PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield 3 System Requirements...


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Bowen
04-15-11, 05:19 AM
I was wondering what you guys think about my system handling Battlefield 3. Here are the official unofficial recommended system requirements for BF3: http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=1164&game=Battlefield%203

"Mar-27-2011
Ok, here is an early analysis of BF3 requirements based on current industry discussions.


CPU requirements for Battlefield 3 - There are lots of very competent processors available right now and it is thought that the game has been developed using an Intel quad core i7 920 processor. There is talk that the game will be able to make use of any number of multiple cores (including six cores), however, the minimum requirements are likely to be a low end dual core, probably something similar to a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz or Athlon 64 X2 4000+.

OS requirements for Battlefield 3 - PC operating systems supported will be Vista and Win 7. The reason for this is because the game will require a minimum of Direct X 10 (which you get with Vista) and will support Direct X 11 (which you get with windows 7) as well. It's also advisable to have a 64bit operating system so you can make use of 4GB RAM and above. A 32 bit operating system has a RAM cap.


Graphics card requirements for Battlefield 3 - The awesome BF3 gameplay trailers we have been seeing this month were run on a Nvidia GTX580, one of the current daddies of graphics cards and still an expensive choice. The BF3 engine known as Frostbite 2 is capable of some amazing things and although many strong cards exist today it is often the GPU where a PC gaming system falls down. This is certainly the area which you need to get right when it comes to today's gaming requirements. At the moment our suggested optimum cards for BF3 would be in the region of an AMD 6950 or Nvidia 560Ti but you are likely to be able to tweak settings and get a solid ride with a ATI 4850 or Nvidia GTS 450. Obviously this is still speculation. However, all is not lost if you haven't got a house full of cash to spend on a GPU for BF3. It seems that Frostbite 2 is excellent at scaling and we also think that the lowest settings where you will get a bearable gameplay return will be a card around the 512MB video card, but remember it must be Direct X10 capable.


Laptop graphics card for Battlefield 3 - Remember that many laptop graphics cards share a very similar name to their desktop counterparts but often perform at only a fraction of the desktop graphics cards capability. We reckon you are likely to need similar to a Mobility Radeon 5870 maybe a 5850 to get a reasonable performance from BF3 on a laptop.


RAM requirements for Battlefield 3 - We believe it likely that you will be able to play BF3 with a minimum of 2GB RAM but reckon it is likely that 4GB will be the realistic base level of RAM required. This is likely to be one of the first games where more than 4GB of RAM may actually make a real difference to game performance.


Buying a new graphics card for Battlefield 3 - BEWARE as the naming of many of the graphics cards can be confusing. It wasn't that long ago when the all important figure a gamer was looking for when choosing a new graphics card was the graphics card RAM. For example, Nvidia GTX 8800 768MB, which is the powerhouse I bought 4 years back. The manufacturers got wise to this and now you can buy graphics cards with advertised 1.5GB which often perform far worse than my ancient 8800 card. The jump forward in graphics card capability has actually been fairly slow over the past year or two. But the card manufacturers still need us to buy their latest cards and so often rename existing ranges, adjust the prices and tweak some of the hardware for small improvements. So armed with this knowledge it is always worth exploring the previous card family group for a bargain, which often is likely to perform very similarly to a brand new range."

I would think my Q6600 O/Ced to 2.83GHz and 4GB of Corsair RAM and my GTX 465 would be able to play BF3 nicely. I get about 60 FPS on average in BFBC2 when playing MP with everything on high, save shadows and I have MSAA set on 2x and AF set on 4x. I'd like to be able to play BF3 with similar settings that will give me a nice framerate. I'd like to get an average of 60FPS in BF3 with these settings but I'm thinking I'll be getting more like 40 FPS average.

I'm gonna be upgrading my whole system around tax time next year that will be looking at a Core i7 870, 8GB of DDR3 RAM, a P55 mobo with an Nvidia card with the $350 price point, which will likely be the GTX 670. I'm fairly certain that setup will allow me to run all settings on their absolute highest. Thanks in advance for the input!

Sean_W
04-15-11, 09:24 AM
Good to hear and I'm ready. The game is going to own. (nana2)

mailman2
04-15-11, 09:34 AM
Wow... a game that doesn't have XBOX 360 listed as a requirement. I wonder how many fan boys will be crying when they see the game running crippled on their trash-boxes??

Sounds like my OC'd 480 and Sandy B will be more than up for the task.

I'm also curious to see how many people will cry "the game is not optimized" - the devs use of the term 'scaling' would seem to indicate people with less than a decent GPU, quad core CPU and 4GB of ram will not be running it at high settings. I just hate when asshats with old hardware cry about a game not being optimized... no it's your setup that is not optimized ..or as we call it obsolete.

Crow_Nest
04-15-11, 09:53 AM
Hopefully its true. Either way i'll still buy it. :D

Sean_W
04-15-11, 10:37 AM
Wow... a game that doesn't have XBOX 360 listed as a requirement. I wonder how many fan boys will be crying when they see the game running crippled on their trash-boxes??

