BF3 - FPS in MP.

Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2011
Posts
5,455
Well, I have a pretty poor system really, as you can see below yet I'm tempted to get Bf3, one of the most demanding PC games. I played the BETA, and it was ok, averages of 40 fps at lowest settings. Was good, didn't used to mind that it was lowest settings, and FPS was bearable (damn, games like L.A. Noire are capped at 30.

I have been playing the campaign too, just to test it out, and I got an average of 40 fps once again. looks ok, but I want to play MP. My question is, how much different is the FPS in hgue 60 player maps with jets in contract to the BETA maps and the story?

Cheers.
 
I too have a fairly middling system (4870, quad core intel etc) and I had pretty good performance in the two beta maps. However those are two of the better performing maps in the game, and some other maps including seine, tehran, firestorm perform woefully on my pc no matter what settings I use.

From playing the beta I was lead to believe the game would perform acceptably on my pc but I can only play 3 maps at what I consider to be a acceptable level of smoothness - metro, caspian and danavand peak. If I play a different map to these then I can enjoy myself but I don't think I'm playing at anywhere near a competetive level.

I don't think the game is applying settings properly as if I turn everything to lowest the game doesn't look as awful as you'd expect, its like medium settings on other new games.

You might have fun but I'd say forget about playing on a competetive basis the way things are with the game at the moment. Sorry.
 
nah, I don't want to play competitive, just casually and for fun.

My sister is in London atm, and she found the game for cheap (some 20 quid) so I'm not sure if I should tell her to get it for me or no :P
 
try and grab a second hand 5830-50 that will be pretty cheap second hand and if you dont go over top with settings it will play it quite comfortably
 
He should be okay in MP on a 4850 really. His current system is similar to my old one (E8400 @ 3Ghz, 4850 1GB, 4GB DDR2) and I was managing 35 - 60 FPS in MP on 64 man CQ at medium/high. Just keep the expensive things off, like MSAA / HBAO (or SSAO).
 
He should be okay in MP on a 4850 really. His current system is similar to my old one (E8400 @ 3Ghz, 4850 1GB, 4GB DDR2) and I was managing 35 - 60 FPS in MP on 64 man CQ at medium/high. Just keep the expensive things off, like MSAA / HBAO (or SSAO).

How the xxxx?

Were you just standing still looking at the trees when monitoring FPS? :p

My spec in sig, I have to turn everything to low/off otherwise it is a laggy mess once you get to some action.
 
BF3 will tear apart that 4850 :p

A quad-core cpu may be a good idea too
Yeah I know. Might grab a cheap one but finances.......
He should be okay in MP on a 4850 really. His current system is similar to my old one (E8400 @ 3Ghz, 4850 1GB, 4GB DDR2) and I was managing 35 - 60 FPS in MP on 64 man CQ at medium/high. Just keep the expensive things off, like MSAA / HBAO (or SSAO).

Cheers.


I told her to go for it! Told her not to get it if it costs over 25 quid. We will see :P
 
How the xxxx?

Were you just standing still looking at the trees when monitoring FPS? :p

My spec in sig, I have to turn everything to low/off otherwise it is a laggy mess once you get to some action.

Resolution I'd say, I game on my 720p TV... so 1360 x 768, probably should have mentioned that :p But yeah Caspian Border and Kharg Island were the nasty ones averaging about 35 FPS, others were better.
 
Back
Top Bottom