bit-gamer.net

Battlefield 3 recommended specs only good for medium settings

Battlefield 3 recommended specs only good for medium settings

If you want the game to look like this, you'll need a behemoth of a PC

Dice community manager Daniel Matros has dropped an internet bombshell by stating that a PC built around the Battlefield 3 recommended system requirements, which were released earlier this week, will only be able to run the game at Medium settings.

The revelation came via a Twitter-based question and answer session earlier today, when Matros stated that ‘recommended is usually medium’.

When asked if a single Nvidia GeForce GTX 580 1.5GB would have enough power to run the game at Ultra settings, Matros went on to say that if you were aiming for that level of detail from the Frostbite 2 engine, then you’ll probably need two GeForce GTX 580s in SLI configuration.

No mention was made of the resolutions Matros had in mind when he was making the suggestions, but it’s clear that Battlefield 3 will indeed prove challenging for today's hardware. The news is sure to have hardware manufacturers rubbing their hands with glee too, as many people are likely to need an upgrade if they want to play the game at anything approaching the highest settings.

The announcement does raise some questions about how well Battlefield 3 will fare on consoles, however. If a PC is going to need that level of grunt to run the game, it’s a fair bet that it will have to be significantly cut back to run on the current generation of consoles.

Are you pleased by this news? Do you think your PC is capable of running Battlefield 3 at half-decent settings? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

143 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 13:22 Quote
I'll be very surprised if you need 2 580's to run 1080p ultra
sotu1 23rd September 2011, 13:22 Quote
People complained when Crysis 2 wasn't kicking their PC in the nuts. Hopefully this will cheer them up :)
will_123 23rd September 2011, 13:22 Quote
Ah well my 480 with overclock wont be playing this at highest settings then. That's rather frustrating..suppose we will see when the beta is released on 27th.
mamac123 23rd September 2011, 13:24 Quote
85% of pc gamers will have to upgrade their hardware
enciem 23rd September 2011, 13:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamac123
85% of pc gamers will have to upgrade their hardware

unless you turn SSAO off and then everyone will be just fine
billysielu 23rd September 2011, 13:31 Quote
suddenly not feeling so good about my 5870
javaman 23rd September 2011, 13:31 Quote
The new crysis benchmark then?
wuyanxu 23rd September 2011, 13:33 Quote
Time to go SLI me thinks :D
r3loaded 23rd September 2011, 13:33 Quote
New meme: "Can it play BF3?"
mighty_pirate 23rd September 2011, 13:34 Quote
He's right in that Recommended does usually mean medium or high, but never "ultra". That's something that's always bugged me a little.
It'll run well enough & I'm sure I'll revisit it at some point in the future when I have upgraded. But there's nothing else out there that I can't max out with one 580. I wouldn't upgrade right away for any one game, no one title justifies a £400 pricetag. But it's good to have a game that's futureproof.
Bauul 23rd September 2011, 13:37 Quote
Pah, I hardly reach the minimum settings, let alone the ones for Ultra. I guess I'll have to pass, or get it on 360 if the console port is any good.
Ending Credits 23rd September 2011, 13:39 Quote
Given than SLI sucks, does this mean nothing can run BF3 on ultra at 1080p?
[USRF]Obiwan 23rd September 2011, 13:39 Quote
i hope it shows off some cool stuff on my Quad core AMD with GTX460. It could run crysis 2 wth all settings high in HD res.
Woodspoon 23rd September 2011, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamac123
85% of pc gamers will have to upgrade their hardware

What even the ones that don't want to play BF 3? ; )
wuyanxu 23rd September 2011, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ending Credits
Given than SLI sucks, does this mean nothing can run BF3 on ultra at 1080p?

I am willing to give it a try for BF3.

eBay time :D
Otis1337 23rd September 2011, 13:41 Quote
I call BS, there obviously asked/paid to say that from nvidea.
I bet a single 580 could max it at 1080, and i bet my crossfire can at 1920x1200.
billysielu 23rd September 2011, 13:44 Quote
upgrading in anticipation seems foolish, wait and see guys!
l3v1ck 23rd September 2011, 13:47 Quote
What kind of idiot recommends playing a games at levels that are much less than its best? With that kind of attitude, he could have sated a fortune not developing higher settings for the game.
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 13:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otis1337
I call BS, there obviously asked/paid to say that from nvidea.
I bet a single 580 could max it at 1080, and i bet my crossfire can at 1920x1200.

QFT this stinks of nvidia marketing, I wouldn't buy anything till release Wuyanxu!
V3ctor 23rd September 2011, 13:49 Quote
My HD5870 awaits thee... at 1280x1024... Bring it on!!
GiantKiwi 23rd September 2011, 13:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]i hope it shows off some cool stuff on my Quad core AMD with GTX460. It could run crysis 2 wth all settings high in HD res.

that was DX9, pretty much everyones machine could handle that...
Teh Noob Slayer 23rd September 2011, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
What kind of idiot recommends playing a games at levels that are much less than its best? With that kind of attitude, he could have sated a fortune not developing higher settings for the game.

Probably because not everyone has state of the art PCs,or they dont want to spend that kind of money, or they can't afford to. If he says you need the most expensive system around at the time to play the game, not many people are going to buy the game, in essence commercial (money) reasons.
gilljoy 23rd September 2011, 13:59 Quote
Looks like i'll be getting a second gtx 570. Tho gona wait and see what its like when its released
scott_chegg 23rd September 2011, 14:03 Quote
But I thought multi gpu setups were garbage. That's what I'm always reading on this website and forum!!!! Wonder if the consensus will stay that way?
damien c 23rd September 2011, 14:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ending Credits
Given than SLI sucks, does this mean nothing can run BF3 on ultra at 1080p?

How does it suck when on crysis 2 when I was running a GTX580 I was getting 75fps with the ultra setting's and textures etc, but when I turned on the 2nd card it shot up to 110fps.

I think you might be thinking of SLI of old.
B1GBUD 23rd September 2011, 14:09 Quote
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tokukachi 23rd September 2011, 14:12 Quote
The alpha ran fine on my i5-760 / 5770 at 1080p. Grated it was on a small level but i cant see any reason why the final game wouldn't run amazingly on a 570/580...
aggies11 23rd September 2011, 14:12 Quote
twitter.com/repi (Frostbite Senior architect I think), I believed said something along the lines that the target is for 720p. (Minimum = low settings @ 720p).

Considering what this game has the potential to look like, how the GDC talks cover what they are doing to push the envelop, and how dice doesn't really do "incredible optimization", I can certainly see this being true. (Public demos have supposedly been running on 580 SLI, and that probably isn't with all the bells and whistles turned on, for performance reasons)

The best I can manage is a 6950, hopefully that will look awesome (definitely not the best though). Some tweakability, and hopefully a good implementation of FXAA, and it should be noticably better then BFBC2 *crosses fingers*.
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 14:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
How does it suck when on crysis 2 when I was running a GTX580 I was getting 75fps with the ultra setting's and textures etc, but when I turned on the 2nd card it shot up to 110fps.

I think you might be thinking of SLI of old.

take into account microstutter at higher resolutions (SLI is only really useful for higher resolutions) and it starts to look less viable. OK you might not get microstutter, but plenty of people report it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggies11
twitter.com/repi (Frostbite Senior architect I think), I believed said something along the lines that the target is for 720p. (Minimum = low settings @ 720p).

Considering what this game has the potential to look like, how the GDC talks cover what they are doing to push the envelop, and how dice doesn't really do "incredible optimization", I can certainly see this being true. (Public demos have supposedly been running on 580 SLI, and that probably isn't with all the bells and whistles turned on, for performance reasons)

The best I can manage is a 6950, hopefully that will look awesome (definitely not the best though). Some tweakability, and hopefully a good implementation of FXAA, and it should be noticably better then BFBC2 *crosses fingers*.

I seem to remember test rigs running a single 580?

Sauce: http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/43350154291589120
l3v1ck 23rd September 2011, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teh Noob Slayer
Probably because not everyone has state of the art PCs,or they dont want to spend that kind of money, or they can't afford to. If he says you need the most expensive system around at the time to play the game, not many people are going to buy the game, in essence commercial (money) reasons.
That's why they have minimum specifications.
Reccomended specs should be what you need to play it at its best.
proxess 23rd September 2011, 14:17 Quote
IMHO a time proven game is a good game, not a good looking one. HL, HL2, UT, etc etc.
Necrow 23rd September 2011, 14:19 Quote
Ah FFS now I have to build a new PC. My Q6600 got old very quickly and my GTX 470 that is less than a year old is out of date already.
Teh Noob Slayer 23rd September 2011, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teh Noob Slayer
Probably because not everyone has state of the art PCs,or they dont want to spend that kind of money, or they can't afford to. If he says you need the most expensive system around at the time to play the game, not many people are going to buy the game, in essence commercial (money) reasons.

That's why they have minimum specifications.
Reccomended specs should be what you need to play it at its best.

But then how does the Dev know what is 'the best?'Your Best? His best?

Are you playing on a 30 inch monitor? 3D ? Across 3 or 6 monitors?
Madness_3d 23rd September 2011, 14:28 Quote
Can we PLEASE have some benchmarks of the game on a few cards (modern and aging) when it comes out? :D
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madness_3d
Can we PLEASE have some benchmarks of the game on a few cards (modern and aging) when it comes out? :D

+1 please do this for the beta too, obviously plenty of interest in the community
TheLegendJoe 23rd September 2011, 14:35 Quote
Finally an excuse to upgrade the 5850 to the 7xxx when they're out :P
wuyanxu 23rd September 2011, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK] crompers
QFT this stinks of nvidia marketing, I wouldn't buy anything till release Wuyanxu!

You speak sense. I'll wait until the game is out. Hopefully 580 will be able to do 2560x1440 at high.

Don't really fancy dual cards anyway. FT03 mATX is what I really want in the long run (eg when going for ivy bridge)
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
You speak sense. I'll wait until the game is out. Hopefully 580 will be able to do 2560x1440 at high.

Don't really fancy dual cards anyway. FT03 mATX is what I really want in the long run (eg when going for ivy bridge)

probably best to wait for the new gen of cards, maybe run high rather than ultra for a while then build your uber mATX system (FT03, mmmmm)
damien c 23rd September 2011, 15:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK
crompers]
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
How does it suck when on crysis 2 when I was running a GTX580 I was getting 75fps with the ultra setting's and textures etc, but when I turned on the 2nd card it shot up to 110fps.

I think you might be thinking of SLI of old.

take into account microstutter at higher resolutions (SLI is only really useful for higher resolutions) and it starts to look less viable. OK you might not get microstutter, but plenty of people report it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggies11
twitter.com/repi (Frostbite Senior architect I think), I believed said something along the lines that the target is for 720p. (Minimum = low settings @ 720p).

Considering what this game has the potential to look like, how the GDC talks cover what they are doing to push the envelop, and how dice doesn't really do "incredible optimization", I can certainly see this being true. (Public demos have supposedly been running on 580 SLI, and that probably isn't with all the bells and whistles turned on, for performance reasons)

The best I can manage is a 6950, hopefully that will look awesome (definitely not the best though). Some tweakability, and hopefully a good implementation of FXAA, and it should be noticably better then BFBC2 *crosses fingers*.

I seem to remember test rigs running a single 580?

Sauce: http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/43350154291589120

The only microstutter I have ever heard off is with ATI graphic's card's due to poor drivers, but I use to get stutter on a single card at high resolution's with only a single ATI card (x1950 Pro) changed that for a 8800gts and the stutter went away.
damien c 23rd September 2011, 15:12 Quote
Well dependant on how the Beta is for me depend's on if I buy the game or not, simply because I hate playing unbalanced games where 1 team has a advantage over the other in regard's to weapon's.

Other than that they kept the same spawn raping system from BFBC2 in the Alpha which I hope has changed because that is another issue with the Battlefield games for me.

