• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 16:02
CET 22:02
KST 06:02
  • 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
[ASL22] Finals Preview: Sweet Victory!12[ASL22] Ro4 Preview: Mirror Mirror6[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: Within Reach5[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: In A Tizzy11[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver5
Community News
[BSL23] RO16 Group Stage12Weekly Cups (Nov 2-8): herO back on top?2Weekly Cups (Oct 26 - Nov 1): MaxPax, herO, Solar win0Weekly Cups (October 19-25): Clem triples first in 5.0.175Evil Geniuses - shutting down23
StarCraft 2
General
Serral's getting trashed by New Catsle's Mind Weekly Cups (Nov 2-8): herO back on top? Liquibets sc2 season 30 No more SC2 streamers on team liquid? StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon
Tourneys
soO & FanTaSy return! SC2 Kevin Scrim 4v4 (Nov 16) RSL goes to London! 2026 Offline Finals Nov 21-22 Tasteless Time Warp: SC Evo Showmatch (May 25) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament iNu's Battles #22
Strategy
[H] ZvP Mid-Late Game: Stalkers Collossi HT
Custom Maps
Starcraft 2 Advance [G] How to playtest arcade maps [D] the control group Simple Questions/Answers
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 551 Robotic Revival Mutation # 550 Graveyard Shift Mutation # 549 Endless Sparkles
Brood War
General
List of top players active on ShieldBattery BW General Discussion [BSL23] RO16 Group Stage screpdb: new Starcraft reporting tool [BW] Looking for Clan Thread!
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2v2v2v2 Tournament Stage 1: Community Poll [$1250] International ShieldBattery League Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Nuke strategy worked in K-League 2026-11-09 50,000-Word Terran Builds Memo 2026-10-22 Cliff Jump Revisited (1 in a 1000 strategy)
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile General RTS Discussion Thread ZeroSpace Early Access is Now Live!
Dota 2
Dota 2 Champions League Season 3 Begins April 25!
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Trading/Investing Thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Dating: How's your luck? European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Fan Club Resource Thread Reynor Fan Club The Flash Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The time I organised my…
AssyrianKing
Why I built Repalyzer (1.1.…
BlueStar
Innovate or Game Over?
TrAiDoS
ShieldBattery on Mac
Kraekkling
[ASL22] Ro4 Day1 Ticket Giv…
bITt.mAN
Can Bots Beat Pros?? Starcr…
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 12255 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
Norway2849 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
3D!Clan Event
01:30
Autumn Series Playoffs
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 652
EmSc Tv 17
StarCraft: Brood War
Shuttle 358
soO 17
LuMiX 5
League of Legends
Trikslyr55
Counter-Strike
pashabiceps2211
gobbtv225
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu590
Other Games
tarik_tv6512
Grubby1793
fl0m970
B2W.Neo569
byalli515
shahzam429
PiGStarcraft172
C9.Mang0125
syndereN107
QueenE100
summit1g79
Mew2King57
UpATreeSC41
Railgan36
Organizations
StarCraft 2
EmSc Tv 17
EmSc2Tv 17
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix8
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 1542
• WagamamaTV399
League of Legends
• TFBlade997
Other Games
• imaqtpie1330
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
12h 58m
KCM Race Survival
12h 58m
WardiTV Invitational
14h 58m
OSC
1d 1h
ArT vs MindelVK
MiniZergUA vs TBD
Shameless vs TBD
Ultimate Battle
1d 14h
OSC
2 days
ByuN vs MaxPax
herO vs Krystianer
Percival vs Shameless
LetaleX vs YoungYakov
Nicoract vs Gerald
GgMaChine vs ArT
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
IPSL
2 days
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
BSL
2 days
TerrOr vs OyAji
UltrA vs Gosudark
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
IPSL
3 days
Art_Of_Turtle vs KameZerg
Radley vs George
BSL
3 days
Artosis vs Dewalt
Ret vs Tech
WardiTV Weekly
4 days
PiGosaur Cup
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-11-09
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
HCC Season 3

Ongoing

Acropolis #5
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 4
International ShieldBattery League
Individual League
BSL Season 23
IPSL Winter 2026-27
Calamity Cup Div. A Season 8
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026

Upcoming

YSL S4
Sector 951
SC4ALL II: Brood War
BSL 23: Non-Korean Championship
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
StarCraft2 Weekly Open Tournament 2026 Grand Finals
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Underdog Cup 2026 Div 2-3
PGL Bucharest 2027
BLAST Bounty Winter 2027
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
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 © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.