Sounds like my OC'd 480 and Sandy B will be more than up for the task.

I'm also curious to see how many people will cry "the game is not optimized" - the devs use of the term 'scaling' would seem to indicate people with less than a decent GPU, quad core CPU and 4GB of ram will not be running it at high settings. I just hate when asshats with old hardware cry about a game not being optimized... no it's your setup that is not optimized ..or as we call it obsolete.

:lol2:

Well people were trying to play GTA IV on their integrated graphics, so anything is possible. :p

ATOJAR
04-15-11, 10:49 AM
I'm good to go with my system then .... Cant wait. :D

mailman2
04-15-11, 11:07 AM
:lol2:

Well people were trying to play GTA IV on their integrated graphics, so anything is possible. :p

Rotflmao... and single core CPUs and then saying how unoptimized it was... you're right!!

Unlike a 360 you can't let your PC just gather dust for 6 years and expect to play new games... you need to maintain and upgrade it.

Madpistol
04-15-11, 03:33 PM
I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that my current setup ran BC2 perfectly. Now we'll wait and see if my current system will do the same on BF3. I doubt it will, but here's to hoping. :)

lIqUID
04-15-11, 03:35 PM
I know I'll be fine with what I have, but I would still give my left nut to know the rest of the system specs they were running in the demo.

mojoman0
04-15-11, 06:41 PM
repi said the demo was running on a single gtx 580. Pair that with most i5 and i7's and i think youre set

Redeemed
04-15-11, 06:48 PM
This is due out towards the end of this year, right? If so, that'll be just in time for my planned upgraded. Going to get the 7770 or whatever it'll be called- AMD's $150 - $200 chip, plus the new high end cpu from Intel. Think that'll be enough for this plus Skyrim. :D

CaptnStubing
04-15-11, 09:07 PM
I will be building a new computer for this game.

Bowen
04-16-11, 03:57 AM
There are few games worthy of a full system upgrade...BF3 is one of the few! The good thing about BF3 is if your system will run it just fine, then it should be able to run any game, save Metro 2033. I just don't think that the developers coded the game as optimally as they could have. It looks nice and all, but I think BF3 is the best looking game that I can see period!

BioHazZarD
04-16-11, 08:50 AM
I still dont understand how can they do this game on consoles but on PC you have to be on Vista/Win7 only that makes no sense to me.. consoles are dx8-9 and stoneage compared to a decent pc today.

K007
04-16-11, 10:41 AM
It means that DICE wants to move forward, they will still have the low quality version for consoles, but with today's hardware it seems pointless to include old features....i am all for moving forward if its done right! so lets hope dice can do it and others will follow.

ViN86
04-16-11, 10:44 AM
Wow... a game that doesn't have XBOX 360 listed as a requirement. I wonder how many fan boys will be crying when they see the game running crippled on their trash-boxes??

Sounds like my OC'd 480 and Sandy B will be more than up for the task.

I'm also curious to see how many people will cry "the game is not optimized" - the devs use of the term 'scaling' would seem to indicate people with less than a decent GPU, quad core CPU and 4GB of ram will not be running it at high settings. I just hate when asshats with old hardware cry about a game not being optimized... no it's your setup that is not optimized ..or as we call it obsolete.

I agree with you for the most part. However, I still think Crysis was unoptimized and could have done better with the higher end hardware. As for more recent games like Black Ops, the game really was unoptimized and ran poorly on dual core CPU's, but people still said "update your PC" like that was the solution to ****ty code. Also, BC2 even had issues with dual core CPU's and a tri-core or more was essentially required (my E8400 struggled to keep up with it, but it did a pretty good job).

DICE's Frostbite engine has been known to be quite the multi-tasker. So, any of you out there concerned that you don't have a 2600K running at 5GHz, don't be. I am sure pretty much any CPU with 4 or more cores/threads will handle the game nicely. As for graphics, the latest (6xxx or 5xx series) cards, which handle DX11 nicely, should suffice quite well. Older 4xx and 5xxx series cards may struggle a little with DX11 (5xxx more so than 4xx, which performed better in DX11), but still perform sufficiently. As for RAM, 4GB or more should be plenty. Those are my expectations based on recent hardware performance, BC2, and the Frostbite engine in general.

It will be more interesting to see how many people are pissed that BF3 won't run on Windows XP. :lol:

Bowen
04-17-11, 05:42 AM
I agree with you for the most part. However, I still think Crysis was unoptimized and could have done better with the higher end hardware. As for more recent games like Black Ops, the game really was unoptimized and ran poorly on dual core CPU's, but people still said "update your PC" like that was the solution to ****ty code. Also, BC2 even had issues with dual core CPU's and a tri-core or more was essentially required (my E8400 struggled to keep up with it, but it did a pretty good job).

