• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

BF3 and Graphics cards.

SouthEastBlue said:
Yeah DX11 is actually better optimized than both DX9 and DX10, judging from the various benches I've read if only by a couple FPS.

With a quad core and a GTX 480 it should be maxed out easy though, my GTX 460 can run it fine at 1680 x 1050 with high details, HBAO and AA at above 45 FPS on average.
Click to expand...
45 FPS is not enough for me, like I say over 100 is a lot smoother
Jazzerman said:
You will not notice the difference above 60 fps on a 60Hz monitor, as the monitor will only be able to refresh 60 times a second.

It is impossible to notice the difference, unless you have a higher refresh rate.
Click to expand...

Like I said people will argue this all the time, there is two sides of this story but I really don't won't to argue who is right or wrong, all I can say is I do notice the difference.
 
BF3 is running on an optimised version of the Frostbite engine used in BC2.

If you can run BC2 well, you will be able to run BF3 well.

I am going to make a decision at the time but have no concerns that my 5870 will be more than adequate.
 
PapaLazaru said:
BF3 is running on an optimised version of the Frostbite engine used in BC2.

If you can run BC2 well, you will be able to run BF3 well.
Click to expand...

Wrong

BF3 uses a different engine to BC2, it is not and updated engine.

BF3 is frostbite 2 whereas BC2 is Frostbite 1.5
 
hyperst said:
45 FPS is not enough for me, like I say over 100 is a lot smoother


Like I said people will argue this all the time, there is two sides of this story but I really don't won't to argue who is right or wrong, all I can say is I do notice the difference.
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered to argue either but it is very simple.

Anyway I ran a couple of fraps benches to compare DX10 and DX11 on the single player intro and you are right about that, on average I got nearly 10 fps lower running DX11, from 134 down to 125.
 
hyperst said:
Remember it is going to consoles as well so it won't require much more than most games that are released to all platforms, I think we are now at a point graphic card power is getting beyond what games really require which is obviously a good thing as I hated it years ago seeing my expensive pc components not really performing to what I thought they should
Click to expand...


PC is the lead platform ! They're dumbing it down for consoles, not the other way round - console port to PC add some AA etc.etc. -. There is some real eye candy in this game, did you read the interview they did to DICE ?
 
Frostbite engine has always done better on ATI cards, so I speculate they will do better on BF3 too.
 
Extract from DICE interview:

http://www.geforce.com/#/News/articles/battlefield3-interview

Do you feel the consoles are holding PC games back?

Yes, absolutely. That's the biggest problem we have today. Most games are actually still based on the same core idea that the consoles are your focus, the superior platform or something. I don’t know why. That was the truth 5 years ago, but the world has moved on. PCs are way more powerful than the consoles today and there are actually almost zero games out there that actually use the benefits of this. So for our target of what we want to hit, we are now using the more powerful platform to try and prove what we see gaming being in the future rather than using the lowest common denominator, instead of developing it for the consoles and then just adding higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for the PC version. We're do it the other way around, we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with and then scale it back to the consoles.

Can you talk about the benefits of that? That probably makes the PC version look better but does it then hinder the consoles in any way?

This is interesting. In theory you could argue that you're building it for a more powerful platform and that it will look crappy on consoles. That's not the case because when you build the target high, you can then pick and choose from the target and ask what actually creates this picture and then pick the best things from that and turn that into your console solution. The other thing that is very interesting is that since you're building the engine based on the knowledge that you will release it on the consoles, you actually streamline the whole technology to be able to scale back to the weaker platforms. So in the end, by, you know, painting this high-end target, you actually set a new bar and then when you scale it back, I think people will be surprised to see how good it looks on the consoles. We can't show it right now, because we're aiming to use the PC to set the bar, but it's actually helping us make a better console game.

Before we began the interview, we talked about how there was this perception that the Battlefield franchise has been "consolized" with Bad Company. It seems like DICE is really trying to get away from that perception.

Yea.

How are you addressing that?

Well, first of all, we're using the PC as the lead platform. We’re setting the target with our high-end PCs, making sure that when we show footage now, it's on the PC. And we are a PC studio from the core and also looking at the audience today, the hardcore PC gamer is no different than the hardcore console gamer. That was not the case five years ago. Then, you had the more casual console audience and the more hardcore PC audience. I think that is very blurred today. People are extremely hardcore on consoles today. Extremely hardcore. So we don't have to dumb the game down in any way to make it fit on the console. It's still a very hardcore game, but then you still want the game to be accessible and some PC users might think that it’s a good thing that games are complicated. We do not agree. Battlefield 2 was a very accessible game. It's real easy to get into, but it's super deep and really hard to master and that’s what we wanted to achieve with battlefield 3.
 
Last edited:
Basically if you can currently max out BF2 with constant 60FPS you will most probably have no problems in running BF3. Currently my 570GTX at stock is running BF2@1080p maxed out all options (32xAA,etc) at 120fps+ average.
 
pv123 said:
Basically if you can currently max out BF2 with constant 60FPS you will most probably have no problems in running BF3. Currently my 570GTX at stock is running BF2@1080p maxed out all options (32xAA,etc) at 120fps+ average.
Click to expand...

How on earth do you come to that assumption? BF2 is a very old game now. I would be quite irritated if it still looked similar. As much as I love BF2, I want better graphics as pc's are a lot better now.
 
Bad Company 2 doesn't really have amazing graphics (although they aren't bad by any means), it was the effects and breaking apart of stuff that kind of made up for it.

I would imagine since Battlefield 3 is a PC based game before anything that the engine will be able to run nicely on any PC that can currently run Bad Company 2 on max - a game that wasn't PC before console. I doubt they would bring out probably one of the landmark titles of the year and restrict the eye candy to the highest end machines only, I'm hoping and guessing it will run well on a more modest gaming setup considering it's being specifically optimized for current PC hardware and not aging Console components.
 
SouthEastBlue said:
Bad Company 2 doesn't really have amazing graphics (although they aren't bad by any means), it was the effects and breaking apart of stuff that kind of made up for it....
Click to expand...

Have to disagree here. I thought the GFX were excellent in BC2 - not epoch-shattering like the original Crysis (or from what I have heard, Metro 2032), but highly competent, PC-optimised and provides 80 to 90 percent of the the jungle-effect a la Crysis.
 
Here's hoping for huge maps, flying jets, 64 players support, realistic damage, no small DLCs, a couple of larger expansion packs, engine optimised for PCs like BFBC2 has, destructible environment, proper voice chat support, etc.
 
Ive never played Bad Company 2 on the pc only on console but I thought the graphics were good on console and the sound was better than the buggy bc1
 
Freddie589 said:
How well do you think a 6950 unlocked to a 6970 would play bc3 at max settings at 1920x1080? Spec in sig just replace the gpu for the 6970 mod
Click to expand...

Should be fine at medium settings, should guess medium would be where the consoles will be at or there abouts so should be a breeze for your card
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom