Best settings for users with a 9800gtx in BF3 beta is 1280x1024 with a quad core .

[skipsneeky2]

Been playing this for a bit today and its not a bad game i figured ill post a thread with my user settings for a 9800gtx in case others with the same card or similiar being a 8800gt/9800gt wanna play this.

Best playable settings being 52-78fps is 1280x768 on low 1x af with the lowest dip so far being 45fps in heavy smoke

Gain some performance dropping it to 1024x768 but honestly i'll lose a couple frames for the better overall resolution of 1280x768 if i was you :thumbsup:

I did use a quad core being a 2500 at 4.3ghzs so if anyone is replacing something like a dual core rig with a 9800gtx or 9800gt i hope i've helped relieve some worry about playability .

Card can do 1600x900 on low but if your comfortable with mid 40s to mid 50s frame rates this is possible but anything more and its unplayable

Edit:further tweaking of nvidia control panel has yielded 1280x1024 with most elements on medium about as good as it gets for performance/settings

 

[BD231]

Playable, that's a very low res though and not quite indicative of anyone using a 20'+ monitor.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Playable, that's a very low res though and not quite indicative of anyone using a 20'+ monitor.

I know what you mean but someone somewhere is gonna wonder if their 4670 is gonna play this or their 8800gt and til they upgrade i'm sure anyone is gonna play on whatever resolution they can.

Also even on such a low resolution it looks very nice if the end user is on a old crt or can't upgrade at least they know they can play

Edit:configuring stuff in the nvidia control panel so if i can raise the reso and settings,ill update the threads starting post i made for end users

 

[Stuka87]

Well this makes me hopeful that my HD5750 will be able to run it at 720P (I have a 1080P display, but no way will it run there, and it doesn't look too horrible when doubled). I currently play BC2 and it runs fine.

I plan on upgrading, but really want to wait for a 7K series chip.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Appears you can do 1600x900 on low on this card with 1x af and appears you can't shut aa off and default is stuck at 2x.

Running around outside it runs about 48-54 or so run down a dark steamy tunnel it dips into the mid 40s which isn't to terrible .

Only tested 1600x1200,1600x900,and 1280x768 and 1600x1200 is out of the question for this card .

 

[Ben90]

Wow, that seems impressively demanding. Looks like it will give me a reason to upgrade my 4890/920. I can't stand minimums under 90.

 

[tweakboy]

medium settings no AA , lower res possibly. gl

 

[skipsneeky2]

medium settings no AA , lower res possibly. gl

LOL i posted what my experience was for others to learn from and possibly duplicate .

Best playable setting involving performance and a mix of settings was 1280x1024 with most elements on medium.

AA in the game i believe is default 2 cause not even in the nvidia control can you shut it off...and would explain why its a bit more resource hogging gpu wise in the lower range of cards .

In BC2 i didn't run 2x aa i didn't run it at all .

 

[ImDonly1]

Well I am glad you posted it.

Everyone in the BF3 thread is posting how many FPS they get with their SLI GTX580's. I want to know what my mid-range card can do at mid-resolutions.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Well I am glad you posted it.

Everyone in the BF3 thread is posting how many FPS they get with their SLI GTX580's. I want to know what my mid-range card can do at mid-resolutions.

Used to be that crazy wanting $1,000 in graphics to play one game smoothly but never spent such cause i couldn't justify it.

To me whats more important is how good such a old card can play versus how many cards someone needs in sli cause most people on a budget are using 9800gt/5770 cards and don't wanna upgrade just yet till the 7000 series from amd or the kepler series.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I tested the game with an HD 3850. 1360x768 is pretty much the max resolution for that card, at lowest settings, and even then it's borderline playable I'd say the average is 32-35. Dips into high 20s, gets up to mid 40s, usually stays in the 30s. Lowering the resolution makes a big difference in performance, even to 1280x720 smooths out the frames. Goes from just barely playable to playable as you lower resolution further, but still doesn't get super smooth. Lowering the resolution all the way down to 848x480, which wasn't as bad as I thought it would look, and framerates were around 50.

So the minimum requirements for the video card are pretty accurate. Yes, people can get by with slower cards than the minimum requirement but they would have to run sub-720p resolutions. Also, a triple/quad core or highly clocked dual core will be necessary even with the minimum video card. I honestly don't think multiplayer will be playable at all with the minimum processors they list (2.4 GHz C2D or 2.7 GHz Athlon x2).

 

[skipsneeky2]

I tested the game with an HD 3850. 1360x768 is pretty much the max resolution for that card, at lowest settings, and even then it's borderline playable I'd say the average is 32-35. Dips into high 20s, gets up to mid 40s, usually stays in the 30s. Lowering the resolution makes a big difference in performance, even to 1280x720 smooths out the frames. Goes from just barely playable to playable as you lower resolution further, but still doesn't get super smooth. Lowering the resolution all the way down to 848x480, which wasn't as bad as I thought it would look, and framerates were around 50.

So the minimum requirements for the video card are pretty accurate. Yes, people can get by with slower cards than the minimum requirement but they would have to run sub-720p resolutions. Also, a triple/quad core or highly clocked dual core will be necessary even with the minimum video card. I honestly don't think multiplayer will be playable at all with the minimum processors they list (2.4 GHz C2D or 2.7 GHz Athlon x2).

Not bad for the 3850 .
At 1024x768 default on low it was pulling 80fps with this card...1280x1024 is what i settled for with some options on medium..it pulled as low as 35fps and was averaging in the 54-56 fps it didn't pull more then that unless i looked at the sky or something overall playable.

Lower the settings to low on 1280x1024 didn't do much to the fps but 1024x768 was fluid ...but looked terrible on low i never bothered with medium on such a low resolution .

 

[skipsneeky2]

Can anyone with a 6770/5770 post their results?

Moving next month and all of a sudden my budget for a replacement card is max $150 and i heard the 5770 is supreme at 1680x1050 but since i game currently at 1600x1200 i would be happy with medium and that card for the time being..if it could do that .

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Did you use the 1GB of 512MB 9800GTX?

I noticed some stuttering - the speedup/slowdown stuttering - with the 512MB 3850. Not sure if it's drivers, processor related, or VRAM related.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Did you use the 1GB of 512MB 9800GTX?

I noticed some stuttering - the speedup/slowdown stuttering - with the 512MB 3850. Not sure if it's drivers, processor related, or VRAM related.

The 9800gtx is a 512mb model.

Using the Vram indicator that's in msi afterburner at 1600x1200 even on low with stock quality settings,the game was pulling 506mb of my vram,causing the stuttering like you described even when fraps was reporting 45fps...it was stuttering like it was pulling 7fps...

The smart ones buying high end cards are picking up 2gb ati cards about now :thumbsup: It is pretty vram demanding heck BC2 on zero tweaks on high 1600x1200 for me pulled 460mb last night with 1x af and 1x aa..can't even compare the two frostbite engines...