Battlefield 3 Discussion Thread

If those are right my desktop should have no problems at all, but it could be a close call with my laptop...

 

Sounds like the plethora of GT540m and similar cards will be out of business

 

Minimum requirements included DVD ROM drive? They doesn't sound like a push for Origin...

And 540m at least meets minimum requirements. Probably 720p @ low will be perfectly fine.

System requirements source are at the bottom of this page:

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/beta

Hopefully I won't have to update my desktop GPU (GTX 460) to play it maxed out. Recommended is GTX 560 though, so I may be able to get by with med/high.

 

Battlefield 3 Beta ? Try the new shooter from DICE before everyone else

First column, last question.

BTW i can't understand who's saying the truth and who's not.

I watched this video ( Battlefield 3 on Acer Aspire 5750G - YouTube) with a notebook that has a GT540 and was playing the alpha (the card is ocked @800/900 but checking the FPS, they are quite high, so the stock frequencies should be good to keep 30 fps). Don't know which details, but sounds different from "below the declared minimum requirements". I'm confused...

 

nVidia 8800 GT or higher performance, I think the GT 540m exceeds that. And on Radeon side they say 3870 performance which I thought that was weaker than the 8800 GT?

In any case an 8800 GT is old tech and meets minimum, so I think 540m with i5 CPU should run it fine at 720p low with some medium detail.

 

Talking about raw power, the 8800GT is about 20% faster than the GT540m (112 stream processors vs 96 with superscalar (more similar to 72 cores of a G92 chip) ). The only hope is that DX10 and DX10.1 cards need more horsepower due the lack of the native DX11 support, otherwise we'll have to face the real pain

BTW ATI HD3870 is on par of the 8800GT in performance

 

Anyone played the Alpha with a GTX 485M card? Any idea how the beta/full client will run with this card?
I own a SAger 8150 with I7 2720QM + 485GTX card and would like to buy but only if I can run it @1080p maxed out...

 

you do have to remember though, that between the alpha and the beta there may be many graphical changes (meaning more intense).

I wouldnt go off of the graphics on the alpha anymore since we know when the Beta is now. Just wait and see.

 

I was always under the impression that the transition from alpha to beta to retail typically is a progression from a poorly optimized graphic engine to a decently optimized engine... which would lower the required card. Drivers that are optimized for the game also tend to come out after release... so it couldn't possibly be more intense.

 

and yet they raised the standard for the recommended cards.

Its not that its poorly optimized, but i do think there will be an addition of shaders, high res, etc.

 

My only complain is about that with these requirements, more than 80% of the mainstream notebooks (everything that has up to a HD6550/GT550M or GTX260M), will be out of business with this game. Those cards on desktop side are quite old, but in notebook we know the things work in a different way

 

Time to sell my 5870...although I'm comparing the specs between the recommended Radeon 6950 and GeForce 560 and I'm not noticing any major differences in spec between them and my 5870. I guess I'll wait for the BETA to make my decision.

 

Just because it doesn't meet the recommended reqs doesn't mean you won't be able to play it...

 

Minimum, not recommended that's why i'm whining

 

Performance reqs are not as high as you seem to think... it just reccomends a GTX560 or 6950(which tbh is freakishly high, but I'm sure there will be various tweaks that can be made to the game for performance, as in battlefield 2)

 

I am glad I am gonna be able to run this fine. As long as the crossfire support is great!

 

I'd agree with you if we were talking about the desktop market, but a 8800GT desktop card (2007), pars a GTX260m on notebook (today considered a high midrange card). Considering the wild rebrand policy promoted by nvidia and ati during these years, on many 15" notebook we find card less powerful than a GTX260m, so no chance to play (at least on what they say about minimum requirements).

Just to make a list (I know only nVidia cards but on ATI it's about the same speaking about numbers)
8000m Series:
Nothing

9000m Series:
GeForce 9800M GTX

GT100 Series:
Nothing

GT200 Series:
GeForce GTX 285M
GeForce GTX 280M
GeForce GTX 260M

GT300 Series:
GeForce GTX 360M

GT400 Series:
GeForce GTX 485M
GeForce GTX 480M
GeForce GTX 470M
GeForce GTX 460M
GeForce GT 445M

GT500 Series:
GeForce GTX 580M
GeForce GTX 570M
GeForce GTX 560M
GeForce GT 555M
GeForce GT 550M (depends if it's on GF108 or GF106)

Now most of these card are suited for 17" due heat (except some experiments done in the past with the older series and the GT555 placed now in some models due the die shrink).

Moreover, most of the listed cards don't fit in the "mainstream" market (800-1000€ budget) and that's why to me the choice of these requirements sounds inadeguate (I sold my desktop which could handle the game easily and i'm planning to buy another one with Ivy Bridge and 7000' Series in March '12, but in the while i'm bound to the notebook )

My 2 cents.

 

I don't know what you're talking about with the 260M... I haven't seen a laptop that I would pass off as being a true gaming laptop that doesn't have atleast a 460m... which I would consider a mid-low range card.
Unless Google has failed me, 1000 euros is around $1350, which is enough to get a P150HM with a 560M... so that would fall under "mainstream". Bit more and you could even get the top of the line 485/6990m.
In any case, BF3 will feature awesome gameplay and awesome graphics(if your computer can handle it)... and I'm excited for the beta release in 9 days

 

The GTX 260M was used as older gen mobile card on par of the 8800GT. BTW today below the GTX 460M (192 Cuda cores that match about 144 G92 cores) there is only the GT445M (144 Cuda Cores that match 112 G92 cores) that is able to handle the MINIMUM GPU requirements (talking about 4xx series). But, how many 15" notebook are equipped with those cards? Very few.
Moreover you consider a GTX 460m a starting base for a "TRUE GAMING LAPTOP", but probably you will be able to handle the game @ medium (and going to higher config means Alienware, Clevo and Sager only which has a price that could allow to buy a decent desktop to play on "ultra" like preset )

BTW i'm excited too for the announce In 9 days we'll see how it goes

 

I think you're overestimating the capabilities of the 8800GT. The 260M is actually a decent bit ahead of it.

 

Am I missing something?



I would say they are on par (or at most the 8800 is ahead even with a memory bandwidth a bit lower, but the fillrate higher due the frequencies)

P.S. The GT555m is a bit ahead of both (at least in pixel fillrate) but not so far (and we're always talking about MINIMUM specs (the GT555m can be better in memory bandwidth if uses GDDR5)

 

Anyone played Alpha with ati 6970 ? Wondering if I'll be able to play smooth at High settings.

 

Surely if the gtx 560 is the reccommended card (which usually means playable at medium settings with a decent frame rate) No mobile card will be able to run it at medium with decent frames then, lol. And considering that 2x580s are needed to run it at max (590 or 6990 included i guess) people with lesser cards in notebooks have no chance at running this game surely.

edit: I guess it depends also on screen res

 

How is 14.2 a bit higher than 9.6?

The 555 has more ROPs, more shaders, it's all around better.

I really don't think it's going to be as disastrous as you claim. I plan on playing it on my 6770M. Yeah, you won't be able to play on a 2 year old Walmart crapbook, but I think most people that game on their notebooks have a beefy enough GPU.

 

Probably the most dramatic thing posted yet in this thread.

 

I'll be guessing that the 580m and 6990m can max it out at 1080p with conservative AA/AF settings.

 

The GT555m has less TMUs so it means less (half in this case) texture fillrate. Memory bandwidth is about 60% of a GTX260M (which means no higher res and/or limited filters, so the combo 17" with fullHD res and GT555 will be hard to achieve with smoothness). Yes, it has 5 more gigapixel/s as pixel fillrate, (about +55%) but i'm not so confident this will save the performance. To me sounds like a dejavu with The Witcher 2 performances.

Let's wait these 9 days then (I hope to be wrong, just because i want to play it too ^^, i'm only pessimist in results)

 

lol. In all honesty the alpha looked great and it was running on alot of cards, so surely optimization has only got better since then. I think most with mid range gpus will be perfectly fine (that were capable of running the alpha). I'm guessing the high reccomended requirements are because of destruction and explosions, and unless you're standing next to falling buildings or having multiple grenades landing on you, then people will be fine.

 

Well, people with a 5730 have reported alpha gameplay with having 30+ FPS at 768p at medium settings... Don't know if DX10 or DX11, but if we want to play at DX10, we have nothing to worry about.

