol @Toyota and the polygon-bags. That needs to be your new nickname.