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
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.
Previous Article
143 Comments
Discuss in the forums Replyunless you turn SSAO off and then everyone will be just fine
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.
What even the ones that don't want to play BF 3? ; )
I am willing to give it a try for BF3.
eBay time :D
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!
that was DX9, pretty much everyones machine could handle that...
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.
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.
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*.
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.
I seem to remember test rigs running a single 580?
Sauce: http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/43350154291589120
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?
+1 please do this for the beta too, obviously plenty of interest in the community
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
Somewhat annoying that it appears no next generation graphics hardware will be released before BF3.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
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
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!
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.
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.
Hazro HZ27WD testing my 2 gtx580s 7680x4320 but i dont think i will be able to use that res though
Also never had micro stutter.
Yeah you should be fine, my 560 might struggle... SLi time I think.
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.
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...
Maybe Bit tech could find out if they've got this "utopian" (as they described it) , DX11 feature ready for launch?
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..
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 (!)
I guess we should play the beta before we start buying stuff.
Don't quote Tom's again there's a good boy.
http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/117250670511407105
Johan Andersson
@repi Johan Andersson
@zh1nt0 @Lezziter that is wrong, the recommended settings are for High.
You wouldn't pay hundreds for the game, so why pay hundreds for a card to play the game slightly prettier?
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.
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.
:(
I can think of worse dilemmas to have.
http://www.gamepur.com/news/5426-battlefield-3-recommended-specs-medium-settings-not-ultra.html
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
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.
^ this
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
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.
Good news!
I seriously hope so :D
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 =)
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?
(This post is a thinly veiled 'Is jealous of other people's awesome hardware' type post :) :p)
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.
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.
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
Currently play bc2 on high 4xAA 1920x1200
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.
+1
Spot on.
I would test it myself, but the workstations are all locked down.
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...
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.
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...?
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
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!
Eon however.....
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 ;).
http://vr-zone.com/articles/battlefield-3-beta--performance-preview-screenshots-and-hd-video-walkthrough/13625.html
yep, as expected :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 ;).
The engine is beautifully optimized.
Proved right. Self-rep :D Maybe larger, more open maps like Caspian will be more taxing but we'll have to wait and see.
Damn straight!
GPU runs at full pelt, temps are at 70. CPU and RAM are at a steady 60% usage and temps are acceptable.
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.
I don't think my comp is gonna run it, damn, maybe i'll try 2 hamsters.
Edit: test was done using fraps through one whole game.
Edit Edit: 1920 x 1080 res
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.