EPTBattlefield 3 - Page 223
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
|
freddievercetti
224 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:58 rezoacken wrote: 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 ? Revolution? It's merely an evolution from BF2 and BC2 but that doesn't mean it can't be a great game. I don't recall DICE ever saying that BF3 was going to be a revolution in the FPS genre. If they want to make a revolutionary shooter they'd have to start with learning how to do a decent single player campaign first because neither BC1's nor BC2's were all that special and paled in comparison to the last four Call of Duty games. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:19 freddievercetti wrote: I know I just want to jump off that cliff right now lol! I can already tell that map is most likely going to be one of my favorties assuming it does allow 32 vs 32 conquest (I know all maps do conquest but I believe dice said some maps won't do 32 vs 32 iirc) and one team gets to jump off  . | ||
|
iinsom
Australia339 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:12 Serejai wrote: 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... 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 =/ You're on drugs if you think you can max out BF3 (which noone has been able to do yet btw) on anything less then 580 SLI EDIT: Just saw you're using a 5870 AND you claim BF3 is optimised for ATi... Stop trolling | ||
|
acidstormy
United States191 Posts
| ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:33 blade55555 wrote: I can already tell that map is most likely going to be one of my favorties assuming it does allow 32 vs 32 conquest (I know all maps do conquest but I believe dice said some maps won't do 32 vs 32 iirc) and one team gets to jump off .Recently read somewhere that ALL maps were going to have Rush, Conquest, Conquest 32, Team Deathmatch and... was it Squad deathmatch? | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
Squad DM sounds found, but I think I'll only do DM | ||
|
Soulfire
United States237 Posts
I picked nVidia over ATI this time because the 570 has significantly improved performance over the 6970, its ATI equivalent, at my res of 1680x1050, and because nVidia performed negligibly better over ATI in BC2. Since this game's running effectively the same engine, I figured this would be the case for BF3 as well. A little confused with your statement that ATI cards perform significantly better than nVidia in BF3 for that reason, Serejai. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:19 Soulfire wrote: So I just recently received my GTX 570 TFIII and cooler for my i5 750 for this game, it should be good enough for 60+ on High. I picked nVidia over ATI this time because the 570 has significantly improved performance over the 6970, its ATI equivalent, at my res of 1680x1050, and because nVidia performed negligibly better over ATI in BC2. Since this game's running effectively the same engine, I figured this would be the case for BF3 as well. A little confused with your statement that ATI cards perform significantly better than nVidia in BF3 for that reason, Serejai. You should be able to do ultra I imagine with 45-50 fps. I imagine your processor is good? But I have a gtx 570 as well with an i5 2500k sandy bridge so I am hoping to play ultra with 45+ fps if not I will do half and half . | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:43 Serejai wrote: 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. 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 say you have the release client but can not prove it. I also find it kind of hard to believe you do considering that Dice/EA isn't even giving the game to reviewers until the game is out. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6341065/battlefield-3-review-delayed?tag=updates;editor;all;title;10 If they won't even give the full game to places that review why would you get it? I also question if your computer is a year old how you can "max" out the settings unless you did purchase a newer card but you say everything in yours is a year old so I just find it very hard to believe especially when your card is an ATI 5870 which that card can't run crysis 2 past 33 FPS. http://kksonakiya.hubpages.com/hub/ATI-Radeon-HD-5870-Graphics-Card-Benchmarked So in all I am saying I am pretty sure you are lying at playing it maxed at 1080P and getting 60+ FPS with that graphics card AND having the "full release since half way through beta". | ||
|
Soulfire
United States237 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:31 blade55555 wrote: You say you have the release client but can not prove it. I also find it kind of hard to believe you do considering that Dice/EA isn't even giving the game to reviewers until the game is out. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6341065/battlefield-3-review-delayed?tag=updates;editor;all;title;10 If they won't even give the full game to places that review why would you get it? I also question if your computer is a year old how you can "max" out the settings unless you did purchase a newer card but you say everything in yours is a year old so I just find it very hard to believe. Also a little confused here - if an OC'd GTX 570 can't even max the game out with 60+ FPS, how can a 5870? | ||
|
iinsom
