Is BF3 as GFX card intensive as we were told
- Thread starter Jackboo89
- Start date
Getting 15fps, everything low, 1280 x 720 (I know rubbish res).
I have a 9600M GT, 2.66Ghz core 2 duo, 4GB DDR2 RAM.
I know my laptop is pretty old now, but it ran Bad Company 2 really well. Anyone have any ideas why it's so low or if anyone with a similarish spec PC can't run it either?
I have a 9600M GT, 2.66Ghz core 2 duo, 4GB DDR2 RAM.
I know my laptop is pretty old now, but it ran Bad Company 2 really well. Anyone have any ideas why it's so low or if anyone with a similarish spec PC can't run it either?
I would be very interested to know how it performs on a single one of those cards.
I'm currently debating which platform to buy this on, I have all of them, but don't know which to get it on out of xbox, ps3 or PC.
Bearing in mind that my Pc is:
Q6600
GTX285
6GB DDR 2
Should I forget about trying to run it on my aging PC and get the console version? If so Xbox or PS3?
If anyone is running on a single GTX 260/280/285 that can let me know if they are happy with the performance or not please?
Thanks,
G
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Hmm you sure about that? I think it needs at least 1.5gb of vram to be maxed at a nice smooth 50+fps. I have everything maxed but no aa and I use just over 1.5gb of vram.
Unless the 1gb GPU in your sig has now been upgraded.
Last edited:
im running this at 1920x1080p on my i3 2100 sb htpc with a single gtx 275 and its the best looking game I've ever played. I simply cannot imagine playing this on a console as it wouldn't even be close to the quality of the pc version- literally mouth watering stuff! I'm running everything on ultra apart from terrain being on medium and with ssbo and no aa.
I'm sure its not running a constant 60fps (havent bothered getting fraps/afterburner on htpc yet) that people crave but its still bloody good enough to enjoy the single player. For mp I'd turn off more stuff to ensure as high a fps as possible.
I don't think this is anywhere as GPU hungry as Dice and Nvidia/AMD made out. Of course they'll have been hyping this up to try and sell more cards (and the stream of 'New card for BF3?' threads in the graphics card section shows it worked. Or people haven't upgraded for a while and are using this as an 'excuse' to.)
Sure there will be those who want everything on, all bells, whistles and tassles too, but those people often have the money to spend on said whistling bells. I'm very happy to get 45-60 FPS on my mildly overclocked GTX460 1GB. So much so I'm no longer thinking of an upgrade until next year.
Sure older cards like the GTX 260's etc may struggle but it still looks damned good even just on high.
Sure there will be those who want everything on, all bells, whistles and tassles too, but those people often have the money to spend on said whistling bells. I'm very happy to get 45-60 FPS on my mildly overclocked GTX460 1GB. So much so I'm no longer thinking of an upgrade until next year.
Sure older cards like the GTX 260's etc may struggle but it still looks damned good even just on high.
just installed afterburner and actually my gtx 275 only musters 15-20 fps when settings are ultra! it looks so much better when its maxxed out that i think its finaally time for a gtx570 for the htpc- hopefully an i3 2100 will be ok with that gpu?
I found the demo / beta to be awful with a single GTX260 (192) with the rig in my sig @ 1680x1050, even with everything set to low, with my current GTX480 I can run @ the same rez with everything on Ultra & its great.
I would not expect too much from a single 260 tbh.
Sod it, I'm still getting slow down, it's REALLY doing my head in as it's making the game unplayable. I have 20 seconds of smooth as cream game play, then I seem to have a few seconds where it slows down to a crawl. Thought it was memory as I did have a loose RAM but that is fixed and back to 6GB now. It makes no sense as day 1 it was fine, last 2 days same across all games, all settings, all map sizes. Painful, any pointers chaps?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Skyrim will be released in about 2 weeks time, and it will bring all your cards to there knees...MUHAHAHAHA
What you mean that game that only uses DX9? Seriously looking forward to it but somewhat disappointed it is not going to use DX11.
I was surprised with my performance considering my laptop is running a 1gb 5650 card, textures and effects on high, the rest on medium, blur, deferred AA off.
Getting 30 - 40fps and everything looks excellent, I think a big factor in the fps is my laptops screen res is only 1366x768, also havn't installed any of the recommended bf3 preview drivers, still running the older 11.8 whql ones.
Have to admit though, so impressed with even these settings that I am very tempted to buy a desktop to max it out, did promise the other half I would wait until we were in the new house before splashing out on a desktop though
Getting 30 - 40fps and everything looks excellent, I think a big factor in the fps is my laptops screen res is only 1366x768, also havn't installed any of the recommended bf3 preview drivers, still running the older 11.8 whql ones.
Have to admit though, so impressed with even these settings that I am very tempted to buy a desktop to max it out, did promise the other half I would wait until we were in the new house before splashing out on a desktop though
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 66
- Location
- Regional
my monitor will only support 1680. will a 6950 2g get decent FPS all ultra including AA etc ? at 1680.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Not until amd fix the drivers for aa. Apart from that the card will do ultra/highest everything else @ 40-60fps sometimes more. It uses about 1.5gb of vram as well. Then again on your res maybe aa will be OK. The ultra/highest without AA is for 1920x1080
Lowest ive seen was mid 60's, maxing at 120 fps averaging 80 or so. Running on high, 16xaf, blur off as it does my head in, disabling 2x msaa deferred and running aa post on medium led to a much smoother experience. Gonna have to get it installed on my second machine to see how my 8800gt in it copes.
at 1980x1020 everything on max in single play i get 45 fps avg 6950 @ 6970
in multi i play on high everything except post processing off and blur off (why anyone likes blur i dont know) this gets me 60 fps lowest up to 100 ish
The 6950 does seem to be a very good card for this game, i haven't flashed mine so it is still at stock speeds and i am very happy with it. I am managing most on ultra, except shadows and terrain with no motion blur( i agree, i never have it on either)
My second PC is a single GTX260 running on 4Gb of ram and stock Q6600. I ran the game at default settings on res 1680 by 1050, med to high settings. My friend popped round and said how much better it played compared to the 360 version. He was right when I played the console version round his.
I have yet to show him running on my main PC, core i7 920 @ stock, 6GB of ram and AMD 6970, everything set to ultra.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,688
- Location
- Hull, East Yorkshire
I'm getting 60FPS everything on ultra at 1920x1080 but with MSA off as I don't think it's worth having on. The going hunting mission in the fighter jet looks amazing when you take off through the clouds. Getting 70FPS on that mission.
*Edit 5870 1GB
*Edit 5870 1GB
Last edited: