• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 00:08
CET 06:08
KST 14:08
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10
Community News
Weekly Cups (Nov 24-30): MaxPax, Clem, herO win2BGE Stara Zagora 2026 announced15[BSL21] Ro.16 Group Stage (C->B->A->D)4Weekly Cups (Nov 17-23): Solar, MaxPax, Clem win3RSL Season 3: RO16 results & RO8 bracket13
StarCraft 2
General
BGE Stara Zagora 2026 announced Weekly Cups (Nov 24-30): MaxPax, Clem, herO win SC2 Proleague Discontinued; SKT, KT, SGK, CJ disband Information Request Regarding Chinese Ladder SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA
Tourneys
$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest RSL Revival: Season 3 Tenacious Turtle Tussle [Alpha Pro Series] Nice vs Cure
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 502 Negative Reinforcement Mutation # 501 Price of Progress Mutation # 500 Fright night Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation
Brood War
General
Which season is the best in ASL? [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions BW General Discussion FlaSh's Valkyrie Copium BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] RO16 Group B - Sunday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO16 Group C - Saturday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Game Theory for Starcraft How to stay on top of macro? Current Meta PvZ map balance
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread The Perfect Game Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread The Big Programming Thread Artificial Intelligence Thread
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Where to ask questions and add stream? The Automated Ban List
Blogs
James Bond movies ranking - pa…
Topin
Esports Earnings: Bigger Pri…
TrAiDoS
Thanks for the RSL
Hildegard
Saturation point
Uldridge
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1299 users

Battlefield 3 - Page 222

Forum Index > General Games
Post a Reply
Prev 1 220 221 222 223 224 491 Next
genius_man16
Profile Joined February 2011
United States749 Posts
October 20 2011 18:06 GMT
#4421


When is tuesday coming?
Dyrus | Vooby | Balls | Meteos | WildTurtle | Bjergsen | Cop | sexPeke | Xpecial | Aphromoo | Scarra |
freddievercetti
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
224 Posts
October 20 2011 18:07 GMT
#4422
Not soon enough.
Assault_1
Profile Joined April 2009
Canada1950 Posts
October 20 2011 18:10 GMT
#4423
is anyone worried about the singleplayer storyline? bad company 2's was mediocore ("just another fps campaign"), I hope they do it well this time

everything else looks good!
Serejai
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
6007 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 18:16:23
October 20 2011 18:12 GMT
#4424
On October 20 2011 08:51 solidbebe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 08:42 KaoReal wrote:
$2.5k is pretty much cutting edge. More than you need for any kind of gaming unless you play on 3 to 6 monitors on maxed settings. For the more realistic (less hardcore) PC gamers, you can pick up the parts to build a PC that will run BF3 on high for about $700-$900


2,5k IS cutting edge, it's however definitely not too much for gaming, to run games as witcher 2 or battlefield 3 on maxed settings with a good 80+ fps you definitely need to spend 2k.


This is very, very, very misleading information and far from truth.

I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.

EDIT: WTF. So much bad information in this thread about hardware...

On October 20 2011 08:55 Bibdy wrote:
Depends if you need to buy all of the peripheral crap like the case, a monitor, keyboard, chair, desk, mouse etc. A good processor, motherboard, memory and GPU combo usually comes to around $1,500 and that'll keep you above the curve for a year, maybe two, before you need to start upgrading individual components, or dialing the graphics settings down a notch.


About $800 will get you a CPU + Mobo + RAM + GPU that will max out any game for at least a year, more than likely two. Where are all of you people buying your parts from that are so overpriced!? Like, the entire last two pages of this thread is full of people spending twice as much as they should be on hardware =/
I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS
blade55555
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States17423 Posts
October 20 2011 18:41 GMT
#4425
On October 21 2011 03:12 Serejai wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 08:51 solidbebe wrote:
On October 20 2011 08:42 KaoReal wrote:
$2.5k is pretty much cutting edge. More than you need for any kind of gaming unless you play on 3 to 6 monitors on maxed settings. For the more realistic (less hardcore) PC gamers, you can pick up the parts to build a PC that will run BF3 on high for about $700-$900


2,5k IS cutting edge, it's however definitely not too much for gaming, to run games as witcher 2 or battlefield 3 on maxed settings with a good 80+ fps you definitely need to spend 2k.


This is very, very, very misleading information and far from truth.

I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.

EDIT: WTF. So much bad information in this thread about hardware...

Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 08:55 Bibdy wrote:
Depends if you need to buy all of the peripheral crap like the case, a monitor, keyboard, chair, desk, mouse etc. A good processor, motherboard, memory and GPU combo usually comes to around $1,500 and that'll keep you above the curve for a year, maybe two, before you need to start upgrading individual components, or dialing the graphics settings down a notch.


About $800 will get you a CPU + Mobo + RAM + GPU that will max out any game for at least a year, more than likely two. Where are all of you people buying your parts from that are so overpriced!? Like, the entire last two pages of this thread is full of people spending twice as much as they should be on hardware =/


I'm going to tell you, you did not max Battlefield 3. All you played were medium settings even if you put the settings to ultra it wasn't actually maxed settings. Dice is holding back a lot of the graphics or so they said anyway.

I do agree though that you could spend 1k and max any game except for possibly Battlefield 3. According to them to be able to play at 1920 by 1200 with 60 fps you need 2 gpu's and not a single gpu can do it.

When I think of something else, something will go here
Warlock40
Profile Joined September 2011
601 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 18:46:01
October 20 2011 18:44 GMT
#4426
My friends and I got together to build me a computer that would run BF3 on max settings at 1920x1080 with a framerate that never dips below 30. We ended up making it for about 1400 USD, rounded up, with two 570s and an i7. Runs the beta fine. I think that's about as cheap as you can go. This doesn't include monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc, just everything that goes in the computer case.

I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?
Warfie
Profile Joined February 2009
Norway2846 Posts
October 20 2011 19:06 GMT
#4427
I thought they stated that the max settings in retail will be a couple notches above max settings in the beta?
Torte de Lini
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Germany38463 Posts
October 20 2011 19:09 GMT
#4428
On October 21 2011 04:06 Warfie wrote:
I thought they stated that the max settings in retail will be a couple notches above max settings in the beta?


Max available settings is what he means.
https://twitter.com/#!/TorteDeLini (@TorteDeLini)
Serejai
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
6007 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 19:20:50
October 20 2011 19:19 GMT
#4429
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
Show nested quote +
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.
I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS
Miss_Cleo
Profile Joined March 2010
United States406 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 19:29:44
October 20 2011 19:28 GMT
#4430
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


I promise you you will not be able to max out BF3 with your hardware, and your claim of ATIs doubling the FPS is BS. They might perform slightly better, but DOUBLING the FPS?
Serejai
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
6007 Posts
October 20 2011 19:30 GMT
#4431
On October 21 2011 04:28 Miss_Cleo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


I promise you you will not be able to max out BF3 with your hardware


Are you a troll? How can you promise me I can't do something that's already been done? I have the RTM build of BF3 and the graphical requirements are only about 10% more than what the beta required. Please stop trolling and misleading people when you have zero evidence to back up your claims.
I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS
blade55555
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States17423 Posts
October 20 2011 19:34 GMT
#4432
On October 21 2011 04:30 Serejai wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:28 Miss_Cleo wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


I promise you you will not be able to max out BF3 with your hardware


Are you a troll? How can you promise me I can't do something that's already been done? I have the RTM build of BF3 and the graphical requirements are only about 10% more than what the beta required. Please stop trolling and misleading people when you have zero evidence to back up your claims.


Dice said you can't run it maxxed at 1920 by 1200 with 60 fps with a single gpu. Thats the evidence. Also Beta was not full settings as said many times so you haven't done it.
When I think of something else, something will go here
Miss_Cleo
Profile Joined March 2010
United States406 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 19:36:04
October 20 2011 19:35 GMT
#4433
How have you done it already, the game hasn't been released yet and ultra was locked in the beta, as someone already stated. I'm not sure which settings were unlocked during beta, but someone posted earlier that it was locked at medium. My FPS never dipped below 60 during the beta maxed out, but I'm certain that I wont be able to max it out at true ultra while getting good FPS.
Serejai
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
6007 Posts
October 20 2011 19:43 GMT
#4434
On October 21 2011 04:34 blade55555 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:30 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:28 Miss_Cleo wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


I promise you you will not be able to max out BF3 with your hardware


Are you a troll? How can you promise me I can't do something that's already been done? I have the RTM build of BF3 and the graphical requirements are only about 10% more than what the beta required. Please stop trolling and misleading people when you have zero evidence to back up your claims.


Dice said you can't run it maxxed at 1920 by 1200 with 60 fps with a single gpu. Thats the evidence. Also Beta was not full settings as said many times so you haven't done it.


As posted earlier in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak0wTRjWqvcOdGpjNURkVUtzRWYyVXludkpCWXpsOVE&hl=en_US#gid=2

And as just stated in the post above you I also have the release client and the graphics only take about a 10% hit when bumped up. 80 FPS in beta turns into 72 FPS in retail, not to mention plenty of single-GPU setups were pushing 80+ during the beta. You're basically arguing that factual data is wrong simply because DICE, who by the way has released nothing to substantiate their claims, says something different.

On October 21 2011 04:35 Miss_Cleo wrote:
How have you done it already, the game hasn't been released yet and ultra was locked in the beta, as someone already stated. I'm not sure which settings were unlocked during beta, but someone posted earlier that it was locked at medium. My FPS never dipped below 60 during the beta maxed out, but I'm certain that I wont be able to max it out at true ultra while getting good FPS.


As stated above I have the release client of the game. There are no locked or missing settings. It's only about a 10% increase in the amount of hardware required to run the retail client. If you were getting 60 FPS in beta you'll get about 54 FPS in retail.
I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS
askTeivospy
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1525 Posts
October 20 2011 19:55 GMT
#4435
On October 21 2011 04:43 Serejai wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:34 blade55555 wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:30 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:28 Miss_Cleo wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


I promise you you will not be able to max out BF3 with your hardware


Are you a troll? How can you promise me I can't do something that's already been done? I have the RTM build of BF3 and the graphical requirements are only about 10% more than what the beta required. Please stop trolling and misleading people when you have zero evidence to back up your claims.


Dice said you can't run it maxxed at 1920 by 1200 with 60 fps with a single gpu. Thats the evidence. Also Beta was not full settings as said many times so you haven't done it.


As posted earlier in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak0wTRjWqvcOdGpjNURkVUtzRWYyVXludkpCWXpsOVE&hl=en_US#gid=2

And as just stated in the post above you I also have the release client and the graphics only take about a 10% hit when bumped up. 80 FPS in beta turns into 72 FPS in retail, not to mention plenty of single-GPU setups were pushing 80+ during the beta. You're basically arguing that factual data is wrong simply because DICE, who by the way has released nothing to substantiate their claims, says something different.

Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:35 Miss_Cleo wrote:
How have you done it already, the game hasn't been released yet and ultra was locked in the beta, as someone already stated. I'm not sure which settings were unlocked during beta, but someone posted earlier that it was locked at medium. My FPS never dipped below 60 during the beta maxed out, but I'm certain that I wont be able to max it out at true ultra while getting good FPS.


As stated above I have the release client of the game. There are no locked or missing settings. It's only about a 10% increase in the amount of hardware required to run the retail client. If you were getting 60 FPS in beta you'll get about 54 FPS in retail.


You said RTM build, I figured it meant release from context (I've never heard of the acronym before) but if others are spending 1500-2500 on a PC to max out bf3 i doubt they'd be able to figure it out

Anyways why do you have a release build :S
hihihi
rezoacken
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada2719 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 20:12:10
October 20 2011 19:58 GMT
#4436
After you guys have played beta, iIs the hype for this game still living on and it will be the foretold revolution in multiplayer fps, or definetly not ?
Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.
Miss_Cleo
Profile Joined March 2010
United States406 Posts
October 20 2011 20:00 GMT
#4437
On October 21 2011 04:58 rezoacken wrote:
Is after beta is the hype for this game still living on and it will be the foretold revolution in multiplayer fps or definetly not ?


definitely don't understand what you're asking
yousaba
Profile Joined January 2011
Sweden55 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 20:07:50
October 20 2011 20:04 GMT
#4438
On October 21 2011 03:12 Serejai wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 08:51 solidbebe wrote:
On October 20 2011 08:42 KaoReal wrote:
$2.5k is pretty much cutting edge. More than you need for any kind of gaming unless you play on 3 to 6 monitors on maxed settings. For the more realistic (less hardcore) PC gamers, you can pick up the parts to build a PC that will run BF3 on high for about $700-$900


2,5k IS cutting edge, it's however definitely not too much for gaming, to run games as witcher 2 or battlefield 3 on maxed settings with a good 80+ fps you definitely need to spend 2k.


This is very, very, very misleading information and far from truth.

I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.

EDIT: WTF. So much bad information in this thread about hardware...

Show nested quote +
On October 20 2011 08:55 Bibdy wrote:
Depends if you need to buy all of the peripheral crap like the case, a monitor, keyboard, chair, desk, mouse etc. A good processor, motherboard, memory and GPU combo usually comes to around $1,500 and that'll keep you above the curve for a year, maybe two, before you need to start upgrading individual components, or dialing the graphics settings down a notch.


About $800 will get you a CPU + Mobo + RAM + GPU that will max out any game for at least a year, more than likely two. Where are all of you people buying your parts from that are so overpriced!? Like, the entire last two pages of this thread is full of people spending twice as much as they should be on hardware =/


Protip:
they hadnt added high in beta.
even if you picked high, you got medium.
they tweeted this several times.

edit:
they've also said it will be impossible to max it in high res and 60+ fps without crossfire/sli.

On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


This made me laugh since the game is developed for NVIDIA cards and work better for them because of it.
NVIDIA is also known to have better drivers, usually they have more expensive cards, but lately they have more affordable cards too.
Just go to any hardware site and look where you get must performance per dollar.
Nice attempt to troll though.

User was temp banned for this post.
askTeivospy
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1525 Posts
October 20 2011 20:09 GMT
#4439
On October 21 2011 05:04 yousaba wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 03:12 Serejai wrote:
On October 20 2011 08:51 solidbebe wrote:
On October 20 2011 08:42 KaoReal wrote:
$2.5k is pretty much cutting edge. More than you need for any kind of gaming unless you play on 3 to 6 monitors on maxed settings. For the more realistic (less hardcore) PC gamers, you can pick up the parts to build a PC that will run BF3 on high for about $700-$900


2,5k IS cutting edge, it's however definitely not too much for gaming, to run games as witcher 2 or battlefield 3 on maxed settings with a good 80+ fps you definitely need to spend 2k.


This is very, very, very misleading information and far from truth.

I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.

EDIT: WTF. So much bad information in this thread about hardware...

On October 20 2011 08:55 Bibdy wrote:
Depends if you need to buy all of the peripheral crap like the case, a monitor, keyboard, chair, desk, mouse etc. A good processor, motherboard, memory and GPU combo usually comes to around $1,500 and that'll keep you above the curve for a year, maybe two, before you need to start upgrading individual components, or dialing the graphics settings down a notch.


About $800 will get you a CPU + Mobo + RAM + GPU that will max out any game for at least a year, more than likely two. Where are all of you people buying your parts from that are so overpriced!? Like, the entire last two pages of this thread is full of people spending twice as much as they should be on hardware =/


Protip:
they hadnt added high in beta.
even if you picked high, you got medium.
they tweeted this several times.

edit:
they've also said it will be impossible to max it in high res and 60+ fps without crossfire/sli.

Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


This made me laugh since the game is developed for NVIDIA cards and work better for them because of it.
NVIDIA is also known to have better drivers, usually they have more expensive cards, but lately they have more affordable cards too.
Just go to any hardware site and look where you get must performance per dollar.
Nice attempt to troll though.


eZ tip:
keep reading his posts so you can continue to update and edit your own post


hihihi
Serejai
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
6007 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-20 20:17:46
October 20 2011 20:10 GMT
#4440
On October 21 2011 04:55 askTeivospy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:43 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:34 blade55555 wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:30 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:28 Miss_Cleo wrote:
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
On October 21 2011 03:44 Warlock40 wrote:
I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.


What are your specs?


I run a Phenom II X6 1090T, Radeon 5870, and 4GB RAM. FPS never dropped below 60 on Caspian Border and average fluctuated between 70 and 85 with all settings available during the beta set to max.

Was also able to stream @720p while playing with zero issues, so CPU was more than adequate it would seem.

EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


I promise you you will not be able to max out BF3 with your hardware


Are you a troll? How can you promise me I can't do something that's already been done? I have the RTM build of BF3 and the graphical requirements are only about 10% more than what the beta required. Please stop trolling and misleading people when you have zero evidence to back up your claims.


Dice said you can't run it maxxed at 1920 by 1200 with 60 fps with a single gpu. Thats the evidence. Also Beta was not full settings as said many times so you haven't done it.


As posted earlier in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak0wTRjWqvcOdGpjNURkVUtzRWYyVXludkpCWXpsOVE&hl=en_US#gid=2

And as just stated in the post above you I also have the release client and the graphics only take about a 10% hit when bumped up. 80 FPS in beta turns into 72 FPS in retail, not to mention plenty of single-GPU setups were pushing 80+ during the beta. You're basically arguing that factual data is wrong simply because DICE, who by the way has released nothing to substantiate their claims, says something different.

On October 21 2011 04:35 Miss_Cleo wrote:
How have you done it already, the game hasn't been released yet and ultra was locked in the beta, as someone already stated. I'm not sure which settings were unlocked during beta, but someone posted earlier that it was locked at medium. My FPS never dipped below 60 during the beta maxed out, but I'm certain that I wont be able to max it out at true ultra while getting good FPS.


As stated above I have the release client of the game. There are no locked or missing settings. It's only about a 10% increase in the amount of hardware required to run the retail client. If you were getting 60 FPS in beta you'll get about 54 FPS in retail.


You said RTM build, I figured it meant release from context (I've never heard of the acronym before) but if others are spending 1500-2500 on a PC to max out bf3 i doubt they'd be able to figure it out

Anyways why do you have a release build :S


Ah, my apologies. RTM means "release to manufacturing" and is basically what you call the build that gets sent out to put on media. They use it for software... not sure if games are different. Also known as going gold.

I can't tell you why I have a release build, but I've had it since about halfway through the beta. It's freely available now via the internet, though. *cough*

On October 21 2011 05:04 yousaba wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 03:12 Serejai wrote:
On October 20 2011 08:51 solidbebe wrote:
On October 20 2011 08:42 KaoReal wrote:
$2.5k is pretty much cutting edge. More than you need for any kind of gaming unless you play on 3 to 6 monitors on maxed settings. For the more realistic (less hardcore) PC gamers, you can pick up the parts to build a PC that will run BF3 on high for about $700-$900


2,5k IS cutting edge, it's however definitely not too much for gaming, to run games as witcher 2 or battlefield 3 on maxed settings with a good 80+ fps you definitely need to spend 2k.


This is very, very, very misleading information and far from truth.

I run BF3 on max settings @ 1080p at 80+ FPS and my entire system cost me about $1k over a year ago. You can max it out with current hardware for around $800 I would imagine.

EDIT: WTF. So much bad information in this thread about hardware...

On October 20 2011 08:55 Bibdy wrote:
Depends if you need to buy all of the peripheral crap like the case, a monitor, keyboard, chair, desk, mouse etc. A good processor, motherboard, memory and GPU combo usually comes to around $1,500 and that'll keep you above the curve for a year, maybe two, before you need to start upgrading individual components, or dialing the graphics settings down a notch.


About $800 will get you a CPU + Mobo + RAM + GPU that will max out any game for at least a year, more than likely two. Where are all of you people buying your parts from that are so overpriced!? Like, the entire last two pages of this thread is full of people spending twice as much as they should be on hardware =/


Protip:
they hadnt added high in beta.
even if you picked high, you got medium.
they tweeted this several times.


Protip:
im using release client.
im using release client and you're a troll.
ive posted this several times.

On October 21 2011 05:04 yousaba wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 04:19 Serejai wrote:
EDIT: Also to note is ATI GPUs handle the game vastly better than Nvidia GPUs do. An equally priced ATI card tends to get nearly double the framerate of an NVIDIA card does at the moment. Dunno how well NVIDIA can tweak their drivers before release but that gap should close a bit.


This made me laugh since the game is developed for NVIDIA cards and work better for them because of it.
NVIDIA is also known to have better drivers, usually they have more expensive cards, but lately they have more affordable cards too.
Just go to any hardware site and look where you get must performance per dollar.
Nice attempt to troll though.


Ok seriously, just stop now. All you're doing is trying to start drama. Have you even played the game at all? Anyone in the beta would know that the NVIDIA drivers were/are terrible for BF3 performance right now and the ATI drivers were very solid.

You don't seem to understand at all that we're talking about Battlefield 3 performance. "Just go to any hardware site and look where you get must performance per dollar." doesn't even apply to this conversation at all, wtf. You literally are just trying to derail the thread and troll :/
I HAVE 5 TOAST POINTS
Prev 1 220 221 222 223 224 491 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PiGosaur Monday
01:00
#60
PiGStarcraft674
SteadfastSC146
CranKy Ducklings102
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft674
RuFF_SC2 165
SteadfastSC 146
StarCraft: Brood War
actioN 335
PianO 252
Noble 49
Icarus 8
Dota 2
monkeys_forever591
League of Legends
JimRising 801
Counter-Strike
Coldzera 1410
Other Games
summit1g13780
WinterStarcraft492
C9.Mang0358
ViBE159
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1082
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 82
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki23
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1005
• Stunt364
Other Games
• Scarra1287
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
6h 52m
StarCraft2.fi
11h 52m
Replay Cast
18h 52m
The PondCast
1d 4h
OSC
1d 10h
Demi vs Mixu
Nicoract vs TBD
Babymarine vs MindelVK
ForJumy vs TBD
Shameless vs Percival
Replay Cast
1d 18h
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
SC Evo League
3 days
BSL 21
3 days
Sziky vs OyAji
Gypsy vs eOnzErG
[ Show More ]
OSC
3 days
Solar vs Creator
ByuN vs Gerald
Percival vs Babymarine
Moja vs Krystianer
EnDerr vs ForJumy
sebesdes vs Nicoract
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
OSC
4 days
BSL 21
4 days
Bonyth vs StRyKeR
Tarson vs Dandy
Replay Cast
5 days
Wardi Open
5 days
StarCraft2.fi
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
StarCraft2.fi
6 days
PiGosaur Monday
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-30
RSL Revival: Season 3
Light HT

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
CSCL: Masked Kings S3
Slon Tour Season 2
Acropolis #4 - TS3
META Madness #9
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2

Upcoming

BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
Kuram Kup
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.