DICE's Frostbite engine has been known to be quite the multi-tasker. So, any of you out there concerned that you don't have a 2600K running at 5GHz, don't be. I am sure pretty much any CPU with 4 or more cores/threads will handle the game nicely. As for graphics, the latest (6xxx or 5xx series) cards, which handle DX11 nicely, should suffice quite well. Older 4xx and 5xxx series cards may struggle a little with DX11 (5xxx more so than 4xx, which performed better in DX11), but still perform sufficiently. As for RAM, 4GB or more should be plenty. Those are my expectations based on recent hardware performance, BC2, and the Frostbite engine in general.

It will be more interesting to see how many people are pissed that BF3 won't run on Windows XP. :lol:


I think I'll be able to run BF3 OK with my current system specs. Like I said, I can run BFBC2 with just about everything on it's highest settings with my current setup.

We have a big advantage about BF3 though! Even on the Alpha version that was shown in the Faultline trailers, they said that the footage was run on a single GTX 580! It was buttersmooth on that and the game wasn't even fully optimized yet. That makes me happy to know since I'll be likely getting the GTX 670. Until then I'll have to play with my 465, but I think at the very least I can manage the medium setting if I have to.

I just remember getting Battlefield 2 and I had to run on medium settings then too with a 7800 GTX 256MB. Then I upgraded to a 7800 GTX 512MB and all was well.

A couple weeks ago I was playing BFBC2 on a GTX 275 until my 2nd 275 went out. I could play on high settings, but just barely and I would average about 42 FPS. I complained to EVGA about going a 2nd 275 and they upgraded me to a 465. Now I average about 60 FPS in BFBC2! If I still had a 275, I know the highest setting I could use in BF3 would be medium and then it might be barely as the Battlefield series is usually known for it's awesome graphics!

Bowen
04-17-11, 05:55 AM
I found this article at Fudzilla about how much BF3 will push PC's and consoles. To me that's not great news as it sounds like you might a SLi based system to push it to it's max. Honestly I thought a 580 GTX would push it all the way.....ya know.

Frostbite 2 designed with next consoles in mind
While skeptics have doubted DICE’s ability to deliver a Battlefield 3 experience on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 that will be close to the PC version, the studio assures everyone that Battlefield 3 will push the current generation of consoles to the absolute limit.

DICE is confident that Battlefield 3 will be the best looking console game to arrive for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 this year, according to executive producer Patrick Bach. DICE will prove this fact instead of just talking about it, according to Bach.

One advantage that the Frostbite 2 engine will have in the future is that the engine was designed with the future in mind from every design aspect. That means that graphics, physics, animation, and audio have all been created with the next generation of consoles in mind. It should be no problem to adapt the Frostbite 2 engine to these next platforms when they are finally released.

Still, the PC version will look the best if you have the hardware and graphics card to run it. Sources suggest that maybe only 5% to 7% of the PC players of Battlefield 3 will have the hardware capable of pushing the PC version to the max when Battlefield arrives this fall. (http://www.fudzilla.com/games/item/22419-battlefield-3-pushes-consoles-to-the-limit)

Sean_W
04-17-11, 06:04 AM
Well, they will just scale back the effects and textures like in Crysis 2. There is a lot of fake effects in Crysis 2 but in reality PC hardware wouldn't have a problem doing.

PC hardware can do all the effects in real time where if you look at UE3 and Crysis 2, they use fake effects everywhere. BF3 on the PC should be all realtime.

Vanzagar
04-17-11, 06:22 AM
hmmm, so no support for windows xp, wonder if that;s the start of a trend...

Sean_W
04-17-11, 06:54 AM
hmmm, so no support for windows xp, wonder if that;s the start of a trend...

Only because the DX version isn't supported by XP. I bet developers made a big FFS when they heard you need a new OS for DX10/11. If XP supported new DX versions we'd have more DX10/11 games.

Bowen
04-17-11, 07:11 AM
I know it's a pain in the butt, but once you upgrade to Windows 7 it's better. The only thing is, it just seems like now MS is coming out with a new OS every 2 years. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought they waited longer with others. It seems like I just upgraded to 7...heck it seems I just upgraded to Vista! I don't know if I'll be getting Windows 8 right away. All I have to say is MS had better now drop Win7 soon.

Sean_W
04-17-11, 07:24 AM
Battlefield3 will used DX12 which is Windows 8 exclusive. :D :angel:

ViN86
04-17-11, 12:17 PM
I know it's a pain in the butt, but once you upgrade to Windows 7 it's better. The only thing is, it just seems like now MS is coming out with a new OS every 2 years. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought they waited longer with others. It seems like I just upgraded to 7...heck it seems I just upgraded to Vista! I don't know if I'll be getting Windows 8 right away. All I have to say is MS had better now drop Win7 soon.

Not really. Maybe you're too young to remember?

Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP

All within about 5-6 years. Then it took about 6 years until Vista launched.

Redeemed
04-17-11, 12:26 PM
Not really. Maybe you're too young to remember?

Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP

All within about 5-6 years. Then it took about 6 years until Vista launched.

lol

I've so many customers complaining about how frequent the new versions of Windows are, and then I have to go and remind them that really this is nothing new. Gets old. :lol:

As much as I love 7, I'm looking forward to Windows 8. :)