If they have sorted that out then I will buy the game ready for when I have saved for my monster rig.
do_it_anyway 23rd September 2011, 15:15 Quote
This is very interesting.

The frostbite 2 engine is apparently better optimised, but the statements by Dice suggest you need a ridiculous rig to run it. So which one is it? More efficient or more demanding? Or are the visuals going to be SOOO much better than anything we've seen before?

Also, I don't think I am that bothered. If I have to ramp down the settings on my 5870 to play it smoothly, imagine how nice it will be when I upgrade and can ramp them up again.

My first ever PC had a 7600GT in it, and I was playing BF2142 on medium.
When I got my 8800GT, I upped everything and got that "new game" feel. I felt like my money had been spent on something really good.

Since then, every GPU I have bought has not changed the way a game looks. Its just ensured I can play the latest games. It will be quite nice to get that "look how good this new card makes everything look" feel again.
stoff3r 23rd September 2011, 15:26 Quote
I'm glad it's demanding.

Time to up that Q6600 and 4870 :) Which is worse of the two if I have to choose between system or gpu upgrade?
gogzyhutch 23rd September 2011, 15:40 Quote
Now I can justify upgrading from my GTX 480 to a nvidia "Kepler" GPU when they are released early next year :D
gogzyhutch 23rd September 2011, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoff3r
I'm glad it's demanding.

Time to up that Q6600 and 4870 :) Which is worse of the two if I have to choose between system or gpu upgrade?

GPU definitely
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 15:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
The only microstutter I have ever heard off is with ATI graphic's card's due to poor drivers, but I use to get stutter on a single card at high resolution's with only a single ATI card (x1950 Pro) changed that for a 8800gts and the stutter went away.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stutter-crossfire,2995.html

"Closing Thoughts

Frankly, there haven't been any revolutionary developments in the fields of frame rate consistency and micro-stuttering, even though we have seen improvements from Nvidia's drivers. At this point, neither competitors can claim to deliver a 100% stutter-free gaming experience with two GPUs working cooperatively."

Sauces please people!
TheStockBroker 23rd September 2011, 15:59 Quote
I can't believe the amount of whine from "enthusiasts" and "PC Gamers".

You have always needed to spend considerably more on a PC to max games out than on a console - I thought this was a given since day 1?

Also, God forbid you need decent hardware to run the latest games? - Again, I thought this was a given? When has it ever been different?

The original Crysis was applauded for it's graphical splendour all those years ago, and PC gamers laughed at the lack of accompanying console port feeling haughty and privileged even when no-one's computer could actually play it at its' best - regardless of hardware config at the time.
Now here we have something similar, but the game will actually be playable at it's maximum settings on current generation hardware, why is it being met with such disdain?

Fair enough, many may not have seen it as being quite this demanding, but at least we've been given a month's warning to put some cash aside for a few day-zero upgrades after this months pay and given this comes out about October standard monthly payday, a bit then too?

Luckily, I (and others, I'm sure) had anticipated this, and have budgeted accordingly.
A little sad of me? - Yes
But will I be happy on release day? - Definitely.

TSB
Bungletron 23rd September 2011, 16:04 Quote
I was always resolved to upgrading my graphics card for BF3 but now I am really glad I did not jump the gun for a GTX 570 or HD 6970, which is my price range. When this is out I need bit-tech to run a benchmark STAT.

Somewhat annoying that it appears no next generation graphics hardware will be released before BF3.
knuck 23rd September 2011, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK] crompers
take into account microstutter at higher resolutions (SLI is only really useful for higher resolutions) and it starts to look less viable. OK you might not get microstutter, but plenty of people report it. It varies from one machine to the other, really




I seem to remember test rigs running a single 580?

Sauce: http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/43350154291589120
Micro stutter is my third worst enemy after vsync and tearing but i have never seen any with my 570s, whereas my 260s would do it all the time and make me rage

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
Otis1337 23rd September 2011, 16:12 Quote
no stuttering with my CF 5850's :)
r3loaded 23rd September 2011, 16:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
FT03 mATX is what I really want in the long run (eg when going for ivy bridge)
Yes, it is!
MaverickWill 23rd September 2011, 16:31 Quote
Update as of 34 minutes ago - Johan Andersson (repi) confirmed the recommended specs are for High, not Medium - linky
Tattysnuc 23rd September 2011, 16:50 Quote
Good! Finally my overclocked GTX 480's @ 785 and in SLI/under water will get a workout!

Bring it on! Better look good! Crysis on Max detail always played well, but Iv'e played it to death. I've not yet installed my copy of Crysis 2, so this could be one for my Birthday/Xmas list
ssj12 23rd September 2011, 17:00 Quote
so.. id need tri-SLi GTX480s?... wtf
[PUNK] crompers 23rd September 2011, 17:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickWill
Update as of 34 minutes ago - Johan Andersson (repi) confirmed the recommended specs are for High, not Medium - linky

So from 560 Ti for high settings to 2x580 for ultra? That's one hell of a jump!

Re: microstutter, personally I've never used an SLI system so can't comment from personal experience. But to spend £800+ on graphics cards and not have an absolutely perfect experience....meh. I'd want a 6 dimensional experience never mind 3!
lp1988 23rd September 2011, 17:38 Quote
for some reason this actually makes me a little glad that I will first be able to play this around Christmas as I will know what hardware to upgrade XD
MrDomRocks 23rd September 2011, 17:40 Quote
I used to follow Daniel Matros on Twitter, and am now refollowing him after a hiatus from Battlefield BC 2 lol

He tends to be honest with what he says on twitter and have conversations with him in the past with others on a chat room run by a guy in the states. Daniel and a Designer from Dice both frequented the chat room.

I'm not suprised by the revelation, but I wont be paying an extra £100 on my build just because it's suggested you need it for Ultra and definately wont be buying two 580's. Though I'm tempted to SLI 570's OC'd but I will wait and see what people say about ultra visuals before I even think about it.
Coach 23rd September 2011, 17:46 Quote
It's about time someone pushed things forward. Consoles have held things back for years.
wayner1374 23rd September 2011, 18:05 Quote
I'm not going to be able to run on ultra @ 2560x1440 and even if I could afford another 580 there's no room on my motherboard as the asus matrix takes up three slots
Waynio 23rd September 2011, 18:44 Quote
Haha so it will need a beast of a gaming rig :D well ultra settings won't be for me, not getting a 2nd 580 just for 1 game, maybe I would for a stupendously good new GTA game but not an army shooter but it's definitely good news for those already with beasting rigs :D.
somidiot 23rd September 2011, 18:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teh Noob Slayer
Probably because not everyone has state of the art PCs,or they dont want to spend that kind of money, or they can't afford to. If he says you need the most expensive system around at the time to play the game, not many people are going to buy the game, in essence commercial (money) reasons.
That's why they have minimum specifications.
Reccomended specs should be what you need to play it at its best.

I wish they'd make it 3 tiered, minimum, recommended for medium details and then recommended for ultimate. But then that might make sense. Can't have that.

I probably won't play it, I haven't been a huge fan of the series. Perhaps when it reaches the bargain bin .... If I do get it though I won't be underclocking my GTX 560 Ti Like I do for most other games that I play. Yes I have a 1080p screen.
sharpethunder 23rd September 2011, 18:46 Quote
i cant be bothered to download the beta i want this game to surprize me when it is released i do have the options to install it i will though. I will running it on my 3x 27ich
Hazro HZ27WD testing my 2 gtx580s 7680x4320 but i dont think i will be able to use that res though
brave758 23rd September 2011, 18:52 Quote
Woo hoo get in there,

Also never had micro stutter.
Ph4ZeD 23rd September 2011, 18:58 Quote
As other owners of top end rigs have said, I will see it when I believe it. I've preordered on Origin so we will see on the 27th just how hard this game pushes nehalem/sandybridge rigs that have 580s.
Floyd 23rd September 2011, 19:08 Quote
I bet my two GTX275s will fare just fine. If not then its 580 time ;)
meandmymouth 23rd September 2011, 19:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
I bet my two GTX275s will fare just fine. If not then its 580 time ;)

Yeah you should be fine, my 560 might struggle... SLi time I think.
bazman24 23rd September 2011, 19:14 Quote
really not sure how my 5870 will cope! suppose it will be ok with medium settings. im really tempted at the moment to upgrade now but im also waiting for the high end 7xxx series. mmmm..... what to do
Deders 23rd September 2011, 19:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK] crompers
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stutter-crossfire,2995.html

"Closing Thoughts

Frankly, there haven't been any revolutionary developments in the fields of frame rate consistency and micro-stuttering, even though we have seen improvements from Nvidia's drivers. At this point, neither competitors can claim to deliver a 100% stutter-free gaming experience with two GPUs working cooperatively."

Sauces please people!

I only get microstutter on a couple of games, and it's not a big issue. Just Cause 2 is noticeable when you enable the Nvidia only settings as it is only calculated on one card, making it an unbalanced load.

Sure it's preferable to have 1 big card that runs everything but having 2 doesn't really suck that much.
Redbeaver 23rd September 2011, 19:34 Quote
well there goes my dream of 8800GTS running medium settings. f4wk.

oh well. but its good to kno these things coz now i wont be too rushed to buy a new card and place my bet. i'd simply wait until beta is out, a couple review is out, THEN ill buy the card i NEED... not the one i WANT.


gawd, being married can really change a person...
Ayrto 23rd September 2011, 22:13 Quote
Obviously the key is what res he meant. For 3 monitor setups this sort of requirement isn't that unusual now . If he means 1920 x1080 however, it may indicate that they've failed in their bid to get DX11 GPU 'command list ' multithreading working as they stated they wanted to, in their GDC presentation.

Maybe Bit tech could find out if they've got this "utopian" (as they described it) , DX11 feature ready for launch?
Sloth 23rd September 2011, 22:40 Quote
Like many others, I'll wait and see just what we're getting that makes it so demanding. Is it just not optimized as well as DICE like to say? It's it actually graphically stunning? Or, what I'm putting my money on, did they cover the maximum settings with an overload of "prettification" settings? Having everything shine and glow doesn't make a graphically stunning game.

What interests me most is the scaling of the settings. From a competitive perspective, do all the pretty features simply get in the way? Does dropping down to low shadows, for example, suddenly make dark corners easily visible? Does low ground clutter suddenly make that sniper in the bushes visible? Such problems have troubled many an FPS game in the past and typically doesn't get the attention it deserves, imo.
Ergath 23rd September 2011, 23:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

What interests me most is the scaling of the settings. From a competitive perspective, do all the pretty features simply get in the way? Does dropping down to low shadows, for example, suddenly make dark corners easily visible? Does low ground clutter suddenly make that sniper in the bushes visible? Such problems have troubled many an FPS game in the past and typically doesn't get the attention it deserves, imo.

+1

Definitely recall that playing BF2 in full settings just meant that you couldn't see some of the snipers (as pointed out by the Tweakguide). Very annoying. I remember when I first got that game I was running a Radeon 9600 which really struggled. I set the game to 1600*1200 once just for laughs and I was blown away by the amazingly beautiful slideshow my card grudgingly rendered... It was all worth it when I upgraded though - as others have said, it's like the game is new all over again.

Hopefully my current 5850 won't be as totally incompetent for BF3 as my 9600 was for BF2..
[PUNK] crompers 24th September 2011, 00:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
I only get microstutter on a couple of games, and it's not a big issue. Just Cause 2 is noticeable when you enable the Nvidia only settings as it is only calculated on one card, making it an unbalanced load.

Sure it's preferable to have 1 big card that runs everything but having 2 doesn't really suck that much.

Fair enough, i'm not against SLI per se it'll just have to come a bit further along before i would consider it. What perked my ears was the suggestion that it only happened on ATI cards and that it could even happen on one card (!)
keir 24th September 2011, 01:06 Quote
oh crap this doesn't look good.
I guess we should play the beta before we start buying stuff.
Action_Parsnip 24th September 2011, 01:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK
crompers]
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
The only microstutter I have ever heard off is with ATI graphic's card's due to poor drivers, but I use to get stutter on a single card at high resolution's with only a single ATI card (x1950 Pro) changed that for a 8800gts and the stutter went away.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stutter-crossfire,2995.html

"Closing Thoughts

Frankly, there haven't been any revolutionary developments in the fields of frame rate consistency and micro-stuttering, even though we have seen improvements from Nvidia's drivers. At this point, neither competitors can claim to deliver a 100% stutter-free gaming experience with two GPUs working cooperatively."

Sauces please people!

Don't quote Tom's again there's a good boy.
[PUNK] crompers 24th September 2011, 01:34 Quote
As far as I'm aware there's no rule against quoting other sites? Was relevant to the original post. Theres a good boy
Jonelo 24th September 2011, 01:52 Quote
The last news are that these specs were to play in hight

http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/117250670511407105

Johan Andersson
@repi Johan Andersson
@zh1nt0 @Lezziter that is wrong, the recommended settings are for High.
hyperion 24th September 2011, 02:40 Quote
Doesn't sound like nvidia marketing to me. One guy asked if he can max it with 1 gtx580 or if he'll need 2, and Daniel simply replied "2".
the_kille4 24th September 2011, 03:03 Quote
Instead of upgrading for one screen. I will rather upgrade so I can play at mediumish setting on three monitors. That would be more worthwhile in the long run.
Elton 24th September 2011, 03:11 Quote
Watch the patches make performance much better.
woods 24th September 2011, 04:32 Quote
My i750 Hd5850 handled crysis 2 pretty well with the dx 11 and hi res textures, but i,m not starting a new build until I see Ivy Bridge series 7 amd amd 680 nvidia, I'm gonna stick with my two year old sytem to the beging of next year, and hope it runs ok on medium settings
lm_wfc 24th September 2011, 08:57 Quote
If you're getting happy at teh fact this needs £600 worth of graphics to play well, then you really need to take a look at yourself.
You wouldn't pay hundreds for the game, so why pay hundreds for a card to play the game slightly prettier?
technogiant 24th September 2011, 09:28 Quote
It's not all about the gpu either.....BFBC2 which used the frostbite1 engine was cpu heavy.
From what I saw on the Alpha BF3 release the Frostbite2 engine is also cpu heavy.
All four cores of my Q6600 oced to 3.5GHz were maxed out by the game which at that stage was only able to utilize one gpu of my sli set up....there will be more cpu load to feed two gpu's.

I know I need a cpu upgrade but a Q6600 at 3.5Ghz is not an insignificant cpu in gaming terms.
technogiant 24th September 2011, 10:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
It's about time someone pushed things forward. Consoles have held things back for years.

Not only the consoles, it's about time Microsoft and all the hardware people got together and sorted things out on the pc so that developers can get "closer to the metal" like they can on the consoles.
Like John Carmack said.....its absurd how such powerful pc's do not give the increase in performance that would be expected......but then again perhaps its not in the hardware developers interests to improve things, they would rather keep us on the upgrade cycle.
TAG 24th September 2011, 12:40 Quote
How the hell am I supposed to run this @ 6000x1200 ?
:(
Ayrto 24th September 2011, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG
How the hell am I supposed to run this @ 6000x1200 ?
:(


I can think of worse dilemmas to have.
Waynio 24th September 2011, 16:23 Quote
I'll still try it on ultra settings @ 1080p to see if it's at all chuggy :D.
Zorndar 24th September 2011, 17:10 Quote
Lets see if my 5870 can handle it on mid settings, perhaps I wait to upgrade until the 580´s are a bit cheaper.
DarkLord7854 24th September 2011, 22:08 Quote
Rec specs are for "High" not medium:

http://www.gamepur.com/news/5426-battlefield-3-recommended-specs-medium-settings-not-ultra.html
Quote:
Johan Andersson, Rendering Architect at DICE has just clarified all the confusion and issue a new statement on his personal Twitter account, which reads as follow:

"@zh1nt0 @Lezziter that is wrong, the recommended settings are for High"
leslie 24th September 2011, 22:27 Quote
You do not need a $600 card to get there.
The settings posted are enough to get you into high/ultra at 1080.


BT needs to pull this article, it's wrong.
fdbh96 24th September 2011, 22:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leslie
You do not need a $600 card to get there.
The settings posted are enough to get you into high/ultra at 1080.


BT needs to pull this article, it's wrong.

Unless it's true :S
tristanperry 24th September 2011, 22:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
Rec specs are for "High" not medium:

http://www.gamepur.com/news/5426-battlefield-3-recommended-specs-medium-settings-not-ultra.html
Phew :) My setup's only a bit worse than the recommended specs (mainly on the graphics card), so I'm hoping I might be able to get away with running on high. Guess we'll find out soon enough though :)
Paddy4929 24th September 2011, 23:27 Quote
2 x 570's in SLI, i7 @4ghz i'll give ultra a go!
Zendax 25th September 2011, 02:12 Quote
The idea that some people have that Recommended should mean "all detailed maxed" is a bit ridiculous.

Historically, Minimum settings are the bare minimum you need for the game to be playable at any settings.

Recommended is the computer you need to have a good experience. The game will look good and play well, and you may not even know what you're missing.

Ultra settings are usually more for flexing graphical muscle and benchmarks than anything else. Doom 3 was the worst in this regard. The only difference between high and ultra was the latter used uncompressed textures. Even in screenshot comparisons there was no perceptible difference, besides doubling the amount of graphics RAM needed.
modfx 25th September 2011, 04:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStockBroker
I can't believe the amount of whine from "enthusiasts" and "PC Gamers".

You have always needed to spend considerably more on a PC to max games out than on a console - I thought this was a given since day 1?

Also, God forbid you need decent hardware to run the latest games? - Again, I thought this was a given? When has it ever been different?

The original Crysis was applauded for it's graphical splendour all those years ago, and PC gamers laughed at the lack of accompanying console port feeling haughty and privileged even when no-one's computer could actually play it at its' best - regardless of hardware config at the time.
Now here we have something similar, but the game will actually be playable at it's maximum settings on current generation hardware, why is it being met with such disdain?

Fair enough, many may not have seen it as being quite this demanding, but at least we've been given a month's warning to put some cash aside for a few day-zero upgrades after this months pay and given this comes out about October standard monthly payday, a bit then too?

Luckily, I (and others, I'm sure) had anticipated this, and have budgeted accordingly.
A little sad of me? - Yes
But will I be happy on release day? - Definitely.

TSB

^ this
Lord-Vale3 25th September 2011, 04:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by woods
My i750 Hd5850 handled crysis 2 pretty well with the dx 11 and hi res textures, but i,m not starting a new build until I see Ivy Bridge series 7 amd amd 680 nvidia, I'm gonna stick with my two year old sytem to the beging of next year, and hope it runs ok on medium settings

Same here.

Hopefully my 750 and 460 will be capable of 'high' settings.

Then I can get into all the ultra pretty stuff with my Ivy Bride / 670 rig I will build in March/April. :D
luisnhamue 25th September 2011, 05:48 Quote
This kind of games that push hardware to its max, is nice because put us apart from the console guys. But damn, having to buy 2*580GTX is too much just to play a game. I guess this game is just for the next crop of GPU's. but anyway i will play it with my HD 6950.
leslie 25th September 2011, 09:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
Unless it's true :S
I can assure you, it isn't.
Spreadie 25th September 2011, 10:31 Quote
Hahahahaha.

How to make your game the most eagerly anticipated PC release of the year? Tell people they can't run it.

I call BS on 580 SLI, unless he's talking about 2,560 x 1,600 4x AA 16x AF.
[ZiiP] NaloaC 25th September 2011, 10:55 Quote
Surely the article should be updated to correct the statement and edit it to say that the recommended specs are indeed for high, rather than medium. Misleading otherwise.
GravitySmacked 25th September 2011, 11:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
Rec specs are for "High" not medium:

http://www.gamepur.com/news/5426-battlefield-3-recommended-specs-medium-settings-not-ultra.html

Good news!
David164v8 25th September 2011, 13:39 Quote
Aw balls. My Q8200 and 6870 are so screwed :(
Woollster00 25th September 2011, 14:37 Quote
Will a 4.0ghz i7 950 and gtx 480 be enough?
fdbh96 25th September 2011, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woollster00
Will a 4.0ghz i7 950 and gtx 480 be enough?

I seriously hope so :D
BFGunrunner 25th September 2011, 16:28 Quote
This just pissed me off.
I bought a second GTX 460 and run them two 460's in sli so I could run this game maxed out with no problems but according to this I won't be able to get away with Ultra.
I have a feeling this is a scam to make people go out and buy two GTX 580's if I had the money I might once I take a look at the finial benchmarks but I don't turst this I think nvidia is just being greedy.
Only the finial benchmarks would speak in the mean time take this article with a grain of salt. I don't want people wasting over 1K in graphics cards only to find out this was a load of crap. =/

I hope you fellow gamers take my advice =)
rogerrabbits 25th September 2011, 18:13 Quote
Here are my thoughts:

1) Given that hardware is constantly getting cheaper, it's very stupid to buy stuff for a game that isn't even out yet. If you insist on upgrading for it, at least wait for it to get released... then see what people say and what hardware analyses say about it, and then upgrade.

2) The specs are stupid and completely invalid because they don't mention the absolutely crucial and key point - the resolution. The entire article is pointless without that, and I wish people would stop taking it so seriously. For all you know, he could be talking about a resolution of 99999x99999, or he could be talking about 1024x768. Not knowing that key fact just makes the whole thing stupid. :(

3) It wont need those specs unless you play at high resolutions. But even if it did, so what? Why do you have to run it absolutely cranked? Is it such a big deal to lower a few settings? If so then buy two 580's. Gaming (and life in general) has always been expensive for those unwilling to compromise.

4) If the game could be cranked on lower hardware, I would be disappointed. Would you prefer it that the game just didn't look as good? Because you can't have it both ways. Personally I am fed up of gaming technology being held back by the consoles, where most games today barely look any better than they did 5 years ago. Surely it's better to have games that look amazing and you can just tweak the settings for your own PC. and some day when you upgrade, it will be able to look even better.

5) The medium settings are still unchanged.... So if you have hardware as good as that or better (which it seems most of you do), then you have nothing to worry about. The game will still look good on the settings between medium and cranked. The only thing you are likely to miss out on is fully cranked AA and AF etc, which is hardly much of a compromise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woollster00
Will a 4.0ghz i7 950 and gtx 480 be enough?

How do you have a computer like that, and yet not know what it can do, and not know how to compare the components to the provided list?
tristanperry 25th September 2011, 18:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerrabbits

How do you have a computer like that, and yet not know what it can do, and not know how to compare the components to the provided list?
I suspect that some of the 'Will this spec: [insert great hardware here]...' type questions are more a case of 'Look at my awesome hardware: [insert great hardware here]' ;)

(This post is a thinly veiled 'Is jealous of other people's awesome hardware' type post :) :p)
BFGunrunner 25th September 2011, 19:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerrabbits
Here are my thoughts:

1) Given that hardware is constantly getting cheaper, it's very stupid to buy stuff for a game that isn't even out yet. If you insist on upgrading for it, at least wait for it to get released... then see what people say and what hardware analyses say about it, and then upgrade.

2) The specs are stupid and completely invalid because they don't mention the absolutely crucial and key point - the resolution. The entire article is pointless without that, and I wish people would stop taking it so seriously. For all you know, he could be talking about a resolution of 99999x99999, or he could be talking about 1024x768. Not knowing that key fact just makes the whole thing stupid. :(

3) It wont need those specs unless you play at high resolutions. But even if it did, so what? Why do you have to run it absolutely cranked? Is it such a big deal to lower a few settings? If so then buy two 580's. Gaming (and life in general) has always been expensive for those unwilling to compromise.

4) If the game could be cranked on lower hardware, I would be disappointed. Would you prefer it that the game just didn't look as good? Because you can't have it both ways. Personally I am fed up of gaming technology being held back by the consoles, where most games today barely look any better than they did 5 years ago. Surely it's better to have games that look amazing and you can just tweak the settings for your own PC. and some day when you upgrade, it will be able to look even better.

5) The medium settings are still unchanged.... So if you have hardware as good as that or better (which it seems most of you do), then you have nothing to worry about. The game will still look good on the settings between medium and cranked. The only thing you are likely to miss out on is fully cranked AA and AF etc, which is hardly much of a compromise.



How do you have a computer like that, and yet not know what it can do, and not know how to compare the components to the provided list?

I agree but I didn't buy my second 460 just for BF 3 my intention was to be able to max out Crysis and it did do that very well. I thought I would be able to play BF 3 maxed out as well with my set up.

Anyway I would try to max out the game and if it doesn't run very well I would have to lower the settings a bit.
Scott109 25th September 2011, 21:50 Quote
man, i just got myself a 2nd hand Q6600 with an Abit Ip35 pro and a HD5870 OC edt, and am hoping to get near to recommended. I am only running on 1680x1050 res though so still hopefull.
will_123 25th September 2011, 23:31 Quote
Certainly wont be making any rash decisions until i have played the final game! I have access to beta so that should give everyone a idea of where I am. My overclocked 480 should at least let me play it at high if not ultra a 1080p...so thats going to do me fine. Good to see a new benchmark other than crysis..
PaulC2K 26th September 2011, 02:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lm_wfc
If you're getting happy at teh fact this needs £600 worth of graphics to play well, then you really need to take a look at yourself.
You wouldn't pay hundreds for the game, so why pay hundreds for a card to play the game slightly prettier?

Thats such a backwards and selfish perspective to hold. If sensibly priced hardware was all that a developer limited themselves to, then you'd have BF3's 'Ultra' setting which is on par to what 'Medium' will actually be.

Most people buy computer hardware in the hope of it streching 2-3 years, some longer. Why shouldnt developers be encouraged to keep their games visually relevent for years after its release? Its not like we've hit a wall on processing power, in a years time todays £600 worth of processing power will cost £300, so its not like them offering a *currently* unachievable Crysis-like spec will never be obtainable for sensible money, it may take 1-2yr for *some* to afford hardware capable of doing this, but by just stopping at Medium or High then your simply stopping at an inferior quality than they can offer.

I've recently spent about £700 on hardware, i suspect i'll be floating somewhere between High & Ultra with my res, and that doesnt bother me at all. Why should it? Theres enough console port games shipping Medium and calling it High. I for one would rather developers code games that would be relevent in gameplay and visuals, for a number of years rather than limiting it at settings marginally better than a consoles specs. Its nothing to do with cost, its to do with lifespan.
Chappy 26th September 2011, 02:45 Quote
Maybe I'll just wait for the GTX 600 Series for me to be able to play this in a single gpu solution...
Xir 26th September 2011, 09:07 Quote
I like this.
a new game SHOULD stretch the limits of what is possible in the "Ultra" setting, that's what it's for. Makes you feel good when you return a year later and really max it out.
Normal gameplay should be considered "high", and as soon as you turn AA off, any-'ole card will pull it
Bede 26th September 2011, 10:05 Quote
This is all marketing hype and myth. No AAA game that wants to dethrone Call of Duty will ship with such high specs. A 580 is a top end card and will, on its own, be able to max BF3 at 1920* resolutions.
mejobloggs 26th September 2011, 10:43 Quote
I'm hoping my 5850 will still be good for BF3 medium settings.

Currently play bc2 on high 4xAA 1920x1200
MjFrosty 26th September 2011, 11:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ending Credits
Given than SLI sucks, does this mean nothing can run BF3 on ultra at 1080p?

Only, SLi doesn't suck - does it? I just see pages of people whining and worrying about whether they'll be able to play it. It's no surprise really if you look at the screen shots and footage why this game will push hardware.
Woodspoon 26th September 2011, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zendax
The idea that some people have that Recommended should mean "all detailed maxed" is a bit ridiculous.

Historically, Minimum settings are the bare minimum you need for the game to be playable at any settings.

Recommended is the computer you need to have a good experience. The game will look good and play well, and you may not even know what you're missing.

Ultra settings are usually more for flexing graphical muscle and benchmarks than anything else. Doom 3 was the worst in this regard. The only difference between high and ultra was the latter used uncompressed textures. Even in screenshot comparisons there was no perceptible difference, besides doubling the amount of graphics RAM needed.

+1
Spot on.
only_happy 26th September 2011, 13:30 Quote
Can we have some game tests on Nvidia Quadro cards. out of pure curiosity. I'm typically sat next to a workstation with a £2-4k quadro graphics card in it and i'd love to know if it can play games at all well. this seems like a great oppourtunity.
I would test it myself, but the workstations are all locked down.
Lord-Vale3 26th September 2011, 14:25 Quote
If the workstations are locked down how would you ever play it, thus why the curiousity? :?

Also, nVidia just released new beta drivers apparently 'created for Battlefield3' that can increase by performance up to '38%'.

So, GTX460 play on ultra now?

Performance increase ad taken with a grain of salt naturally...
Bede 26th September 2011, 14:37 Quote
DICE/EA/nVidia have some mad PR skillz. You are all now assuming this game will be the next step in graphical fidelity, so DICE/EA have just won. You are all now only talking in terms of nVidia's cards, specifically the GTX580, so nVidia have won.

None of this is based on benchmarked fact. The original statement has been partially contradicted by a senior developer at DICE. As Lord-Vale3 has just reminded us all, new drivers can and do improve performance.

Everybody needs to take a step back - machines that can happily max BC2 are going to be able to max BF3.
will_123 26th September 2011, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord-Vale3
If the workstations are locked down how would you ever play it, thus why the curiousity? :?

Also, nVidia just released new beta drivers apparently 'created for Battlefield3' that can increase by performance up to '38%'.

So, GTX460 play on ultra now?

Performance increase ad taken with a grain of salt naturally...

I think the point being made is that he is very interested to see what these cards can do because he cant do it himself...?
Tynecider 27th September 2011, 09:16 Quote
Like other comments, I'll believe it when I see it.
K404 27th September 2011, 09:43 Quote
Really weird to think that a £40 PC game needs £700+ of GPU hardware to run it WELL.....

GPU upgrade.... PSU upgrade.......for some, a cooling upgrade.... IMHO, it'll take an OC'd SB to really feed the GPUs well enough

But hey..... maybe the PC gaming market needs this *to some extent* to get things moving again
fingerbob69 27th September 2011, 13:05 Quote
If I had a pound for everytime on here ppl said 'my HD/gtx can run everthing at max settings' ...I'd be able to afford to upgrade mine! Well, seems there might be a game coming along that makes that phrase redundent, atleast for a while. That's something that has to be welcomed.

I take it this game is an nVidia TWIMTBP tie up hence the early beta driver and 'it takes two 580s' line of advertising. I just hope it isn't borked for the red team!
mrbungle 27th September 2011, 13:59 Quote
My HX850 looks sad at the thought of having to get another 480GTX.....

Eon however.....
Waynio 27th September 2011, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbob69
If I had a pound for everytime on here ppl said 'my HD/gtx can run everthing at max settings' ...I'd be able to afford to upgrade mine! Well, seems there might be a game coming along that makes that phrase redundent, atleast for a while. That's something that has to be welcomed.

I take it this game is an nVidia TWIMTBP tie up hence the early beta driver and 'it takes two 580s' line of advertising. I just hope it isn't borked for the red team!

My 580 runs nearly everything at max smoothly, just the odd game that makes it say wtf I can't handle it metro 2033 & arma II comes to mind :D.

But it's great because it's clearly a game thinking of future GPU's while at the same time recomending what's needed to get the best of it on day 1, can't say I've seen any other big game releases do this before & it's very respectable to do that ;).
[PUNK] crompers 27th September 2011, 14:25 Quote
urobulos 27th September 2011, 15:31 Quote
I'd expect one 580 to run the game at max settings up to 1080p really. Otherwise they are going a bit overkill. At the end of the day it depends how the game looks and runs. If medium settings look better than highest possible settings on Bad Company 2 then there will be little reason to complain.
Waynio 27th September 2011, 16:41 Quote
Don't believe the hype guys were right :D, then why did EA come out & say sli 580's . Good news for none overkill setups though but I expect a little disapointing to overkill setup owners unless they are running in 3d vision or 120hz or crazy res :D.

So now we know & it looks awesome on a single GPU so may well be the one that gets me playing multiplayer again :D I hope you can go in all the buildings for some sweet cover & interesting gameplay, it looks that way .

Cheers for that Redbeaver ;).
[ZiiP] NaloaC 28th September 2011, 11:41 Quote
My 5870 runs it smooth as silk on high settings @1920x1200 with HBAO off and shadows on medium. No crashes and no real noticeable framerate drops. Happy days.

The engine is beautifully optimized.
Bede 28th September 2011, 12:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
This is all marketing hype and myth. No AAA game that wants to dethrone Call of Duty will ship with such high specs. A 580 is a top end card and will, on its own, be able to max BF3 at 1920* resolutions.

Proved right. Self-rep :D Maybe larger, more open maps like Caspian will be more taxing but we'll have to wait and see.
Sloth 28th September 2011, 19:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [ZiiP] NaloaC
My 5870 runs it smooth as silk on high settings @1920x1200 with HBAO off and shadows on medium. No crashes and no real noticeable framerate drops. Happy days.

The engine is beautifully optimized.
Good to hear, long live the 5870! :D
[ZiiP] NaloaC 29th September 2011, 00:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Good to hear, long live the 5870! :D

Damn straight!

GPU runs at full pelt, temps are at 70. CPU and RAM are at a steady 60% usage and temps are acceptable.
Waynio 29th September 2011, 01:30 Quote
Good news :) but I have a bad feeling though that the multiplayer is fine on normal rigs & the single player might be extreme, does the beta have any of the single player mode?.
sub routine 29th September 2011, 08:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG
How the hell am I supposed to run this @ 6000x1200 ?
:(

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayrto
I can think of worse dilemmas to have.

I gotta great deal on a dell 27" IPS so Ive got to fulfill the expectations of 2560 x 1440 on a q6600 and a 8800gt. Something tells me a new pc is in order.
erratum1 1st October 2011, 23:35 Quote
http://rlv.zcache.com/green_computer_power_mousepad-p144565762658657332trak_400.jpg

I don't think my comp is gonna run it, damn, maybe i'll try 2 hamsters.
beholdem 1st October 2011, 23:45 Quote
i am playing crysis2 with 2 5870s no problem on highest settings
chrismarkham1982 2nd October 2011, 14:09 Quote
The fact that I get a min 27fps, max 70fps and an average of 36.552fps with my gtx 460 oc'd to perform at the level of a 470 (minus the extra vram obviously) with everything on high and 2xAA show's this story to be complete toss.

Edit: test was done using fraps through one whole game.

Edit Edit: 1920 x 1080 res
jake9891 2nd October 2011, 16:57 Quote
hmmm I think its time to upgrade my 8800gt
xaser04 3rd October 2011, 10:24 Quote
Meh, the Beta plays fine at whatever the default settings are (getting to the menu proved very buggy for me) @ 1080p.

This is on my HD6950 (1536sp, stock clocks rather than HD6970 clocks) / i5 2500k Stock combo.

The game itself seems quite good from the brief lag filled time I had playing it. The less said about Origin the better.
Boogle 3rd October 2011, 13:03 Quote
Apparently the beta's Ultra settings aren't active - they're the same as high.
GravitySmacked 3rd October 2011, 13:28 Quote
The chap over at Tweakguides has confirmed they are in fact enabled; I tend to trust what he's saying.
chrismarkham1982 3rd October 2011, 17:57 Quote
Well put it this way, I saw no difference with my own eyes and fraps returned virtually identical results @ high and ultra.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums