BattleField 3 System Requirements: Help !

If you're going Intel, you can go for the baby I3. If you're going AMD you can probably save a bit of cash and pick up a decent quad core which will run the game fine.

Really for BF3 it's all about the graphics card, which while people have been saying ATI (and normally I would as well) I would be tempted to go for Nvidia just coz they run BF3 better. The problem is with Nvidia is that they don't really have a decent low end card, whereas with ATI you can pick up a 6770/7750 for about R1200 which will run the game at playable frame rates.
 
I would go Intel i3. Each core of the i3 will be faster enough than the 4 cores of an equivalently priced AMD CPU that it will still be a better buy. the AMD CPU would have be extremely good for it to be a good buy. Besides which, the AMD FX processors are horrible, just horrible.
 
Arrgh....

I am thinking I should just get an empty chassis and fit a console inside... then parents see a PC and kid is happy and my brain won't hurt so much.
 
Jase said:
Oddly I play Bf3 on a q8200, 4gigs ram and a HD4890. On auto detect the game wants to run everything on high. I have a mixture of medium to low. For the most part (except Gulf of Oman and extreme distances) the game runs fine.
Click to expand...

I have the exact same setup, except I have a 9800GT, and I play everything on low.

guys, you don't want to play BF3 on low... The graphics are so bad that the buildings are moving (like vibrating)...
 
scotty777 said:
I have the exact same setup, except I have a 9800GT, and I play everything on low.

guys, you don't want to play BF3 on low... The graphics are so bad that the buildings are moving (like vibrating)...
Click to expand...

That is the gulf of Oman for me (esp. the construction site). A slight derail, but would just a GPU upgrade improve things?
 
Hope this helps
Processor-wise, it doesn’t really matter. I could pick an AMD FX, an Intel Core i3, or a Core i7 and get the same performance. I’ll probably throw a Core i5-2400 on a Z68-based motherboard just because the former rarely needs to be used for testing and I have spares of the latter. I’ll likely drop in a pair of GeForce GTX 570s for Ultra quality on a 24” (1920x1080) screen. And I’ll definitely use an SSD.



That’s not something I really tested for in this piece, but Dice does do a lot of object mesh and texture streaming during multiplayer levels. Minimizing level loads and the time you spend looking at a Saving prompt really encourages the use of faster storage.

One last thing that needs to be mentioned: I made it about five levels into the single-player campaign before buckling down to benchmark. I have a lot of data here based on that 90-second snapshot where there is no running, jumping, or magazine-emptying combat.

A distinction even has to be made between this single-player experience and what you’re almost certain to see in a multi-player map. I’ve seen benchmarks from the multiplayer beta where there’s more of a hit incurred dropping down a given processor vendor’s stack. What’s most clear there and here, however, is processor performance takes a back seat to graphics potential.

But this sequence is friggin consistent. So, when you compare frame rates, keep relative performance in mind, and not the absolute numbers attained here, which are guaranteed to range both up and down, depending on what you’re doing in Battlefield 3.
Click to expand...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-14.html
 
Pada said:
That CPU might be up for the task, but the GPU is way below the minimum requirements!

If he doesn't have a screen yet, then a desktop PC would most likely cost more, because he'll need a screen and Windows 7 x64 Home Basic license for the desktop PC.
Most of the laptops, under R8k has resolutions of 1366x768, which sux.

Your friend would most likely be better off with a console - like Xbox 360 / PS3.

Otherwise he should look at 2nd-hand stuff.
Click to expand...

BF3 is terrible on the console!
 
HOLY MAnIAC said:
BF3 is terrible on the console!
Click to expand...

/cries

Well, I managed to get BF3 playable on that laptop... updated sound + VGA drivers, set screen to lowest res, set everything to low and ATI to high performance, defragged drive, sacrificed virgin actives and small babies... and he left a lot happier. No more stuttttttttttttttering sound and freezing graphics, but it is nothing to look at, at least he can play it while he works out a plan to pay for his PC. His parents have decided that it is something they will have nothing to do with... he will have to go the Pada route on this. :]

I have made a note of all the suggestions, and think the i3 route + HD6850 is the one to follow... I just do not have much AMD experience to recommend it.

Thanks blokes... if there is anything else to add, feel free... and if you want to swap an oldish gaming rig that is BF3 friendly for a notebook ... PM me :}

:D

EDIT: corrected the virgins part, need factual accuracy... with thanks to ponder.
 
Last edited:
ponder said:
Where did you find those, last time I checked they were very hard to come by :D
Click to expand...

Oh you nitpicker... you !

/sighs

I have just received an SMS from the young lad... he has just used up all his 3G data... BF3 had an almost 4GB update... eish.
He cannot get ADSL apparently because of no available slots at the exchange... and he may just have to sell the notebook to cover his Vodacom OOB contract costs. He stopped it around the 2GB OOB mark... ouch.

/sighs again
/goes lurking for REAL virgins this time
 
scotty777 said:
Totally, On ultra/high, BF3 is awesome to play (observing from my friends pc's!).
Click to expand...
Yup!

I don't want to see how BF3 looks on PS3, because even MW3 looks terrible on the PS3.

BF3 on the other hand looks amazing on full detail at 2560x1600 :D but to be competitive, I can't have the details set that high with my gaming PC :(

@kilobits:
Well done at tweaking his laptop !
 
kilobits said:
Oh you nitpicker... you !

/sighs

I have just received an SMS from the young lad... he has just used up all his 3G data... BF3 had an almost 4GB update... eish.
He cannot get ADSL apparently because of no available slots at the exchange... and he may just have to sell the notebook to cover his Vodacom OOB contract costs. He stopped it around the 2GB OOB mark... ouch.

/sighs again
/goes lurking for REAL virgins this time
Click to expand...

Ouch. His parents are going to kill him.
 
Pada said:
Yup!

I don't want to see how BF3 looks on PS3, because even MW3 looks terrible on the PS3.

BF3 on the other hand looks amazing on full detail at 2560x1600 :D but to be competitive, I can't have the details set that high with my gaming PC :(

@kilobits:
Well done at tweaking his laptop !
Click to expand...

I played the beta on PS3, it's like playing the game on low while having vaseline smeared all over your screen, not pretty and a common problem with multi-platform titles on console.
 
kilobits said:
14 year old friend of the family is an avid gamer... plays MW COD2 / 3... his mum gave him an HP probook 4515s for Xmas 2010, he really needed a gaming PC, but beggars cannot be choosers.

It has been OK with his MW games but now he is trying to play Battlefield 3 on it... and it is struggggggggggggling. Jerky graphics, stuttering sound etc. I am clueless with gaming specs... and have suggested he sells his laptop for whatever he can get for it and get a PC for Battlefield 3.
Click to expand...

Firstly, for some laptops graphics chipsets there is a possibility of overclocking the GPU. To do this, I previously used EVGA Precision to get a slight performance boost. Granted, this works also in the default driver settings, but oftentimes you'll find that Nvidia or AMD had disabled overclocking through the drivers. A third-party software suite should do the trick. The Radeon GPU in that laptop is terrible, but can be made to work at a stretch.

kilobits said:
Hey Hey

He is dropping off the laptop in an hour. /sighs

Thanks for all the options you okes... so far all very nice specs.

I would also go towards an i3 rather than AMD - I am biased towards Intel I admit, but the AMDs seems to be nicely priced. Are the AMDs better value price / performance wise or is it all a much of a muchness ??
Click to expand...

The AMD APUs and the FX-4100 are priced nicely, but overall in terms of gaming ability its the same or slower than a Core i3-2100. The triple or quad-core APUs and FX series would fare better in terms of multi-tasking, but for a gaming-centric PC Intel's pretty hard to beat in terms of value. The Core i3-2120, for instance, performs just as well as an AMD Phenom II quad-core processor. Likewise for the i5 2400, they are the best processors for gamers who won't overclock and need great performance.

If your friend's still interested in building himself a new PC, he doesn't need a lot of money to get things going. I write up a weekly column for NAG for System Builders, and the i3 and HD6850 combo is pretty hard to beat, but out of reach for a lot of people. The HD6670, especially when paired with DDR5 RAM, should bring acceptable performance on a 19" screen at medium settings.

Oh, and tell your friend to consider a console. The Xbox and PS3 don't get raped with 4GB updates to bring further balance and stability to the game, and will still allow for online play.
 
kilobits said:
Oh you nitpicker... you !

/sighs

I have just received an SMS from the young lad... he has just used up all his 3G data... BF3 had an almost 4GB update... eish.
He cannot get ADSL apparently because of no available slots at the exchange... and he may just have to sell the notebook to cover his Vodacom OOB contract costs. He stopped it around the 2GB OOB mark... ouch.

/sighs again
/goes lurking for REAL virgins this time
Click to expand...

There's another 1.5GB update after that too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X