Australia339 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:34 Soulfire wrote: Also a little confused here - if an OC'd GTX 570 can't even max the game out with 60+ FPS, how can a 5870? Hes trolling, ignore him... | ||
|
Serejai
6007 Posts
I've already provided thousands of benchmark results from the beta. It's also fairly well-known on these forums that I have connections with game developers, not to mention the retail client has been on torrent sites for over a week now - it's really not my problem if you don't know how to use the internet. Suffice to say, I actually have personal experience while you have nothing but speculation. a) It's stupid for you to think that simply because review sites aren't releasing anything yet means there are no retail copies out there. Review sites are under an NDA. b) None of you has played the retail client and so you keep falling back on this "DICE says you need SLI 570s" excuse. Do I really need to post a list of things DICE has said about BF3 that have been false? It's pretty large. Simply put they have a partnership with NVIDIA. Of course they're going to tell you to go out and buy an SLI setup. c) Anyone who played in the beta and/or read the official forums would know what NVIDIA drivers were terrible and that ATI cards were outperforming them across the board. Please don't bring your fanboy bullshit into a thread to argue with hard data from tens of thousands of players. ATI cards run the game better until NVIDIA releases a better driver no matter how much you want to. A GTX 570 with current drivers runs the game between 65-76 FPS while a 5870 with current drivers runs the game between 70 and 85. Again, data from tens of thousands of players confirmed this in the document I linked earlier as well as on the official beta forums. If you have a problem with this you should press NVIDIA to fix their drivers faster rather than whining about it in this thread. d) Frostbite 2 is VASTLY different than Frostbite 1.5 used in BC2. For starters, FB1.5 was the first version to hit Windows and was poorly optimized for it. Secondly, it didn't have full DX11 support. Thirdly, it was poorly optimized. Saying NVIDIA cards do better in BF3 based on their performance in BC2 is just plain ignorant. See: c) e) I have no idea where any of you is getting this "you need SLI GTX 580s to run the game!" bullshit from. In one sentence you say there are no reviews of the retail client, but then you turn around with 100% confidence that you know exactly what the requirements are? I can only assume you are guessing (yes, guessing, as not a one of you has backed up any of your speculation with actual facts or data yet - which means you're all just guessing) based on reviews such as this one which were done with a beta pre-release before either GPU company had released drivers for the game (both of which increased performance by at least 40%). Also, and most importantly of all, note that nearly everyone responding to that thread says the graph is highly inaccurate and much, much lower than actual gameplay experiences. It's very clear that none of you even bothered playing the beta at all as you wouldn't have made your misinformed posts had you done so. You also apparently didn't read any of the beta forum threads about performance with various video cards/cpus as they also all showed that you can max the game out fairly easily with many people getting well over 70 FPS during the beta with single card solutions playing on Ultra (which, in the beta, is about 90% of what retail Ultra settings are). Dual card solutions were breaking 100 FPS fairly consistently (again, on Ultra beta settings which are ~90% of retail settings). So in closing I'm not entirely sure why you feel the need to scam fellow TLers (and in some cases yourselves) into spending $2k+ on a computer for this game when it's not needed at all. That being said, it's a waste of my time to keep arguing with a bunch of trolls that have zero support for their arguments and have clearly not even played the game themselves. Apologies to everyone who gets conned into dropping a small fortune on unneeded hardware based on speculation and opinions of other forum members. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
DEAL WITH IT | ||
|
iinsom
Australia339 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Soulfire
United States237 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:54 iinsom wrote: Im not going to bother with your trolling serejai. Have fun convincing yourself you're running a godlike pc Lol, how the fuck can you still assume he's trolling after making so many coherent posts? Quality of TLers has seriously gone down. Thanks for the post Serejai - hopefully nVidia will release good drivers soon, needed the 570 for my res. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:54 iinsom wrote: Im not going to bother with your trolling serejai. Have fun convincing yourself you're running a godlike pc Serejai's post was well-informed. He is making clear and coherent statements that more importantly, make sense. I found his advice to be helpful, much more so than the multitudes of people that never played the beta. | ||
|
prodiG
Canada2016 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:29 Torte de Lini wrote: dude run up and put a spawn beacon under the rock cliff thingy outside of their spawn and then knife all of their fail nerd fool snipers YEAH AND JUST FOR YOU GUYS ALL TO KNOW, IM LOCKING THE SQUAD AND ITS JUST ME AND JAI ON THAT STUPID ISLAND ON METRO 1. DEAL WITH IT  | ||
| ||
