Not until the game comes out. There are only two certainties (with the 560m):
- It will look (and play) better than the consoles.
- It should be expected that whatever level of detail in BFBC2 can be achieved, it will be a bit lower in this one (after all, BF3 is based on the update to the Frosbyte engine).
-
I bet that we will be all surprised as to which machines CAN run it, just depends on level of detail. Considering the 560m is at the top of mobile GPU's it should have no issue playing BF3. I can play Bad Company 2 on my M11x R1, albeit 24 man servers max, but with a ULV CPU overclocked to 2GHz and a GT 335m GPU, I think you won't have to worry about it.
-
I'm pretty shocked by what people seem to be building up these system reqs to be in their head. As with all games, there will be a wide gamut of capable machines. Some will make it look pretty bad, and some will be able to run it at full potential. Same as always.
-
I guarantee you will be able to play Battlefield 3 at respectable settings.
Specs and performance I think will be comparable to Crysis 1. -
Agree with 2 posts up...some of the people here have some absurd notions of what requirements are. The main reason that BC2 had some "low" rates is because with HBAO turned on it took a huge hit for a very small difference. I assume it will be optimized better or something in BF3.
The best was if you dont play BC2 on 60+ fps maxed, you will BF3 on low. 580m doesnt even do that. -
Mechanized Menace Lost in the MYST
-
usapatriot Notebook Nobel Laureate
No one knows... who they were. Or... what they were doing.
-
Wait so they were using a GTX 580 in their demos and weren't able to max out the game? Does that mean my desktop in sig weren't able to either?
-
-
-
Can someone link to where they said this?
560m and Battlefield 3...
Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by _Cheesy_, Jul 1, 2011.