 

We shall all know in about a week...
I am just hoping that my new eGPU setup will provide a tolerable experience in multiplayer. In BFBC2 on mostly high settings (low shadows) @1080P I get 60 fps when not much is going on, but only 30-45 when a lot of things start happening because of the limited bandwidth of the x1 link. However, it never goes below 30 and there is no input lag so it is still very playable... Hopefully BF3 will be better optimized than BFBC2 as it is supposed to not be a console port as BC2 was.

 

LOL THAT WAS HILARIOUS! i never laffed so much playing this level with max players. lookin foward to some mayhem in a smaller map on this

 

how many laptops have you owned to assume this? im playing this on a 6630m if my sony sa comes in otherwise my 460m GTX. despite the fact that laptop cards ARE way less than the desktop part.
aslong as you have at least 2630qm with at least and 6630m/540m at 768p will run this on medium quite alright me thinks.

the two 580s are probably more than what EA are using to preview BF3 since they been working on this for ages. It would be perfect to find out what spec they used with what settings tbh.

 

Anybody know if Asia is part of the BETA?

 

Nope, it's not unfortunately

 

Going to their forums just to ask. Just sent a tweet right now to battlefield...

I cant believe they didnt include the largest region in the world....

 

They're probably afraid of pirates.

 

Depends on how you quantify size. I hope you didn't mean land area. If you meant population, that's slightly better. Either way, you may find one of these to be more useful metrics of "largeness" of today's countries, especially in terms of how a company like EA would look at it.

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by per capita personal income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A company like EA will probably consider factors such as these over factors such as land area, population, or population density, since they are in the business of making money, not providing their game to as many people as possible.

If they had a choice between 10 million fans and 10 million dollars (but they couldn't have both), they would pick the dollars. Welcome to the world of business.

 

OT, but Portugal on the 38th? Please, we're the 2nd most broke country in the EU

On topic : I am not sure, but maybe you'll get it? You can always DL from a US window I thinK?

 

Multiplayer cant be pirated anyway... so what's the point?

OK It may not be the largest region but it does not change the fact that they are still not supporting Asia. There are quite a number of players from here...

 

If they have LAN play, there will be a way to play multiplayer on pirated software... it won't have the immersive online experience, but it's still out there.

 

But it doesnt have LAN play...

 

^No LAN play? DICE screwed up. First Battlelog now this crap.

Now my wisdom tells me that this game is not going to live up to its expectations.

 

BC2 didn't have LAn either and honestly I wasn't really expecting it. I play BF games for the large scale warfare with 32 people on a team, and there is no way that I could have that happen in a LAN party unless it was a very very large one, and then you might as well just play on a server anyway.

 

Who cares about BC1 and BC2? Those both sucked. And usually LAN is supposed to be played with Bots (No whiny people, n00bs, mic spammers)

 

You don't actually mean this... right?

 

I don't know what kind of LAN you have been playing, but that seems pretty stupid. Why buy a multiplayer game like BF3 and then play it with bots? Unless you are incredibly antisocial and can't deal with human interaction it will be a lot less fun than a 64 player multiplayer game. Bots have zero teamwork, no communication, and tend to spend most of their time running into walls and going into prone in the middle of the road (at least in past BF games). Go play singleplayer if you want to play against the computer. Multiplayer is just that; for MULTIPLE PLAYERS.

 

Let's be honest here...who really needs LAN play? It's just one of those things that's been getting phased out in recent years, and frankly, it's no loss to me.

LAN's themselves just aren't as common as they used to be, and when they do happen there's really no problem with just using a regular online server. I just don't understand why people get so up in arms about lack of LAN in current games.

And as others have said, 64 players online > 8 players on a LAN with 56 bots.

 

I dunno, depends on the game. Starcraft 2 is a big loss with lack of LAN. It's a max 8 player game (ok, you can do a little more), but it's a fun game with 2-4 people even. I don't do it much any more, but used to go out in the middle of nowhere with a couple friends and we'd end up playing Starcraft (1) for hours on end. Same thing with SWAT, Rainbow Six, C&C Generals, and Operation Flashpoint. I know I'm dating myself a bit, but LAN isn't always about 50 players. Sometimes it's just a few buddies hangin out together.

In the case of Battlefield though, I agree somewhat. BF2 was like playing against a bunch of tweener nubs with the bots. But it was a good way to practice flying, etc.

 

So you buy games that are primarily MP, and then just play against bots?

Sounds fun.

 

So considering the minimum GPU for this game is a desktop GT8800, would most people agree that a mobile GTX8800M hasn't got any chance whatsoever.