• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Battlefield 3 PC Requirements Revealed [Update: Recommended = High]

Two big-name studio PC releases (Id and DICE) and two vastly different recommended settings. Both have console versions. This coming month will be very interesting to me regarding how these games are reviewed and received from a technical perspective.
 
LOL @ my 6 month old top of the line PC not even meeting the recommended requirements for a new game already. I knew I should have sprung for more than a 6850.
 
nincompoop said:
LOL @ my 6 month old top of the line PC not even meeting the recommended requirements for a new game already. I knew I should have sprung for more than a 6850.
Click to expand...

no offence, but the reality is that the 6850 wasn't even a top of the line gpu at release. It's actually midrange, and it doesn't perform much worse than a 6950.
 
Good, this just means it looks prettier.

I'm closer to minimum specs than recommended ones gpu wise.
judging from the replies here people would have been happier with an uglier game with lower specs so they can 'max it'.

smh
Did people really go stupid in the last 4 years? You always needed a new semi high end gpu for new pc shooters, always, and they always looked the part and always scaled up nicely on future hardware.
That's the whole frigging point, don't like it? get a console and enjoy your 24 fps low settings 'maxed'.
I didn't see people go 'a bloo blooo my (truely) high end radeon 9800 pro that is a year old only runs this at 30 fps' when hl2 or doom 3 were released , they went omfg this looks amazing.

@ugh my 6850 blabla, a 6850 is about as fast as a 4890 (which isn't bad), you got suckered by AMD naming schemes that people on this forum claimed high and low noone would misinterpret.
 
At least I know I can run this game on low

i7 2600
GTX 460 756mb
6gb DDR ram

and I thought my GTX 460 could handle games for the next few years :(
 
SneakyStephan said:
Good, this just means it looks prettier.

I'm closer to minimum specs than recommended ones gpu wise.
judging from the replies here people would have been happier with an uglier game with lower specs so they can 'max it'.

smh
Did people really go stupid in the last 4 years? You always needed a new semi high end gpu for new pc shooters, always, and they always looked the part and always scaled up nicely on future hardware.
That's the whole frigging point, don't like it? get a console and enjoy your 24 fps low settings 'maxed'.
I didn't see people go 'a bloo blooo my (truely) high end radeon 9800 pro that is a year old only runs this at 30 fps' when hl2 or doom 3 were released , they went omfg this looks amazing.

@ugh my 6850 blabla, a 6850 is about as fast as a 4890 (which isn't bad), you got suckered by AMD naming schemes that people on this forum claimed high and low noone would misinterpret.
Click to expand...
For the most part I agree. But Id's Rage is coming out in October and those settings are nowhere near BF3. Two very different games in many ways, but still both are FPS's and brand spanking new.
 
AppleSmack said:
I think DICE needs to go and optimize the game a bit more...Or actually a lot more.
Click to expand...

lol

ITT PPL mad that a game pushes PC hardware

DenogginizerOS said:
For the most part I agree. But Id's Rage is coming out in October and those settings are nowhere near BF3. Two very different games in many ways, but still both are FPS's and brand spanking new.
Click to expand...

Yeah well...look at the RAGE trailers and then look at BF3 trailers. Which one makes you say wow more? Pretty certain BF3. RAGE was dumbed down for consoles. Go back and look at the original RAGE trailers and compare it to what we've got now.

Want that wow factor on your screen? Need a pretty decent and up to date computer. I see nothing wrong with this.
 
Corky said:
no offence, but the reality is that the 6850 wasn't even a top of the line gpu at release. It's actually midrange, and it doesn't perform much worse than a 6950.
Click to expand...

It's a very impressive card, no doubt. At $160 it's a monster.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
For the most part I agree. But Id's Rage is coming out in October and those settings are nowhere near BF3. Two very different games in many ways, but still both are FPS's and brand spanking new.
Click to expand...

he was talking about good ol' days

If such shit continued I'd probably stick to consoles with their 24 fps and subHD resolutions, thanks.
 
CPU: Thuban 1090T 4GHz
GPU: Palit GeForce GTX 580
OS: Windows Seven x64

Lets do this!
350149106.jpg
 
As long as the rest of your components are up to snuff, tweaking a game for your video card is usually fairly easy. Like dialing back shadows, ssao, post processing, or any other performance sapping effect. Or if you don't want to loses the fancy effect, lower the resolution (which is what I personally do when my video cards start to show their age).
 
Pimpbaa said:
As long as the rest of your components are up to snuff, tweaking a game for your video card is usually fairly easy. Like dialing back shadows, ssao, post processing, or any other performance sapping effect. Or if you don't want to loses the fancy effect, lower the resolution (which is what I personally do when my video cards start to show their age).
Click to expand...

I think I'll turn off tesselation and that's it. If it doesn't help than I won't be playing it. I mean high-end rigs must run any game on high at least, I'm not talking about ultra. Even Crysis had this covered.
 
Smokey said:
lol

ITT PPL mad that a game pushes PC hardware



Yeah well...look at the RAGE trailers and then look at BF3 trailers. Which one makes you say wow more? Pretty certain BF3. RAGE was dumbed down for consoles. Go back and look at the original RAGE trailers and compare it to what we've got now.

Want that wow factor on your screen? Need a pretty decent and up to date computer. I see nothing wrong with this.
Click to expand...

Crysis wasn't unoptimized! You're just mad that a game breaks your PC!

lolz
 
subversus said:
I think I'll turn off tesselation and that's it. If it doesn't help than I won't be playing it. I mean high-end rigs must run any game on high at least, I'm not talking about ultra. Even Crysis had this covered.
Click to expand...

Being dx11 should also help alot on pc.
It has some of the console optimization if im not mistaken into it.
 
like I mentioned in the other thread, I think this game is going to run better than we think.

I am curious how my 2x 4850s do though. hopefully it'll be decent enough to hold off till next year whenever they release the next generation of cards. I've held off dx11 this long (with crysis 2 patch being the only one so far that has tempted me for dx11), so as long as I can get some decent fps, I'll be OK with waiting.
 
dragonelite said:
Being dx11 should also help alot on pc.
It has some of the console optimization if im not mistaken into it.
Click to expand...

I hope so. I mean it doesn't look THAT next-gen so high-end cards would run it on medium.
 
DenogginizerOS said:
For the most part I agree. But Id's Rage is coming out in October and those settings are nowhere near BF3. Two very different games in many ways, but still both are FPS's and brand spanking new.
Click to expand...

But they don't compare graphically? and rage was made with 60 fps in mind for consoles, of course it will run well on a pc.

It's like comparing cod 4 with crysis, also both brand spanking new games back then.

I'm sure you realize this and are hinting at how people might receive it, but there is already enough pandering for the irrational and casual crowd that we don't need even more of it.
Once they see the final game they 'll understand why there is a difference (and if they still can't then Dice failed and their game isn't really pretty but just runs like shit)

edit: I see you bolded always, I used the past tense, needed, referring to the 90s all the way up to 2007 ish.

-nofl, sofII, cod 2, quake 2,prey , moh:AA, quake 3 , ut 99 , ut 2003 , css, hl2,crysis, hl1 , rtcw, doom 3 , painkiller etc etc etc all needed new high end pcs to play on the highest (if even that!) settings at release, because they pushed hardware.
As did most other genre games in all those years.

I see a lot of overestimating of current gen cards combined with underestimating older gen cards.
If you turn off dof and slightly lower some of the other disproportionally resource hogging features in bf3 I'm sure your gtx 460s etc will run it smoothly without starting to look like the console version.
 
Zimbardo said:
what are the thoughts on one GTX580 running this game in 1080p with 60fps on 'high'?

likely or not likely?
Click to expand...

will probably get 60fps on high

ultra on a 580 is said to get around 50fps
 
SteveO409 said:
At least I know I can run this game on low

i7 2600
GTX 460 756mb
6gb DDR ram

and I thought my GTX 460 could handle games for the next few years :(
Click to expand...

My old GTX260 ran the alpha on low just fine so I'm sure you can do medium.
 
Zimbardo said:
that states 2 580s for Ultra ...i just asked if 1 580 could deal with 1080p @ 60fps on 'high'.

assuming it goes something like 'low, medium, high, ultra'.
Click to expand...

He said "ultra on a 580 is said to get around 50fps", that's what I responded to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Bungie Reveals Marathon PC System Requirements
2
64
2K
Banjo64 replied
007 First Light recommended specs revealed and... oof.
2 3 4 5 6
268
3K
Hawking Radiation replied
Valve reveals Steam Machine/Frame Verification Requirements at GDC
2 3
102
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
Crimson Deserts Specs for PC & Consoles revealed
News  2 3 4 5
243
1K
rodrigolfp replied
PC Controller Recommendations
2
92
1K
FMX replied
Top Bottom