# Battlefield rig



## Martine (Aug 28, 2011)

Before I will play BF3 I need to upgrade my computer (cuz it's worth it)
I mean when I play Crysis 2 I get good FPS (30+)-that is on low settings.

But here is the catch - It doesn't run smoothly, CPU load is constantly 100%....
CPU is a monster, GPU ain't that bad, what could be the problem?  
It may be RAM?
I wanted to uprade GPU to GTX55Ti/GTX460/GTX560 (depending on the money), but I am thinking about it.
What should I upgrade to be prepared for BF3, because I hear it's a monster
System info is in the System Specs


----------



## PHaS3 (Aug 28, 2011)

Your 9600GT is the issue, but you do need a new CPU too... Especially if you go for something a little more high end in the graphics department, like a GTX570 or Radeon 6970 or 6950. My E8400 is overclocked to 3.83GHz, and it still bottlenecks my 5850... You should look at an i5 2500k, or wait and see what happens with AMD and Bulldozer.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 28, 2011)

PHaS3 said:


> Your 9600GT is the issue, but you do need a new CPU too... Especially if you go for something a little more high end in the graphics department, like a GTX570 or Radeon 6970 or 6950. My E8400 is overclocked to 3.83GHz, and it still bottlenecks my 5850... You should look at an i5 2500k, or wait and see what happens with AMD and Bulldozer.



Totally agree, although go ahead and get your new gpu first. Enjoy it and then decide on your cpu & mobo.

EDIT:

Looking at you mentioning a 460, get a 1GB non SE if you can and try to stray away from the 550Ti, getting it if only budget allows. Another card to look at if you need to save some cash, HD6790.


----------



## Martine (Aug 28, 2011)

PHaS3 said:


> My E8400 is overclocked to 3.83GHz, and it still bottlenecks my 5850...


I would never think of that. I thought my RAM could bottleneck, but not processor, specialy OC like yours
Yeah, my comp is 3 years old so I should think about upgrading it as well
:shadedshu To think computers would last a little longer


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 28, 2011)

Martine said:


> I would never think of that. I thought my RAM could bottleneck, but not processor, specialy OC like yours
> Yeah, my comp is 3 years old so I should think about upgrading it as well
> :shadedshu To think *gaming* computers would last a little longer



Corrected a little...
Oh trust me your cpu is great, had a blast with my s775 setup as well. It's just unbeleivable that Sandy Bridge opens it up completely still blows my own mind away.


----------



## T3RM1N4L D0GM4 (Aug 28, 2011)

When I read thread like this, I pray my Q6600 + gtx460 will beh enough for bf3 (max detail @1280x1024 )


----------



## Shihab (Aug 28, 2011)

Martine said:


> :shadedshu To think computers would last a little longer



Only if you invested on the top products of that time. It *might* have added a couple of years to the expected life. 

If you're tight on budget, get a Sandy Bridge i5 + a GTX 460. or a 560ti if you can push it.

If you can spare some buck, get a Sand Bridge i5/i7, +a GTX 570 or an HD6970.


You can always invest on high-end CPU/Motherboard now and a decent GPU. Then later SLI/Crossfire that GPU and not worry if you're CPU can handle it.


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 28, 2011)

something like a 2600k overclocked at 5Ghz with watercooling and a Mars 2 would hold for a while, or would it?

Recommended Spec for BF3 from the BF3 site:
CPU: Any Quadcore (you could go for a AMD quad, but then you need to upgrade in a year or two again, 2500k seems like the best choice)
GPU: High end DX11 GPU's (GTX460, HD6850 or better)
RAM: 4GB (hard to believe a game actually is going to use 4GB of RAM)

BTW: Windows XP isn't supported, for some odd reason...


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 28, 2011)

T3RM1N4L D0GM4 said:


> When I read thread like this, I pray my Q6600 + gtx460 will beh enough for bf3 (max detail @1280x1024 )



It will not. Joking aside, it seems that all test runs made until now were done on one or two GTX580 so I assume on highest settings it will be real taxing. As for the OP, get a new GPU first, a 560Ti would be good, that C2D has still some life in it.


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 28, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> As for the OP, get a new GPU first, a 560Ti would be good, that C2D has still some life in it.


+1
Wait and see if Bulldozer has a CPU better then the 2500k.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 28, 2011)

Well, I vote for a complete overhaul. You CPU is not great at all. They E8500 was great for its time, but almost every modern game runs between 2 to 4 threads based on what you give it in the CPU department. Your CPU is bottlenecking because you can only handle 2 threads. This leads to 100% use on both cores and no headroom for spikes in physics calculation, increased number of enemies, or anything else beyond you just walking around.

The GPU is still pretty good.  No real need to toss it aside or sell it, though I would recommend that. You could technically use it for PhysX in like 3 games, but at least 2 of them would do better on your primary card alone if it is a 560 Ti or higher.

The mobo and RAM are not really an issue, but with a new processor comes a new socket. This requires you to switch to a new mobo and DDR3 RAM as a side effect.

There is no need to get a 2500K. They are great, but you seem to be a budget minded person. If you want to stick with Intel I say go for a i3 2120 (2 Cores/4 Threads). They're gaming performance is great for the money and comes in on par with Phenom II X6 processors in many cases. Pair it with a decent mobo ($100 to $145) and some 1600 MHz DDR3 ($45 to $50).

For the GPU they are right. An Nvidia 560Ti or AMD HD 6950 is the sweet spot for bang for your buck. Cards in the $150 to $250 range should all pair well with what I suggested.


----------



## T3RM1N4L D0GM4 (Aug 28, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> It will not.



DAMN! 

Gimme some bulldozer cpus plz!!


----------



## Martine (Aug 28, 2011)

Question before we proceed, otherwise there is no point: AMD processors are gaming? I mean it's half the price of similar Intel processor??
...I was so attached to my Gigabyte Intal/Nvidia I've never  looked at AMD:shadedshu


----------



## Shihab (Aug 28, 2011)

Martine said:


> Question before we proceed, otherwise there is no point: AMD processors are gaming? I mean it's half the price of similar Intel processor??
> ...I was so attached to my Gigabyte Intal/Nvidia I've never  looked at AMD:shadedshu



For a budget gamer they are the best. For those who can pray the price, Intel's Sandy Bridge pwns.

Edit: Check this article for CPU recommendations for your money.
A note to be added, dunno about low end CPUs, but for high end ones, in benchmarks other than gaming, I've seen i7-920s beat Phenom II X6s. And those i7s were the previous generation.
Another thing to bear in mind, there aren't many games that utilize more than 2 cores atm. Some people hope that BF3 will be _the game_ to set new standards. and looking at how the new Deus Ex eats CPU power, I think the future games will need more than a couple of cores to run smoothly.


----------



## blu3flannel (Aug 28, 2011)

Martine said:


> Question before we proceed, otherwise there is no point: AMD processors are gaming? I mean it's half the price of similar Intel processor??
> ...I was so attached to my Gigabyte Intal/Nvidia I've never  looked at AMD:shadedshu



This nice little comparison shows that Intel quad cores are generally a fair margin faster than AMD quad cores. However, you have to consider the price difference.


----------



## rfowler30 (Aug 28, 2011)

battlefield 3 is going to be the crysis 1 of this year.  itll have great scaling for multi gpus, its going to require a beefy system if there testing it with quad sli/crossfire and triple sli gpu setups. http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/93254425308700672


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 28, 2011)

Syuzeren said:


> BTW: Windows XP isn't supported, for some odd reason...



how odd....

Neither does microsoft for that matter.


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 28, 2011)

rfowler30 said:


> battlefield 3 is going to be the crysis 1 of this year.  itll have great scaling for multi gpus, its going to require a beefy system if there testing it with quad sli/crossfire and triple sli gpu setups. http://twitter.com/#!/repi/status/93254425308700672



Took me some time to realise that his pic was a gecko 
Ofcourse they test quad SLI, why wouldn't they? they are supposed to be the biggest PC release of the year, for that they need quad SLI/crossfire support. 
Still great to see they actually do that.  DICE.
Activision would newer take the effort, to let the devs test and make it better.


----------



## Martine (Aug 28, 2011)

I think I will first buy a GPU (probably GTX 460) and then... now you realy confused me
I don't know what to get, there are 2 builds
-->for those who have time
-attachment
-->for those who don't:
-AMD Phanom II X4
-am3+ MB (for later Bulldozer)
or
-Intel i3 2120 (2 cores 4 threads)
-a motherboard... I don't know
There is no difference in price

 BUT I will wait for the bulldozer and see how close to 2500K is. I'll try to gather some money for a rig that would last me a few years, because I dont want to spend money on something that can't cope with games later on

BTW thanks all of you


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 28, 2011)

Save even more time.







You don't need the Bunker unless you go to LAN parties. So if you are not going to LAN parties, drop that money into getting a better GPU, faster RAM, and/or a bump in processor power. You should get at least 1600 MHz RAM. It doesn't cost that much extra and Sandy Bridge responds well to high speed memory. The faster the better. The AMD APU's are the same way.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 28, 2011)

Don't rush now and buy an Intel dual core that pretends to be quad or an AMD that's quad and performs as an Intel dual just because you don't have the money now. As I said that C2D is still a processor that can keep up for gaming. Your major problem now is the 9600. Make an effort and get a 560Ti, not a 460 since you will be keeping it for your new build when the time will come. You will double your framerates at higher settings, of course depending on the games. Wait and see what bulldozer will bring - although I'm skeptical that it will outperform Sandy Bridge for gaming purposes - and then decide for a long term upgrade.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 28, 2011)

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/10.html

First those are old games and the E8400 struggles keeping up with Phenom II X3. And an i3 2120 holds its own against Phenom II X6 1090T in gaming and does better in a lot of current games. So seriously, no your E8400 is not getting it done.

I agree you should wait and see what happens with Bulldozer and building a system now is kinda dumb. On the same note, upgrading your GPU will not help your system survive any longer. Battlefield 3 will eat your computer alive even with a 460.

P.S. Why is that card so expensive. It should only be like $130 USD.


----------



## Black Haru (Aug 28, 2011)

Syuzeren said:


> something like a 2600k overclocked at 5Ghz with watercooling and a Mars 2 would hold for a while, or would it?
> 
> Recommended Spec for BF3 from the BF3 site:
> CPU: Any Quadcore (you could go for a AMD quad, but then you need to upgrade in a year or two again, 2500k seems like the best choice)
> ...



I did not think that specs were released. just speculations, latest rumors claim that in order to max the game a (yet to be released) gtx595 will be reqired. 


all gamescon test rigs were 2600k/SLI 580s (or cfX 6970s) 


the reason XP is not supported is because there is no DX9 in BF3


----------



## texaschainsaw01 (Aug 28, 2011)

Martine said:


> Before I will play BF3 I need to upgrade my computer (cuz it's worth it)
> I mean when I play Crysis 2 I get good FPS (30+)-that is on low settings.
> 
> But here is the catch - It doesn't run smoothly, CPU load is constantly 100%....
> ...



firstly what is you budget for a new build
here in australia i can build a amd rig for 1500 bucks australian

amd 1100t oced
coolit cpu closed loop water cooling
g skill 8gig 160mhz ddr3 ram
dual hd6950 2gb
1tb hdd 
900w psu 
nzxt guardian


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 28, 2011)

Black Haru said:


> I did not think that specs were released. just speculations, latest rumors claim that in order to max the game a (yet to be released) gtx595 will be reqired.
> 
> 
> all gamescon test rigs were 2600k/SLI 580s (or cfX 6970s)
> ...



Recommended are newer the specs to max it out, it is more what do i want to get a decent performance. In my opinion they need to make a Maxed out list, would help alot.


----------



## Black Haru (Aug 28, 2011)

Syuzeren said:


> Recommended are newer the specs to max it out, it is more what do i want to get a decent performance. In my opinion they need to make a Maxed out list, would help alot.



honestly, I don't think even they know yet. we will probably see quite a bit of optimization during the beta from both DICE and Nvidia/ATI.

who knows; at least we won't have long to wait.


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 28, 2011)

texaschainsaw01 said:


> firstly what is you budget for a new build
> here in australia i can build a amd rig for 1500 bucks australian
> 
> amd 1100t oced
> ...



You don't need a 900w PSU, A 750 will be more then fine.


----------



## texaschainsaw01 (Aug 28, 2011)

*sorry*



Black Haru said:


> I did not think that specs were released. just speculations, latest rumors claim that in order to max the game a (yet to be released) gtx595 will be reqired.
> 
> 
> all gamescon test rigs were 2600k/SLI 580s (or cfX 6970s)
> ...



sorry but i think your a idiot lolz think about it how are you gonna develop a game for hardware that hasnt been released how are they gonna test it hell just rendering it would be a mission and why would a game developer release a game that 75% of gamers would have to go out and spend 300bucks on a upgrade to play one game seriously if i didnt have my 6950 already i wouldnt upgrade my pc like that for 1 game i can think of others games that id rather play


----------



## Shihab (Aug 28, 2011)

texaschainsaw01 said:


> sorry but i think your a idiot lolz think about it how are you gonna develop a game for hardware that hasnt been released how are they gonna test it hell just rendering it would be a mission and why would a game developer release a game that 75% of gamers would have to go out and spend 300bucks on a upgrade to play one game seriously if i didnt have my 6950 already i wouldnt upgrade my pc like that for 1 game i can think of others games that id rather play



Calling someone an idiot out of the blue doesn't help people to think too highly of what you say.
Remember Crysis ? Released ages ago, and till the day, the fastest computers struggle to play it in max settings/high resolution.


----------



## texaschainsaw01 (Aug 28, 2011)

they wont till literally 1 or 2 days before release due to close release date of MW3 so that one or the other cant compete and try for better specs gameplay etc


----------



## d3fct (Aug 29, 2011)

just a copy and paste of one of my posts in a bf2 forum.


Some info i found, hope it helps you guys decide on what you need to upgrade. source bf3blog.com


Minimum requirements for Battlefield 3

* OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
* Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
* RAM: 2GB
* Graphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card.
* Graphics card memory: 512 MB
* Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

Recommended system requirements for Battlefield 3

* OS: Windows 7 64-bit
* Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
* RAM: 4GB
* Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, GeForce GTX 460, Radeon Radeon HD 6850
* Graphics card memory: 1 GB
* Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

Please note: these are our expected system requirements for Battlefield 3.


----------



## texaschainsaw01 (Aug 29, 2011)

d3fct said:


> just a copy and paste of one of my posts in a bf2 forum.
> 
> 
> Some info i found, hope it helps you guys decide on what you need to upgrade. source bf3blog.com
> ...



yes i do remember crysis and thing was optimization for the game i could run it on high settings with a 555be 4gig ramand a hd5450 and that video card was bottom of the heap lolz sorry but ive never had any issues with it lolz its just a matter of knowing what you are doing and what your budget and knowledge allows you too do sorry but my claim of calling someone a idiot stands for a more recent game blackops the biggest baddest pc had problems running black ops and the problem there was optimization


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 29, 2011)

d3fct said:


> just a copy and paste of one of my posts in a bf2 forum.
> 
> 
> Some info i found, hope it helps you guys decide on what you need to upgrade. source bf3blog.com
> ...



Why would the disc version be 5 GB larger?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 29, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Why would the disc version be 5 GB larger?



Compression maybe to assist in bandwith and download times?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 29, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Compression maybe to assist in bandwith and download times?



While that may be true, would they not have simply listed that as download size not recommended free space? If you are right, it will still take up 15 GB of space once installed, not 10.


----------



## d3fct (Aug 29, 2011)

i dont know, like stated these are predicted requirements. the true req's wont be for a while. this was strictly based off of bc2, wich was frostbite 1.5. bf3 will be frostbite 2.0, wich in the full article(wich i should have posted) frostbite 2 is basically 1.5 but improved and streamlined for better gameplay.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 29, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> While that may be true, would they not have simply listed that as download size not recommended free space? If you are right, it will still take up 15 GB of space once installed, not 10.



That is true. Trying to understand the discrepancy myself as well and what makes it so much different.


----------



## Shihab (Aug 29, 2011)

texaschainsaw01 said:


> yes i do remember crysis and thing was optimization for the game i could run it on high settings with a 555be 4gig ramand a hd5450 and that video card was bottom of the heap lolz sorry but ive never had any issues with it lolz its just a matter of knowing what you are doing and what your budget and knowledge allows you too do sorry but my claim of calling someone a idiot stands for a more recent game blackops the biggest baddest pc had problems running black ops and the problem there was optimization


----------



## Black Haru (Aug 29, 2011)

texaschainsaw01 said:


> sorry but i think your a idiot lolz think about it how are you gonna develop a game for hardware that hasnt been released how are they gonna test it hell just rendering it would be a mission and why would a game developer release a game that 75% of gamers would have to go out and spend 300bucks on a upgrade to play one game seriously if i didnt have my 6950 already i wouldnt upgrade my pc like that for 1 game i can think of others games that id rather play



first, who ever said that you needed to run the game at max settings to run the game? I played BC2 on lowest settings for almost 18 months and I loved it. I know plenty of others who did the same.

as for developing for hardware that has yet to be released, it's relatively easy; a gtx595 would not contain anything "new" from a development standpoint. it would simply be a revised gtx590. what they are saying is that currently no single graphics card has been able to max out multiplayer (like I previously said, they had to run SLI/cfX).

the key to PC gaming is scaling. give the enthusiasts their eye candy, but make sure that average joe can still play.



texaschainsaw01 said:


> they wont till literally 1 or 2 days before release due to close release date of MW3 so that one or the other cant compete and try for better specs gameplay etc





texaschainsaw01 said:


> yes i do remember crysis and thing was optimization for the game i could run it on high settings with a 555be 4gig ramand a hd5450 and that video card was bottom of the heap lolz sorry but ive never had any issues with it lolz its just a matter of knowing what you are doing and what your budget and knowledge allows you too do sorry but my claim of calling someone a idiot stands for a more recent game blackops the biggest baddest pc had problems running black ops and the problem there was optimization



again, I played through crysis on a 2001 viewsonic  (a P4 with a 6600gt added) *on low* I loved it. that doesn't mean I could run it at max, and wouldn't necessarily dictate that it was poorly optimized (it was, and still is, but not to the effect you are saying)

I know nothing of COD and have no interest. console port is a console port.


----------



## Martine (Aug 29, 2011)

whistle 
I hear more and more that games will need 4 cores, so I want to build a ''future proof'' rig and it's not just for 1 game.
I didn't want to build it right now. I will wait for half a year or more and see where the development is going.
As for the budget:not more as 666€=960$=590£
With that PLAN (which TheLaughingMan kindly posted as a picture) I wanted to ask, if I am on the right track


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 29, 2011)

Black Haru said:


> as for developing for hardware that has yet to be released, it's relatively easy; a gtx595 would not contain anything "new" from a development standpoint. it would simply be a revised gtx590. what they are saying is that currently no single graphics card has been able to max out multiplayer (like I previously said, they had to run SLI/cfX).



this is very understandable, 64 players, 16x AF, 8x or maybe 16x AA, tanks, jets and stuff, DX11, huge maps, almost fully destuctable, on 2560x1600. Hopefully my 6950 can run it on my good old 1280x1024


----------



## caleb (Aug 29, 2011)

Syuzeren said:


> 1280x1024


Its like playing the game through a tube.


----------



## texaschainsaw01 (Aug 29, 2011)

Martine said:


> whistle
> I hear more and more that games will need 4 cores, so I want to build a ''future proof'' rig and it's not just for 1 game.
> I didn't want to build it right now. I will wait for half a year or more and see where the development is going.
> As for the budget:not more as 666€=960$=590£
> With that PLAN (which TheLaughingMan kindly posted as a picture) I wanted to ask, if I am on the right track



yeah sorry but for that budget your not going to really future proof your build lol maybe 1500-2000 bucks is even pushing it lol you really cant future proof your build all you can do is build your system and upgrade as you need it


----------



## Shihab (Aug 29, 2011)

Syuzeren said:


> this is very understandable, 64 players, 16x AF, 8x or maybe 16x AA, tanks, jets and stuff, DX11, huge maps, almost fully destuctable, on 2560x1600. Hopefully my 6950 can run it on my good old 1280x1024



Don't worry, you can probably run it @1600*900 (or anything close). Just nix the AA, and lower the Shadows/post processing. Maybe a little bit sacrifice to the particles' quality should ease up on your processor.


----------



## caleb (Aug 29, 2011)

The big question is i5 or i7?
Its not that much to go the i7 when your at 2500k.
Will the extra threads benefit BF3 that much to justify the few bucks ?
I think we have to wait for beta to see some benchmarks.


----------



## Martine (Aug 29, 2011)

texaschainsaw01 said:


> yeah sorry but for that budget your not going to really future proof your build lol maybe 1500-2000 bucks is even pushing it lol you really cant future proof your build all you can do is build your system and upgrade as you need it


I don't mean that my ''future proof'' rig is going to last unchanged for 5 years and still run games at high. What I am trying to achive is to build a rig wich parts can be replaced one they grow old. As time goes, games move on to 4 wheel drive and so must I.
I am locked with my 775 socket and am unable to upgrade RAM, CPU... I kinda hope that problem will be removed, but I seriously doubt it. As now said I have to correct myself and not call it a ''future proof'' rig. 
But if I gather enough money, a better rid will surely follow. Budget is set to not go higher, but with too much money the budget is set higher.
I don't want to kill this thread, so if anyone has anything to add, be my guest.
As for others: thank you VERY much. I will wait for Bulldozer and money and then decide my best option


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 29, 2011)

Your done Martine. You are on the right track and waiting to see what happens in the next few weeks is a good idea. Just try to remember there are other processors on the market besides the 2500k. A lot of people have tunnel vision and only believe AMD and Intel make like 3 products a piece. For gaming right now and up to 1 1/2 years or so, an i3 2120, i5 2300, i5 2400, etc. are all great for gaming. Just stick with at least 4 threads and over 3.0 GHz to ensure you have plenty for a mid to high range gaming rig. Proof is below.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20


----------



## texaschainsaw01 (Aug 29, 2011)

Martine said:


> I don't mean that my ''future proof'' rig is going to last unchanged for 5 years and still run games at high. What I am trying to achive is to build a rig wich parts can be replaced one they grow old. As time goes, games move on to 4 wheel drive and so must I.
> I am locked with my 775 socket and am unable to upgrade RAM, CPU... I kinda hope that problem will be removed, but I seriously doubt it. As now said I have to correct myself and not call it a ''future proof'' rig.
> But if I gather enough money, a better rid will surely follow. Budget is set to not go higher, but with too much money the budget is set higher.
> I don't want to kill this thread, so if anyone has anything to add, be my guest.
> As for others: thank you VERY much. I will wait for Bulldozer and money and then decide my best option



mate the best thing you can do is wait till the products have been released. Do your research on each and every item you want, need and compare that it fits into your budget, and if something doesnt then you may have to sacrifice something. So for example instead of crossfire system you may have to suffice with a single 6950, at the end of the day its your money and YOU will be using the machine so YOU will have to be happy with it.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 29, 2011)

He should be fine with a sandy bridge quad and a Nvidia 560Ti or AMD HD 6950

Texas, you have too much of an attitude towards people that are giving advice. thread crapping will probably get you an infraction if you keep calling people idiots


----------



## Ev1LrYu (Aug 29, 2011)

Syuzeren said:


> BTW: Windows XP isn't supported, for some odd reason...




I believe BF3 won't support DX9. Which is good in a way, the first game to make use really want to move forward


----------



## Syuzeren (Aug 29, 2011)

Ev1LrYu said:


> I believe BF3 won't support DX9. Which is good in a way, the first game to make use really want to move forward



I don't think it will matter, know where i think about it. Most people who are able to play BF3 will have Vista or 7 and a DX10 card anyway.


----------



## 20mmrain (Aug 29, 2011)

Well what I can mention is that.... at a gaming Convention (Can't remember the name of it otherwise I would tell you) Battlefield 3 was played maxed out on a GTX 580 with 60FPS easy. Now maxed out on what is a different story.... was the res 1024x768 or 1650x1080x1920x1080 or 2560x1600(doubt it)??? Or was it maxed out on DX10 not DX11? Lord only knows....

The other thing I can mention is the rumor going around is that there is not a computer built that can max out Battlefield 3 at High res. Again ... just a rumor and it is one I heard here in a similar thread by a moderator.

Now with keeping all that in mind...and the fact that we all have seen the video's of what this game looks like..... and one last fact that I don't believe EA will make a game that know one will be able to play. 
I would suggest depending on your resolution getting a 1Gb minimum 2gb preferable card. Something along the lines of a HD 6950 2Gb or a GTX 560 Ti 2Gb. You could go with 1Gb but if you are a guy who has a bigger monitor and also someone who likes having AA turned on...(along with all the other eye candy) the more memory the better. If your money situation doesn't let you invest that much..... look at something like a GTX 460 2gb or a GTX 550Ti 2Gb (if they make one) You are going to have to take into account that this is gonna be a very graphics intense game and your 9600Gt just isn't gonna cut it. 
Also you will want to take into account that your CPU might be getting past it's prime for this game too. Might wanna consider upgrading to a 1st gen i5 650 and overclocking it.... or if your pocket book allows maybe even a i5 2500K. I know I am talking a little more then you planned on spending.... but you got to figure ..... to play a modern game you need a modern system. 
As far as RAM goes... 4Gb of some Decent DDR 3 is all you would need.

Finally... this game will probably even stress GTX 580 owners.... the ones who won't be that effected are the people who already have something like a GTX 580 SLI setup or a HD 6970 Xfire setup. Really... if you are pinching pennies just to play this game and make it look good. My advice would be to spend the majority of it on a good video card. Because that is where it will make a difference and you will see a difference.Buy something that will let you play it on almost the highest video setting with Decent AA and you will be happy for sure. Of course... this is just all My opinion. 

Last no there will be no DX9 support for this game.


----------

